Peak Globalization
blogs.hbr.org
blogs.hbr.org
There are examples of nationalism in the United States holding back some forms of globalisation. For example, in a truly global world every country would have open borders to anyone who wanted to immigrate there, and saying that someone can't come to your country because that would take jobs from 'more deserving' locals is a form of nationalism.
However, "local food, DIY, sustainability" are not examples of nationalism. Instead, they are an expression of growing discontent about inadequate price signals for externalities like climate change and peak oil, and that much global trade is focused around avoiding environmental and labour protection laws, and exploiting third world countries, rather than genuine comparative advantages and economies of scale.
That is to say the reason most people pay the price premium for organo-locavore food is that it makes them believe they are better people, not because they believe that futures contracts for degree days are mispriced. Walk into a Whole Foods and ask what the appropriate prices of a heating degree day is once climate change and peak oil are priced in and they will give you a blank look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_derivatives Hell I bet you could phone up John Mackey himself and he wouldn't have the slightest idea.
Believe me there are a lot of guys in hedge funds trying to price in peak oil through futures contracts and in the pricing the long term value of certain stocks, various forms of insurance, risk swaps.
Both climate change and peak oil can easily be traded on the various global futures markets. People who believe that climate change and peak oil are mispriced in the market not opening organic rooftop urban gardens, they are opening trading accounts (and will make a killing if they are right)
I'm skeptical decentralized consumer action will succeed, and I agree that much of it is poorly targeted, but it's at least the right idea of how to tackle things: if something is not priced in, you have to take action that will force it to be priced in somehow, like preferring one product to another, boycotting some products, banning products, or internalizing the externality via a tax/fee. Just trading bets on it in a futures market doesn't do anything.
Generally people use futures markets to mitigate risk. Therefore if you believe that oil is mispriced you can use a futures contract to mitigate the effects you have with regard to peak oil (increased prices). Similarly, those who may be affected by rising sea levels (coastal areas) can trade risk with those who will be insulated (inland areas).
The reason why environmentalists don't use these markets to put their money where there mouth is, is because they are much better at scaring people than predicting the future. Hence, if Greenpeace were to buy the futures contracts reflecting its peak oil predictions it would likely lose a lot of money that could better be spent scaring people and collecting membership dues. Greenpeace's expertise is fear mongering, not making accurate predictions with regard to the future price of oil, or climate. If it had such an ability it would have more than enough money to fund its operations, and would not have people on the street collecting money and talking about global warming / peak oil.
Most rational people know that we will eventually see peak oil and that prices will gradually rise making alternative forms of energy more economical in comparison. Buying expensive local food now is a waste of money, it's better to save that money in an interest bearing account and use it in the future when local and non-local food equalize in price. (Note: Shipping an apple across a continent actually uses less gas than to drive it home, note never let a locavore know this, it ruins their girl-meets-tractor fantasies of urban farming.)
See the Simon-Erhlich wager for examples of environmental stupidity with regard to economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager
He cut the wood, mined the graphite, melted the lead, and created the eraser from a rubbertree. His pencil ended up costing thousands and thousands of dollars. Yet you can go to the nearest office outlet and buy ten pencils for a dollar. This is because of globalisation. Someone somewhere has specialised in making pencils and churn out millions of them a year, driving the cost down to almost nothing. The same is true of almost all other products.
This is the primary reason our standard of living increases, most economists agree on this.
Protectionism usually comes around when times are bad and countries need a scapegoat and a bad guy whose fault it is. For the US it used to be Mexico, now it's China. But the fact is that open trade helps both them and us (they get to sell goods, we get cheaper pencils), besides it works both ways. Denmark, for instance, specialises in hearing aids and container shipping both of which we have a more than 50% global share of. The world gets cheap hearing aids because Denmark massproduces them, and in return Denmark gets cheap pencils and other stuff that someone else somewhere produces.
Politicians. thoughtleaders and policy makers across the world are aware of this mechanic but often use protectionism as a political weapon, knowing that it's bad for their economy.
Nations are more economically intertwined and trade more than ever before, and it's not going to stop anytime soon. There might be a bump in the road, as there often is when times are bad, but it's not going to stop.
Globalisation is here to stay, and you should be happy for it. It means that you can get a Wii for the price of a digital watch ten years ago.
I think everybody would agree, that in a European country, being perfectly capable of producing pears (i.e. suitable climate), it is unsustainable to have over 20% jobless, more debt than a country could ever repay in a generation, and yet import pears from China. And pumpkin seeds. With the usual socks and cutlery and electronics. Worse, this is a real example I have given. Globalization, in this current form is not here to stay. You can only get your WII for the price of a digital watch ten years ago by externalizing more and more costs (like shipping in your example). Out if sight, out of mind. This is a very important pillar of globalization, which oddly enough is turning against itself (better communication, though less true of the active concern of people, which one might think as a consequence).
* This reminds me of a Russian children story. Once upon a time there was a pencil factory. Somebody had the obvious innovation, that since _nobody_ uses the last inch of lead of a pencil, because it would be too small to hold and sharpen anyway, so it makes sense to make some profit by leaving it out. Great savings, management promotion. Soon after, seeing the success, comes a new innovation: everybody knows, that the essence of a pencil is writing, and if there is no graphite, there is no need for the wood either. Cutting the useless piece of wood from the pencil would save forests and make huge profits. This cycle of logical, rational and economically sound innovation continued and iterated, until the pencil was gone. Everybody got prizes and promotion everywhere. But then came along the new innovator, who thought about putting a piece of graphite embedded into a wooden straw. Brilliant invention, huge prizes, and the pencil was reborn. The article is saying, that it is becoming readily apparent, that the pencil is about to be gone.