Having been deeply involved in the climate movement, witnessing global summits dominated by fossil fuel lobbyists and observing communities grappling with climate change, it’s clear that climate change stems from a fundamental economic problem.
The underlying issue is an economic model that relies on continuous growth, fueled by resource extraction and globalized trade. This model has led to increased emissions, widening inequality, and a system where multinational corporations can sue governments for enacting environmental or social protections, enabled by investor-friendly trade agreements.
Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a little-known aspect of international law, allows foreign companies to bypass national courts and sue governments in private tribunals if laws protecting the public or environment threaten their profits. This has led to situations where Germany was sued for regulating coal pollution, Australia for tobacco controls, and Central American countries for safeguarding their water resources.
This system favors polluters over those who protect the environment and is embedded in the global economy, making it easy for corporations to legally challenge environmental regulations that affect their profits.
The current system also promotes illogical trade, where identical products are shipped globally between countries. For example, butter is shipped from England to Germany and vice versa, and New Zealand apples are sold in California while local apples go to waste. This burns energy and resources to exchange goods we already possess, all for profit, yet the emissions from this shipping and aviation are often excluded from national climate reports because most countries only account for emissions within their borders.
Current climate solutions often address the symptoms, such as carbon offsets, electric vehicles, and net-zero pledges, without questioning the underlying principle of endless production, expanded shipping, and accelerated growth. We are essentially trying to solve a problem caused by overconsumption with more consumption.
Localization offers an alternative by focusing on rebuilding local food, energy, and economic systems to prioritize people and places over distant shareholders. This concept, developed by Helena Norberg-Hodge of Local Futures, involves shortening supply chains, reducing dependence on global markets, revitalizing local knowledge, and strengthening community connections. Localization shifts power from global corporations back to communities.
This model isn’t unrealistic; it reflects how most of the world lived for centuries, rooted in their local environment, producing what they needed nearby, and adapting to ecological limits. Many Indigenous and land-based cultures continue to practice this, providing practical examples of sustainability based on their experiences.
Localization is already visible in farmers’ markets, tool libraries, repair cafés, and community-owned energy grids worldwide. From Nairobi to Nova Scotia, and Barcelona to Bangalore, people are rediscovering the value of small-scale, locally-based economies, growing food in urban gardens, launching local currencies, and creating energy cooperatives that keep power within the community.
While it may not be attention-grabbing, as you can’t easily create viral content about trade justice, and it’s easier to criticize climate-denying politicians than to explain global capitalism, localization’s strength lies in its ability to shift focus from spectacle to deeper connections with place, community, and self-sufficiency.
It also requires a cultural shift. We’ve been conditioned to believe that progress means faster, bigger, and farther, and that convenience and instant gratification are paramount. However, true security, as revealed during natural disasters, comes from knowing your neighbors, farmers, and local water sources, not from global supply chains.
Localization is not a perfect solution, but as Norberg-Hodge argues in Ancient Futures, recognizing the global economy as the root of many problems simplifies the path forward, requiring focus on a few key economic changes rather than a multitude of disconnected crises.
If even a portion of the political will, funding, and media attention given to speculative green technologies were redirected towards strengthening local systems, progress towards a sustainable future would be faster and fairer.
Consider that a single lithium mine needed for electric vehicle batteries can devastate ecosystems and displace communities, while a local food cooperative or solar microgrid can reduce emissions, empower individuals, and foster social unity without causing environmental destruction. The era of incremental change is over. We must address the root cause—an economic system demanding constant growth—rather than just treating the symptoms of rising emissions, resource scarcity, and ecological collapse. Building a sustainable future requires confronting this fundamental issue.
“`
