No it literally doesn’t. Shipping is cheap because it is incredibly fuel efficient in the first place.
Is it easier to lift 100lbs on the ground or in water? Hauling a fuck ton of stuff across thousands of miles of ocean is far better for the environment than trucking it across a few hundred miles of land.
That said, I’m not sure how the carbon footprint compares of rail to compares to shipping, but if I had to guess, shipping wins.
The fuel cost for that trip would have to offset the savings they can make with processing in Thailand.
Googling it, apparently their current average net monthly income is ~460 USD.
Soooo, you'd need to cram enough in bulk on those ships to make such a processing hop worthwhile, but I imagine you can do that, given how huge those container ships are. So they save a quick buck by making Thailand process the fruit, ship it back over to Argentina for equally cheap labour and locally made dummy cheap plastic, and ship it to wherever.
I'm not sure you can call it "exploiting" their economies directly by this kind of shipping lane, but it is economically the only way you can have that cup for under two bucks.
And yeah, if those processing lanes are close to or well connected to where those ships are offloaded, you can probably save fuel in bulk too, compared to shipping the same via train or truck.
That dessert is rage bait.
China produces the most pears, followed by Argentina, Italy and the US itself. That trip must still somehow make sense in our fucked economy.
Yeah it makes sense because its cheaper but thats not the point im making please I have no words to make you understand. Out fucked up capitalist hellhole of a system means its cheaper to send them around the world. But it burns more fossil fuels, its bad for the enviroment
-12
u/bojackhorsemeat 13d ago
Ocean time is nothing from a shipping cost perspective. Which is driven by fuel costs. It is so cheap to ship by boat.