We need to enhance the local
By Peter
Schwartzman
During a
period when our national economy is in a tailspin and with more difficult times
on the horizon, might we benefit from focusing our local resources (both human
and nonhuman) on making our community healthy, happy and sustainable? Based on
many environmental indicators, we should rapidly slow down (and reverse) our
expansion and dependence on global products and markets. Many potential
benefits await us if we reconnect at a local level. It isnÕt that an Òall localÓ
arrangement will solve all of our problems immediately, but the bulk of our
resources and commodities will need to start coming from closer to home if we
hope to flourish as a community in the future.
Currently,
the world is becoming more and more globalized. Many of us enjoy the
materialistic benefits of this. We can eat brie cheese from France, drink wine
made of Andean grapes, or partake in winter watermelon from Central America. We
can buy cheap products of all types at Òbig boxÓ stores. We can watch foreign
films in different languages or subtitles. We can burn gasoline derived from
petroleum located in far off lands to propel our cars or planes. An inspection
at our clothing labels, dinnerware, toys, or tools affirms that so much of what
we consume is manufactured elsewhere; we usually have no idea where the raw
materials came from. We have all become accustomed to this type of living. It
is hard for most of us to imagine any other way.
All
this convenience and access to products comes at a pretty high price, however.
More than a billion of our fellow Homo
Sapiens live in abject poverty—lacking sufficient nutrients, clean
water, immunizations, etc. Many others suffer from diseases (such as, cancer,
asthma, birth defects, and learning disorders) which are largely a function of
an industrialized system that treats humans as cogs in a wheel—breakable,
expendable, and replaceable. How else do you explain why it seems perfectly
reasonable for us—to pick just three of hundreds of poignant examples:
(a) to send our damaged or discarded electronic equipment—which is highly
toxic—to countries known for their human rights abuses; (b) to fill our
gas tanks with fuel that may have come from pipelines built with slave labor
(as was shown to have occurred in Burma); or, (c) to give ÒbloodÓ diamonds to
our mates as a sign of a lifelong commitment to them? For the sake of current
and future human generations, we need to imagine another way, and fast.
Fortunately there exists another way and not only is it doable, its future lies
in our (and our neighborÕs) hands and minds.
One
new way focuses on our local areas as the primary source for both ours goods
and services. It recognizes that there is great opportunity in becoming less
dependent on outside forces for resources and solutions. For example, there are
some tremendous environmental benefits stemming from looking locally.
Obviously, tons of energy can be saved (i.e., conserved). Every mile travelled
by our food, our clothing, etc. means fossil fuel burned. Currently, most of
our food travels 1,500 or so miles before it makes it to our plates. This is an
extremely wasteful way to feed the worldÕs people. All this shipping not only
requires fuel, but an extensive infrastructure including highways, train
tracks, airports, and shipping ports. All of these things destroy natural
habitat and diminish biological productivity immensely. And, since it is nearly
impossible to inspect every package or compartment, we also open ourselves up
to security risks on a grand scale when we consume products from so far away.
Local production requires only a fraction of the fuels and materials and avoids
the unnecessary risks as well.
Greatly
limiting global transport of goods will undoubtedly diminish the impact of
invasive species, one of the more vexing environmental problems facing
ecosystems today. Some non-native species (such as, zebra mussels, soybean
rust, kudzu, and leafy spurge) wreak havoc on the environment and agriculture.
Nationally, these species are projected to produce damage and losses on the
order of $120 billion; globally, the costs are over $1.4 trillion (currently
about 5% of the global economy) (Pimentel et
al., 2001 & Pimentel et al.,
2005).
Energy
conserved will also allow us to reduce CO2 emissions, something more
and more people realize we need to do as soon as possible. Just this April, Dr.
Hansen from NASA passionately argued that we need to reduce atmospheric
concentrations of this greenhouse gas to 350 parts per million (ppm) in order
for Òhumanity . . . to preserve a planet similar to that which civilization
developed.Ó (ItÕs currently at 390 ppm and the European Union is shooting for
stabilization at 550 ppm, way above HansenÕs tipping point.) Despite the
voluntary reduction mandate which began during the Clinton administration, the
U.S. CO2 emission totals are up over 20% since 1990! Clearly, what
we are doing doesnÕt work.
There
are three basic ways to reduce CO2 emissions to levels that are in
keeping with stabilizing planetary climates: (a) a complete shift over to
renewable energies (and, in particular, solar, wind, and geothermal); (b) a
great reduction in consumption of other goods (which are fossil fuel
dependent); and, (c) a significant shortening of the average distance between
the production and consumption of products. The first way, i.e., renewable, does
not require (and may seem in opposition to) local structures, but actually, a
great deal of energy savings can happen locally through energy conservation
measures and redesigning of infrastructures (such as public transportation and
south-facing windows).
