Expatriates are legendary for, when getting together in groups, lamenting their sad international culinary options in their current country of residence. Normally people miss the types of foods that are enjoyed in their native lands but not known of in other regions. Peanut butter tends to be a nationally worshipped, fatty treat in the US, but in other countries people think it’s rather weird to grind up peanuts and then smear the lumpy mess onto toast. Personally, I’ve overcome the peanut butter cravings. I have not, however, gotten over the deeply rooted desire to eat a wide array of international cuisine every week.
Capital Federal, the “central” district of the greater Buenos Aires area, boasts a population of just around 3 million people, I’ve heard. Greater Buenos Aires maxes out at about 13 million inhabitants. And so it may be surprising to learn that in such a large city with several prominent immigrant groups from all over the world (the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle East), why there are not more than five Mexican restaurants in town. (And all of them, I might add, are a far cry from anything I’ve ever eaten that was called “Mexican food” before coming to Argentina.)
When you consider the economic situation in Buenos Aires, it’s quite clear why ethic foods are not more popular. For one thing, buying exotic spices,sauces or ingredients is too costly for your average Argentine. Strictly following their local diet (red meat, white bread, potatoes, vegetables, fruits, sugary-yet-tasteless sweets, red wine, Coca cola, coffee, cigarettes) eating is a lot less expensive.
After living here for over a year and a half now, I am finding ways to accommodated both my pocket book and my serious cravings for ethic cuisine. For one, I discovered China Town. It is a mere two train stops from my house and they sell anything and almost everything I could find in any health food store in the US… and at cheap prices. I can buy wasabi, green curry paste, quinoa hamburgers, fresh tofu and bulk beans. I even bought molasses there last week. It’s called “melaza” in Spanish.
When Meghan craves the taste of Thailand, we now eat in. One happy accident I’ve had in my adventure abroad is that I have begun to learn how to cook all sorts of types of food I never even attempted to cook in the United States. I have no choice but to do so here. And so happily, my culinary know-how is growing exponentially.
Another happy accident is that Patricio has been completely open with trying all these new foods and has discovered that he loves them. Sure, I emotionally trained him. First, I cooked really good versions of food I already knew he liked. With this, I got him to trust me. Then I slowly but surely unleashed wilder and more spicy dishes. He’s still a wimp when it comes to spice but he loves to eat vegetables now. His family can’t believe it. Patricio goes on and on about my cooking and in the end, his family members agree to try stuff. Then his mom talks to the neighborhood about my “Asian Lettuce Wraps” and the barrio is starting to think that ethnic food might taste good. I think I may have unknowingly unleashed social change.
This is what I call the real “Chain of Foo-ood.”
The first two happy accidents were great but nothing but a prelude to the most important one of all: My forced Argentine lifestyle (due to economic reasons) has made me into an “earth friendly” global citizen. What could I mean by all of that hippy, Greenpeace nonsense?
Because of many factors, Patricio and I are living a nice but very basic lifestyle here. I’ve talked about it in other entries (A Full Lecture on the Relative Cost of things and the Relative Cost Table) so I won’t go into it here. Patricio has a car that he bought years ago before their currency. These days a car is a luxury, or at least also used for work and only one per family. Our car runs off of natural gas and gasoline. Natural gas is really inexpensive down here, especially compared to what gasoline costs. We mostly run it on natural gas and so us plus about 25% to 30% of the population with cars own vehicles which run on natural gas. That’s 25% less gasoline-related by-products in the air.
When Pato’s not around and I am out and about, I either walk, take a bus, ride the train or subway, or hail a cab. With all the ride-sharing I’m doing, I’m unintentionally living a very ecologically-minded lifestyle.
What’s more, electricity costs quite a bit so I always remember to turn the lights off when I leave a room. Also, I telecommute for work so I am not expending energy to get two and from work.
I believe that just around 80% of the food and household products I buy are locally produced. I do splurge and buy several imported items when they don’t have any comparable local counterparts. For example, I buy only Argentine household cleaners, cleaning products, vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, eggs, grain products, linens, furniture, dishware, etc. I buy export items (or haul them here myself) when it comes to beauty and bath products and clothing. L’Oreal, Revlon, Maybelline, etc. are all considered “luxury products” and have kiosks in the mall with cute attendants who can answer all of your makeup needs. Remember, what costs five monetary units in the US costs 15 here. So I bring with me my “getting-closer-to-thirty-merits-expense-French-facial” creams and my wide array of higher-end (Tar-jay) cosmetics.
Also, I have brought most of the most expensive technological equipment with me as it is at least two times more costly, in dollars!, to buy the same items down here. When it comes down to it, I simply choose only shop in the United States. And I also chose to live on all the things I had from my unintentionally-over-consumptive life in the US. What can I say? There is more competition there and lots of sales and discounts so a person can live a pretty nice life style on not too much money if you can do it right in the States. In Argentina, it’s different. It’s like living in a high-inflation version of Tokyo. But this is more for another article, some other day.
Let me get to the point, my point is that I’m doing less harm to the earth buy not unintentionally consuming the resources it takes to eat grapes that are shipped or flown from Chile. And luckily, Argentine beef and wine and fruit and vegetable products are some of the most succulent and delicious things I’ve ever tasted. Everything tastes like it came from my very own garden… if I had one. The tomatoes are fresh and ripe because they were not harvested young and refrigerated to Safeway. They were driven in from the campo right to the fruit stand.
I guess all that makes up for the fact that by flying in an airplane more than 19 hours per year, I’m doing one of the worst things a person can do to the earth.
