Nobody knows how to make a pencil. Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman would often cite this truism in order to explain how free markets worked. Friedman explained that the wood, graphite and rubber components of each pencil are sourced from disparate locations across the globe, with the cooperation of thousands of workers who will never meet, ultimately coming together through a complex structure of prices that make up the free market system.
The contributions of each party within the pencil supply chain can be thought of as representative of human progress. In the beginning, everybody had to do everything. Each party was responsible for its own food, clothes, energy, etc. It was only through specialization that humanity discovered a win-win situation. It turned out that each party within a trade network had its own comparative advantage and that increased trade between parties resulted in increased productivity and a higher quality of life for all parties.
Interestingly, in our readings by Roseland and others, it seems that promoters of sustainable communities would like to reverse this process through what they call "import-substitution," and "self-sufficiency." These sustainability advocates argue that total energy consumption will decrease once humanity has tightened its distribution systems by promoting local production and realizing the ultimate goal of "self-sufficiency." I disagree with this unproven concept and believe that self-sufficiency should not be required within a sustainable community.
It seems obvious that an unknown proportion of the energy costs saved by reducing the size of distribution networks will most certainly be added back to humanity's aggregate energy consumption by rolling back the aforementioned productivity gains won by specialization. The net energy savings in this new system might even be negative. The real problem is not trade itself, but transportation costs. Instead of attempting to create impractical, "self-sufficient" communities, advocates of sustainable living should focus on engineering practical solutions to lowering the costs of trade.
You make an excellent point. Sometimes efficiency of well crafted economically refined distribution systems is more environmentally friendly and sustainable than all of the inefficiencies that are inherent in "buying local". I'm not saying that buying local is bad for sustainability in every context. I'm just saying it's not as simple of an issue as many would like to make it seem.
ReplyDeleteThere was an interesting study done by David Coley in 2008(1) that took into account the net "food miles" from getting local produce versus having produce delivered to a customer's door. In the cases they were looking at, the farmer's market method resulted in more "food miles" in total than did having fresh produce delivered directly. This study seems to only suggest that more attention be focused on the environmental effects of various distribution methods than to prove anything concrete about how we should distribute produce.
But it is food for thought.
1. Coley et al. Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy, 2008; DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.11.001
If I recall correctly (without actually going back and looking, because I'm lazy), I think the above-mentioned study uncovered the fact that "local" produce may still be coming from a few hours away, and needs to be brought in using a fuel-inefficient truck, whereas the non-local produce traveled much further but did it on the back of a highly-efficient train. I think there's a lot more behind to the story if you're trying to decide whether the local or far-off produce is actually "better" for the environment, though.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't think I agree with the idea that market-oriented strategies are the best solution, I do think this week we've already hit upon a big problem, which is that it's pretty impossible to procure everything one might need locally, if only because the resources used to make them are not available everywhere.
Global distributions systems rely on cheap fuel. What would happen to this picture if cheap fuel ceased to be part of the equation due to supply shortages or demand spikes? Interesting local task force looked into that question: http://bloomington.in.gov/peakoil
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love this post and all of the comments, as well. This, I think, is one of the most foundational questions because it questions the viability of our current type of market economy. That, in turn, raises the idea of capitalist pluralism or the idea that capitalism comes in many different forms. Just, as a thought experiment, I'll go off of Bill's question: If fuel becomes prohibitively expensive - to the point that global supply-chains break down - I think that exchange economies (similar to the current model) would still persist in much of the world. This wouldn't happen immediately, of course but over time may resemble something like intercolonial trade (albeit with deeper and more diversified markets). However, there are many situations that would give rise to other modes of exchange that may have a more communal flavor...and not the collectivist/ideological communal kind...but more of what Ostrom (1999) finds in autonomous, natural-resource based community economies around the world: people negotiating with one another to sustainably manage the source of their livelihood. There's also an interesting journal that investigates all sorts of alternative economic models: Grassroots Economic Organizing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I REALLY hope we get to talk more about the Bloomington Peak Oil task-force. They have a very interesting report posted on the city website: http://bloomington.in.gov/media/media/application/pdf/6239.pdf
ReplyDelete