The Privilege of Buying Local
We participated in some exciting discussions last semester about practical ways to make spaces more livable. One guest speaker encouraged us to support local farming industry by buying local, and talk of how to implement this in daily life ensued.
If not only for the environment and local economy, buying local is now simply the cool thing to do...at least in Carrboro. Local newspapers are responding to this trend and have taken on related exploratory projects, such as following a local family through 2008 as they buy local. This project's aim is to find out the truth, or lack thereof, undergirding the assumption that only affluent people can afford to reserve their funds exclusively for locally grown items. I found it interesting that the family selected for this experiment is a dual earner household, with both parents professionally employed (one an engineer, the other- working in the computer industry). If the purpose of this experiment is to determine if the average family in the Triangle can afford to buy local, choosing a family that truly represents the median income and assets level would be more worthwhile.
So I ask you, is buying local a luxury? For those of you who may not belong to a dual earner/upper middle class home, is buying local viable for you? If so, can you share tips on how to buy local without busting the graduate student budget?
If not only for the environment and local economy, buying local is now simply the cool thing to do...at least in Carrboro. Local newspapers are responding to this trend and have taken on related exploratory projects, such as following a local family through 2008 as they buy local. This project's aim is to find out the truth, or lack thereof, undergirding the assumption that only affluent people can afford to reserve their funds exclusively for locally grown items. I found it interesting that the family selected for this experiment is a dual earner household, with both parents professionally employed (one an engineer, the other- working in the computer industry). If the purpose of this experiment is to determine if the average family in the Triangle can afford to buy local, choosing a family that truly represents the median income and assets level would be more worthwhile.
So I ask you, is buying local a luxury? For those of you who may not belong to a dual earner/upper middle class home, is buying local viable for you? If so, can you share tips on how to buy local without busting the graduate student budget?
posted by Erin at
11:29 AM
5 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
Erin's comments are very poignant. Sustainability is inherently synonymous with affordability. The strange thing is that, according to the 2000 Census, the median household income in the triangle is $50,000. I have heard (although I cannot find a source) that number increased to around $70,000 for 2007.
Thus, this survey of the "average" household in the triangle may actually be accurate. It is like Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average.
Seriously, there seems to be a disconnect between the "average" people of this area and the average people in the state and country. Perhaps a new study should see if the nearly 20% of the Triangle population that made less than $20,000 in 2000 can afford to buy at least partially local.
P.S. I recommend shopping at the local Farmer's Markets when they open in the spring and/or buying a share of a CSA. These tend to be much more affordable than Whole Foods or local Coops.
Good point Michael. I do think this family is representative of the Triangle. It's interesting that this higher standard of living makes relative poverty even more dramatic for those going without essentials. The fact that we are all in these programs testifies to at least some degree of wealth (at least of opportunity)- I am very blessed.
One of my courses this semester is a seminar on corporate social responsibility (CSR). The "food thing" is a classic example of what should be available to the masses at low costs but isn't/aren't because of any number of reasons. What is the responsibility of a corporation - to serve the social good or to make a profit? Milton Friedman argued that a corporation ought only to be responsible to law, good morals, and to its shareholders, making as much profit as possible - others vehemently disagree and argue that large corporations should be responsible for large social change.
After reading Erin's post on "buying local," I was reminded of an article I recently read on Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2182075/. It's about the Nano, a little car being marketed in India that nearly promises to have a negative impact on the environment. It seems that oftentimes, the most affordable option (food, transportation, whatever) has a negative impact on our health and on the environment. At the end of the day, though, can we ever ask people to go hungry because the only bread within their realistic price range comes from genetically altered wheat (or something along those lines)? Can we expect people to walk or bike everywhere because they can't afford fancy hybrids that don't pollute the environment?
In learning about the "corporate" in social responsibility, I've begun to think about another CSR - "City Social Responsibility." Not only does good urban planning, access to education, public transit, access to community gardens and affordable food from local economies, etc. make a place more "livable," it seems to me that those things are nearly *demanded* if a city is going to be socially and environmentally responsible and develop in a sustainable manner.
Ok. I'm done.
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home