Recently, two members of congress have introduced legislation which is aimed at lowering carbon output by encouraging local food production and distribution. There are a number of things wrong with this, not the least of which is highlighted by Steve Sexton on the Freakonomics blog:

(Freakonomics) Amid heightened concern about global climate change, it has become almost conventional wisdom that we must return to our agricultural roots in order to contain the carbon footprint of our food by shortening the distance it travels from farm to fork, and by reducing the quantity of carbon-intensive chemicals applied to our mono-cropped fields.

But implicit in the argument that local farming is better for the environment than industrial agriculture is an assumption that a “relocalized” food system can be just as efficient as today’s modern farming. That assumption is simply wrong. Today’s high crop yields and low costs reflect gains from specialization and trade, as well as scale and scope economies that would be forsaken under the food system that locavores endorse.

Granted localism might be less efficient and more costly on the environment, the legislation seems rather ridiculous. Not only does it attempt to force an industry where there is none (yet), it is basically defeating itself by promoting a less efficient and more wasteful system.

This doesn’t mean that localism does not have its benefits. As I explain in the fourth part of the book, localism is one tool in the shed of self-sufficiency and independence. The mere ability to reduce dependence on the system and produce one’s own food eliminates layers of hierarchy that produces its own inefficiency and waste. The ability for large corporations and state governments to rely on individuals and families to continue to consume their products prohibits innovation from those companies and governments and gives them incentive to exploit their customers. Whenever and to whatever extent those customers can detach from the system and survive on their own, the less those companies and governments can rest on their laurels.