You speak of "multinational grain and chemical companies and their lackeys at the World Bank and the WTO". Are you speaking of the WTO Secretariat? If so, please name names.

These are only my personal opinions.

Before we go local, can we please call our African farming friends who are surviving merely because we're eating the chocolate and drinking the coffee and enjoying the cashew nuts they grew for us?

I'm all for localism, but it should be an ideology which is aware of its multiple global consequences.

Localism can only be successful if we first invest in the poor rural masses who are dependent on international agricultural markets.

We should visit the Kenyan farmers who make a living growing baby maize for us, and tell them: look, the system we pulled you into is bankrupt, we are going to destroy it. Not because we don't like you or your baby maize, but because the carbon footprint of your product is too high. But we don't want to push you back into poverty or kill you or anything, so we will teach you and pay you to make a living outside of the baby maize market. Here is a big cheque, and here's a teacher.

If we don't do this, we would basically be green criminals. Localism could be extremely socially disruptive.

We first have to carefully study all the social, environmental, economic and cultural impacts - both direct and indirect - of localist ideas and practises.

On the environmental front, there is no evidence whatsoever that local food - on a complete diet basis - is better (qua emissions) than food that travelled large distances. On the social front, we can safely assume that localism would result in a hecatomb if it is not carefully framed in a program that minimizes its effects on third world farmers. Economically speaking, local food is far more expensive than internationally traded food.

So there's a lot of work left before a transition to local agriculture makes any sense.

It seems like part of my post disappeared.

Vitality: I don't think the idea of localism will have much appeal amongst the vital forces of this planet - the new arising nations of India, China, Brazil, Russia, the Middle East, even Africa.

People there are only beginning to experience and enjoy modernity, with its guilt-free, easy food and commodities.

I'm not sure these vital people will want to have anything to do with such a late-modern, post-industrial, green bourgeois idea like 'local food'. That's really something for people from dying and geriatric nations - like ourselves.

I do hope, though, that these new nations will quickly grow an eco-conscious middle class. It took us centuries to pull this off. The new nations can, hopefully, 'leapfrog' us and instantly drop McDonalds and go local-organic.

But I fear the worst.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Jim Goodman to name the specific people in the WTO Secretariat who he considers to be "lackeys" for the "multinational grain and chemical companies".

None of the people I know there fit that description.

These are only my personal opinions.

While I don't agree that obsessing on feeding every member of a grossly overpopulated species is a good thing, I agree with the post's main point about bigness and have been saying it for a long time, and Jim Goodman also correctly identifies who the main culprits are.

Fritjof Capra long ago claimed that the reason bigness is worshiped in western culture is the logical mistake of thinking that just because something is good, more of it is automatically better.  I don't agree that that's the reason for everyone, but it certainly is for some people.  For others, it's just about ego, greed, and materialism.

As to Jonas's claim that "[o]n the environmental front, there is no evidence whatsoever that local food - on a complete diet basis - is better (qua emissions) than food that travelled large distances":

You don't need extraneous evidence, it's self evident.  The consumption and burning of oil caused by shipping food ridiculously long distances is hugely environmentally destructive.  Add to that the massive ecological damage caused by invasive species and there's all the evidence you need.

I think part of the point of growing food close to the point of consumption, and in an environmentally sustainable way, is because that way, everybody will be guaranteed a stable supply of food.  You have a global food system now in which millions are dependent on industrial agriculture, sometimes across oceans.  Those areas that have industrial agriculture are in danger of collapse, because the soil and water are being destroyed.  So if and when that happens, the people who depend on those collapsing systems will be in big trouble.

That's why resiliency is an important idea -- the idea is not to maximize agricultural output at a certain point in time, but to produce food in such a  way that it hits a stable plateau.  There's actually a similar concept in manufacturing -- if you can keep your machinery running at a stable rate, without breakdowns, even if it's a little slower than the maximum possible, the stability leads to higher productivity.

I assume that people will always want coffee and chocolate (I know I will), but there has to be a way, particularly as the price of oil increases, of planning for the day -- as the Cubans did -- when it will be necessary to grow most food locally.

Wolverine writes:

As to Jonas's claim that "[o]n the environmental front, there is no evidence whatsoever that local food -- on a complete diet basis -- is better (qua emissions) than food that travelled large distances":

You don't need extraneous evidence, it's self evident. The consumption and burning of oil caused by shipping food ridiculously long distances is hugely environmentally destructive.  Add to that the massive ecological damage caused by invasive species and there's all the evidence you need.

Jonas was speaking of diet. But even on the emissions issue, it is just as important to look at the evidence as any question that seems to have a logical answer.

Whether or not "the consumption and burning of oil caused by shipping food ridiculously long distances is hugely environmentally destructive" is an empirical question. Bulk shipping of grains by carrier, for example, requires very little energy per kg delivered. Air shipping, by contrast, does -- which is why generally only high-value, quickly perishable products are shipped by air.

Reductions in the energy needed to produce and process food in a distant country can in many instances more than offset the increase in energy use caused by shipping agricultural products by sea.

These are only my personal opinions.

I think he is making your point.

However, in answer to your concluding remark:

... there has to be a way, particularly as the price of oil increases, of planning for the day -- as the Cubans did -- when it will be necessary to grow most food locally.

One of the most important ways of doing that is to ensure that the resource base -- the soils and local agricultural know-how -- is not destroyed. (See other articles in Grist on, for example, the readiness of some politicians to allow land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program to be plowed up for the purpose of growing crops for biofuels.)

