From Stephen Budiansky’s article in the New York Times:

But the local food movement now threatens to devolve into another one of those self-indulgent — and self-defeating — do-gooder dogmas. Arbitrary rules, without any real scientific basis, are repeated as gospel by “locavores,” celebrity chefs and mainstream environmental organizations. Words like “sustainability” and “food-miles” are thrown around without any clear understanding of the larger picture of energy and land use.

I used to find this kind of article an affront to my environmentalist self. How dare this pigheaded New York Times writer tell me my most cherished beliefs are false! Worse, eating local has become part of my identity, you are attacking who I am! Then a moment of embarrassment would creep in as I realized that my belief is supposed to be to live life in as “sustainable” a way as possible not satisfy my personal environmental ego.

I’m sure Budiansky’s article has been fact-checked and that he hasn’t said anything grievously inaccurate. And I’ll agree that his tone is a little too adversarial for my tastes, but he’s got a point. Even if the point isn’t the point he thinks he’s making. Whoa. Hang on. Let me clear things up.

What’s really at issue here is what I like to call science-based environmentalism. Prefacing any sort of practice with “science-based” has become a popular way of conveying the fact that a lot of what we do is often based just as much in routine or tradition as it is in the science about the practice. In one sense I can sympathize. Science–particularly complex sciences like medicine and ecology–can change faster than the Montreal Canadiens’ roster. Today’s Jaroslav Halak can be tomorrow’s Carey Price or, for the less hockey inclined,  what’s good today may not be good tomorrow (burn!).

What I think lacks, to a certain degree, in some environmentalists (I said some!) is a willingness to keep abreast of what science has to offer in terms of informing their smaller-than-thou footprint lives. I have encountered some people who think that they can know what makes an environmentally friendly life from how something feels. Sometimes they’re right on the money. Sometimes they’re knowledge is as shaky as Andre Racicot (has the hockey season started yet cause these hockey metaphors are getting outta hand).

It is difficult to keep up with this research. The research isn’t always published in accessible places or conveyed in ways that are easily understood. Doing the research takes time that sometimes we don’t have. And science doesn’t offer clear cut answers (if done properly) but only suggestions–sometimes it can’t say anything at all.

In the end, I’d like environmentalism to be a dynamic “ism” where ideas change with time to better reflect our state of knowledge (can’t help but mention Stewart Brand here). We’ll disagree. We’ll make mistakes. All I’m asking is that we read articles like Budiansky’s with an open mind knowing that everybody is wrong sometimes (though maybe not on this issue).

This post sounds a little preachy and I hate that. But I’ll be the first to admit that I include myself in the people this post is addressing.