Educated consumers with sophisticated palates have come to expect their local grocery stores to be stocked all year round with foodstuffs that normally would not be grown during certain times of the year. These consumers have gotten used to the low prices and welcome further price drops; however, cheaper and non-seasonal produce, among other groceries, comes at another price--Pollution. Particularly carbon dioxide emissions from ships and planes, whose fuel for transporting goods, including food, is exempt from taxes, unlike trucks, cars and buses. Proponents of repealing the exemption and implementing a tax say ending these breaks could help ensure that producers and consumers pay the environmental cost of increasingly well-traveled food. While companies are beginning to include carbon "footprints" on the labels of their products, they are far from accepting any type of taxation on transportation enabling them to take advantage of cheaper processing and production costs abroad.

The notion of a repeal of the agreement barring taxes on air and shipping fuel, and the subsequent taxation on the same is a good idea in theory, however, in practice it will not likely work. While many countries would gladly take advantage of the extra tax revenues, those countries choosing not to implement a tax would incur enormous trade advantages, and create an unbalanced, international "patch-work" of taxation. In addition, there are other avenues that can deal with the problem of pollution as a result of transportation. Educating consumers about products' carbon footprints is a good start; with information at hand, people will make conscious decisions when buying goods whose pollution history is easily traceable. The market, having spoken, will govern how companies conduct their respective businesses and give them an ultimatum; either offset your carbon or find new avenues for cost cutting that are less pollutive.

submitted by Michael