But instead of paying to improve the soil (or at least let it rest), and to keep up research, most governments continue to spend most of their farm budgets simply boosting farm income, especially the income of the richest quartile of farmers.

These are only my personal opinions.

called "vitality" was the other face (janus?), accusing localavores of wanting to starve third world children, I guess I was responding to that one (me of the geriatric USA), not the first post, which was excellent. sorry.

Jon, I think you are stating the obvious when you say that producing food locally makes it more "available" locally. But this says nothing about the economics of food.

Most countries have an abundance of local food. More than 90% of all the rice produced on the planet is consumed locally. 85% of all wheat produced is consumed locally. We are producing food for 12 billion people, as the line goes.

But there are many countries - with their abundant local food supplies - who don't succeed in feeding their own populations. The problem of food insecurity is not one of "physical" absence of food - which you seem to be pointing at with your idea of local production providing stability in the market.

The problem of food insecurity is one of a lack of economic access to food. The hungry can't buy food, even though they can walk the streets and see food being thrown away by the tonne - so to speak.

Just producing your food locally is in no way a guarantee for ending food insecurity.

In fact, if you can produce food in some distant place and be forced to ship it 10,000 miles, but it arrives at the port at a lower price than your own locally grown food, - then this will be good for your local poor.

There is a vast literature about food security pointing at this basic economic logic.

In short, localism has no added socio-economic value a such. There's nothing that supports such an assertion.

I do understand what you're trying to get at - the utopian view of autarky - the Cuban model, so to speak. But please don't forget that this model grew not out of some idealistic vision on sustainability. It grew out of necessity. An unpleasant reality.

Many attempts at autarky have been catastrophic. Most attempts to deal with the issue via trade have been moderately successful. Some have been problematic. But none have been outright catastrophic.

Trade can be highly beneficial to the poorest, provided you organise it in a pro-poor way - obviously (but even then, some apparently pro-rich trade policies can even be beneficial to the poor - history has shown this in many instances, and there's some good theoretical / ethical work on this.)

So I'm a bit tired of all the gratuituous statements and assumptions about the wonders of local food. I don't buy them, there is simply not enough empirical evidence suggesting that you can solve the global problem of food insecurity with such a simple recipe.

You can solve it - and this is supported by hard data - simply by improving the incomes of the poor, so that they can buy enough food - no matter where it is produced.

Once they eat well and have access to healthy food, even the poor will be ready to pay premiums for more sustainably produced food. But they need to eat first, and local food does not guarantee this.

Also, Ron is right: the little amount of food that is traded internationally is shipped in huge ships which have a very low energy requirement per ton shipped. Only fresh dwarf tomatos, kiwis, roses and some other perishables are shipped by plane. But these products provide big local incomes for those who farm them. So if your critique is against this type of trade, then you have to be extra careful with your alternatives - you could be saving some CO2 by relocating flower industries away from Ethiopia or Kenya and to the US, but you would be destroying many lives if you do this in a rush.

My remark about the "vitality" of people was more about the view on the world of these people, in contrast with our own. The new nations are "modernistic" - they want speedy progress, consumerism, instant happiness, all the symbols we in the West are now frowning upon (a car, a suburban home, a holiday in some exotic place, and some fast food fun.)

Modernity is not some historic oddity. It is the ultimate expression of man's desires - universally shared (see China's youngsters and their desires).

Only a tiny (well educated, well off) segment of the people living in highly geriatric nations, like Europe or Japan, have the luxury to be more sensitive, cerebral, and post-modern in their outlook on life.

And what's more, even this post-modern possibility is entirely determined by material conditions - we can be green and locavore, because we have the time and money to indulge in such luxuries; because we are in a decadent state; we have nothing to fight for, we have nothing to win, we have everything. The vital forces of this world are in a very different situation. They want the world.

So the question is: how can we ensure that we turn the happy, driven, libidinous people of this planet - the Chinese youngsters who want to live fast exciting lives - into dull, eco-conscious, geriatric, locavores who blog about climate change, of all things?

Do we hope and pray that they will "leapfrog" (how)? Or do we invest in our own localist universe first to set an example, and in such a way that it looks as if locavorism can effectively lead to happy exciting people?

Maybe we should try the latter strategy, and enter into a bidding war with the vital people of this world. We have to show them that we are not as dead and dull as they think we are. We must build hip electric cars and urban gardens that work and that make big bucks on the stock markets. And they must be flashy and not cerebral. They must be in touch with and give expression to the universally shared desires of mankind - happiness, vitality, lust, a desire for speed, etc...

Sorry, but this is such a nice topic. I have to add this short note.

The author uses the metaphor of colonial expansion. Rightly so: modernity is expansionist.

But he should be aware of a very strange situation that is emerging. There will be a time - in fact, we're already here - when the developing countries will be calling us neo-colonialists, precisely because we advocate localism and similar concepts.

Our green thinking is being perceived by many of the vital nations of the world, as being 'imperialist'.

Just listen to the discourse in Brazil or Indonesia, where both governments and NGOs are telling Europe and the US to shut up about how the Amazon or the forests in Indonesia should be governed. They use terms like "sovereignty" and "green imperialism" in environmental debates.

Brazil recently created its Amazon Fund, basically choosing a fund based approach to forest conservation, instead of the market-based approach advocated by NGOs from the West. This choice by Brazil was very explicitly meant as a kick in our butts (because the fund based approach implies total control over the resources by government, not by the "global carbon market" - which is seen as a Euro-American instrument; Brazil's choice for the fund, basically comes down to a strategy that allows it to deforest further; it's a greenwash).

