Building a green local economy is an inspiring vision that promises environmental sustainability, local economic resilience, and the social cohesion of a deepening community. It offers hope, particularly to young individuals who are seeking purpose and direction in life. The collaborative planning process can unite communities, fostering meaningful conversations and paving the way for regenerative living practices. Many older fellows feel the sense of redemption if they signal to younger folks how they are stewarding the future, so there is no shortage of signalling of sustainable intentions within our region where retirement spending is a main driver of economic activity.
However, this idealistic pursuit is fraught with challenges that are often overlooked. Social movements frequently inspire hope, especially among the youth, but they may not anticipate the realities that lie ahead. A significant obstacle is a volatile consumer base that fail to sustain the living systems that they birthed – and the very advocates of these movements are no exception. The desire to project hope can lead to community-building efforts that deny the entrenched nature of consumerism, the tendency for individuals to prioritize convenience over commitment, and the unwillingness to change entrenched habits.
The concept of “slacktivism” illustrates this phenomenon, where individuals engage in minimal-effort actions, such as liking a post or sharing a hashtag, to signal support for a cause without committing to personal change. This superficial engagement creates an illusion of widespread support but tends to fail to translate into the consistent purchasing behavior necessary to sustain local green economies. Given the experience of Local Food in our region, I would like to express a word of warning to any youth who may feel enticed by social signalling, and tempted to take on a financial and personal risk for building a local green economy – please think twice.
Choosing “Freedom to Care”
Building a sustainable local economy requires more than transient enthusiasm or social signalling; it demands a deep-seated commitment akin to what can be termed the “freedom to care.” This concept involves individuals exercising their freedom by choosing to take on responsibilities for living entities. This requires ongoing dedication, often at the expense of spontaneity, flexibility and control:
- Pet Ownership: Committing to the lifelong care of an animal, accepting the sacrifices and obligations it entails.
- Gardening: Dedicating time and effort to nurture plants, understanding that neglect leads to failure.
- Planting a tree: The critical care for newly planted tree saplings is sustained maintenance such as watering, weed control, and protection from destruction.
- Parenting: Raising a child with unwavering support, often foregoing personal freedoms to ensure the child’s physical and emotional well-being. In their parenting commitment, some people even include a dedication to a livable future, which the Anishinabek people coined the 7 Generations principle.
- Local Food: In a local food economy, embracing a seasonal diet is the most tangible manifestation of the “freedom to care.” A local food economy requires eaters to adapt their diets and purchasing habits to align with locally available produce, thereby reducing environmental impact, supporting local farm businesses, and enabling their stewardship to the land. This practice not only fosters a deeper connection to the land but also necessitates a willingness to forego the convenience of having any food item available year-round. For example, choosing to eat root vegetables, cabbage, meat, and hearty greens during winter months, when they are naturally abundant, exemplifies a commitment to seasonal eating.
Similarly, building a local green economy necessitates that customers commit to building a market that makes this economy viable. Businesses are living systems that require consistency, especially if they necessitate any form of investments. So they need a local community that consistently chooses local products and services, in awareness that their sustained patronage is crucial for the survival and growth of these enterprises. Any local economy need a customer market that shows up – consistently. So whether it is the purchasing of a pet, the decision to buy transplants and start a garden, the planting of a tree sapling, the conception of a child, or the ideation of a local economy – these are momentary efforts that can cause long-term damage if not paired with a commitment to care, a commitment to give up spontaneity and flexibility, and surrender control to something larger than the self.
The Consequences of Inconsistency
If this commitment to sustaining markets flounders, the living economy will die. The collapse of the local food system in Grey Bruce serves as a poignant example. Despite initial support before the pandemic, and massive support during the pandemic that necessitated significant investment by businesses, our local community behavior shifted dramatically once traditional grocery stores were deemed safe again. Local food, temporarily a primary choice for many, shrunk into a niche market that was even significant smaller than pre-pandemic. Today, many individuals continued signalling their support to local food by purchasing a kale or two at the local farmers market, and carry them like a batch of honour. But the bulk of groceries is again purchased at corporate grocery stores, taking advantage of the enormous production scales, the slavery-like working conditions of the industrial food system, and the freebee negative environmental externalities that our grandchildren will pay. This abrupt abandonment led to the bankruptcy of Eat Local Grey Bruce, a cooperative built over a decade with painful investments from local businesses. The inconsistent showing up of our community not only undermined the financial viability of local farms and markets but also inflicted severe economic hardships on those who had committed to the local economy through their investments.
The Reality of Consumerism
The harsh reality is that many individuals prefer the convenience, perceived freedom privilege offered by large-scale corporate entities over the responsibility of supporting local initiatives. The global market offers the illusion of choice, and the illusion of control – we can buy imported groceries of the industrial food system all year around, without having to think twice about seasonality. This preference of control over care is often at odds with the ideals promoted by social movements, leading to a dissonance between advocacy and personal action. The desire to signal hope and be part of a community can overshadow the acknowledgment of the own consumerist tendencies, which result in initiatives that are simply economically not viable. It also puts the movement at risk of denialism over these consequences – it is always easier to move on, talk about a new opportunity of community action, without the hard work of assessing the lessons why past efforts failed. Yet, these lessons of history may hold the key for a true path into sustainability that warrants a truthful feeling of hope.
While the aspiration to build a green local economy is noble and offers a sense of purpose, it requires more than initial enthusiasm and superficial support. It demands a profound and consistent commitment from individuals to exercise their “freedom to care” for a living system, recognizing that true change involves sacrifices and sustained effort. Without acknowledging and addressing the realities of consumer behavior and the challenges of maintaining consistent support, these well-intentioned initiatives risk being undermined by the very communities they aim to uplift.
Recent Comments