Comments sphinxie has made

Bravo!

Bravo. Thank goodness for Grist.On Greens need to learn how to celebrate their friends and their movement posted 1 year, 11 months ago 31 Responses

two sides to every coin

There's a really basic mistake being made here; the thought that what's being proposed is 100% localization. Your protests apply to 100% localization. However, all realistic advocates of localization are talking about moving to significantly greater localization; not 100% localization. You are correct that 100% localization would not be desirable today, but even beyond that, it would simply not be attainable, so talking about whether it is a good or bad idea is utterly pointless.

As I'm sure you are aware, when we have diverse local and global economies, both of which can, roughly speaking, cover our necessities, we are far more resilient and adaptable moving into the future where energy sources for transportation, as well as global trade balances to a lesser extent, are uncertain. For example just as the drought in the southeast highlights the advantage of a spread out food economy, having some food economy (diverse, covering the necessities) in the southeast would also have advantages which would be highlighted under different circumstances. Imagine if we were having a drought in the midwest instead--that would not as well for your argument.

Certain products are best produced in extremely concentrated, large-scale ways. But surely there are a fair number of products that are actually best produced on a smaller scale, and where a greater number and diversity of producers and production centers would be more advantageous.

Also just as there are benefits to global trade (lower prices for 'exotic' goods, for example) there are benefits to local trade. For example with food, in most cases you get fresher food. In the case of manufacturing, I'm not entirely certain what advantages would be, not having much experience of such, but there may well be such advantages. Perhaps greater diversity in the local culture, more variety of jobs, and a source of pride for the local economy.

Finally, yes we would presumably be overstrained and impoverished if we had to make every single thing we wanted to have--food, house, clothes, medicine, etc. However, I would argue that we are also impoverished when we do not make almost any thing we want to have, it is all provided to us. How many people are working in low-skill jobs which provide almost no satisfaction and feeling of accomplishment, because there is not a strong demand for skills which provide a feeling of accomplishment in their area or areas which they have access to. I am not suggesting that every factory job fills the heart with joy, but small scale manufacturing is traditionally an honored and appreciated area in which to work. Having a greater variety of work choices would be enriching to a local culture. It's the choices which are enriching--again, no realistic advocates are talking about chaining ourselves into an absolutely local economy.

Finally, to sum up, there's two sides to every coin. Just because an extreme of one thing is not desirable does not mean that the extreme of the other thing is desirable, or that there is a flaw in the first thing.On We don't need to destroy our economy to save the planet posted 2 years ago 79 Responses

local govt

After more reading I want to unpack one idea some more.

Implementation of a green goal will vary a lot depending on whether it's best implemented on a policy, personal, community, business/entrepreneurial, or nonprofit level. This also applies for indirect implementation, when you're working to trigger implementation by others. The audiences you'll be speaking to are different at different levels, the work they'll have to do will be quite different, and the motivations will be different, as will be the challenges.

From the conversation in comments so far, it seems like policy level changes are taken to be the most necessary. In that case, even when you are talking to regular people, business owners, activists, whoever, your attention is ultimately on government (and the fruits they can yield). And the idea is to get one's audience to focus on the same subject.

The trouble with this is, well, Bush. The federal government is not sympathetic and who knows what will happen in 08.

It is quite likely that local government would be more sympathetic and more relevant. Certainly in my town that has proven to be the case, though I live in California so that makes it easier. But how much do people usually know about their local government, how often do they think about it, how much do they knowingly interact with it? Possibly less than with the federal government. In that case, this may be one of the major blocks for environmental success: we keep obsessing over a red herring.

So then you're looking at three basic goals of an information campaign:

1. get people to care more about the environment
   
2. inspire those who care to act
   
3. focus action on local government

The original post was about (1), and I haven't really addressed that anyway. But my personal view is that we've actually done an okay job there already. "The environment" polls as a reasonably high priority, as far as I've read. I don't know anyone who doesn't care about the environment, though I know a lot of people who are pretty muddled about what that means--and I haven't always lived in California. I think the big challenge is getting these people to act on their priorities, and then further, in a prolonged, effective, and energizing way. Turn some of that potential energy into manifest energy, and it will spread.On Kickstarting social change posted 3 years, 8 months ago 30 Responses

at what price

One question I've wondered is, at what price of gas would hybrids become more economical choices?On Pretty much what you'd expect posted 3 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses