User:Nemesis311/Sandbox

Clarification of the main terms: eco-localisation and eco-localism
There are some difficulties and confusion with the use of terms ‘localisation’ and ‘localism’, which often seems to interchange. In order to avoid further confusions in this topic, the terms ‘eco-localisation’ and ‘eco-localism’ will be used more as synonyms, because the main attention of this topic is focused on ecological and environmental aspects of these terms. Although, North (2010b) highlights the distinction of the terms ‘localisation’ and ‘localism’, and claims that ‘localism’ correlates more with governance and its concerns, while ‘localisation’ is a broader term emphasising the economic transition from global focus to local. Also, North suggests that eco-localisation means a social initiative or movement of society, which leads to “social and economic reorganisation (North, 2010b)”, while eco-localism is a principle of political shift – transferring more decision making opportunities to local communities (North, 2010 a, b). However, the main aim of this topic is to reveal the concept of economic transition towards more sustainable and more environmentally responsible behaviour, and community’s structure, what means that it is important to discuss ‘localisation’ and ‘localism’ as an integral aspects of this transition. What is more, the word ‘eco’ in these considerations also is a double-entendre, because it refers to both – ecological and economic aspects of ‘localisation’ and/or ‘localism’, which hereafter will be called just eco-localisation.

The concept of eco-localisation
In accordance with Herman Daly’s critique of unceasing economic growth and assertion that “the quantitative expansion of the economic subsystem increases environmental and social costs faster than production benefits, making us poorer not richer (Daly, 2008, p. 2)” it may be assumed that contemporary world need some alternative pathways towards more sustainable and qualitative development as well as conscious and responsible communities’. Because economic growth and world’s population growth, which are led by rapidly growing demand and consumption rates, are the hardship for biodiversity’s conservation (Czech, 2003); and on the same time these factors are increasing marginal costs, what is not an indication of successful economic growth (Daly, 2008). The concept of eco-localisation is one of suggested alternatives for mass production and consumption targeted neo-liberal globalisation and capitalism, which causes destructive outcomes for world’s natural resources, creates a lot of environmental issues, incites social inequality, etc. (Hahnel, 2007; North, 2010a). The rudiments of eco-localisation tradition, according to North (who summarises a vast amount of other scholars’ views), were perceptible through the 1930s as an opposing ideas for “centralising Soviet model of socialism (North, 2010a, p. 587)”, and as an alternative movements to the capitalism, which were suggesting to rely more on local production and land use, proposing community-based ownership, etc (ibid). Nowadays eco-localisation is being supported by Green Parties, opponents of society and economy uniformity (‘McDonaldization’) and promoted as a possible solution for Peak Oil and climate change mitigation, and reduction of CO2 emission (ibid). The concept of eco-localisation is based on more localised economic development, sustainable use of nature and local communities’ involvement into sustainable processes (Curtis, 2003; North, 2010a). Main objectives of eco-localisation are as follows. First of all, eco-localisation aims to minimise unnecessary emissions of CO2 where possible by promoting production and consumption of goods to become as locally based as possible, to satisfy the needs of particular community; to this end, it is essential to concentrate all possible exchanges of necessary goods within the shortest distances and reducing the extent of international trade to a minimum, importing only those goods, which are not available locally or regionally (Curtis, 2003; North, 2010a). As a matter of concern, eco-localisation suggest several solutions for carbon emission reduction, for instance, supporting idea that inevitable transportation of necessary goods could be proceeded with less pollution, if more sustainable modes of transport would be chosen (electric vehicles or sailing ships, etc.) (North, 2010a). Following further, eco-localists criticise the unnecessary exchange of goods or services between countries while they may be (or even are) produced and provided locally and so avoiding more carbon emissions. What is more, this goal should be achieved by launching less resource-intensive living in more localised economies (ibid). Moreover, localisers are seeking to highlight the uniqueness of local diversity, which is able to counterbalance and replace the uniformity enforced by globalisation (North, 2010a). Furthermore, the proponents of eco-localisation are suggesting the promotion of community-owned economic units, institutions, local power generation and even local currencies (North, 2010a; Swann and Witt, 1995).

‘Immanent’ and ‘intentional’ eco-localisation
Eco-localisation may be divided to immanent and intentional localisation, as North (2010a) points out. According to North, immanent localisation is not planned and “[i]ts impact on climate change is incidental, not central” (North, 2010a, p. 589). Meanwhile, intentional localisation is being promoted by its proponents as a necessary political programme, which in the light of climate change and peak oil crises, could be a way “to a more human-scale, steady-state, convivial, ecological and egalitarian society than highly dynamic but unstable, unequal, consumption-driven and unsustainable capitalism” (North, 2010a, p. 589 - 590).

