The Green Washing of Local Food Movement

[Ghostbear]

I'm no expert in transportation - I was going off common sense (To me, it seems that the last mile of transportation is the easiest to change from oil, thats walking distance!) and what cleverer people than me have written in Mutualist texts. I can dig up some sources if you like - but you've obviously got more expertise in this area, and I can't disagree with the majority of your conclusions here.

As Dauric already highlighted for me, the last mile is not a literal mile. It's the distance that needs to be traveled from a centralized hub to get to the individual -- it's the UPS/FedEx truck bringing goods to you from their distribution center. In a city, that distance is marginal; in a rural environment, that distance could easily cost as much as all the other steps in the transportation chain combined.

Again - I'm no expert. However, there are hundreds more links in the transport chain to a city, and less leeway if one of them goes, due to the higher population density. If theres a fuel price shock, or power lines for your electric trains go down for too long, or if rural communities hold out on selling produce to get a better deal etc. The city supply lines seem more exposed to shocks to the system.

There's a lot more redundancy for a city's supply though, which is what you're missing. Farming problems happen all the time, they just don't become famines because (1) we have a lot of technology to mitigate them, technology which would not be available on an individual level, and (2) when we can't mitigate them, we just source our food from somewhere else. Farming areas are going to grow surpluses -- if the farmland supporting megacity A has a problem, then they just import the surplus from megacity B, C, D, E and F's farmland. Next year it might be megacity D in trouble, or maybe nobody. If rural communities "held out" to get a better deal, they would very quickly encounter the state or federal government exercising its powers of eminent domain.

A properly organized city can deal with something bad happening to one of it's major logistical nodes, because that node will not be the only node handling things. This is not true for rural communities: if your farm goes tits up this year due to a regional issue, you will need to import your food; you can't just walk to the next farmer -- they're having a drought too! That's going to be a lot less economical than it would be for a city. Your shorter route involves a complete lack of distribution of sources and redundancy; a city is going to able to source its food from anywhere, it's going to be built around redundancy.

I think you underestimate farmers - they've been dealing with drought and disease since before recorded history. Growing a variety of crops, and succession sowing makes farms much less vulnerable. Its the agressive monoculture caused by factory farming that renders agricultural land more vulnerable, and increases the spend on pesticides.

Farmers have dealt with this issues and died is what I believe you meant to say. Famine and death from such are a huge part of history and subsistence farming. Just look at some quotes from the article PeteP linked to:

Famine in the Medieval European context meant that people died of starvation on a massive scale. As brutal as they were, famines were familiar occurrences in Medieval Europe. As an example, localized famines occurred in France during the fourteenth century in 1304, 1305, 1310, 1315–1317 (the Great Famine), 1330–1334, 1349–1351, 1358–1360, 1371, 1374–1375 and 1390. In England, years of famine included 1315–1317, 1321, 1351, and 1369. For most people there was often not enough to eat and life expectancy was relatively short since many children died. According to records of the royal family of the Kingdom of England, among the best cared for in society, the average life expectancy in 1276 was 35.28 years. Between 1301 and 1325 during the Great Famine it was 29.84,

That's a lot of famines. There's also the Bengal Famine of 1770, where one third of the entire population died. Or hell, just look at the huge list of famines. If you look at the list, you'll note that Western, post-industrial revolution (aka post subsistence farming) countries that famines are almost completely non-existent. When they do occur, they're the aftermath or result of war, revolutions, or other massive social upheavals. The last famine listed for England-proper was in the early 18th century.

Farmers have been spending history getting their asses kicked by nature.

Rural roads aren't paved. They're dirt roads re-graded*... bi-monthly .. more or less depending on the county roads budget to deal with "Washboarding" erosion and potholes and such.

I don't recall the last time our dirt road got re-graded. I think it's years between them for where I live.

[Odd_nonposter]

Meh, I'm waiting for the days when robots do all the farming. Kansas comes to mind in particular, with all the breezes. Why aren't there farms with wind turbines powering robotic threshers/combines/tractors that do all the planting and harvesting? I doubt the turbines would block too much light, and the farmers could just ignore fuel costs at that point.

I know this was meant in jest, but I want to highlight the engineering problems with electrical farm equipment

We haven't developed a good way to store electrical energy. When you design agricultural equipment, you have to remember that things can't be extremely heavy because of soil compaction. We use diesel fuel because it contains ~40 MJ/kg ~35 MJ/L, and it can be stored in open containers. The best batteries are orders of magnitude less compact, hydrogen production/fuel cells are horribly inefficient (and require REALLY heavy pressurized containers), and it would be impractical to string electrical wires overhead for every round. The midwest tends to have a lot of tornadoes.

