North P: (2005): ‘Scaling alternative economic practices? Some lessons from alternative currencies.’ in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers’, vol 30/2, pp 221-233.

But this paper could certainly be improved with a closer connection with that literature.

I have a few comments.

First, I’d like to draw your attention to the ‘scale debate’ in human geography. For instance, the work of Mark Purcell et al. who in a number of articles theorise about the local trap ‘in which political ecologists assume that organization, policies, and action at the local scale are inherently more likely to have desired social and ecological effects than activities organized at other scales.’ (Brown and Purcell 2005)

This work is helpful in enabling us to question, as you do, the rather easy connection between ‘local’ and ‘egalitarian’. There is nothing except wishful thinking to suggest that more local economies are more just or sustainable than less local ones. But the local trap is also a highly problematic concept. The main problem, as I see it, is that it assumes scale is socially constructed (a reasonable view) ex nihilo – out of nothing (an unreasonable view). There is a link between physical and ecological conditions on the one hand and social constructions of scale on the other. The latter reflect human perceptions of the former. Your quote from Rubin and Tal is illuminating on this issue, where economic gains in trade liberalisation are wiped out by increases in transport costs. Also see Buzz Holling’s work on inter-scalar effects in social-ecological systems (which he calls ‘panarchy’ and which has been further developed by the Resilience Alliance).

Marston’s paper on the Social Construction of Scale (2000) is a key reference in the scale debate. Her co-authored paper on human geography without scale (2005) aims to do away with the concept of scale completely – and considers the implications.

My second comment is to do with the theroetical basis of your paper. I am not sure that Heinberg’s fourfold typology of responses to peak oil can bear much theoretical weight. As an heuristic it is interesting, but it seems to have little empirical grounding. You might be interested in something called grid-group theory which goes some way towards providing an empirically grounded explanation for contested understandings of resource availability. First developed by Mary Douglas, then by Aaron Wildavsky, Michael Thompson, and many others, it suggests that arguments over resources are always really arguments over the way society should be organised. The four grid-group biases(individualist, hierarchist, egalitarian and fatalist) are strongly implicit throughout your paper and could be developed further. For instance, your assertions that the precautionary principle is prudent and that ‘Responding to peak oil obviously means that we need to organise economic affairs in such a way as to minimise the use of increasingly scarce petrochemicals’ would be challenged by three of the four grid-group biases. For my money, the best introductions to grid-group theory are Ellis, Thompson and Wildavsky, Cultural Theory, 1990 and Hood, The Art of the State, 1998. Thompson’s paper, Among the energy tribes (Policy Sciences 17.3,1984) is interesting, as is a more recent compendium he co-edited with Marco Verweij (Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World, 2006), which includes discussion of global warming debates.

Third, your critique of neoliberal critiques of localism put me in mind of Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine – the systematic stunning of national and regional economies in order to plunder them for globalisiation. Perhaps you could mention it.

Finally, I think your distinction between weak and strong localisation is useful, but could benefit from some discussion of what globalisers regard as localisation – for instance, Coca-Cola’s attempts to develop a Chinese-based supply chain for its products to be sold in China (http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0107/weisert.html).

Thanks again for a really interesting article.

One of the things this paper does not do in enough detail, given space, is engage properly with the question of political action to create the decentralised sustainable resilient communities we envisage. I am researching for another paper on that at the moment, looking at forms of direct action, transitioning and low carbon communities, CRAGs and the ‘build a big movement to overthrow capitalism’ perspectives. I’d be happy to share the first draft of this when it is ready.

I also think that a major issue for perspectives on political action question is the extent that you believe that a rather in-egalitarian, repressive, exploitative capitalism will generate enough technological solutions to survive a climate crisis, or if the whole system is so doomed by peak oil in the more short term that we can, to some extent, await its unravelling and concentrate not on opposing capitalism, but building the alternative. Having read the alternative utopian and dystopian scenarios in Marge Piercy’s marvellous “Woman on the edge of time” I’m not sure it will necessarily unravel. So we do perhaps also have to build the big movement, which will necessarily be a diverse movement with different perspectives (like the counter-globalsiation or anti-war movements), as well as do the local work. Thats where I’m at at the moment….

more comments please!

You specifically refer to neo-liberal capitalism in places, but in other you refer to ‘growth based capitalist economic strategies’. Clarity is needed on whether or not capitalism itself can survive peak oil, and also on whether or not it can allow the changes necessary to stop climate change. This direct question needs to be addressed.

You refer to Murray Bookchin, and to the climate camp, yet you have not mentioned the word ‘anarchism’ anywhere. You are correct that economics cannot be separated from politics, they are fundamentally intertwined. Murray Bookchin was an anarchist. Climate camp was organized by anarchists. A paper on the economics of localisation and the potential for a clash with capitalism within that movement, cannot ignore anarchism. You mention capitalism, neo liberalism and socialism, but never once anarchism. To simply not mention it, in the context of your article, will not be intellectually or academically honest.

Apart from that I think it is an excellent contribution to the debate.

I was somewhat surprised that this critique of localization did not include a discussion of how to legally enforce the protection of the commons.
(1) Although one could argue that all of the examples of sustainable communities are strongly localized, the converse is certainly not true — even the wise succumb to unsustainable ecological and economic practices when placed under strong pressure.
(2) Even if a strong degree of physical localization were enforced by high transportation costs, it does not follow that the majority of localized communities would hold “Ecotopian” values. Balkanization and resource conflicts seem inevitable — the only question is one of scale.

Both protection of the commons and protection of human rights argue for global-scale regulation, independent of the status of a transition to more localized economies.

It has been argued that the current legal and economic systems governing the world’s largest corporations provides strong rewards for the most effective “externalization” of costs. Given that most corporations are primarily owned by other corporations, it is extraordinarily difficult for human stockholders to directly influence corporations to assume greater responsibility for the ecological and social costs of their operation. Unless the legal basis of the corporation is restricted in fundamental ways, it would appear that government regulation is a practical necessity to protect the commons and to protect human rights. The globalization of corporations suggests that this government regulation have global scope.

Looks like a good time to take a break — I need to go burn some irreplaceable fossil fuels to take my teenager to his SAT exam….

And when enough people become poor enough, I would expect the French Revolution to repeat itself wherever applicable.

Cheers.

Question is, is the ‘under the radar’, consensual, positive local solutions- orientated transitions model the right approach, or do we need a more muscular mass movement to compel those in power to change track – or replace them with people that will? Is the latter desirable, realistic? Does the direct action associated with the climate camp achieve that?

I personally like the positivity, the refusal to make anyone the enemy, of transitioning.