Michael Green

Writer and producer

Book review: The Value of Nothing, by Raj Patel

In The Big Issue on

In his 2008 book, Stuffed and Starved, Raj Patel exposed the roots of a global food system that fattens one billion people while another 800 million go hungry.

This time around he’s skipped the entrée and devoured the big cheese: capitalism. Or more specifically, the idea that the price of something is a good indicator of its value (see the global financial crisis). Prices, he argues, are blind to ecological and social ills and “at best, only give a blurry sense of priorities and possibilities”.

Patel, an academic, activist and former employee of the World Bank, offers up a lively, easy-to-read critique of free market economics and corporate power. And where other recent critics failed to promote meaningful change (ahem, Kevin Rudd), he doesn’t shy away from the radical consequences of acknowledging that markets don’t sell magic happiness beans.

With examples drawn from Chile to Pakistan, Patel promotes a society sweetened by small-scale cooperation and infused with active local democracy. Whether you’re puzzled by economics or worried about the future, The Value of Nothing makes bracing and inspiring reading.

Four-and-a-half stars

Q & A with Michael Shuman

In Community development, Social justice on

Earlier this year I interviewed American economist, lawyer and writer Michael Shuman. He’s the author of two books on re-localisation, Going local and The small-mart revolution and a founder of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies.

Shuman writes about the economic benefits of buying from locally owned businesses, arguing that the money you spend has a much bigger economic multiplier effect. That is, it circulates more quickly and more often, and in doing so, it creates more jobs, income and wealth.

As an example, he refers to a 2003 study in Austin, Texas, where economists analysed the impact of a proposed Borders bookstore against two local bookstores. They found that $100 spent at Borders would circulate $13 in the local community, while $100 at the local stores would circulate $45.

When we spoke, he began by telling me that the localisation message is spreading fast.

MS: I’m very struck by the similarity of the consciousness about various crises that are hitting the world – in finance, peak oil and climate change – and equally struck by the similarity of the solutions that people are developing at the community level. Frankly, everywhere I go there are profound and growing localisation movements.

MG: What’s the main thrust of your message?

MS: First of all, every time you spend your money you are voting for the kind of economic future you want. And if you vote with your money more conscientiously for local businesses with high quality local goods and services, there are a whole bunch of wonderful things that can happen to your economy. If you don’t vote that way, you’re economy is going to become hollower and shallower, and your prosperity is going to be imperilled. And I think it’s even truer for investment, because right now we have an investment system where everyone under-invests in local business. I think if we can change that, we can dramatically increase the number of local businesses and prosperity will flow from that. The two critically important decisions to think about are your purchasing and how you invest your super.

MG: What do you mean by ‘local’?

MS: I define local as the smallest jurisdiction in which you live that has real political, economic or legal power. So if you live in Melbourne, the city would be the relevant area. If you lived in a remote rural region, you might think of a larger area. It’s necessarily a flexible term, but the point that I like to emphasise is that local ownership means that the people who own the business live in the immediate jurisdiction in which it operates.

MG: You wrote The small-mart revolution in 2007, arguing that small, local businesses contribute more to long-term economic prosperity and community wellbeing. The world seems to have changed a lot since then – has your thinking changed?

MS: In the book I lay out a dozen trends in the global economy that were accelerating localisation. All of the trends have moved faster than I anticipated. For example, I never expected oil to hit $150 a barrel so quickly. It didn’t stay there very long, but it won’t before we get there again. Also, when I wrote the book, I felt that the conventional understanding about the financial system would make it very difficult to convince people to move into local stock quickly. But the financial crisis has so changed people’s perceptions about the risks inherent in the current system that it has really opened their minds to localisation in a huge way. I think the shift in global consciousness is profound and has moved much more quickly than I thought it would.

MG: You write that smart localisation is about being self-reliant and exporting – not about limiting global trade. So are you saying the ideas we have about scarcity aren’t accurate, and there’s actually great scope for growth?

MS: That’s right. It’s not a new argument – for example, look at the writing of Frances Moore Lappé with Food First, thirty years ago. She made the argument that the planet has more than enough food to feed people, but our distribution systems are corrupt. As the years have gone by she has increasingly talked about the importance of local food systems that feed populations first and foremost, and then we build trading systems for more exotic foods on top of that. And I think that’s true in all kinds of goods out there.

It’s not to say there aren’t shortages or profound challenges in moving communities that are in very high levels of poverty into a place where they can be active participants in the global economy. But in my work in the US I’ve seen that the poorest economies are the ones that are most predisposed to try new approaches because they have been most readily left behind by the mainstream economy. And when you’ve got little or nothing and you change your approach, a little of something that’s better can actually generate a lot quickly.

MG: But in the short term, if I’m spending more money locally, then someone else will be missing out.

