4 ms·

Efficiency is a loaded word in this context. Agricultural monoculture is destructive in many ways and yet is easily portrayed as "efficient."

• Retric 8y ago
  Local does not mean 4 fold crop rotation, it just means close to the consumer. You have all of the same issues as regular agriculture, and add growing plants less suited for local conditions. It’s a pure net loss with zero benifit. More water use, more fertilizer use, more greenhouses, more pesticides, more machines, more labor, more of frankly everything.
  • rgrieselhuber 8y ago
    I’ve noticed that efficiencies and the idea of net loss appears quite frequently in your comment history.
    • Retric 8y ago
      Efficiency is something I consider really important. The difference between say subsidized green energy and a carbon tax seems minimal to most people. But, a difference in efficiency means one simply works better. It’s really easy to end up with sub optimal choices, like US efficiency regulations subsidizing SUV’s. Individual choices that seem reasonable rarely result in optimal results. Add in a little corruption or propaganda and people get down right stupid.
      • rgrieselhuber 8y ago
        There are serious costs to consider when you submit everything to the ideal (idol?) of efficiency. Regardless, the type of local I'm most interested in is people growing food in their own backyards. Dependence on food supply chains is a single point of failure that is completely unnecessary.
        • Retric 8y ago
          As an ideal it seems like a good idea. However, you need to grow a lot of food to avoid that dependence. In terms of disaster preparedness having actual food stored is also much more valuable than growing plants that can’t be moved. Thus, you’re either talking about a meaningless token, or a huge life commitment for minimal gain.