Now, you could have rails overhead so that you never have the soil compaction problem, or battery exchange systems at the ends of the fields, but again, tornadoes.

[somebody already took it]

Meh, I'm waiting for the days when robots do all the farming. Kansas comes to mind in particular, with all the breezes. Why aren't there farms with wind turbines powering robotic threshers/combines/tractors that do all the planting and harvesting? I doubt the turbines would block too much light, and the farmers could just ignore fuel costs at that point.

I know this was meant in jest, but I want to highlight the engineering problems with electrical farm equipment

We haven't developed a good way to store electrical energy. When you design agricultural equipment, you have to remember that things can't be extremely heavy because of soil compaction. We use diesel fuel because it contains ~40 MJ/kg ~35 MJ/L, and it can be stored in open containers. The best batteries are orders of magnitude less compact, hydrogen production/fuel cells are horribly inefficient (and require REALLY heavy pressurized containers), and it would be impractical to string electrical wires overhead for every round. The midwest tends to have a lot of tornadoes.

Now, you could have rails overhead so that you never have the soil compaction problem, or battery exchange systems at the ends of the fields, but again, tornadoes.

If I may propose a solution:

[sardia]

Meh, I'm waiting for the days when robots do all the farming. Kansas comes to mind in particular, with all the breezes. Why aren't there farms with wind turbines powering robotic threshers/combines/tractors that do all the planting and harvesting? I doubt the turbines would block too much light, and the farmers could just ignore fuel costs at that point.

I know this was meant in jest, but I want to highlight the engineering problems with electrical farm equipment

We haven't developed a good way to store electrical energy. When you design agricultural equipment, you have to remember that things can't be extremely heavy because of soil compaction. We use diesel fuel because it contains ~40 MJ/kg ~35 MJ/L, and it can be stored in open containers. The best batteries are orders of magnitude less compact, hydrogen production/fuel cells are horribly inefficient (and require REALLY heavy pressurized containers), and it would be impractical to string electrical wires overhead for every round. The midwest tends to have a lot of tornadoes.

Now, you could have rails overhead so that you never have the soil compaction problem, or battery exchange systems at the ends of the fields, but again, tornadoes.

Sigh, I guess my robot farmers will have to wait until my weather control machine is up and running. =(

[Dauric]

Now, you could have rails overhead so that you never have the soil compaction problem, or battery exchange systems at the ends of the fields, but again, tornadoes.

Sigh, I guess my robot farmers will have to wait until my weather control machine is up and running. =(

Tornadoes are tricky beasts sure, but they're not magical engines of destruction, they do damage through recognizable mechanisms that robotic farming systems can be designed around in ways that houses and barns can't.

For instance: If your battery exchange system is relatively low to the ground, with the majority of the system underground, then it benefits from the security of basements and cellars in a tornado, and removes the vulnerability of a lot of house sitting above it (which can collapse in to said basement). In theory you could even build the entire robot storage facility underground, and have service lifts to bring them to ground level. Humans and animals generally don't fare well in strictly underground living quarters, we tend to want windows and sunlight, where robots don't share that need.

In a similar fashion one could have solar panels and windmills that are able to retract in to underground foundations, linked to internet weather radar and forecasting software. This wouldn't just allow them to respond to threatening weather, but allow solar panels to retract on cloudy days, or in rain to increase the area of land that actually gets the moisture.

Rails are actually not a bad idea in tornado country, even elevated rails. Tornadoes do damage through air pressure, rails have relatively low surface area for a tornado to get a hold of, your biggest concern is impacts from flying debris (which is arguably where a small surface area to absorb the impact of said debris could be a liability). This can be mitigated somewhat by not having "overhead" rails so much as 'elevated" rails, a foot or two above the ground where flying debris is less of a problem.

That's not to say that a direct hit from a tornado wouldn't cause damage at all, but there are ways that you could mitigate tornado damage with a robot farm that you couldn't do with a more traditional farm. It's not like tornadoes prevent people from farming in tornado country with even more vulnerable structures.

[Heisenberg]

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/07/you-eat-what-you-are-pt-2-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
Summary: If you cared about the environment, or climate change and you are doing so by eating local foods, it's all a lie. Getting a steak from the farm outside of town is worse than getting a portobello mushroom from the other side of the world. There are reasons to eat local, it tastes better/fresher, or if it's is cheaper. However, environmental protection is not one of them, the numbers don't work out.

After reading the article, it reminded me of two principles that I forgotten. Economies of scale, and how important urbanization is compared to rural or suburban life. e.g. Moving people into high rise apartments, and concentrating them into high density cities conserves an astonishing amount of resources.

