How’s your local ecosystem?

Ten years ago, I wrote that we should talk about “local warming” rather than “global warming” if we’re going to make the topic relevant for people.

This post touches on the same subject: Doing something for your local ecosystem for pride, rather than doing something because “it’s the right thing to do.”

  • Don’t “eat organic” to save bees you’ll never see, do it because you’re caring for a fruit tree in the neighborhood.
  • Don’t drive a “clean car” to prevent climate disruption, but to save the lungs of your poorer neighbors living next to the road.
  • Don’t avoid having children “for the Earth” but because you’re going to adopt an orphan or help with local education and cooperation.

I’m writing these ideas as examples because I’m more interested in what you do (in your own way) to improve the ecosystem that supports your quality of life and your community. I’m also asking you because I believe that people can find many imaginative ways to contribute to the public good.

My one-handed conclusion is that we don’t need to wait for a major power to fix a global problem; we can make a difference ourselves, locally.

Author: David Zetland

I'm a political-economist from California who now lives in Amsterdam.

5 thoughts on “How’s your local ecosystem?”

  1. I like your “one-handed conclusion” theme in this blog, but at some undefinable point you’re just sharing a pure opinion using a cute term and making it mean less. Consider limiting use of it to posts that cite sources as a general rule.

    1. Thanks for the comment, Z, but you’ve missed the point of this blog. In the first post here (, I wrote “So I’ve been thinking of changing my blogging style, to be a bit more strident, a bit more aggressive, a bit more useful to people who want it straight.”

      The implication is that I am NOT waiting for “sources” or “mathematical proof” before I write post. I am giving one-handed conclusions that you can use right way because they are right and useful, to me. Feel free to disagree 😉

      1. You can be super aggressive and strident in every paragraph, but if you put a One-Handed Conclusion (OHC) line in every post that is simply a label on that post’s thesis statement, then the phrase loses all significance. It becomes nothing more than your own personal version of “tl;dr”.

        I don’t really appreciate you imagining a requirement of “mathematical proof” as a logical extension of my original statement, as that implies a much greater burden than simply “cite sources”.

        Your brand is “… Economist” your gimmick is a “… Conclusion”. I like these. In the context of science, that’s going to sound (to a US-educated layperson like myself) like the Conclusions section of a high school science paper – where evidence is weighed.

        1. Sorry about the math proof comment. My point is that I’m giving opinions that are, I think, close enough to factual but not “proven” elsewhere BUT also worth giving now rather than waiting for such “proof” to emerge. (In the academic economic world, it’s pretty well known that “peer reviewed” publications are opinions, very late to the discussion due to delays, and often in direct contradiction with other publications.)

          tl;dr: I’m writing here for myself, and I hope it inspires you to think on these matters for yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.