MS: I agree with that – for example, the argument is that in the US we import bananas from Guatemala so if we figure out ways of producing bananas in hydroponic greenhouses, the peasants who are producing those bananas in Guatemala are going to lose out. I think the weakness of the argument is that the peasant receives such a tiny fraction of the value-added of that banana – probably a fraction of one per cent – that it turns out to be an enormously inefficient mode of helping that peasant. And so both the promise that trade-as-usual helps the poor, and notion of the harm that comes from changing traditional trade, both of those things are a lot smaller than people assume.

But there is a short-term cost and there’s a transition in that. What I would add is that it is in the interests of communities to share their best practices for free with other communities worldwide. We should all become part of a kind of open-sourced world of information about the technology, business finance and public policies that support localisation. Every community that takes this seriously should try to share what’s working and what isn’t.

MG: But isn’t localisation a trend that will inherently disadvantage developing countries – if wealthy countries become more self-reliant, won’t that punish developing-country commodity producers?

MS: I think there is something to that argument, but again, it’s clear that the kind of development policies we’ve undertaken have been a dismal failure for most of the world. In the places where they have been successful, like the Asian tigers and China, they’ve come with grotesque costs to the environment, human rights, labour rights and equity. I just really feel that creating models of community self-reliance around basics and sharing them internationally is going to be much more important to poor communities than any of these other strategies.

MG: Is it implicit that a localised economy will produce a more egalitarian society?

MS: In the United States there is a sociology literature on this. Basically, communities that are largely made up of small businesses have higher measures of social equality and, in some cases, even lower levels of welfare dependency. I think part of the reason is that in a community of small businesses where there’s a lot of local commerce, it’s a relationship-based economy. That is, both the employer-employee and consumer-seller relationships are rooted in people who know each other. If you know each other you have to act more responsibly because you can’t just pick up leave and hide what you’ve done.

Water restrictions

In Greener Homes on

Melbourne’s tough water limits will go on through the summer.

The state government recently announced that Melbourne’s Stage 3a water restrictions would stay in force until at least the end of March. The Target 155 campaign will also continue – in the year since it was introduced, Melbournians met the challenge, consuming an average of 153 litres per person per day.

“We’re about 100 gigalitres better than we were 12 months ago, which is roughly 100 days of water,” says Pat McCafferty, spokesperson for the Target 155 campaign. “But our storages are still at the second lowest level on record.”

Thanks to good spring rainfall and infrastructure improvements, water restrictions have begun to ease in many other parts of the state – to find out the rules in your area, ask your water retailer or visit the Our Water Our Future website.

McCafferty says that although most people have changed their habits, some confusion remains about the Stage 3a restrictions. “The most common pitfall is people watering outside their allocated watering days,” he says.

If you live in an even numbered property you may water your garden on Saturdays and Tuesdays. Odd numbered households can water on Sundays and Wednesdays.

Manual dripper systems, watering cans and hand-held hoses with trigger nozzles can be used between 6 am and 8 am on the allocated days (households with a resident over 70 can choose to water between 8 am and 10 am instead). If you’ve got an automatic dripper system, you can set it for between midnight and 2 am.

It’s prohibited to water your lawns or wash your car at home. “You can spot wash the windows with a bucket, but if you want to wash your whole car you have to take it to an efficient commercial car wash,” McCafferty says.

If your consumption is high, the bathroom is the first place to look – that’s where about half the household’s water goes down the drain. “We’ve still got thousands of efficient showerheads to give away for free, so contact your water retailer to exchange your old one and to receive a four-minute shower timer,” he says.

Once you’ve changed your habits and fittings, you’ll have to splash out to cut down further. “You can hardwire things into your home to make it more sustainable,” McCafferty says. “Things like drought tolerant plants, efficient appliances, and rainwater and greywater systems that capture and reuse water.”

For city veggie gardeners, any tactic helps. The continued Stage 3a restrictions make it tricky to keep the crop from wilting between watering days. Jonathan Pipke from the Food Gardeners Alliance argues that green thumbs should be allowed to water more regularly, so long as they stay within the 155-litre target. “There are all kinds of benefits to growing your own vegetables at home. On average, you use one-ninth the water of commercial producers.”

Despite his concerns, Pipke says it’s still possible to reap a bountiful harvest under the water restrictions. “But you have to be very diligent and prepare well for hot days.” He recommends rigging shade cloth over your garden and putting pots in the shade. It’s also wise to collect and reuse clean water around house, such as the water from washing your vegetables. “Because of the heat, you want to water minimally, but more often – don’t let the soil dry out and then over soak it.”

Lives in the balance

In Culture, The Big Issue on

Young people still want to join the circus, even if they don’t always have to run away from home to do it. In Australia, one school is dedicated to training aspiring balancers, clowns, jugglers and trapeze artists.

