Are locavores loco to buy local?

A commentary in the Boston Globe by Tom Keane, "A Bitter Reality," makes the argument that since transportation is only about four or five percent of the greenhouse gas emissions for all foods brought to market, there is no real advantage to buying local foods. The piece plays off a 2008 article in Environmental Science and Technology, by Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews, "Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States," which makes the argument that buying local may be a less effective way of cutting our carbon footprint than cutting out, say, beef from our diet.

The Keane piece has been used to make the point that buying local is not a wise choice, since local foods cost more than foods deriving from the corporate marketplace, and since there is not great GHG reduction benefit to be had from choosing local.

There are two points worth making here. First, the claim that local foods "cost" more than foods available in corporate food market chains is at least dubious. Second, the "benefits" of buying local cannot be derived simply from the distribution of GHG emissions from different stages for the production-consumption process.

The idea that "buying local" is not a wise decision (which was the point of the originating commentary)--or, conversely, that locavores are loco to be buying local--rests almost completely on the belief that present price structures are sanctified, in some way. My point was that, if present price structures were in fact a reflection of an informed response to reality, there might be some value to be had from abiding by them. But that is not the case!!! Current price structures hide more than they show. And are most certainly not the outcomes of the entirely hypothetical "free market."

Then, the fact that something "costs more" is not in itself an argument against doing that thing. The question is, when that "cost" was calculated, what was counted, and what was left out? What were the boundaries that were drawn? If the cost of grocery store food is lower than the cost of local food, does that mean that grocery store food is, in any actual way, cheaper than local food? Or could costs be counted differently, to make one realize that buying local is the smart way to go?

I think this is a snap/ All you have to do is make a few distinctions. Between renewable, non-renewable and conditionally renewable resources. Between different forms of subsidies. Between various sorts of externalities. And viola!!! We have a completely different "cost" structure. One can't, in my opinion, address the locavore issue without first understanding that locavores are closer to free market conditions than large corporate grocery store chains.

The idea that local foods are more resource intensive than corporate foods is also subject to challenge on the grounds that not all resources are equal, which it comes to ecological harm. For instance, it may be that corporate foods are more "efficient" to produce and so are said to be economically more viable, while local foods require a lot more work, and so tend to cost more in the sale-purchase marketplace. But it is at least likely that local foods use a lot more renewable resources (such as human labor), while corporate foods are more intensive in non-renewable resources such as petrochemicals. Are renewable resources "better: than non-renewable resources? I think so.

In the case of benefits, as has been pointed out by many that the camaraderie and conviviality that accompanies, say, Farmers Markets,may make shopping for local a lot more satisfying than a drive down to the local grocery chain, with its huge advertising budgets, lobbying costs and air conditioning. There is something to be said for being able to tell the name of the person that grew one's food.