Green activists in developing countries are more and more being kicked out because they are seen as too paternalistic in their tone and actions.

In short, we think we are producing a universally shared, enlightened, rational discourse on how the world's natural resources should be managed. But the people in the South beg to differ, because they have totally different priorities (they have modern ambitions).

We should not forget this.

If we don't tread carefully, there will be a time when the Kenyan baby maize growers will protest openly against the "neo-colonialist", "green-imperialist ideology" of localism.

But on the other hand, they will trade with the Chinese or the Indians. As Europeans and Americans we must begin to accept that our historical role is over. We are no longer that powerful.

We must simply make sure that the little bit of ideological power that we have left, is used in as effective a manner as possible - to help the vital peoples of the world transit towards a more eco-friendly future. I think the discourse on localism - if put in explicitly simplistic terms as is the case in the article by Jim Goodman - is not the way forward. Because it sounds too much like a prefabricated ideological recipe followed blindly by a crowd of well off bourgeois urbanites from Euro-America, - without a scientific basis, and showing serious disrespect for many social and economic realities.

I'm flattered that you took the time to explain many of these issues, I'll try to do a decent job of responding.

First, there is no monolithic "countries", and in fact I'm sure you're aware there is no monolithic "Brazil" or "Kenya".  Long ago Johan Galtung advanced a theory of imperialism which linked the elites of the peripheral countries with the elite of the core; it was a simple but effective argument.  I'm sure you're aware of all this.  And it can be difficult to disentangle when the "imperialism" charge is being used by elites to try and take their public's eyes off of the prize -- in fact, the Republican's have always tried a variation of just that strategy, only directed toward "Communists" or "terrorists".

So, second, to blame people who might be called environmentalists for some kind of huge influence over society, enough to change the course of countries, is I think protesting too much, and could be somewhere in the neighborhood of blaming liberals for all the ills of the land.  I mean, locavores just don't have that kind of power.  I think if any kind of interest in local food is taking place, it's in the area of fruits and vegetables, which is not going to impact developing countries, particularly at the low level of locavorism as now exists.

Third, then, is the problem of what we should advocate.  You bring up an excellent point (and I said the first part of the post was excellent), that the main problem in developing countries is that people can't afford the food, no matter where produced.  This is another reason, and thank you for providing it, for why it's so important to talk about both the environment and the economy, at the same time.

In other words, all discussions of environmental policy should be embedded into a general framework of how the economy works, and how economies should be more socially just and lead to a sustainable kind of growth.  If people are simply talking about an environmental issue without weaving in the economic ramifications, they can also be blindsided about how their policy is going to hurt someone; if people talk about economic policy without understanding the environmental ramifications, they can wander into an unsustainable mess.  So, for instance, to point out that farmers in developing countries need to be moved into other income-generating activities if, say, an export crop declines, is a good example; or say, advocating for a development policy that would include the great majority of the population of a country, so that they could buy their own food and ameliorate a brittle global agricultural system, is another.  There are many other links of this kind that need to be made.

Finally, as to who is "vital" and who isn't, sounds a little Spenglerian to me -- I wrote my dissertation on the causes of the rise and decline of Great Powers, and it's easy enough to explain China's rise by its rise in manufacturing capacity, without resorting to some kind of cultural vitality.  I would think that young people in China are much more interested and excited about manufacturing than in the US, and I certainly wouldn't want them to lose that excitement, I'd wish it on the Americans.

As to what kind of lifestyle they want, I think it's the height of folly to go for a sprawl-centric society, but if they want to almost literally drive their societies off a cliff, that's up to them.  I would hope that the Chinese and Indians, to take two examples, could invent their own social framework, seeing as for most of history they were the superpowers.  They shouldn't need to slavishly follow the European and American upstarts, they should be able to once again dazzle the world.  Here's hoping they do.

"...they will trade with the Chinese or the Indians. As Europeans and Americans we must begin to accept that our historical role is over. We are no longer that powerful."

You conveniently forgot renewable/conservation technology.  While they are going through this whole mcdonalds-ization process, we will be developing 100% GHG free, much less expensive energy and ag.

They will see rising oil, food, and energy prices powered as you predict by the old energy economy.

Will china and India ignore markets for renewable/conservation technology?  and if they mass produce it, will they not use it, since it is cheaper?  Even the population in china is beginning to become green conscious.

As usual you are far too pesemistic about new energy economy technology.  No surprise you can't see how and why the rest of the world will follow the technology lead, just like the uS follows the California technology lead.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

@Jonas

I am an Indian citizen, though I don't live in India currently. And my views align with pretty much the majority of the bloggers here, except that I also support nuclear power.

I would like to preserve the biodiversity of India, reduce ecological damage due to intensive agriculture, and surely, I would like to reduce  greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, not everyone from India thinks like me, but I can assure you there are a lot of people who do.

With respect to environment, we need to have a global viewpoint. There is no other way. Green imperialism is something that doesn't exist for me.

What India is concerned about is the shortage of energy. This is the same problem again what many other countries in the south are concerned about. This is already hitting them hard due to rising oil prices. This point should have played a role in molding my ideas.

With safe deployment of nuclear power, the energy demand can be met, economic development can be ensured and environmental priorities can be addressed at the same time.

@amazingdrx

There is a distinction between being cheap and being sufficient. Solar power is not cheap currently, but I have no doubts that it will become cheaper in the future. I also have fond hopes that it will cater to a huge section of our energy needs.