It is just before lunchtime at the National Institute of Circus Arts in Melbourne. The 2009 showcase performance is just weeks away. In a stuffy rehearsal room, 14 final-year students listen carefully as the show’s directors give staging instructions for part of the act. The details are precise. Circus is a serious business.

Meanwhile, one of the muscular young men, Aidyn Heyes, bends nonchalantly into a handstand. He stays there, waggling his legs for a while, then shifts from two hands to just one. Minutes later, on his feet again, he amuses a classmate by putting a milk crate on his head.

“We’re all the kind of people who try to get everyone else to look at them,” Heyes says later. His speciality is balancing on his hands.

The institute – the only school of its kind in Australia – opened in 1999, and accepted its first bachelor students two years later. Each year it accepts 24 performers from the scores more who audition.

The students train five days a week, from nine to five, and miss out on the long holidays granted by normal universities. Even so, with the showcase performance approaching, Heyes says preparation time is short. “A lot of the stuff we do in our acts pushes our limits as far as they’ll go. Even though we rehearse and rehearse, no one ever feels like they have enough practice time.”

Heyes grew up in Rosebud on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula and spent his spare time surfing and doing yoga. “Ever since I was young I could always jump up into a handstand and stay there,” he says, constantly stretching and shifting his limbs as he talks. “I’d chill out a few hours a day just doing handstands at home because I enjoyed it.”

Like other circus artists, the 22-year-old uses and experiences his body in ways that gravity-adhering members of the community could scarcely ever comprehend. “When you hit the balance properly, especially with one-arm handstands, it feels like something else is holding you there,” he says. “It feels light, like you’re floating in water.”

The showcase performance is the final step before the students try to enter the real circus world. Some aspire to joining international companies, hotels or cruise ships; others, to making a living from corporate gigs, events or busking. Heyes plans to set himself up as a freelance circus performer, mixing work and travel.

For now, however, he must train and focus for the show. “Hand balancing, like juggling and tightwire, requires single-point concentration,” he says. “When you’re performing, you’ve just got to block everything else out.”

Published in The Big Issue, to accompany a photo essay by Christina Simons.

Green Christmas

In Greener Homes on

Choose real trees and cut waste this festive season.

Christmas trees may not be the most pressing household sustainability issue, but for many little (and not so little) people, festive decorations are a serious business. So what’s the best option when you’re choosing a tree?

On the plus side for artificial trees, they can be packed up and re-used. But their longevity is also a weakness, especially if they’re thrown out before their time is really up. The plastic cannot be recycled, and so, once discarded, they remain in landfill for thousands of years. Also, they are manufactured overseas, transported long distances and arrive decked in layers of packaging.

According to organic gardening expert Lyn Bagnall, plantation trees are a better option. “I love the smell of the pine – it’s part of the Christmas atmosphere,” she says.

There are a number of Christmas tree farms a short distance from Melbourne and a cut tree can be put to good use after the big day has passed. “The pine needles can be recycled in your garden and the wood can be mulched,” she says. If you can’t do it at home, ask your local council how to dispose of green waste. Alternatively, many tree farms will take back used trees.

It’s best to choose trees from plantations that don’t use chemicals, but even where they do, Ms Bagnall is pragmatic. “It’s no worse than buying commercially grown flowers,” she says.

Provided you don’t mind having a small tree, and lugging it indoors every year, growing your own tree in a pot might be the best option of all. “If you buy a potted tree, listen to what the nurseryman says about how to care for it,” Ms Bagnall says. “That way you’ll have it for a good many years. If you’re prepared to look after it, then it’s a lovely alternative.”

Ken Hickson, author of The ABC of Carbon, keeps a Christmas tree in a pot on his balcony. “We decorate it and bring it inside for festive season,” he says. As well, his family re-uses their decorations and they make sure they don’t leave the Christmas tree lights flashing around the clock.

Mr Hickson is adamant that it’s possible to be eco-minded at Christmas without being a scrooge or a killjoy. “With climate change, we need to be ready to adapt our behaviour, but we can still enjoy the luxuries of life,” he says. “We just need to be much more energy efficient in doing it.”

During the silly season, that means giving preference to organic and locally grown produce and being aware of food miles. It need not be more expensive, he argues, especially if you think carefully about how to avoid wastage.

That’s a message that goes for gifts, as well as for food. “By being sensible about the presents we give, we can eliminate a lot of unnecessary plastic packaging and boxes,” Mr Hickson says. Rather than clamouring for more material goods, consider eco-friendly gift ideas, such as donations to charities or planting trees. And then, on Boxing Day, when the party’s over, be sure to recycle the refuse.