Next time, let's remember to turn off his microphone

Last night's acceptance speech gave Barack Obama an opportunity to attack John McCain and his campaign for being out of touch with average Americans. Fortunately for Obama, the McCain campaign gave him some easy targets. McCain himself couldn't even remember how many houses he owns, a plight most Americans will never have to worry about.

Then there were the unfortunate words of McCain's chief economic advisor, Phil Gramm. Back in July, Gramm brushed off public concerns about the economy, claiming that America was suffering from a "mental recession" and that we had become a "nation of whinners".

This is far from the first time that an economic advisor has gotten his politician in trouble. Obama's advisor, Austan Goolsbee, caused a small stir when it surfaced that he quietly reassured Canadian officials that Obama's protectionist stances “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” And in 2004, Gregory Mankiw got the Bush administration in trouble when he told Congress that outsourcing was "probably a plus for the economy in the long run".

That economic advisors get politicians in trouble should come as no surprise. For one thing, economic theory is often counter-intuitive and poorly explained. Further, economic jargon can seem cold and aloof, and economists' focus on macrobehavior and average experience sometimes alienate people who are hurt by economic change.

But there is an important difference between Phil Gramm's comments and those by Goolsbee and Mankiw. Goolsbee and Mankiw articulated mainstream views in the field. We have nothing to gain (and much to lose) by cutting off trade with Canada. And Mankiw's outsourcing comments (though poorly phrased) reflect a similar logic: outsourcing, like trade, leads to efficiency gains that lower prices, strengthen competition and increase prosperity. Mankiw also cited on his blog a McKinsey Global Institute report showing that "for every dollar the United States sends abroad, we get back about $1.12, resulting in a net gain of $0.12." (Follow the proceeding link for more of Mankiw's views on the costs and benefits of outsourcing).

Gramm on the other hand spoke more out of ideology and frustration than theory. While people can reasonably debate the precise state of the American economy, it's hard to argue that this is all in our heads.

What's strange is that while Goolsbee and Mankiw are career academics, Gramm is a career politician, all be it one with a Ph.D in economics. You'd expect academics to get into this kind of trouble; politicians should know how to talk to voters.

It begs the question, though: if Phil Gramm is a bad economist and a bad politician, how exactly did he get this job?

Dude, where's my catharsis?

I've just had the privilege of returning from an early screening of Choke, a movie based on one of my favorite novels of the same name. It opens September 26 and I don't want to spoil any of the film, but just urge everyone who likes laughing and does not have what they call a "sensitive constitution" to see it. 

But I'm not blogging just to make a shameless plug. Part of the preview tonight was a Q&A session with actor Sam Rockwell, director Clark Gregg and - the guy I went to see - author of the adapted book, Chuck Palahniuk. Anyone familiar with Palahniuk's work (Fight Club, Survivor, Haunted) will know that he writes about unconventional- and often taboo - communities. During the post-movie talk he explained some of his interest in these groups. 

He said that church used to be a place for open confession, "where you could be forgiven and loved for the worst part of yourself." He pointed out that often today church-going is about maintaining reputation for being good, rather than coming clean with ones sins. He argued this public bad behavior has been pushed further to the fringe to collectives such as support groups, addiction recovery 12-step programs and sex or suicide hotlines. And when it isn't expressed at all it can escalate to bouts of violence.

What he neglected to mention was the outpouring of these kind of activities online - forums and chat rooms that lend credibility and support for behavior that mainstream society, for example  cyber pranking or pro-ana Web sites. 

But the underlying point that these communities, which recognize human nature's dark side, are truly timeless. Think Roman gladiators or Mayan sacrifices. Is it true that we need to be bad? I would argue that much of what these activities accomplish in "blowing off steam" can be captured through art or athletic expression. One of my favorite examples is called flarf - deliberately offensive poetry which is particularly culled from hate speech published online. What a fantastic way to recycle harmful words and re-examine them!

Of course, Palahniuk's writing also imitates the very same underground community taboos that it satires. It's healthy to remember that every era of history has had its light and dark sides. And while Olympic competition may never replace international military conflict, attempting to master ones own demons may result in some pretty incredible art/writing/interpretive dance/gold medal record-breaking .... the possibilities are endless.

The limits of "food miles"

Yesterday, Will Wilkinson spoke on NPR's Marketplace about the locavore movement. He pointed out that despite a 25% increase in the distance that the average American's dinner traveled over the past ten years, carbon emissions have only increased by 5%. This fact is the result of efficient forms of transportation (like large tankers), and it highlights the limitations of "food miles". Wilkinson notes:

"A tomato raised in a heated greenhouse next door can be more carbon-intensive than one shipped halfway across the globe. And cows spew a lot more greenhouse gas than hens, or kumquats, so eating just a bit less beef can do more carbon-wise than going completely local. It's complicated."

If you're already a vegetarian, your diet already has low carbon-intensity (except for the cheese). However, depending on where you live and what can be grown efficiently, going local is not always the most environmentally friendly option.

However, the locavore movement is as much political as it is environmental. As one of the comments on NPR's website indicates, supporting family farms and supporting the local economy are considered equally prominent goals:

"Eating locally and seasonally keeps more of the food dollar in the local economy. In western Minnesota where I'm from that is very important. Local foods will keep more people on small farms and help decrease our national dependence on petroleum. Modern corn and soybean production puts money in Monsanto, Archer Daniel Midland, and the other conglomerates pockets at the expense of local economies. Local food puts the food dollar into local farmer's and grocer's bank accounts."

This is an example of what Frederic Bastiat called the "broken windows fallcy". This concept comes from Bastiat's fable about a glazier whose son breaks a window, requiring his services to fix it. On-lookers conclude that since the son's action has created work for the man, breaking windows must be an effective way to stimulate the economy. However, while this is good for the glazier, it lowers everyone else's standard of living, leaving them with less money to spend on other goods and services, both from within and outside the local economy.

How does this relate to the local foods movement? Paying more for locally-grown food keeps local farmers in business, but it comes at a cost to everyone else in the community. This is akin to a voluntary tax on local residents, used to fund local farmers.

Additionally, local farmers would be much better served if the government eliminated the billions of dollars in farm subsidies that it hands out every year. Though these subsidies are often sold as "support for local farmers" they mostly go to large agribusiness companies. Removing the subsidies would improve the relative competitiveness of small farmers without increasing the burden on local consumers.

The local foods movement has been successful at helping people understand the environmental impact of their diets. Even the normally libertarian economist Tyler Cowen recently acknowledged, "we do have duties to behave more responsibly at the dinner table". But while "food miles" has been a useful concept, we need to get much more sophisticated if we want to make real environmental, as well as economic, progress.

Did you know the word gullible isn't in the dictionary?

We voters are a generally gullible group. But there's something about Barack Obama that makes people willing to believe anything. And there's only so much one can do to dispell the myths: yes, he's a Christian; yes, he's an American citizen; yes, he believes in Israel's right to exist.

Now there's a new one to grapple with: no, Obama is not the Anti-Christ.

Apparently John McCain's attempts to woo the Christian-right has led to some confusion:

"...a not-insignificant number of Americans, after viewing John McCain's Web ad The One, with its Messianic overtones -- come away thinking that Barack Obama has been sent from Hell to Earth to turn its citizens against God. For inspiration, some of these people seem to be drawing from the fictional Left Behind series, which posits a dystopian future where the Anti-Christ comes to Earth as a charismatic politician.

The book's author's, Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, have insisted they don't believe Obama is the Anti-Christ, although they can't resist taking a dig at the candidate in the process...

'I can see by the language he uses why people think he could be the antichrist,' adds LaHaye, 'but from my reading of scripture, he doesn't meet the criteria. There is no indication in the Bible that the antichrist will be an American.'"

How does this happen? Well the media doesn't help. Rather than ignoring the story as unworthy of discussion, CNN's Newsroom broadcast a report on the issue, with the caption "Obama the Anti-Christ?" in bold at the bottom of the screen (to view the video, click the link above the proceeding quote).

But beyond the media, it may be our own brains that are playing tricks on us. According to neurobiologists Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt, the quirky way we process information causes us to believe some pretty unbelievable things:

Our brains tend to remember facts that accord with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it. In one Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were shown two pieces of evidence. One confirmed the claim that capital punishment deters crime, and the other contradicted it. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position, a phenomenon known as biased assimilation.

This is one reason that propagandists can be effective simply by creating confusion. Unscrupulous campaign strategists know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked.

The human brain also does not save information permanently, as do computer drives and printed pages. Recent research suggests that every time the brain recalls a piece of information, it is "written" down again and often modified in the process. Along the way, the fact is gradually separated from its original context. For example, most people don't remember how they know that the capital of Massachusetts is Boston.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, leads people to forget over time where they heard a statement - and whether it is true. A statement that is initially not believed can gain credibility during the months that it takes to reprocess memories from short-term to longer-term storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications may gain strength. Source amnesia could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some time for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to affect his standing in the race.

In another Stanford study, students were exposed repeatedly to the unsubstantiated claim that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Those who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than the National Enquirer), giving it a gloss of credibility. Thus the classic opening line "I think I read somewhere," or even reference to a specific source, is often used to support falsehoods. Similarly, psychologist Daniel Gilbert and his colleagues have shown that if people are distracted from thinking critically, they default to automatically accepting statements as true.

So the CNN story intended to dispel a ridiculous rumor may have simply propagated it.

Much as we'd like to believe that people stand in voting booths rationally weighing the pros and cons of different candidates, it is simply not the way things work. And worse, this is not a problem that can be solved by people getting "more informed"; that could exacerbate things.

At the risk of sounding pessimistic, we may have to accept this fact of democracy. Voters do not have a great enough incentive to rationally evaluate their political decisions; instead we allow the emotional, reactive part of our brains to take over.

Beyond that, we should encourage Journalism schools to heed Wang and Aamodt's advice for the media:

1. State the facts without reinforcing the falsehood. Repeating a false rumor can inadvertently make it stronger. In covering the controversy over a New Yorker cover caricaturing Barack and Michelle Obama, many journalists repeated the charges against the candidate - often citing polling data on how many Americans believe them - before noting that the beliefs were false. Particularly damaging is the common practice of replaying parts of an ad before debunking its content.

A related mistake is saying that something is newsworthy because "the story is out there." Reporting on coverage by a less credible source such as The Drudge Report, even with disclaimers, will inevitably spread the story. False statements should not be presented neutrally since they are likely to be remembered later as being true.

2. Tell the truth with images. Nearly half of the brain is dedicated to processing visual information. When images do not match words, viewers tend to remember what they see, not what they hear. Karl Rove has said that campaigns should be run as if the television's sound is turned down.

Television journalists should avoid presenting images that contradict the story. One recent CNN report on autism was accompanied by images of concerned mothers, vaccines, doctor’s offices, and autistic children - even though the voiceover reported a scientific finding that debunked a link between vaccines and autism. Another recent story featured a threatening swarthy face subtitled "Obama the Antichrist?" - a statement that CNN would presumably not claim to be true.

3. Provide a compelling storyline or mental framework for the truth. Effective debunking requires replacing the falsehood with positive content. A good response to the McCain rumor, for example, would tell about his adoption of his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget, thereby accounting for photographs of him with a dark-skinned child.

4. Discredit the source. Ideas have special staying power if they evoke a feeling of disgust. Indeed, brain pathways dedicated to processing disgust can be activated by descriptions of morally repellent behavior. The motives of the purveyors of falsehoods can provide a powerful story hook. A recent example is the press coverage pointing out Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi's motivations and past of racist Web commentary and allegations of Bush Administration complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

To avoid contributing to the formation of false beliefs, journalists may need to re-examine their practices. In 1919, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum. But by better understanding the mechanisms of memory, perhaps journalists can move their modern audience closer to Holmes's ideal.

Emotional skills and inequality

James Heckman provides some useful insights into economic inequality:

"...an emerging literature shows that much more than smarts is required for success in life. Motivation, sociability, the ability to work with others, the ability to focus on tasks, self-regulation, self-esteem, time preference, health, and mental health all matter. In an earlier time, these traits were part of what was called “character.” A substantial body of research shows that earnings, employment, labour force experience, college attendance, teenage pregnancy, participation in risky activities, compliance with health protocols, and participation in crime are all strongly affected by non-cognitive as well as cognitive abilities."

He is referring to "social-emotional skills", which are often only taught implicitly, if at all, in schools. What is particularly interesting is the return on investment on early intervention programs. In particular, he discusses the Perry preschool program, which yielded a 10% return per dollar of cost. In contrast, later interventions (such as high school programs or job training) yield much lower returns.

As Heckman says, "skills beget skills". If we want to address inequality, we have to address it early in life.

The last thing we want to recreate is '68

Back in June, journalist Naomi Klein characterized Barack Obama's economic team as a group of "market fundamentalists". So it came as no surprise when I read that police in Denver are grappling with far-left protest movements set on disrupting the Democratic National Convention.

One particular group, called Recreate '68, is focused on the Iraq war, drawing parallels between this convention and the one in 1968, which was the last election held during a widely unpopular war. The rest of the groups represent the usual smörgåsbord of radical protesters, which seem to coalesce around an amorphous "anti-capitalist" theme.