But I think it is unreasonable to assume that all our energy needs will be met by solar power. Particularly, the growing energy needs of developing countries which are pressed for resources such as land and water.

The problem of meeting Indian/Chinese energy demand should concern the global environmentalist community. Lack of alternatives will mean that coal will be burnt for energy (both India and China have a lot of coal), this will destroy all the good work that you might be doing in USA or Europe.

"...it is unreasonable to assume that all our energy needs will be met by solar power."

I think I said renewable/conservation energy technology, not exclusively solar.

Actually the less developed the region, the more effective, efficient, and economical this technology would be.  When compared to the fossil/nuclear/agrichem, centralized generation alternative.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

OK, let's assume that research is put into fast breeders, they've been a boondoggle so far, but for the sake of argument let's say we research them.  Now, try this idea: the Indian and Chinese government decide to spend billions of dollars to create their own government-owned silicon purification plants.  These pump out so much pure silicon that the price of photovoltaics (PV) plummets.  You cover every building you can with PV.

Now for wind/solar: the governments create some aluminum plants to convert the bauxite into aluminum, and you use that for the blades of the wind turbines and the mirror coatings for the concentrated solar plants.  Now the prices on those plummet (India and China could probably easily afford these if they slashed their military budgets, yeah, I know, "political will").

So, while the breeder reactor research is chugging along, we're creating pv, wind and csp now, because it works, now (by the way, my father researched plasma physics, that is, fusion, for decades, and sort of likes the breeder idea, but having watched the fortune of fusion for a long time, I must say you should hedge your bets).

I have great hopes for nuclear fusion research. But even the most optimists are not expecting anything to kick in within 50 years.

What distinguishes breeder technology is that it is already here. It has been demonstrated. And a large community of nuclear physicists swear by this technology.

What has not happened is commercial construction of breeder reactors. This is because of (a) higher cost (b) fear of plutonium.

The higher cost is mostly because of cheap uranium prices, and further cheaper coal reserves. If the environmental effects of CO2 are taken into the cost , nuclear becomes profitable (along with solar). If the environmental effects of nuclear waste and uranium mining are taken into the cost, breeders become profitable.

This is what is needed. A simple policy adjustment will revolutionize the economics of energy production. The MIT study of 2005 which is cited by all the anti-nuke guys says that "breeder technology is not economically profitable until 2030". The anti-nuke propagandists have successfully twisted this statement into "breeder technology is not feasible until 2030". This is plainly wrong.

Now coming to the concern (b), newer designs of breeder reactors have built in mechanisms for preventing plutonium proliferation. Some don't produce it, and some produce it in a form completely unusable for nuclear bomb production. So problem (b) solved.

solar PV and wind

I support solar PV and wind, and both India and China are taking their promise seriously. But they are not under any illusions about obtaining all their energy from solar power. Even if they cover all their buildings with PV, they will produce only a fraction of the energy required. (The same is true for the USA)

And this will be diverting crucial capital from investment in roads, ports and education of people. I suspect neither China nor India will do any of this kind of investment (nuclear/csp/wind is still more expensive than coal) for another 10 to 20 years.

Jason points out something important: short of dictating where people live and what they buy, either we accept the movement of goods, or we accept the movement of people towards those goods.

If, for the sake of argument, Americans were forced to become localvores, the United States might see a massive relocation of people towards the more agriculturally fruitful parts of the country. And if any of you are worried about urban encroachment on good, arable land, then you ain't seen nothing yet.

That raises a related issue: many people who are skeptical of trade get much more agitated over inter-national than intra-national commerce, even though the energy and CO2 costs of transporting a particular good over land within a country (or customs union, like the EU) may be greater than transporting that good from a nearby country, or one accessible by efficient sea lanes.

These are only my personal opinions.

This controversy does belong here.  Get over it.  You are in the minority opinion here and in the general population of the world.

Corporatist ruled monopoly trade is far from free or positive for people or the environment.  It is only positive for multinational corporate power.

If you think "free" trade is wonderful, defend it, but don't expect us to buy it without solid evidence.  We don't do cowering.  Even for economists or international trade "experts", hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

and then trade follows.  Remember,you have to produce something in order to trade it.  Free trade policies do not by themselves call forth production, like "spontaneous generation" was supposed to call forth flies from a rotten peach.  The important point is to use the government as a steward for the economy, guiding it (gently, hopefully) in a healthy direction.  Occasionally, this means protecting a particular industry for a while (if you think this means coddling, the Koreans would rip apart chaebol[conglomerates] that didn't perform up to standard and give them to well-performing ones).  But generally, it means beefing up the domestic industry, or gracefully moving a failing industry's resources into another one (coal to solar/wind?).  or moving unsustainable agriculture to sustainable ones, which might involve literally moving some of it from the midwest, for instance, to farm belts around cities.  

This should all be a very public and participatory process, leading to a general social consensus -- and may have different outcomes in different areas, not every part of every country has to do it the same way, quite the opposite.  The point is, the production system can be managed in a democratic and sustainable way, and then the trade will follow.  So Ron/Jason and Amazin' would all be happy.

What I meant to write was "But all any of us who dare say anything positive about international trade GET is shit."

These are only my personal opinions.

I suppose I'm one of those you consider a round-earth* anti-trade extremist.
[*Coined in response to uber-globalist Tom Friedman's "Flat Earth" concept.]

Nevertheless, I've carefully read many of your posts and often found them enlightening, and I hope you'll reconsider bailing on this place.

