We hear it often - "Shop Local". But, why?

Today the BBC ran a very short news story titled "Big businesses' climate meeting", letting us know that some of the UK's largest corporations are brainstorming on how they can green up their act.

BBC business editor Robert Peston says some of Britain's biggest companies are now admitting climate changes [sic] is real, dangerous and partly their fault. - BBC

Hmm... "Partly their fault." How much of the blame can we lay at the feet of huge national and multinational companies? I don't want to go on a witchhunt here, and we certainly need to be grateful that large organisations are starting to consider the implications of the way they run their businesses - but I think it's pertinent to take a moment to consider the whole business model that the modern corporation is based on. If we're going to 'shop local', it's good to understand why.

Since the 1940's, international trade has come to dominate a growing number of national economies. In this period, world trade has grown twelve-fold. Imports and exports now make up a much larger proportion of economic activity than ever before, with international trade amounting to some US$5.5 trillion annually. This explosive increase in global trade has fed the growth of the trading bodies - transnational corporations (TNCs). In fact, a comparison of national GDPs (Gross Domestic Products) with the annual revenues of TNCs shows that half of the 100 largest economies in the world are now corporations. - From the Ground Up, Rethinking Industrial Agriculture (Helena Norberg-Hodge, Peter Goering, John Page) p.xviii

We live in a world of 'free trade'. There are significant implications to the effects of this global trade - more than I can cover within the constraints of this post. But, in a couple of areas at least, let's see where this international trade model takes us.

Because of increased international trade, powerful intermediary bodies (TNCs) have grown whose very existence depends on the mass transfer of goods between nations. Because of these organisations, pressure is placed on governments by the WTO (World Trade Organisation) to remove any obstacles to this international movement of goods.

In 1994, member nations of GATT created a new and powerful governing body, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), to set trade rules and settle disputes. Member countries which join the WTO implicitly agree to reorganise their national economies in ways that are more conducive to foreign trade and investment. This reorganisation includes the privatisation of industry and the dismantling of any social programme, or labour, environmental or health regulation that could be interpreted as a 'non-tariff' barrier to trade. In this context, practically any law or regulation that a government may have adopted in order to protect its environment or its citizens... may be perceived as GATT-illegal, with the offending country forced either to repeal the offensive law or to pay huge fines to the country that brings the complaint. - From the Ground Up, Rethinking Industrial Agriculture (Helena Norberg-Hodge, Peter Goering, John Page) p.xix

This 'reorganisation of national economies' has brought significant changes to local infrastructure, local markets, and local economies. Where farmers, factories, and businesses were serving the needs of the community around them - now they market their goods to the world. At face value this seems beneficial - more customers for one thing! Businesses grow larger, buy out smaller businesses, and huge corporations are born into the world. Some of you will remember the U.S. agricultural policy of the 70's and 80's - "Get Big, or Get Out!" Are there downsides to this 'big' mentality, and this centralisation of the global economy?

The first and most obvious reason for the new 'shop local' movement is the clear energy savings in the transportation of goods.

Under the original theories of free trade, each country specialises in what it does best, sells its produce onto the world market and uses the money raised to buy things it can't make efficiently for itself.

But that theory is hugely out of date, it's based on massively flawed assumptions, and it leads to environmentally absurd outcomes. Take just one example - chocolate biscuits . Each year the UK exports 1,135 tonnes of these to the Germans. The Germans, meanwhile, export 1,728 tonnes back to us. Or how about chocolate covered waffles and wafers in handy to handle snack packs. The government's own data shows that in 2004, 17,240 tonnes left these shores, passing en route the 17,590 tonnes coming in the other direction....

Work I did in my own report, The Great Food Swap, documents many more cases – like the thousands of tonnes of poultry meat we export to the Netherlands, and the thousands that come back the other way, from the Netherlands.

This is a crazy Alice in Wonderland situation – and it has huge environmental consequences. Shipping vast quantities of identical goods backwards and forwards around the world is a towering monument to economic and environmental inefficiency, driving ever more climate change impacts, wasting ever more precious resources. - Shrinking Economies in the Developed World

These are not isolated rareties. Caroline Lucas, the MEP that wrote the passage above, states that "around half of all international trade involves the simultaneous import and export of essentially the same products." Do you start to see how 'shopping local' can make a difference? At the risk of labouring the point here, I'll share a couple more examples:

There is little merit to the argument that all this food transport simply enables people to consume fruit, vegetables and other foods unavailable from nearby sources. In 1996, for instance, Britain exported 47 million kilogrammes of butter, while importing an almost identical amount, 49 million kg. The situation is almost as bad for milk: of the 173 million litres of milk Britain imported, a large portion was unnecessary, since 111 million litres were also exported. Figures are similar for other commodities, and for other countries. For the most part, this excessive transport benefits only a few large-scale agribusinesses and speculators, which take advantage of government subsidies, exchange-rate swings and price differentials to shift foods from country to country in search of the highest profits. Although proponents of 'free' trade argue that fleets of cargo ships, trucks and planes carrying the same commodities in opposite directions somehow leads to economic efficiency, the current system is, by any reasonable measure, absurdly inefficient. As economist Herman Daly has pointed out: 'Americans import Danish sugar cookies, and Danes import American sugar cookies. Exchanging recipes would surely be more efficient. - From the Ground Up, Rethinking Industrial Agriculture (Helena Norberg-Hodge, Peter Goering, John Page) p.xix

As I type, Tony Blair is in the middle of a kerfuffle over his failing to set a good example by holidaying locally. Despite being one of the most vocal over the need to address climate change, he can't see the logic in people making personal decisions to combat it. Mr. Blair, along with Mr. Bush et al - if you could use your current position to leverage the necessary change in policies to discourage and stop the ridiculous food swap that's needlessly consuming our resources and polluting our environment - then I will, personally, send you a lifetime exemption card, excusing you from any media flak over where and how you travel. Call it a bribe. I'll even sign it, and get a few neighbours to witness it. I might even use a fresh, virgin, unrecycled sheet of paper to print it on.

This post is long enough for one read - a lunch break is only so long! Let me know if you'd like to become more familiar with the chain reaction of other effects this global economy has on the environment. In the meantime, study your purchasing habits and see what you can do. Also, to have the most significant impact, we need others to be aware of these issues. Please send a link to this page to your friends, family, and co-workers.