For some time now I've been thinking about how far goods travel from producer to consumer. I've been thinking about how some what I consume travels vast distances for my convenience. With the ever-rising price of oil and, by extension, oil derivatives like heating oil, plastics, jet fuel, etc., it's important to reduce my consumption impact in terms of petrochemical cost.

It all boils down to this question: what is the energy component to something that you consume?

This reasoning isn't transient; the cost of oil isn't going to decrease overall so this isn't something that should go out of style, so to speak. Much of our consumption infrastructure in the U.S. (and, indeed, the first world) is built on oil and that is an enormous liability. The only way to change that, as I see it, is to be a responsible capitalist (insofar as that is possible): decrease or eliminate the consumption of products that travel unnecessarily great distances.

The grocery store chain that I almost exclusively patronize, New Seasons Market, is a local grocery store chain here in Portland. They (along with some other stores) post the source of most products and make the information available upon request if it isn't posted. For example, I know where my oranges, apples, lettuce, and other produce are grown. The practical result of knowing that information is that I can make a choice when I buy an apple: I can get the one that came from California, or Washington State. Why not support the (relatively) local industries that I can?

But the same goes for any other product (or service) I consume: coffee from South America or Africa, beer or whisky from Europe, corn products from the U.S., shipping from UPS or FedEx, flights from Southwest Airlines. The consumption (purchase and use) has indirect effects -- indirect costs -- not only to me, but to the people and places involved in (or excluded from) the production process.

Implicit in this form of "boycotting" is the notion that if enough people stop consuming those Californian apples, fewer shipments of them will travel to Oregon. This may sound like the destruction of an industry, but if it isn't sustainable, it's eventually going to self-destruct anyway.

It's not always easy to choose local over remote. All too often I make consumption decisions based on what I enjoy eating, drinking, or doing, and sometimes this kind of change looks like a sacrifice. But the real question, I've found, is whether those things are important, and whether I have a sense of entitlement to consume something just because I have the money to purchase it: am I willing to take responsibility for the production process? Will I support and condone it?

Bound up in this discussion is a wide range of other questions and issues: consume less instead of differently, think about population and carrying capacity, think about land use and attitudes, redefine economic success and expectations. But I think I can save those for another day.

So, my next step in changing my consumption habits will be to consume beer made only in the Pacific Northwest (of which there is a great deal, most of it delicious) or beer I make myself. (Watch for an upcoming post on homebrewing, my newest soon-to-be hobby!)