So what gives? Realistically, the far-left is not going to get a better candidate than Obama. He's probably more supportive of free trade than his Ohio campaign led on, but he has a solidly liberal voting record. And the whole multi-racial, former community organizer and civil rights lawyer thing probably can't hurt either.

However, these groups are likely seizing on the 2008 DNC as a unique opportunity. Voters are fed-up with the war, anxious about trade and healthcare, and are weary of markets in light of the current financial situation. If there's going to be a time to push a far-left agenda, it may be now.

But that may turn out to be a big mistake. Despite all the concerns, this is not 1968. More importantly, it's not 1932, the last time a financial crisis led to substantial economic reforms and a large shift to the left. Anti-capitalism plays well when there's 25% unemployment; when it's 5.7%, people are probably looking for less radical change.

And, as Clay Evans points out, 1968 didn't work out so well for the protesters:

"it's worth remembering how the television images of the street violence in Chicago played in middle America. Right or wrong, the majority of Americans laid responsibility for the '68 mayhem at the protesters' feet, paving the way for the election of Richard Nixon. The Vietnam war continued, and even accelerated, during his time in office."

Compromise isn't always fun, but it's better to get at least some of what you want.

Not as much of a change as you might think

Not too long ago, my uncle lamented to me the changing face of the American demographic. He warned me that when I got to his age, the country would be unrecognizable, that non-whites would constitute a majority of the population. "Imagine being a minority in your own country," he told me. It was an odd comment considering our Jewish-immigrant heritage.

I was reminded of this conversation this week when the Census Department released an analysis of recent demographic data. Under an array of (mostly) justifiable assumptions about migration rates, birth rates and mortality, the Census Department projects that non-whites will cumulatively account for 54% of the American population by 2042. The fears of people like my uncle can be summed up plainly:

"[immigrants] will soon so out number us, [and] all the advantages we have will not in my opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious"

However, no one should fret this change. For one thing, it's largely semantic. In the New York Times, Sam Roberts argues:

"Never mind, for a moment, that the bureau also predicts that Americans who identify themselves as Hispanic, black, Asian, American-Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander will constitute a majority of the population by 2042. The number of people who say they are white is projected to rise by about two million every year. At that rate, even while the Hispanic and Asian populations expand enormously, the proportion of Americans who identify themselves as white will barely shrink, from a little more than 79 percent, to 74 percent.

It’s not some new math metric that’s responsible. It’s the way the government defines race: most people who describe their origin or heritage as Hispanic or Latino also identify themselves as white."

Census definitions of race are quite fluid and subjective. "Hispanic" can refer to someone from as different and distinct places as Cuba, Mexico or Spain. The definition of "White" is similarly broad, including, "the original peoples of Europe, North Africa or the Middle East". And intermarriage, (about one in three grandchildren of Hispanic immigrants marry non-Hispanic spouses) makes the lines even blurrier.

Additionally, our notion of "non-white" changes as immigrant groups become more assimilated and familiar. A hundred years ago, many were similarly afraid of the influx of Jews, Italians and Eastern Europeans. Today, the cultural and economic achievements of these groups are fundamental to 19th and 20th century American history.

Even for a nation of immigrants, xenophobia is as old as America itself. The quote above is from none other than Benjamin Franklin, describing the influx of German immigrants into 18th century Pennsylvania. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Parents are the last people we want raising children

Policymakers have lots of technical arguments both for and against school choice. But it's hard to argue against the plain, dry logic of a British sit-com.

Not done yet

Recently I wrote about globalization's critics cheering on high oil prices in hopes that they will reduce trade levels. According to recent research, however, it seems like oil prices wont have that large an effect. Writing in Vox, the authors argue:

"Our evidence suggests that the determinants that matter most for explaining trade costs are standard factors like geographic distance (which is a rough proxy for information and transportation costs), trade policy and tariffs, adherence to fixed exchange rate regimes, and membership in the British Empire or Commonwealth... Anderson and van Wincoop (2004) find that the tariff equivalent of international trade costs is about 74%. Transport costs only make up a third of these trade costs. The rest consists of border-related costs such as informational barriers, tariffs and red tape. Even if oil prices directly feed through to transport costs, the impact on overall trade costs is limited."

However, the authors also note that higher fuel costs may affect large supply chains. As a result, there may be a decline in the "back and forth" trade of bulky items that are assembled partially in one country and partially in another. For example, IKEA just opened their first factory in the US.

