In 1975, the Swedish linguist Helena Norberg-Hodge became one of the first modern Westerners to visit Ladakh, a region on the Tibetan plateau that was largely closed to international visitors until 1974. While making a documentary film and creating the first Ladakhi dictionary, she fell in love with the Ladakhis — “the happiest, most vital, most brilliantly joyous people I had ever encountered,” she said.
But over the years, as global trade and economic development arrived in Ladakh, Ms. Norberg-Hodge witnessed a rise in previously nonexistent unemployment, poverty, pollution, depression, suicide and divisiveness between cultural groups. Dismayed by similar problems around the globe, she started Local Futures, a nonprofit organization dedicated to addressing climate change, mental well-being and more by strengthening local economies worldwide and ending the most wasteful aspects of the global trade system.
Ms. Norberg-Hodge, 78, recently spoke about global trade and the benefits of localization in a video interview.
How is the global trade system contributing to climate change?
Food is being traded over longer and longer distances, and this includes insane redundancies and processing things on the other side of the world. The U.S. exports as much beef as it imports. England exports as much milk and butter as it imports. Fish is sent from Europe, Australia and America to China to be deboned and sent back again. Apples are sent across the world to be washed and waxed. Shrimp are sent from England to Thailand to be peeled.
And with the global trading system, the pressure from global institutions is toward bigger and bigger monocultures. Monoculture is ecocidal. It demands lots of chemicals, additives and technology. So it’s very toxic, and it’s killing the soil.
What are some misunderstandings about this system?
One idea is that this is happening because people want strawberries in winter. That’s a big misconception. It is because global trade enriches global traders. Another is that local food is inevitably more expensive. It’s only more expensive because governments are subsidizing global trade, including infrastructure — ports, airports and superhighways, which are linked to giant monocultures for export to ever-larger cities. So we have a false economy.
You’ve said that ending redundancies in global trade would be the easiest, most painless way of systemically reducing carbon emissions. How could this happen?
It could change if more activists have a linked-up voice demanding governments stop using taxes, subsidies and regulations to favor global trade and global monopolies. Instead, they need to start taxing and regulating the global, and deregulating activities at the local and national levels. I think the pressure will start from the ground up, but the truth is that governments could relatively quickly shift those mechanisms.
What are potential environmental benefits of localization?
By supporting more circular, localized, diversified economies, we will massively reduce energy consumption. And we’re showing in the local food movement that small, diversified farms have virtually no need for chemical additives and are vastly more productive per unit of land. So you can bring back space for wildlife and restore health to the ecosystem as you increase productivity to meet people’s needs at the local, regional and national levels.
What about social benefits?
Smaller farms need more labor, which means they’re more job rich. And because they’re linked to markets closer to the farms, the jobs are more meaningful and enjoyable. People communicate with their customers and are appreciated by people who value good, healthy food.
As we have more community and contact with animals and plants, well-being increases. With depression, anxiety and other mental problems, we’ve seen the healing that comes through community and nature connection, particularly when it’s connected to local food, which is needed and valued by everybody.
The post Trying to Make a Global Change With a Local Focus appeared first on New York Times.