I at least take your point that there's a big difference between the rank and file researchers and scientists as opposed to the ideologues installed at the top (Wolfowitz being a perfect example). It's just like the way the Bush admin has gutted every federal agency, or the Iraq provisional authority, by installing "leadership" based only on ideological credentials.

I guess the insuperable impasse here is that if someone doesn't admire or respect the global growth ideology, it follows that he won't have any use for "globalization". (And "free" trade is an offensively Orwellian term.)
So for those of us who feel that way, it's difficult (and seems pointless) to focus on anything but the bad, just as the boosters focus only on what they consider the "good".
So, if I'm not incorrect in seeing you as a moderate booster, I can see how you sometimes get annoyed at what you consider immoderate comments.

But we get annoyed too, like at this kind of thing:

No offense Jim but...

this is a polemic, not analysis. Why does this stuff even make it onto the pages of Grist???

This, written by one of your colleagues, is I believe what drx was responding to.

Of course, anyone familiar with Gristmill knows it's loaded with both analysis and polemics, often intertwined, as in Jim's original post here.
So we can only take the above as a call for censorship of a certain point of view. I was just as offended by it as drx was. (That's assuming I'm correct about his post. I don't presume to speak for him, other than the inference I just made.)

The point is, if these exchanges sometimes don't maintain the loftiest tone, isn't that just the (often-vaunted) messiness of the internet? People have said things to me which I could have taken as personally insulting if I wanted to, and I've probably done the same without meaning to.

These are issues which arouse passions, and upon which tremendous real-world consequences depend, in most cases with time running out fast. Certainly we should strive to pack our communication with as much urgent substance as possible, but at the same time if there's a momentary flare-up, or if somebody blows off some steam, we should just take that as a speed-bump, suck it up and keep going.

So Ron, I hope you'll keep writing here on biofuels, agriculture, trade, and anything else, since it's important.

Here's a statement devoid of true substance or value:

"You are in the minority opinion here and in the general population of the world. Corporatist ruled monopoly trade is far from free or positive for people or the environment. It is only positive for multinational corporate power."

People who write mindless crap like this are ideologues. This is simpleton thought at it's best - big business bad, small good.

You can't have a meaningful discussion with people who think like this - because they are not thinking.

Victory in Pattani

I think there is a point to the idea that we are communicating over computers.  That is, you don't have to respond to everything (not that I don't get into that mindframe sometimes).  And, Ron, sometimes I think it's best to back off a bit, or you'll (well, sometimes I do) find yourself saying to yourself, "I spent that much time doing what"?

If it were up to me, you'd come swooping in with some pithy comments once in a while, reflecting your immense knowledge and experience, and not get too caught up in long arguments (I'm giving this as friendly advice, I personally enjoy all of your comments).  

As a self-described lefty, you've put me in the uncomfortable position of not being a knee-jerk anti-WTO person.  Now I'm much more "reasonable", which really irks me, but that's the price of intelligent dialogue.  I'm not sure what amazin' was getting at in some of his posts, although if he was accusing you of being anti-enviroment I think he owes you an apology, but a lot of people are very angry about multinational corporate behavior -- I know I have been for many decades, but there's no reason to take it out on an individual such as yourself, in my opinion.

And I guess I'm saying if someone says something that you consider offensive, you shouldn't respond to it.  Although on the other hand, if it's going to lead you to comment less, I think it's better to get it out into the open.

So, here's hoping we can continue to mix up positions from all over the political spectrum.

Then walk out in a huff when people object to that call. This discussion does not belong here?  Who are you to judge?  

You maybe right, but the fact is you are going to have to convince most people of that. We see the disaster that corporatism is makinmg of the planet.  Absolute power must be reigned in by government of, by, and for we the people.

The corruption we see now from corporatist ruled global trade and investment must be tackled with regulation.  "Free" market efficiency is not working to sove the problems humanity has created here on spaceship earth.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

That's why I keep my comments generally directed against the point of view, rather than specific individuals.  If anyone thinks their personal position fits my general critique, that is for them to wrestle with.

The repitition of insult and outrage and calls for censorship are symptoms of weak arguments, arguments based on informal fallacy rather than reason and evidence.

People in power tend to defend that position, that is what the status quo defense is about, more than a search for reform.  And like it or not, most people now want reform.  Change is the political buzzword now.

We progressive activists are having our political season.  Defenders of the status quo will be naturally opposed.  They label themselves in that camp.  so join the re-evolution or defend the status quo, it is everyone's choice.

But if yuou do that with invective and insult, diversionary argumentation, you are bound to get called on it.  Best to let those who are engaged in this call themselves on it.  The Colbert method, hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

not however without Ron and Mad Mac.

As Meryl Streep might say:

<<
Waterloo - I was defeated, you won the war
Waterloo - promise to love you for ever more
Waterloo - couldn't escape if I wanted to
Waterloo - knowing my fate is to be with you
Waterloo - finally facing my waterloo
>>

Human beings are dangerous; and large clumps of human beings, possessed by a single madness, are deadly.

Thanks, Russ, for reminding Mad Mac of artistic creativity, aside from whatever despotic visions he might enjoy (in the other, WTO-related thread).  Thanks too for mentioning two places close to my heart, classical Greece and Renaissance Italy.

