3 ms·

That local trade involves taking advantage of the commons (putting CO2 in the atmosphere) to make it work. In my opinion, we do not have the right to take that

That local trade involves taking advantage of the commons (putting CO2 in the atmosphere) to make it work. In my opinion, we do not have the right to take that advantage.

chaostheory 2y ago
Few people would be able to afford much in your local economy.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Well for one, lots of my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little. Isn't this basically collectivization, which empirically has been shown to a massive failure? Without a monetary incentive, it's hard to get people to actually do stuff rather than lying on their couch and watching tiktok.
  - chaostheory 2y ago
    Historically, that doesn’t work. It failed in China, North Korea, and in Cuba. It’s a fantasy.
Retric 2y ago
More CO2 is produced manufacturing and maintaining those greenhouses than shipping fruit from tropical locations. So no, in this case local production is simply worse for the commons. More broadly things that cost dramatically more are generally worse for the environment in subtle ways.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  In the case of bananas, then don't have bananas. Only locally sustainable goods or imports occasionally, not all the time.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Locally sustainable goods becomes really limited very quickly. You don’t just lose foods but technology as most of the periodic table becomes unavailable, even low tech items like salt needs to be imported into most areas. On the other hand even occasional imports supports global trade and a dramatically higher standard living. The option to decarbonize global trade is exists, ‘local’ is more feel good nonsense than an actual path forward.

That local trade involves taking advantage of the commons (putting CO2 in the atmosphere) to make it work. In my opinion, we do not have the right to take that advantage.

chaostheory 2y ago

Few people would be able to afford much in your local economy.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Well for one, lots of my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little.
- gruez 2y ago
  >my local economy would just involve trade and helping community members for free, creating local community gardens, etc. Quite a lot can be possible with very little. Isn't this basically collectivization, which empirically has been shown to a massive failure? Without a monetary incentive, it's hard to get people to actually do stuff rather than lying on their couch and watching tiktok.
- chaostheory 2y ago
  Historically, that doesn’t work. It failed in China, North Korea, and in Cuba. It’s a fantasy.

Retric 2y ago

More CO2 is produced manufacturing and maintaining those greenhouses than shipping fruit from tropical locations. So no, in this case local production is simply worse for the commons. More broadly things that cost dramatically more are generally worse for the environment in subtle ways.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
In the case of bananas, then don't have bananas. Only locally sustainable goods or imports occasionally, not all the time.
- Retric 2y ago
  Locally sustainable goods becomes really limited very quickly. You don’t just lose foods but technology as most of the periodic table becomes unavailable, even low tech items like salt needs to be imported into most areas. On the other hand even occasional imports supports global trade and a dramatically higher standard living. The option to decarbonize global trade is exists, ‘local’ is more feel good nonsense than an actual path forward.