This... doesn't follow. It is better for the environment to eat locally. Cattle are more expensive than mushrooms wherever you get them from and on whatever scale you measure, and we all know that, so comparing the two is frivolous. I doubt any of us are sitting at the supermarket saying "Gee, I really want to eat this mushroom, but it's not locally grown, so I suppose I'll have to settle on this steak instead." The many reasons to eat locally regarding freshness, nutrition, labor concerns, supporting the local economy, and yes, environmental protection still apply.

Another important factor is not mentioned in the post: Psychology. Psychology and economics are closely related, and the psychological effect of eating locally probably outweighs the transportation concerns. When people grow their own food, they may do it inefficiently, but they're likely to value the food more and create less waste. Saving 10% on efficiency by eating tasteless slave-grown tomatoes doesn't help the environment if I buy 6 and throw away 3. Placing greater value upon foods, both monetarily and emotionally, is likely to result in a reduction of waste, thereby helping the environment. And when 30-50% of food is being landfilled, I'd say that eliminating waste is far more significant than economies of scale.

[folkhero]

In my (anecdotal) experience, people who make an effort to buy food locally tend to simultaneously buy more fresh food, less frozen and packaged food, lowering the average shelf life of what's in their cupboard/fridge. Subsequently the locavores that I know probably end up throwing away more food on average than the omnivores I know. It's anecdotal, as I've said, but in the absence of real evidence I don't know why the assumption would be that eating locally generally leads to less waste.

[Heisenberg]

Local fruit and veg have a longer shelf life than imports, simply because it can take several weeks for the food to get to market. So for those of us who eat more fruit and veg, it's less wasteful to buy produce harvested today than it is to buy the stuff that's been trucked around the country for two weeks.

CSA type systems reduce waste further by cutting out the distributors entirely. Instead of letting food expire during transportation and shelving, a CSA ensures that all food that is harvested makes it to the consumer. If you're curious if that prevents waste, just take a peek in a supermarket dumpster.

[selfassembled]

Back to the urbanization side of the argument, it is well proven that the larger a city becomes, the more efficient (in terms of necessary infrastructure) and more productive (in terms of salary per capita) it becomes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez. This being a clear indication that the better integration and communication of a superorganism mirror the scales of larger vs smaller animals.

The same should essentially be true of our industry. Though large industry is responsible for so much damage to the ecosystem, it is also responsible for an even larger proportion of production. I don't think splitting things up to local farms would do anything but dedicate more of our land to farms, by creating more disorganized and less efficient farms across the country. Heisenberg makes a good argument that higher value food is intrinsically more efficient, but it seems like anecdotal evidence to claim that (potentially) throwing away less food can compensate for less efficient production.

That said, I try to buy local myself, especially where I live, in Ann Arbor, MI, with beautiful natural environments, everything seems higher quality, and the culture local production inspires is very positive. I'm really full of contradictions, I am always inspired and yet somewhat afraid of progress and its effects on our spirit.

[gmalivuk]

That said, I try to buy local myself, especially where I live, in Ann Arbor, MI

Having such a nice farmers' market certainly helps with that.

[Belial]

This... doesn't follow. It is better for the environment to eat locally.

Assuming you're fine with eating mostly things that grow well locally, and only when they're in season. If you're not, you're back at square one because the environmental costs of all the climate control necessary to make bananas grow in kentucky in october are astronomical. At a certain point, the economies of scale say that if you're going to be eating X amount of Y food anyway, it's better by far to grow that food in the place where it grows well naturally and then ship it to where it's going than to try to have a banana and avocado plantation for every town, whether it's in the desert or the tundra.

[natraj]

well yeah but that is assuming some kind of dichotomy of eat EVERYTHING locally vs. eat NOTHING locally. you could still eat local things that grow well in your bioregion, during the season they grow, and have a small positive impact over eating those same things from somewhere far away, while still buying other things that don't grow well there from far away because you'd also eat those things anyway and it makes more sense to buy them from the places they are indigenous to.

[gmalivuk]

Yeah, the ridiculous thing here isn't that storebought bananas are grown in the tropics, but that so many storebought apples were grown in Washington.

[moiraemachy]

well yeah but that is assuming some kind of dichotomy of eat EVERYTHING locally vs. eat NOTHING locally. you could still eat local things that grow well in your bioregion, during the season they grow, and have a small positive impact over eating those same things from somewhere far away, while still buying other things that don't grow well there from far away because you'd also eat those things anyway and it makes more sense to buy them from the places they are indigenous to.