Does "size" matter?  With great size comes a great fall, in any case.  Earlier this summer, the minor Quattrocento Florentine masterpiece, Andrea della Robbia's terracotta lunette of Saint Michael the Archangel (having one of the most beautiful young male faces in all art history), a very massive object indeed, came mysteriously crashing to the floor of the Metropolitan Museum.  At present, all the Met's horses and all the Met's men are at work putting Saint Michael together again.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Anyone who supports international trade must successfully answer this question if (s)he wants to convince an environmentalist that international trade is not extremely environmentally and ecologically harmful:  How can we have international trade without: 1) consuming and burning massive amounts of fuel of some kind; 2) making massive amounts of unnatural industrial noise in the oceans that disturbs the life there; and 3) bringing large numbers of harmful invasive species into ecosystems?

I'm sorry that you've compromised your environmental values, Jon, but WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and all of this corporate crap is very destructive, not only environmentally, but also socially and culturally.  It should all be unequivocally opposed.  No compromise in defense of Mother Earth!

Excellent observations and cautions, Wolverine, as always.

But "noise" is just one of the several ways in which trans-oceanic shipping is harmful to marine animals.

"Disturbing" is surprisingly understated for you!  : )

"The life" should be more personalized.  We are talking about real, individual sentient organisms.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

All I'm saying is, it's OK in my book to rant and rave against corporations, but it's not OK to link that ranting and raving with a particular individual, especially when that individual is trying to explain their point of view.  

I'm certainly not defending the WTO, and I never said anything about NAFTA (Jeff Faux's "Global Class War" is a good book on that subject. I mean, I have a "globalization death watch" going on, ferchrissakes. But I'm getting the feeling that many progressives are being a wee-bit distracted by the WTO, when there are plenty of other things to worry about.  In particular, strategies of economic development are what we should really be focusing on.

Now, we've also had discussions of the World bank, which have gotten overheated, again, in my opinion, and some of the stuff that the World Bank has done has been enough to make my head explode, and if I ran the zoo I'd probably shut it down, take the best people out of it -- because there are many good people there -- and put together something truly helpful.  But the work that needs to be done, it seems to me, is to envision what a "good" World Bank would be, not try to link a particular person, by guilt-by-association, to its worst practices.

That's the value of presenting alternatives.  You can greatly diminish the effort you have to go into to enumerate every horrible thing that the current system is doing, because by offering a better alternative you do better than criticizing the current system.  What scared the American power elite more, huge demonstrations against the war (doesn't matter which war), or Martin Luther King marching with sanitation workers, denouncing the Vietnam War, and putting together a poor people's movement at the same time?  

So I think it's quite correct to rail against corporations (I actually did an interdisciplinary major in college on "Multinational Corporations",and it's not because I like them), but I think it's important to separate that analysis from individuals who are trying to argue on Grist.  Make sense?

That's further than I would recommend.  I think replacing the board room with people more responsive to solutions to the problems of unregulated multinational corporatism would do the job.

You are radical!  Make these institutions accountable to people we elect, that would be a good start.  

I agree that the personal insults are not helpfull.  but when one takes a radical stance it does tend to anger people even without any intended insult.  My observations on how people in power tend to protect their turf is the kind of comment people can take as a personal onsult, but it is more a comment on human nature and the difficulty of reforming entrenched power bases.

Maybe those who felt insulted will understand this when they calm down, maybe not.  Anyway it's sad to see the dialogue diminished.  On the other hand a dialogue where one side gives in to avoid offending anyone is just too tame to be real.

Kind of like the way congress is treating the administration.  There is evidence against Cheney right now that he ordered a forged letter about al queda traing in Iraq.  Why aren't impeachment proceedings underway?  That would be insulting?  Yikes.  Giving in leads to the mess we are in now.

Gotta fight the power.  Fight the powers that be.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Ron ain't Cheney.  It's OK to call war criminals like Bush and company war criminals, but beyond the really highest levels, and accomplices in the middle levels, the vast, vast majority of people who work for corporations and the Pentagon should be our audience, I believe.  I think our arguments are strong enough to convince or at least spark some self-reflection.  It's like the attitude of the peoples of Vietnam or other countries that have been the target of US imperial ambition, blame the power elite, not the people.

Where in the world did you get that inference?  Not from me.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

The action in Iraq was authorized by congress, that's the definition of legal. Whether you think it should have happened doesn't matter from a legal stand point.

This is a constant problem with the left, who love to label those with different ideas in negative ways. It's almost as if people who don't agree with you, or have agendas differing from yours, are inherently evil and must be classified as such. I have always found it interesting that the most intolerant people I have ever associated with have been from the political left.

Hugo Chavez is the latest, greatest, example of this.

Victory in Pattani

Chavez is a "leftist"?  In his heart of hearts?  No, I do not think so.  He is a power-hungry opportunist, who has found a source of power in being a populist, articulating the underprivileged classes' (quite justifiable) resentment of the wealthy, cultivating widespread animosity against the US and especially its business interests (also justifiable), and developing all this in a socialist-sounding program.  But he is certainly not a true, sincere "leftist."

A sincere "leftist" of a certain ilk (none of us, though, I think) might indeed go to Havana and kiss Fidel Castro in his hospital bed.  But why in the world would a leftist go to Tehran and make friends with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

The problem (one of the many problems actually) that conservatives have is assuming that US liberals, who are far from united or monochrome, are somehow all-of-a-piece with socialist/Marxist/communist dictators, such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel, etc.

Mad Mac, I join you in deploring the thoughtless association, made by some of us on the left, of conservative values or ideology of one kind or another with "inherent evil."  But what inspires the liberal perspective, at its best, is a much grander vision of universal liberty, prosperity and creativity than anything that conservatives seem to see, the ways of flourishing that conservatives in positions of power and influence have historically limited to "their own kind," and stifled in others.  The "anger," or tendency to vilify, on the part of liberals, is really a quite natural defensive reaction to the awful feeling of being bound and suffocated, by conservatives.