The value of evidence

Check out Olivia Judson's editorial in the New York Times.

In defending the teaching of evolution in public schools, she puts forth a crucial (and frequently overlooked) argument:

"The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his book, “The Republican War on Science,” the journalist Chris Mooney argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence — or indeed, evidence of any kind — has permeated the Bush administration’s policies, from climate change to sex education, from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution is an integral part of this general attitude.

Moreover, since the science classroom is where a contempt for evidence is often first encountered, it is also arguably where it first begins to be cultivated. A society where ideology is a substitute for evidence can go badly awry. (This is not to suggest that science is never distorted by the ideological left; it sometimes is, and the results are no better.)"

Continuing on yesterday's theme, this editorial highlights the value of evidence in understanding our world. Teaching ideology over evidence makes students intellectually lazy, causing them to accept "just so" stories as appropriate explanations of reality. That is not learning.

We should teach students to be empirical and to be skeptical. The only way to do this is to get them comfortable with evaluating evidence. Challenging our beliefs is tough, but it's better than the alternative.

Ideas, not beliefs

In Kevin Smith's movie Dogma, Rufus (the forgotten apostle) has some wise words about religion:

"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier"

Perhaps we can take apply this same idea to politics. The Economist Free Exchange certainly has:

"I have trouble with any ideological reading of the economics, because the two (ideology and economics) so rarely fit well together. I don't want to elect a free-market supporter or an interventionist. I want to elect someone who will carefully consider the issues and determine that here the government ought to assign pollution property rights, while here the government should reduce licensure, and so on. I want, in short, someone with enough intellectual heft to know the difference between good policy and good politics.

If the economists are unwilling to make these distinctions, I have little confidence that the candidates ever will."

What's good for the goose...

Dean Baker is a well respected economist who has pushed the issue of liberalizing trade in high-wage services like law, medicine and accounting. He notes, for example, that:

"If we could bring in enough fully qualified doctors from the developing world to bring the wages of our physicians down to West European levels it would save patients in the United States close to $80 billion a year on their health care. This swamps the gains from NAFTA, CAFTA, and the other trade deals"

Today, he provides some context to a recent New York Times article about the outsourcing of some financial research jobs to India. According to Baker, this trend:

"will lead to gains to the economy as a whole, as the cost of financial services drops. It should also help to reduce inequality as one, two, or even three digits get removed from some of the compensation packages of the Wall Street crew.

This is not just sour grapes over Wall Street salaries taking a hit. Rather, we should look at this trend through the same lens with which we view all trade. If we can gain from buying our tee-shirts and calculators from China, so too can we gain from buying of our financial services from India.

Baker is fond of pointing out the hypocrisy implicit in forcing low-skill workers to compete with foreign competition but protecting high-skill workers through licenses and restrictions on immigration for the highly educated. Certainly the fear here is that low-six figure salary jobs under threat from cheaper competition will spell doom for the American standard of living. This fear is understandable, but unwarranted for two reasons (among others):

• According to Daniel Drezner (writing in Foreign Affairs), close to 90 percent of jobs in the United States require geographic proximity and thus cannot be outsourced
• Lowering the price of financial services raises the standard of living of everyone that consumes financial services, increasing investment returns on 401(k) and pension plans. This is substantial, as roughly half of American households are invested in the stock market

Gains from trade are gains from trade, whether it comes in the form of cheaper shoes or cheaper financial research. So why not make trade more egalitarian?

The best way to get people to conserve

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck wrote a piece ridiculing Barack Obama's assertion that if people performed simple actions like properly inflating tires and regularly scheduling tune-ups, Americans could save a significant amount of oil. Beck's problem is with the phrase, "but if everyone did". He says:

"Saying 'we ought to' is exactly the same as 'but if everyone' -- a way to make a ridiculous point sound plausible. It's like saying: We ought to all live in peace and harmony. It's not that easy."

It's hard to argue with that on the surface. Even if Obama were president, he probably couldn't get people to conserve just by asking them. Fortunately, we have a mechanism known as the price system that can help get people to conserve. Keeping tires inflated and cars in proper condition can increase fuel economy by 7%. Maybe that's not going to change behavior at $2.00 per gallon; at $4:00 per gallon, it's a different story.

Greater energy efficiency (which is just another way of saying conservation) has to be a part of the energy solution. And price signals are great for making people act like environmentalists. As the price of gas has gone up, Americans have started driving less. When stuff gets expensive, no one needs to tell us to buy less of it.