Each zone performs better when producing a few specific kind of culture, due to climate, soil, water availability, etc. If it was more economical to produce some specific culture for the local market instead of joining the mass production monoculture bandwagon, then there's no need for that specific product to be pushed by the local food movement - farmers would do it because it would be profitable. Buying local might encourage the inefficient situation in which local farmers try to cater for their local market's every need, since they are willing to pay the premium, even when it's actually more wasteful.

The rule of thumb would be to not differentiate between local and nonlocal goods, and let the market do it's job: the most efficient solution will prevail. However, it's complicated; it is possible that local farmers, with the right amount of incentive, could outperform nonlocal goods after developing the adequate infrastructure, since the supply chain's logistics are generally more adapted to the big producer's needs and timings.

Also, I don't buy that local foods are fresher because they are produced locally. If there was enough demand for fresher products, nonlocal suppliers could probably overhaul their logistics to provide fresher products at a premium. The same could be said of bad environmental/labor practices.

[gmalivuk]

I don't buy that local foods are fresher because they are produced locally. If there was enough demand for fresher products, nonlocal suppliers could probably overhaul their logistics to provide fresher products at a premium.

Those two sentences are not logically connected. Local foods could be fresher *and* there is not enough demand to warrant nonlocal suppliers going out of their way to provide fresher products.

[Qaanol]

There is another side to the economic argument here. When money circulates entirely within a community, that money stays in that community. On the other hand, when some fraction of every dollar spent must go to far away producers and distributors, the amount of money within the local community decreases.

[moiraemachy]

Ahrg, damn. What I'm trying to say is that local food consumers pay a premium for local, fresh and environment friendly products, and local producers go out of their way to fulfill these requisites. So it's unfair to say that the difference in freshness between local and nonlocal products is only due to one of them being produced locally - to me, it seems that it is much more strongly related to the fact that the consumer of one of them being willing to pay a premium for freshness._{I guess I kinda weaseled out with that 'only' up there...}

EDIT: @Qaanol but that has the same effects of very localized protectionism, and if every argument against it also applies here.

[CorruptUser]

There is another side to the economic argument here. When money circulates entirely within a community, that money stays in that community. On the other hand, when some fraction of every dollar spent must go to far away producers and distributors, the amount of money within the local community decreases.

Then the money becomes less valuable until the foreigners start buying things from that community or the community can't afford to purchase things from the outside. It all evens out, and the money goes farther if you allow for foreign trade.

[sardia]

There is another side to the economic argument here. When money circulates entirely within a community, that money stays in that community. On the other hand, when some fraction of every dollar spent must go to far away producers and distributors, the amount of money within the local community decreases.

Are you arguing against trading or just importing?

[nitePhyyre]

If you're not, you're back at square one because the environmental costs of all the climate control necessary to make bananas grow in kentucky in october are astronomical. At a certain point, the economies of scale say that if you're going to be eating X amount of Y food anyway, it's better by far to grow that food in the place where it grows well naturally and then ship it to where it's going than to try to have a banana and avocado plantation for every town, whether it's in the desert or the tundra.

But aren't you comparing the difference between an inefficient climate control system versus our current agriculture system that has the full benefits of economies of scale?

[Qaanol]

There is another side to the economic argument here. When money circulates entirely within a community, that money stays in that community. On the other hand, when some fraction of every dollar spent must go to far away producers and distributors, the amount of money within the local community decreases.

Are you arguing against trading or just importing?

If money had been flowing out of the local community to buy apples, but suddenly far more people start buying local apples, then there is a lot more money in the community that can be spent on buying other things from away, that cannot be readily made right there. For instance, Apples™ instead of apples. Then the local community as a whole ends up with more actual wealth. So I’m arguing against the importing of things that can be easily produced locally. Notably, the tipping point where it becomes economically neutral for the community as a whole to have apples grown locally, occurs even before the price of local apples gets as low as imported apples. That is, if local apples are almost as cheap as imported apples, the community as a whole can do better if everyone there buys local apples instead of imported ones, even if individually each person thinks the cheaper imported apples are a better deal.

Moreover, I’m not advocating for a top-down enforced protectionist policy. I’m just calling it to people’s attention that choosing to buy a local product will definitely keep more money in the local community than choosing to buy something from far away. If enough people make that kind of decision, then those people and everyone in their local communities will have more money on hand to buy all kinds of things, both locally and from elsewhere. In other words, it can actually be beneficial to the individual to pay a few extra cents for something local.

[sardia]

Paraphrasing: Buying local causes a multiplier effect in the local economy. One shouldn't import things that one has a comparative advantage in manufacturing or producing. eg Don't import apples if there is prime apple farmland surrounding the community. If the comparative advantage of other regions is slight for apples, buy local apples to cause the multiplier effect.