On John Edwards: The writers of Grist/Gristmill have quite appropriately not said anything about that jerk's self-destruction.  But since I have supported him since 2003 (which support ended Friday!!!), and voted for him three times, and sent him now and again a bit of money (which apparently went into the purse of that floozy with the camera -- who, not to be cruel, is no Marilyn Monroe), let me mention here that I do not know if I have ever felt so mocked, betrayed and stomach-punched.

A writer for Huffington Post brought back in this connexion the "Say it ain't so, Joe!" story, about Shoeless Joe Jackson and his involvement in the 1919 World Series scandal.  But the Edwards story is far beyond that.  And as angry as I am about the infidelity, I am almost as angry about the pathetic, hapless, grotesque way in which he allowed the story to break.  Bill Clinton would have done much much better.

NEVERTHELESS, Edwards made some mighty fine speeches, and he said some very true things, which need saying and repeating and acting on.  He would like Jim Goodman's Waterloo reference, "victory over empire," even as he said (way back in 2003) that he likes I.F. Stone's (a sincere liberal if ever there was one!) "The Trial of Socrates," in which the usually heroized Socrates is presented an enemy of democracy, an anti-liberal (and a proto-Platonist?), and so deserving of his condemnation.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I lived for two years in Africa. I saw poverty up close and personal at it's brutal worst. When I was in Yaaq Bari Weyne I was handed a poorly written note by a man slightly older than myself at the time. To paraphrase (his English was functional, if not the best), he had two wives, four children and during the civil war lost his farm and his home was badly damaged. He had no source of income to take care of his family and was desperate for any work we could provide him. He was seeking a wage of five dollars a day. The desperation in the mans eyes was palpable. I had no job to give him. I gave him the fifty bucks I had in my wallet. Even me, not much of a humanitarian, would have to have a heart of stone not to be sympathetic to this man's plight and that of his family. Who would not want to help the billions of people who are living hand to mouth.

But I am a realist. I don't live in a fantasy world. Some people see this, see global wealth, and want to point fingers at someone, anyone, or blame a system - the rational being there must be a solution to such "social injustice". I realize the world ain't fair and it doesn't give a shit if you or I die tomorrow. It has nothing to do whatsoever with "social injustice". The reason this man was screwed had nothing whatsoever to do with US policy or big business or globalization. But some people have a hard time accepting ugly realities and complexities and look for answers. They are not going to find them.

"Chavez is a "leftist"?  In his heart of hearts?  No, I do not think so.  He is a power-hungry opportunist, who has found a source of power in being a populist, articulating the underprivileged classes' (quite justifiable) resentment of the wealthy, cultivating widespread animosity against the US and especially its business interests (also justifiable), and developing all this in a socialist-sounding program.  But he is certainly not a true, sincere "leftist."

Well, just as you say that Chavez is not a sinceree representative from the political left, so I would say that Bush is not a sincere representative of the political right. Does Bush cater to he religious right at times (fair enough, they are a large voting block and deserve representation in our government and its policies) or cultivate angst concerning Militant Islam (quite justifiable, it's a real threat to humanity). But he is certainly not, in a true sense, a sincere conservative. He does not represent minimal government, a small military, minimal interventionism and gradual approach to social and economic change. That is the hallmark of a conservative.

"Mad Mac, I join you in deploring the thoughtless association, made by some of us on the left, of conservative values or ideology of one kind or another with "inherent evil."  But what inspires the liberal perspective, at its best, is a much grander vision of universal liberty, prosperity and creativity than anything that conservatives seem to see, the ways of flourishing that conservatives in positions of power and influence have historically limited to "their own kind," and stifled in others.  The "anger," or tendency to vilify, on the part of liberals, is really a quite natural defensive reaction to the awful feeling of being bound and suffocated, by conservatives."

It's the grand vision that concerns me. Mao had grand visions, Pol Pot had grand visions. Stalin had grand visions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (or not).

The flip side of liberal anger is conservative concern that pollyannarish governance could severaly damage the state and individual liberties. As you can see from these pages, there are plenty of people here who not only aren't concerned about individual liberty, but think it should be thrown under the bus to preserve the environment. That's how you end up with dictatorial governance.

Victory in Pattani

Perhaps I did not stress my  point enough, that local (and regional) production and consumption is the route we need to take. Small, by its nature, favors local production and consumption because, for small producers, shipping out semi-loads of their produce is not an option. Fitting into the global market is generally not something they want or feel a need to do. They generally prefer to feed their community and let other producers feed their respective communities, whether those producers live in Mozambique or Massachusetts. There will always be large scale production, but it it should not be the only production model.

Yes globalization and industrial agriculture will provide us our food as long as we continue to buy from them. When we start making relationships with local producers and marketers the local production model will grow.

As to local coffee and citrus, of course it will be a long time until we see it growing in the north whether it is through advances in hoop house production or due to global climate change. Until it is local and fair (if it ever becomes so) we need to make sure what we have imported from the south is grown in an environmentally responsible manner and that the farmer and farm workers are paid a fair wage.

As to the overall logic of local small scale production, I stand by my theory that is the most logical solution to our current food system problems. Can anyone seriously think it makes sense to ship beef to the Midwest from Argentina or Australia? Local may carry a higher price, but if done properly it carries few of the externalized costs (pollution, worker abuse, heavy grain feeding etc.) that industrial production does.

It is also true that high population centers will probably never be food self sufficient, but an effort to become more self sufficient and local must occur. What happens if all the vegetables grown in CA for whatever reason do not enter the market? Does the US just go without?