Criticism for globalisation
In the light of afore mentioned aims and objectives of eco-localisation, it is evident that this concept is contradictory to the goals of globalisation – “increasing global per capita incomes and lower prices for consumer goods which together result in greater purchasing power and economic welfare” (Curtis, 2003, p. 96). Although proponents of globalisation states that continuous economic growth is vital to sustain growing worlds population (Daly, 2008), its critics and particularly eco-localists presents some critique for globalisation. First of all, according to eco-localists the main downside of globalisation is its caused harm for the environment – pollution, depletion of natural resources, threats for biodiversity, etc. (Curtis, 2003; North, 2010a; 2009). Following further, Curtis (2003) and North (2010a) reveals the complexity of negative effects caused by global trade and international shipping – increased consumption of fossil fuel, which leads to faster depletion of its resources; also growing intensity of international freights inflicts greater pollution; moreover, separation of production and consumption gives customers an illusory assumption that goods transported via long distances are securing them (the final consumers) from environmental cost (as pollution in one country may travel long distances in the shape of acid rain, etc.). However, globalists are arguing that their pursuit of greater incomes per capita and cheaper goods for consumers may have positive outcomes for reducing negative effects for environment by technological innovations (green technologies) and via shift of consumers’ behaviour, when the rise of their incomes will stimulate to choose more expensive but ‘green’ goods (Curtis, 2003). Nevertheless, eco-localists are not convinced by these premises and are contradicting that positive effects of globalisation are insignificant, difficult to trace or in some cases even impossible (ibid). Nonetheless, eco-localists defers to possibility that some institutional changes and improvements could at least mitigate the negative consequences of globalisation (ibid). According to North (2010a), eco-localisation is one of alternatives for globalisation and consumerism, as it is encouraging establishment of anti-growth-based livelihoods in order to avoid climate change and reduce CO2 emissions.

Eco-localisation – critique
Notwithstanding the fact that there are suggested many positive results that are expected from eco-localisation, if it would be successfully implemented on a large scale, there are several uncertainties about the procedures or processes of its implementation and efficiency. One of the critique aspects for eco-localists (and other anti-capitalists) presented by Hahnel, is that they are lacking of constructive explanation and well designed action plan for their suggested alternative economy which should successfully replace the censured capitalist economy (Hahnel, 2007). In his viewpoint, eco-localism is still more a vision than exact and deliberated paradigm prepared for successful implementation (ibid). Curtis also indicated that eco-localism has not been analysed in depth enough and was not widely presented as a theoretical paradigm, but his article was highlighting the great necessity for such paradigm (Curtis, 2003, p. 83, 98). In addition, Hahnel (2007) emphasises the uncertainty about internal decision making within community-based economics, what would be procedures of voting, etc. Following further, Hahnel (2007) states that notwithstanding ecological and community-based goals of eco-localists the risk of environmental and social problems still remains. For the reason that there is no undoubted evidence that local producers or small business owners will always comply with ecological objectives, especially when unsustainable activities may be more attractive due to greater profits (ibid). What is more, community oriented businesses may create some social issues such as the misuse of community’s solitary – in terms of charging higher prices for customers (when alternative suppliers are not available) or paying less for employees (when there are no alternative vacancies in the locality) (ibid). Another reason for eco-localisers critique is a pendent case of such locally based community’s self sufficiency – how about lack of natural resources, which should ensure steady rhythm of local community’s provision with the most necessary goods? If such locally organised community will exchange some available resources in order to obtain deficient ones, it means that there is some risk to get entangled in centralised or semi-autonomous relations with other communities (ibid). But North (2010a), who also substantiates his attitude by other scholars’ thoughts, provides an answer to this critique – the aim of eco-localisation is not to create a totally isolated community and to limit its ties or trade opportunities with other cultures. Eco-localisation seeks for sustainable and fair interactions between local, regional and national or international levels (North, 2010a, p. 587). Moreover, eco-localists does not propose movement from resource-poor localities to resource-rich ones, they argue that adjustment of international trading rules could be a solution for necessary re-distribution of vital goods between different areas (ibid, p. 588). To conclude, the main criticism rises regarding lack of certain details and action plan for the implementation of different segments of eco-localisation.