I think it's worth examining the ethical failures of enviro-fundamentalists further.

. . . although over-simplistic and obsolete belief systems are a comfort given the threats and potential catastrophes that we are constantly browbeaten with in our 24/7 media environment, they are not just inadequate but unethical.

One of the ethical failures is a sort of sociopathy, a free-rider problem where a few profit at the expense of many by failing to carry their share of the social load, allowing others to do all the work while the shirkers lounge about. What! - you shriek - environmentalists are all about ethics, justice and, and, well, being only ever good. But that's merely a pose, a cover for some truly hard hearted sociopathy, one of the primary characteristics of fundamentalists. Consider this bit about energy by the late Marty Bender:

Since any solar technology exposed to the weather will slowly deteriorate whether or not it is used, there would be little to be gained from the selfish idea of operating a personal solar technology only when the owner needs its energy. The obligation to sell excess electricity would be quite contrary to the current popular notion of achieving energy self-sufficiency in order to disconnect oneself from the grid. This notion is made possible by the present industrial economy with its abundance of fossil fuels and mineral resources.

My emphasis. It's a free-rider issue. The option to withhold your resources, wealth, labor or products from society - the grid - is made possible by the existence of that society you scorn. It's selfish and unethical to do so.

This is true of whatever you produce, not just electricity. Bender's point that production of electricity is intermittent - sometimes in surplus and sometimes in deficit - is true of everything but is very clearly true of agricultural products. The post about Factoids that cited Michael Pollan's ludicrous lettuce calories argument alluded to the same ethical lapses:

By this convoluted logic of calories things like coffee and black pepper would be right off the menu. Forget bananas and most fruits, you'll have to make do with preserves and the odd moldy apple from the root cellar.

Lest you think I exaggerate, here's a recent example of just this sort of twisted thinking.

here are some easily digested facts: A Washington apple travels 1,722 miles by commercial diesel truck from the tree to the market in Des Moines. A Hawaiian pineapple travels 1,683 miles by airplane and truck. And a bunch of Chilean grapes? 5,585 miles by ship and truck. (I do wonder whether the weight includes added ounces of pesticide coating on the grapes, or food-grade shellac on the apples.)

Because these new formulas for calculating fuel requirements account for a number of factors that were left out of the 2002 report, the fuel amounts here are actually lower than those projected several years ago. Nevertheless, it's clear that we're spending vast amounts of a limited resource to move food that could potentially be sourced much closer to home. Sure, an Iowan wouldn't be able to enjoy a mango or a pineapple, but there's no reason to bring an out-of-state apple to a state that grows their own just fine.

That would be factoids rather than facts I think, but it amplifies the problem: not only are those in Chicago to be denied lettuce in December, folks in Iowa simply must give up mangos and pineapples. The priggish calorie counters want to revert to a local subsistence society where you only get to eat what grows within 100 miles and the whole rest of the world remains terra-incognito - deepest, darkest other.

I can see steam rising from the collars of the economists among you who easily see the trade implications of such views, and the poverty that would result on both sides of the now forbidden transactions. When a thoughtful person with even just minimal intelligence and thinking skills reads this ...

"How much money would go back into the Iowa economy if all Iowans ate their daily recommended allowance of fresh fruits and vegetables from local sources?" The answer? Approximately $300 million.

... they see the other side of this broken transaction and the spiral into poverty that would result if everyone, not just the free riders in Iowa - did this. The millions not spent to buy from others would harm those others, and they in turn would have less to buy Iowa produce which is highly seasonal. The folks in Washington would have no market for their apples though they have a comparative advantage in producing them, and so would not be able to buy maize from Iowa where there is a comparative advantage for maize growing. Both would be less prosperous.

Why? What twisted logic justifies this beyond a sort of childish miserliness and false economic reasoning?

by eating local produce you can be sure you are supporting your community, reducing oil dependence, and getting the most delicious apples imaginable.

All false. You are harming your community, making them poorer while also limiting the scope of their life experience. You are not reducing oil dependence, you are merely limiting yourself. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. And you are not getting the best apples, just local apples.

The silly factoids and muddled thinking in this argument for local production may appeal to a certain unthinking segment of society, but it won't withstand mild scrutiny or persuade those who accept the responsibility for authenticity as discussed in Seattle Borg.

The good reasons to buy local are precisely about authenticity - not calories or juvenile economic confusions. And it isn't sufficient that the product be made or grown locally, it must also satisfy all the other criteria you value. It may seem strange that I'm demanding this authenticity since I am a local food producer. I have apples, nectarines, peaches, beef and chicken for sale. But I'm not stupid and not dishonest. For example, the majority of energy used for food production is spent in the last mile - getting it onto your plate. The cost of moving an apple a thousand miles in a truck load is trivial compared to the cost of getting it from a distribution point to your home. It's just like pixels. The last mile is the hardest.

But, for some of you it satisfies your values and is money well spent. If you enjoy having a farmer in your neighborhood and enjoy the effort and expense involved in making your purchases from that farmer, if the food is in fact good and was produced in ways that match your views on proper agronomy, if the larger environmental issues of having open space and mixed use farms appeals to you, and if food is important in your life then I have something for you. You haven't lived until you've eaten a Mac Edwards Ambrosia peach. Let's deal. I'll even haggle if it please you, just like in the day when a purchase was a social activity and haggling was one of the arts. (uh, it's not peach season now, but you get the idea).

Support your local farmer, but do it for authentic reasons. Don't be a fashion victim that mouths muddle headed pseudo-green platitudes and economic gibberish. That's not sustainable. It's not admirable. It's phoney and in the last analysis ugly and unethical. We can do better.