In the end, paying the full costs up front makes more sense than expecting future generations to pay for our cheap industrial food. If we feel we need to produce cheap (industrial) food to feed the poor, perhaps we need to ask why we have poor people rather than searching for ways to feed them while keeping them poor.

"They generally prefer to feed their community and let other producers feed their respective communities, whether those producers live in Mozambique or Massachusetts."

Community supported agriculture is the modern analog to the WW2 Victory garden movement.  This time it's victory over multinational corporate tyranny.

I like the idea of CSAs with their own underground solar/wind powered community sized freezers and root cellar type storage.  It makes them a year round food alternative to the store at the mall.

Add a winter greenhouse powered by renewables and eggs and dairy and you have a year round farmers market.  Individual farmers, the real original capitalists, can join the CSA and market through it.  CSA members can specialize to operate cheesemaking and dairy equipment, powered by renewables too.

The CSA could put more power back on the grid that it uses and be self supporting without any surcharge or profit on the food.  Individual member producers could still get a fair profit.

Non-governmental socialism, in the form of the CSA cooperative would replace the agribizz food chain companies.  The individual capitalists, the producers would market straight to consumers.

All the specialized expensive food processing equipment could be owned and operated by the CSA.  Eliminating the for profit middle men.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

sorry if I misinterpreted your thoughts.

Mad Mac -- I've never seen anyone on this site get anywhere near advocating limiting civil liberties.  When people advocate something, including me, the implicit qualification is that "this will only occur if at the very least, a majority agrees, and ideally if a consensus form", with often the added proviso that "this is offered so that people can make their own choices"

Just had to clarify it a bit I guess.  Darth Cheney should be prosecuted somehow, though it will never happen in reality.

Really an interdisciplinary major on  multinational corporations, very good.

I'm considering journalism and renweable energy and conservation.  With some web design tips from my fellow students.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

amazin', use your engineering skills, apply it to journalism, journalists seem to be doing the best work these days in terms of global problems.  Good luck!

No, I'm not referring to the secretariat specifically, they are mostly lawyers and economists, of course in the eyes of many, lawyers and economists fall somewhere with used car salesmen and dentists as people to avoid. I suspect most of them are just folks trying to do their job and pay the bills.

The people I have a problem with are the ones who make the decisions.  People like Robert Zoellick former US trade representative and now head of the World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz former head of the world Bank and architect of the Iraq war. They seemed to have no problem with implementing Structural Adjustment Policies (SAP's) on poor countries.  They forced them to cut health and social programs, end assistance programs for farmers and forced them to grow cash crops instead of food crops. WTO Director Pascal Lamy, another free trader and advocate of SAP's dangled the carrot of open world markets and high prices for crops like cocoa and cotton which are now in over supply with corresponding low prices.

I blame Prime Ministers and Presidents of countries that support the WTO and who use food as a weapon, specifically G-8 member states (the "Fat Cats in the snow" of the Davos Forum). George Bush, Tony Blair and Stephen Harper, leaders who seem not to realize that "Food is Different" and should not be part of  world free trade.

So, there are some names, people who for whatever reason support the agenda of the multinational corporations who see globalization as nothing short of a windfall, even if it means more hunger in the developing world.

Amazing,
the CSA that supports the farmers who sell at our local farmers' market is in fact over-booked; in fact there is a waiting list for new subscribers.  Bad news in a way for us, who are not subscribers (though Michael does not at all mind shopping in person); but good news for the farmers.

One would expect the Upper West Side of Manhattan to be one of the several neighborhoods in the country that are most into CSAs.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

As usual.  Thanks.  

Good news Canis.  I wonder if any of the growers are using gardens built right in the city?  Like the old elevated train line gardens or rooftop gardens.

Why not let non-profit coops help small capitalists, farmers, compete with mega-corporate agribizz/food chain stores?  This is a great trend.  Are monopoly multinational corporations like walmart really capitalist or are they really a dictatorship of the proletariat?

A cooperative of real capitalists beats that dictatorship in terms of real market efficiency.  Corporate libertarian economists are wrong on the true nature of capitalism.  

They are backing a form of feudalism, with the corporations the fuedal ruling class and the farmers and food industry workers the serfs.  For real free markets to truly respond efficiently to consumer demand (for safe, nutritious, good tasting, economical food) and supply side constrictions (like high fuel and fertilizer prices), the monopoly control that multinationals exert needs to be removed.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

........... "I don't care what individuals want"

I thought it was you, but perhaps not. It was this mind set that clearly indicated a casual disregard for what the "masses" want.

Victory in Pattani

by a reincarnation of V.I. Lenin:

"Good news Canis.  I wonder if any of the growers are using gardens built right in the city?  Like the old elevated train line gardens or rooftop gardens.

Why not let non-profit coops help small capitalists, farmers, compete with mega-corporate agribizz/food chain stores?  This is a great trend.  Are monopoly multinational corporations like walmart really capitalist or are they really a dictatorship of the proletariat?

A cooperative of real capitalists beats that dictatorship in terms of real market efficiency.  Corporate libertarian economists are wrong on the true nature of capitalism.  

They are backing a form of feudalism, with the corporations the fuedal ruling class and the farmers and food industry workers the serfs.  For real free markets to truly respond efficiently to consumer demand (for safe, nutritious, good tasting, economical food) and supply side constrictions (like high fuel and fertilizer prices), the monopoly control that multinationals exert needs to be removed."

Victory in Pattani