I question your premise that money flows out of the community when it imports apples. Doesn't money flow into the town when it exports or if foreigners spend money locally? You are ignoring the back and forth that is trade and focusing on the loss of money from importing. Second, if the town has a fertile land for apples, what if you specialized to get comparative advantage, and then export the apples for a premium? Wouldn't that cause a multiplier effect far greater than whatever demand a town can muster for it's products? If the town isn't as good at producing apples, why not focus on something else, like say making computers? Then it can export the computers for cash that goes into the local economy which is multiplied. Now you can import all the apples you want without worry of the lost multiplier effect from importing.

[Zamfir]

If you change a preference to local apples, then the main effect is that the local apple growers can raise their prices a bit (since you can't quickly add apple trees). So the apple growers have a bit more money for the same work, the rest of the people now have a bit less money to spend on non-apples.

The net effect on on the community as a whole is only a second-order effect compared to that. It can go in both directions: suppose the community used to export high-priced apples and import low-priced apples, and keeps consuming the same amount of apples. Then (compared to the old situation) they will now run a trade deficit. The community is borrowing more money from the rest of the world (or investing less in the rest of the world), and is using the difference to consume nicer apples. Vice versa if the local apples farmers mostly specialize in cheaper apples.

I think we can safely ignore that second-order effect, unless you have really, really good or crappy apples locally. So the main effect is simply that apple farmers have more money to spend, and the rest has less money. is that good for the local shops and services? Only if apple farmers are more likely to spend the extra cash locally than others. Again, this is a second-order effect, so the difference should be quite large before it starts to matter. The effect will be large and positive for some sellers (like agricultural suppliers), but that is subtly offset by all the other sellers who tend more towards the non-farmer part of the community. The first might be more noticable because it's concentrated, but that is misleading.

In the long run, the story changes. The most expected outcome is simply a that a bit more people become apple farmers, a bit more land gets reserved for apple farms. And in return, the rest of the world needs slightly less apple farmers and can make a bit more of the stuff that your community now makes less of. So now you're buying more local apples, and less local cauliflowers, or less local concrete or something. Which is good if you like apple trees around. The lands around Gouda produce an incredible amount of milk, which we then eat as cheese. It works mostly because people like to see cows in meadows, and as result zoning laws get manipulated towards milk-production. Which might well be welfare-enhancing on the whole.

I think the other relevant option is if you can reach some scale effect. Producing a bit more apples doesn't matter one way or the other, but you can easily become the regional (or global) Silicon Valley for apples. With the most knowledge about apples, specialized suppliers for apple growers, a flexible job market for apple-related jobs. That happens a lot. I was recently in a group of villages that are stuffed with cherry trees while all the rest of the region grows, indeed, apples. The price is of course that you are now slightly less likely to have another concentrated industry nearby.

[Arrian]

well yeah but that is assuming some kind of dichotomy of eat EVERYTHING locally vs. eat NOTHING locally. you could still eat local things that grow well in your bioregion, during the season they grow, and have a small positive impact over eating those same things from somewhere far away, while still buying other things that don't grow well there from far away because you'd also eat those things anyway and it makes more sense to buy them from the places they are indigenous to.

How's that going to work for, say, Las Vegas or Phoenix? You think there will be less harm to the environment by Las Vegas producing enough to feed itself locally than importing it? Furthermore, I don't think it's very likely that every region will be able to grow the same number of calories per acre. Which is best for the environment, more acreage dedicated to feeding the same number of people or slightly higher transportation costs? Finally, that's a pretty serious limiting factor on the quality and variability of food, which is a pretty negative impact on quality of life. I'm not willing to go to a plain meat and potatoes diet just to save 11% of the carbon footprint of what I'm eating.

Some places certainly have a comparative advantage in food production, that's great. (Actually, it's a tautology, but still...) I don't think anyone is arguing against eating locally when it makes sense. And there are certainly farmers who specialize in artisinal foods that are better than you can get at the supermarket, if that's your thing, go for it. But the environmental impact of trying to force our food supply chain to be local rather than international are net negative, and you'd have to make serious, welfare reducing, societal changes in order to effect a change to local supply.

[natraj]

again, you are bringing up a false dichotomy here. nothing i said implies that people in places where things don't easily grow should force their local markets to produce inefficient impractical foods. i also don't really know many people (or anyone, actually, and i am a pretty hardcore environmental justice activist, and a significant majority of my social circle is also composed of hardcore environmentalists who would be considered radical by most standards and are pretty invested in this type of thing) who think anyone should force anything anywhere. just that there could be some benefit to switching to doing things locally where it is practical.

