Peak Oil and Food System Relocalization Revisited

Back in December, following posts by Richard Heinberg and Jon Rynn, I wrote a piece examining the different motivations people and activist groups have when arguing for food system ‘relocalization’, and observed that the prospect of peak oil offers an argument for food system change which operates at a global level, as opposed to the standard alternative food network positions which are often smaller-scale, focusing on health concerns, community social justice, or environmental issues.

This issues have been discussed again over the past few days (brought to my attention by Grist) by Stuart Stanford, who takes the position that peak oil will not inevitably lead to food system relocalization, and by Sharon Astyk and Jeff Vail who argue (essentially) that it will. Stanford’s argument is based on what he terms the fallacy of reversibility, arguing that it is not possible to reverse the processes of industrial development that have given us our contemporary agri-industrial food system, and therefore that the onset of peak oil cannot force a relocalization bringing us ‘back’ to a situation in our food system is more extensive.

As Astyk points out, a significant problem with Stanford’s piece is the language of reversalism, a linguistic trap linked to the prefix re- used with the term localization. Astyk states:

“Staniford presents us with a false dichotomy – the choice between going forward or “reversing” to 19th century style farming. But there is no inherent reason why the readoptation of an older practice constitutes a reversal on the scale Staniford argues for …”

Alternatively, Vail picks up on the quantitative approach taken by Stanford, suggesting that:

“the primary weakness of Staniford’s analysis is the hidden substitution of causation for correlation in the body of his argument … if we reject this substitution of causation for correlation, we’re left with Staniford’s rather bald conclusion that “industrial farmers are extremely efficient, and there is no way to compete with them except by becoming one” based solely on the presumptive correlation between various agricultural data in very recent history with historical oil prices. I don’t find that convincing, but Staniford must be given his due—he presents a plausible case, and certainly one that doesn’t disprove itself.”

Vail then continues to suggest that the best way to proceed might be to determine whether, in the face of rising energy prices, agricultural efficiency would be increased by centralization, or decentralization of agricultural production.

All three pieces, when read together, present some very interesting arguments about the role that peak oil will play in determining future agri-food systems, and they go a long towards explaining the various positions taken by activist groups campaigning for relocalization. My own readings of these essays raised two questions:

1. Why is so much of this debate written in terms of relocalization – what’s wrong with simple localization? A lot of (virtual) ink is wasted in these debates offering disclaimers about how peak oil activism is not about nostalgia for the past, or some romanticised agrarian vision (although undoubtedly some of it is) – and this could all be avoided by calling for a localization which might learn lessons from the past, but does not waste time struggling to emulate it.
2. The single-minded focus on energy efficiency is misleading – while reminding people of the urgency of the challenge posed by peak oil, we must remember that we face other challenges too. Peak oil, climate change, endemic poverty and social injustice – these are all symptoms of the wider problem represented by the dominant contemporary economic and social forms (call them neoliberalism, globalized capitalism … ), and attempting to address just one symptom in isolation will not solve the problem. Thus, by focusing simply on the efficiency of agricultural energy use, and ignoring the broader socio-environmental conditions engendered by particular agri-food systems, just one symptom is being addressed rather than the broader problems with which we are faced.