Not the right answer

Greg Mankiw comments on Obama's plan for a "Windfall Profits Tax" on oil companies. He says that it's not really a Pigouvian tax:

"...a windfall profits tax on domestic companies discourages domestic production, but has it has no effect on domestic consumption. By contrast, a Pigovian tax at the gas pump reduces domestic consumption but has no effect on domestic production."

He also notes that since this tax will only apply to domestic oil companies (the US government does not have authority to directly tax Saudi Aramco or Russia's Gasprom), it will only serve to push consumers away from domestic oil and towards foreign oil imports. Think of it as a negative-tariff that will increase consumption of foreign oil.

Obama's proposal also includes a $1,000 tax rebate to help consumers pay for gasoline. It's a very strange plan. The problem: high gas prices. The solution: tax domestic producers (which will cut the supply) and give a tax rebate to consumers (which will increase demand). Doesn't sound like it will work, does it? Of course it's not just Obama. McCain has come up with plenty of his own bad ideas to solve the energy crisis.

Energy politics are far from rational, but the current political debate highlights American policymakers' unwillingness to admit that the US can't directly control the price of oil. But maybe that's a good thing. If US politicians could determine the price of oil, gas would cost $0.50 per gallon, Americans would drive even more than they do, and we'd be that much closer to beach-resorts in Greenland.

Do the simple things

Courtesy of Michael Gruwnwald at Time magazine.

No, properly inflated tires and regularly scheduled tune-ups will not (by themselves) solve our current energy situation. But Obama's point (and yes, he made a number of others) shows that there are many easy changes we can make that have surprisingly large effects. Tire inflation and tune-ups can together improve gas mileage by 7%. That's not huge, but it's something and it comes at a very low cost. The real question is why are Republicans spending their time ridiculing a simple, sensible idea?

Should we celebrate reduced global trade?

In a recent article, the New York Times discusses the impact of high oil prices on global trade. As one might expect, increasing the cost of shipping products will make foreign goods relatively more expensive, increasing the competitiveness of local alternatives. This could be good news for Mexican producers, who are closer to the US market, and bad news for their Chinese counterparts across the Pacific. Similarly, China will likely shift from Brazilian steel to steel from Australia.

Sounds simple enough. But some critics of globalization see this as an opportunity to reverse the process of global economic integration and move back towards a local economic model. Naomi Klein, author of the Shock Doctrine, clearly summarizes this perspective:

“If we think about the Wal-Mart model, it is incredibly fuel-intensive at every stage, and at every one of those stages we are now seeing an inflation of the costs for boats, trucks, cars. That is necessarily leading to a rethinking of this emissions-intensive model, whether the increased interest in growing foods locally, producing locally or shopping locally, and I think that’s great.”

Further, the article notes that some environmental and globalization-critical blogs have started the "globalization death watch".

Is this a time for environmentalists to be celebrating? When it comes to food exports, the answer may be no. While the "locavore" movement has gained popularity in recent years, surprising research from the Civil and Environmental Engineering School at Carnegie Mellon suggests that "food miles" are actually a very small part of carbon emissions associated with food production and distribution. Specifically, the researchers concluded:

We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.

There are two reasons for this. First, we typically forget about the carbon emissions from the production of food, which can be substantial. Locally-grown, organic beef, for example, is vastly more environmentally damaging than chicken or pork grown half-way around the world. Further, we tend to forget that some areas are better suited for growing certain produce (a comparative advantage, if you will) than others. Research has found that it is less carbon intensive for British consumers to get their tomatoes from sunny Spain than from greenhouses (which consume significant amounts of electricity, etc) in their own towns.

The second reason is that there are significant economies of scale in global transportation, which cut down on the per-unit food emissions. Consider the example of farmers' markets. Local farmers each load up their pickup trucks with the food they, themselves, grew and drive them to the market. While the total emissions produced by each farmer is very small, the per-unit emissions may be quite high. Conversely, large tanker ships produce large total emissions, but very small per-unit emissions, since they carry so much in one trip.

The locavore movement, or localization more generally, advocates for more self-sufficient communities, which can produce all that they need individually. Strangely, people tend to think of this as a new concept. But humans have been locavores for 99% of our history, though not by choice. Integration occurred when technology allowed for it, and people came to appreciate the efficiency from comparative advantage and economies of scale.

Of course, globalization and trade are not going to unravel simply because fuel prices have increased. And we certainly should not diminish the environmental impact of our industrial (and post-industrial) society. But we should also let our environmental policies be driven by clear science rather than ideology.