... on that note i do know a number of people who DO restrict the vast intake of their food to things that are seasonal, bioregion-specific, and as local as possible, but even they don't advocate FORCING farmers or the market to do anything. that is a lifestyle choice they have made for themselves and it is kind of a strawman to talk about forcing anyone to do anything, especially in response to my post which simply said that when it is practical electing to buy local might help. if it is never practical, then it is never practical and what i said doesn't apply.

[Belial]

i also don't really know many people... ...who think anyone should force anything anywhere.

Totally fair, but the problem isn't the people who have actually thought about it and have a stance. The problem, in my experience, are the people who internalize the "local is greener" message and then apply it to everything without doing too much thought. Because with enough of them, it eventually becomes financially viable to offer local hothouse fruits and vegetables (because people will pay extra to feel good about themselves) even while it's still environmentally worse. At which point folks are now encouraging farming to get even worse.

Which is to say, it's always better to think about things. But if we assume that most people aren't going to do that, then some care needs to be taken with making sure that the short-declarative-sentences version of your message doesn't do any harm.

Which I guess just means the "assuming it grows locally" part probably needs to be drilled into peoples' skulls harder.

[CorruptUser]

I think it would be easiest if the "greenest" option was just "buy what's cheapest". Food from farther away requires more fuel to be used, maintenance and manufacture of trucks, and so forth. If farms farther away are more productive, then the extra cost of transport would be offset by the higher productivity. A pound of meat that requires 20 pounds of grain to produce will reflect that extra cost. And we will learn the sound of one Invisible Hand clapping.

Of course, this relies on a well-regulated market where all costs are added to the prices, the cost of electric production reflects the cost of the pollution, that large organizations aren't able to have the regulations written around themselves, politicians aren't trying to rig the markets in favor of their own districts, and so forth.

[Heisenberg]

How's that going to work for, say, Las Vegas or Phoenix?

What's best for the environment is DON'T LIVE IN PHOENIX. And for the love of God, STOP PLANTING PALM TREES THERE, YOU BLITHERING IDIOTS.

[Zamfir]

Of course, this relies on a well-regulated market where all costs are added to the prices, the cost of electric production reflects the cost of the pollution, that large organizations aren't able to have the regulations written around themselves, politicians aren't trying to rig the markets in favor of their own districts, and so forth.

You can't really rely on 'well-regulated' here. For example, what is the 'correct' price on the emission of a kilogram of lead into the water, or a tonne of methane into the atmosphere? On one cubic meter of water from a non-replenishing aquifer? What is the correct subsidy for an attractive-looking farm over an ugly industrial complex? How much does that change if the farm is visible from a busy road? How much dollarcent for every milliUtil of discomfort to a factory-farmed pig?

The "market + correction costs" model assumes that there are universal, vaguely correct and knowable answers to such questions, and that the only issue is to get them added to the costs. But even with the best of information, honest people will still disagree on such numbers, and dishonest people will have a say as well.

I think it's rather utopian to hope that market prices can ever be 'correct', in the sense that they incorporate all relevant information in a somehow optimal way. In practice, you will always have to decide for yourself what you value. If you care a lot about animal suffering, you should pay more for well-farmed meat, and you will have to put in effort to discover which meat that is.

Do you care especially about water running out in the west of the US, or oil running out worldwide, or do you want to encourage cash-farming in poor countries, or do you on the other hand oppose agricultural exports from countries with malnutrition? I don't think there's any hope that a single price will ever reflect such questions correctly, in the sense that the 'best' product would simply be the cheapest.

[CorruptUser]

Do you care especially about water running out in the west of the US, or oil running out worldwide, or do you want to encourage cash-farming in poor countries, or do you on the other hand oppose agricultural exports from countries with malnutrition? I don't think there's any hope that a single price will ever reflect such questions correctly, in the sense that the 'best' product would simply be the cheapest.

I don't care too much about oil running out, other than the weird effects the extra carbon can have on our biosphere (as well as how we will retool the economy around renewables). The underground reservoir AFAIK does not affect our biosphere whether or not it's used, so I don't mind that it's used (though I do agree it's idiotic to waste it on palm trees). As for farming in poor countries with malnutrition, if priced properly the farmers can buy more nutritious food with cash crops than they could've otherwise produced.

[Derek]

The "market + correction costs" model assumes that there are universal, vaguely correct and knowable answers to such questions, and that the only issue is to get them added to the costs. But even with the best of information, honest people will still disagree on such numbers, and dishonest people will have a say as well.

People will certainly disagree on what the correct adjustment is, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. An ideal correction cost exists for the same reason that a market price exists for an ideal product with no externalities.

[Belial]

Its existence doesn't help us if there's no way to add it to the product.