The
second and third ways succeed mightily in a local environment. Local emphasis
clearly reduces the distance of transport but it also lends itself to a society
that reduces consumption and adopts other good habits. It does this by forcing
us to develop stronger connections with our neighbors and our surroundings. Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to
look at a hypothetical situation. Consider that the people of Galesburg and Knox
County had to survive solely on the food and materials found within the
confines of Knox County. What would happen? Well, IÕm not sure, but I would
hope that we would find ways to coexist peacefully while at the same time
getting the nourishment and intangibles necessary for a healthy and fulfilling
life. With limited access to external resources, we would have to become more
selective in what we consume and, as a result, we would reduce consumption.
Since we would not be able to depend on outside help, we would have to work
together to solve problems. This new way of thinking would undoubtedly force us
to be more knowledgeable about what can and cannot grow in our climate and what
can and cannot be eaten that does grow. (The term ÒweedÓ would undergo a
massive reworking as salads with dandelion leaves would fill many bowls.) More
people would likely decide to have a home food garden, rather than a green lawn
(which often serves no purpose but mowing). We would begin to recognize that
nature has limits in the abundance it can produce sustainably (over long
periods) and what it can endure (in terms of synthetic chemicals, fertilizers,
tilling, etc.). It would move us to develop a dependable and accessible public
transportation system to take people from their homes to key areas of
employment, commerce, and recreation. It would also motivate us to beautify our
neighborhoods, parks, and schools, making them places we could be proud of as
well as places where we find fulfillment, enjoyment and leisure.
It is
understood that one of the major reasons why we donÕt live in greater harmony
with nature is because we donÕt have a sense of place. Living locally, in all
it entails, will breed respect for place and an obligation to protect it among
its citizens. We do have local spirit but it is often relegated to playing
fields or school yards. These venues often create tension and animosity among
neighbors due to arbitrary fraternities and associations. (For example, it is
completely irrational how much some members of the Knox College and Monmouth
College communities despise each other.) We need to expand the locations/spaces
where all local residents can learn, play and work. We also need more places
where children can also find security, respect and opportunities to explore,
wonder and engage with the natural world.
Most
importantly, in this hypothetical situation, we would necessarily have to
respect our neighbors and see them, and ourselves, as sources of inspiration,
intelligence, friendship, etc. This might be the biggest windfall from thinking
locally. When people truly recognize that collective engagement is the only way
to survive peacefully, they will more actively participate in civic arenas.
They will care (and probably know) who gets elected. Pessimists or apathetic
people will be compelled to leave their negativity at the door. There will be
too much life in the neighborhood to avoid connecting and being part of
something special. Through our engagement with one another, we all become
active members in the creation of our preferred destiny. WeÕll thrive when we
feel part of something bigger than ourselves yet understand that our individual
contributions matter as well.
Localism,
as a way of living, doesnÕt necessitate isolationism, however. Certainly, many
of us will continue to travel and be concerned with happenings that are going
on elsewhere. WeÕll certainly still be part of the global community. However,
whenever and wherever we do go, weÕll appreciate and respect the local focus
and direction unique and particular to each community we visit. WeÕll recognize
that they are tackling some of the same problems that we are and weÕll expect
them to design their own solutions, which may be quite unlike ours.
All
of this local talk probably seems super idealistic and, perhaps, totally
unrealistic. That is fine and I welcome naysayers and critics as much as
converts. I just donÕt see the globalization process continuing without great
suffering continuing (at increased levels, if that were possible). I believe we
have reached limits that we must respect. There is a reason that nearly every
one of us doesnÕt do much about the unnecessary suffering that is happening
everyday throughout the world. We donÕt because we are either suffering
ourselves (and therefore have a difficult time finding the energy and time to
do so) or we simply donÕt have to concern ourselves with the plight of others.
No matter which group you find yourself identifying with more, we can all take
some satisfaction that we can begin today taking care of those around us while
greatly reducing the destruction perpetrated by our current lifestyle and
resource dependence. This new locally-rooted lifestyle will allow all of us to
secure our place in our communities while at the same time enabling others, be
they two-leggeds, four-leggeds, or the winged, to enjoy life and the magic and
wonder that this special planet offers. We can make this happen. It is simply a
matter of will.
Works
Cited
Pimentel, D. et al. (2005).
ÒUpdate on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive
species in the United States.Ó Ecological
Economics. 52: 273-288.
Pimentel, D. et al. (2001). ÒEconomic and
environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions.Ó Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 84:
1-20
Peter
Schwartzman (email: wordnerdauthor@gmail.com) is associate professor and chair
of the Department of Environmental Studies at Knox College. Father to two
amazing girls, Peter hopes that their lives will be lived on a less-toxic, more
just, more loving planet. A nationally-ranked Scrabble¨ junkie, he is also the
founder and maintainer of websites dedicated to peace and environmental
well-being (www.onehuman.org & www.blackthornhill.org) as well as cofounder
of The Center (thecenteringalesburg.org).
10/02/08