Why did I start thinking about all this? Well, the Happy Planet Index, published by the New Economics Foundation (their website is currently down), recently came out with some surprising results.
According to their site, the Happy Planet Index (a.k.a. HPI), “addresses the relative success or failure of countries in supporting good life for their citizens, whilst respecting the environmental resource limits upon which our lives depend.” And, “The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is an innovative new measure that shows the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered.”
And this year’s winner is? “On a scale of 0 to 100 for the HPI, we have set a reasonable target of 83.5. This is based on attainable levels of life expectancy and well-being and a reasonably sized ecological footprint. Today, however, the highest HPI is only 68.2, scored by the Pacific archipelago of Vanuatu,” states their website.
Surely the lifestyle in Vanuatu, a tiny island nation in Oceania, doesn’t in any way resemble the lifestyle most of us have in the United States. Well, at least a lot of people around the world believe that we have a luxurious lifestyle in the United States. Per capita consumption rates for my country tend to illustrate this trend as well. My college sociology professor loved to spout statistics like, “An average American adult consumes the same amount of energy per year as does an African village of 20 people.”
So how did the United States score? We scored an abysmal 28.8! We tied with Cote d'Ivoire and were sandwiched between Rwanda (28.3) on the low end and Lithuania (29.3) on the high end.
How could we possibly score so low as to be compared to the Happiness Index of someplace like Rwanda? Lithuania? Yes, yes, I hear the beaches are lovely this time of year but… what?!
Their site says that the HPI is calculated based on, “three separate indicators: ecological footprint, life-satisfaction and life expectancy.”
They define “ecological footprint” as being: “,,,how much land area is required to sustain a given population at present levels of consumption, technological development and resource efficiency, and is expressed in global-average hectares (gha). The largest component elements of Footprint are the land used to grow food, trees and biofuels, areas of ocean used for fishing, and most importantly the land required to support the plant life needed to absorb and sequester CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
Why is this a big deal? Because, according to their site, “The same methodology can be used to calculate, in the same units, the Earth’s biocapacity, its biologically productive area. Currently, the biocapacity of the Earth is around 11.2 billion hectares or 1.8 global hectares per person in 2001 (assuming that no capacity is set aside for non-human species). In 2001, humanity’s demand on the biosphere its global ecological footprint was 13.7 billion global hectares, or 2.2 global hectares per person. At present, therefore, our Footprint exceeds our biocapacity by 0.4 global hectares per person, or 23 per cent. This means that the planet’s living stocks are being depleted faster than nature can regenerate them.” What it means is that there isn’t enough for everybody and that is only going to get worse in the future.
They define “life-satisfaction” using statistics and reports which measure the life satisfaction of different groups of people within each country and compare those with what the general public opinion is, how long people are living, etc. They say, “Satisfaction with life overall, tends to be generally stable since it reflects a summary of “judgments about feelings”. Whilst on the individual level, day-to-day changes in happiness are of interest, at a policy level it is overall satisfaction that gives the best indication of how groups of people are faring. If a majority of people in a country report dissatisfaction with their lives, this seems to be a reasonable indication that something is awry, either with government policy, with society, or with both.”
Finally, “life expectancy” was the last factor to be considered in calculating the HPI. Their site tells us that, “Life expectancy at birth is an estimate based on the prevailing conditions in the country, and is calculated through large-scale data collection of mortality rates at different ages.”
If Vanuatu did so well and the United States did so poorly, how did other countries fair? Below, you will find a sampling, based on continent. They are color coded to show you if they are higher or lower than the United States rated (28.8), Make your own conclusions.
Before you read on, I’ll say my peace for the day. I don’t think huge groups of immigrants would be trying to move to other countries (i.e. Argentina, the United States, several European nations.) if their lives in their own countries were so great. People don’t love to move away from all their family and friends for extended periods of time, generally speaking. I mean, I don’t like it, even if I’m doing it for a higher purpose. That being said, I believe the “ecological footprint” factor in this study can greatly affect the HPI. In looking at the figure it’s not to say that people in Syria are really happier than those living in Norway. But it does show us that the people in Norway aren’t any happier although they consume a lot more energy and goods than the people in Syria do.
Lastly I’d like to pose the rhetorical question: Isn’t it natural that people living in countries with colder climates have to consumer more goods in the form of clothing, housing, protective transportation (from the elements) and have to store food for the winter? Where does that factor into the study? Their ain’t no banana trees in Wisconsin.
Higher HPI than the United States
HPI about equal to the United States (within 2 points)
Lower HPI than the United States
NORTH AMERICA
Mexico 54.4
Canada 39.8
CENTRAL AMERICA
Guatemala 61.7
Costa Rica 66.0
El Salvador 61.7
SOUTH AMERICA
Argentina 52.2
Chile 51.3
Uruguay 49.3
Brazil 48.6
Columbia 67.2
Peru 55.1
Bolivia 46.2
EUROPE
United Kingdom 40.3
France 36.4
Germany 43.8
Italy 48.3
Spain 43.0
Norway 39.2
Croatia 43.7
MIDDLE EAST
Palestine 52.6
Israel 39.1
Iraq (not on study)
Iran 47.2
Syria 43.2
ASIA
China 56.0
Russia 22.8
India 48.7
Japan 41.7
SOUTH PACIFIC
Australia 34.1
New Zealand 41.9
Papua New Guinea 44.8
AFRICA
Algeria 45.9
Nigeria 31.1
South Africa 27.8
Sudan 27.7
Egypt 41.6