[pizzazz]

There is another side to the economic argument here. When money circulates entirely within a community, that money stays in that community. On the other hand, when some fraction of every dollar spent must go to far away producers and distributors, the amount of money within the local community decreases.

Are you arguing against trading or just importing?

If money had been flowing out of the local community to buy apples, but suddenly far more people start buying local apples, then there is a lot more money in the community that can be spent on buying other things from away, that cannot be readily made right there. For instance, Apples™ instead of apples. Then the local community as a whole ends up with more actual wealth. So I’m arguing against the importing of things that can be easily produced locally. Notably, the tipping point where it becomes economically neutral for the community as a whole to have apples grown locally, occurs even before the price of local apples gets as low as imported apples. That is, if local apples are almost as cheap as imported apples, the community as a whole can do better if everyone there buys local apples instead of imported ones, even if individually each person thinks the cheaper imported apples are a better deal.

The "money staying in the community" argument is bullshit.

Money is a bad thing to look at, because we use it for a proxy for wealth in many cases where that's valid, or valid enough, but not here. What we really care about is wealth: The amount of wealth a community produces determines, in the long run, how much it can consume (barring charity, forceful transfers, and indefinite loans). So, sure, the town now produces more apples (one form of wealth) by growing them locally. But that can only be achieved by giving up labor, land, water, fertilizer, etc. (which are also forms of wealth). If you produce less (wealth in the form of apples) than you could produce (wealth in the form of other things) by growing apples instead of building cars, then you can buy fewer Apples^TM than if you simply made cars and sold them.

So, no, your argument is false. There is no inherent benefit to buying locally. If local is more efficient, people will grow local and sell for less (or sell at market price if they are a tiny fraction of supply). If it is less efficient, consumers will import and former apple farmers will make cars. There is no additional effect from "money staying in the community:" it is efficient for the "community" if and only if it is price-efficient for individual consumers. By encouraging people to "buy local" when they otherwise wouldn't, you encourage the wasteful destruction of labor and all the physical resources that go into production.

If you don't believe me, try thinking of it this way: what do you mean by "local community?" Until you ascribe a precise meaning to this phrase, I can take your logic and apply it to an individual or household:
"If we make shoes instead of buying them, the money will stay in our house."
But that doesn't make it more efficient for everyone to make their own shoes.
Or you can scale it up to the whole world, and then... oh wait, we see that this is actually horseshit, because your own logic just proved what you wanted to disprove.

[Heisenberg]

By encouraging people to "buy local" when they otherwise wouldn't, you encourage the wasteful destruction of labor and all the physical resources that go into production.

So when I meet Joe at the farmer's market and he has a bushel of rhubarb, I should say "Fuck you, Joe" and go buy Chilean rhubarb, letting all his rhubarb rot. Because buying and eating his product would be "wasteful destruction of labor" while actual wastefulness is not.

I think you're assuming that everyone has access to efficient and productive work, when that's clearly not the case. In my community, all the auto manufacturing jobs left a few years ago, so Joe can't be more productive at an auto plant. He can grow food, or not work at all. I prefer that he grows food.

[lutzj]

So when I meet Joe at the farmer's market and he has a bushel of rhubarb, I should say "Fuck you, Joe" and go buy Chilean rhubarb, letting all his rhubarb rot. Because buying and eating his product would be "wasteful destruction of labor" while actual wastefulness is not.

Well, if his is cheaper, or if his is more expensive but you like Joe enough to be okay with giving him some money, then go ahead and buy his. You're just not likely to be doing the environment any real favors.

[sardia]

So when I meet Joe at the farmer's market and he has a bushel of rhubarb, I should say "Fuck you, Joe" and go buy Chilean rhubarb, letting all his rhubarb rot. Because buying and eating his product would be "wasteful destruction of labor" while actual wastefulness is not.

I think you're assuming that everyone has access to efficient and productive work, when that's clearly not the case. In my community, all the auto manufacturing jobs left a few years ago, so Joe can't be more productive at an auto plant. He can grow food, or not work at all. I prefer that he grows food.

I agree with lutz, and in addition:
Isn't your statement kinda silly if you consider that you are letting Chilean rhubarb rot by buying Joe's rhubarb? Or that buying Joe's rhubarb, overpriced or not, encourages him to plant more rhubarb next year. Who's gonna buy that? Now if you think Joe's rhubarb is so awesome that everyone should buy it, you should buy it or even invest in it. He'll start exporting it to others who will pay him more for his product.

[Heisenberg]

Me. I'm going to buy that. Me. The big difference here is that if I buy from Joe regularly, he has a job which provides him an income, while if I do not buy from Joe, he is unemployed. In an ideal world, Joe might be able to get a job assembling Chevy Tahoes instead of farming if he was better at that than some Chilean. However, since he just lost his job assembling Chevy Tahoes to a Malaysian willing to work for less than the UAW, that seems unlikely. So the best way for me to make sure Joe stays employed is by regularly purchasing from him.

According to pizzazz, that's "wasteful destruction of labor" when in reality it's employing someone inefficiently. Yes, the inefficiently part isn't great, but the employing someone is really really good. Especially when that person can be an active member of your community and participate in local commerce. The price of the inefficiency is paid by me, when I pay Joe more for his crops than I would at a big box store. But that's cool, because I'd much rather spend my extra cash on eating well AND employing more local folks than blowing that money on electronic gadgetry.

[CorruptUser]

Heisenberg, that's a Broken Window fallacy. The extra money you save by buying from the Chilean farmer doesn't just disappear. But no, you bought from Joe, and now you can't buy Frank's chili peppers. So Joe is more important that Frank, the Chilean, and you?

[KnightExemplar]

About this "Joe the Farmer" business... I personally live close enough to farms that I can literally pick up vegetables for dinner with less than a 10 minute drive. Or, if I'm driving home from work, I can take a short detour to pick up some stuff without any worry. (well, they take cash... no credit. But I've gotten used to picking up cash at the bank now.) Either way, the farm is literally on the way home from my work, and Joe the Farmer doesn't need to pay any transportation costs.

Literally. I'm picking it up straight up from his farm.

From my perspective, if Joe the Farmer can't make money off of crops that he doesn't even ship anywhere... while Jose the Chilean farmer has to ship it halfway across the world to compete against this farmer... Joe the Farmer probably should find a new job.

Just saying. Joe the Farmer has an enormous advantage in that he can profit from any of the inefficiency that is generated by the global shipping market. His food is also fresher (I can see the workers packing the food into bushels behind the counter). Now I can only buy crops that are in season (aka: what he's currently growing on the farm), but thats not a big deal at all. His farm is big enough to have a number of fruits and vegetables in stock. I'm pretty sure he also imports some food to make the selection at his shop better... like honey, milk and eggs (I don't see any bees, cows, or chickens around his farm)

I also happen to know that his farm is only a few miles away from the central distribution network for some large supermarket chains. (I doubt its there by accident)

I guess its an interesting thought experiment if Mr. Jose the Chilean farmer can somehow manage to compete against Joe. But honestly, I don't see how Joe is going away any time soon.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

Me. I'm going to buy that. Me. The big difference here is that if I buy from Joe regularly, he has a job which provides him an income, while if I do not buy from Joe, he is unemployed. In an ideal world, Joe might be able to get a job assembling Chevy Tahoes instead of farming if he was better at that than some Chilean. However, since he just lost his job assembling Chevy Tahoes to a Malaysian willing to work for less than the UAW, that seems unlikely. So the best way for me to make sure Joe stays employed is by regularly purchasing from him.

According to pizzazz, that's "wasteful destruction of labor" when in reality it's employing someone inefficiently. Yes, the inefficiently part isn't great, but the employing someone is really really good. Especially when that person can be an active member of your community and participate in local commerce. The price of the inefficiency is paid by me, when I pay Joe more for his crops than I would at a big box store. But that's cool, because I'd much rather spend my extra cash on eating well AND employing more local folks than blowing that money on electronic gadgetry.

Would you sell your car and pay Joe to carry you around just so that he could have a job? I mean sure, it's not as efficient as a car but he has a job, right?!? Jobs are means, not ends in themselves - there's no point putting someone into labour when there are forms that are vastly more efficient out there. You should just give Joe the extra money you save on buying from the Chilean if your concern is actually helping him; why have Joe labour at all if your concern is in helping him?

People seem to forget in these sorts of equations that leisure is a kind of wealth; sure I could grow my own vegetables but (along with being poorly skilled and therefore inefficient) I simply don't have the time. In previous eras, the idea of "not having the time" to ensure your own survival seems ridiculous but because of efficiencies and advances we can have others produce our food at a cost that makes the alternative seem not worth our while.

That's the other thing about the Buy Local movement. There's bizarre form of Nationalism to it. Certainly in my own country and I know in the UK, there is a great trend in emphasising that your beef is Irish/British beef as if I've some deep set desire to not eat a French cow and see a Frenchman profit off it. Not only does buying non-locally provide someone with a job (just not someone who happens to live near you, which obviously is totes the real basis of moral dessert) but frequently when things are out-sourced to other countries they are done so to poorer countries where the jobs (a) are more needed and (b) whose money which is relatively higher value.