A basic assumption of the industrial revolution has been that the benefits of centralized mass production outweigh the disadvantages. Sure, there have been detractors, Luddites, Federalists and others that question that belief but their voices have not dominated the discussions. Yet in the twenty-first century, as we think about the implications of internet communications coupled with a concern about energy consumption patterns, it may be time to rethink our assumptions. This rethinking needs to be done beyond just the production of products. It needs to apply to the production of energy, legislation, news, finance and all aspects of our lives, since the assumption in one area affects another area.

As an example, a few years ago I was on a panel with Richard Viguerie talking about the future of media. The news industry has been in decline for many years. Some blame it on the Internet. Others blame it on consolidation; a false hope of media investors that economies of scale in the news industry might bring about larger returns. It sort of fits with the progressive viewpoint of arguing against big business. Of course, Mr. Viguerie would not blame big business. He placed the blame on big government. I responded suggesting that conservatives and progressives might not be that far apart. Whether we are blaming big business or big government what we are really objecting to is when large consolidated organizations present us with less favorable options that we might achieve through smaller, local, more nimble organizations. The economies of scale might not always be giving us the best option.

I thought about this again today as I read a commentary by Jock Gill concerning Utility-Scale Wind on Vermont’s Ridgelines. Many people looking at ways to reduce carbon footprints, reliance on foreign oil, and better use of renewable resources are looking at utility scale renewable energy projects. They argue that this is the only way such projects can be efficient enough. Mr. Gill takes a different approach suggesting that a decentralized approach based on more available renewable resources may in fact be the more efficient choice. I have to wonder how much this is really struggling with the industrial age assumptions about economies of scale. I also have to wonder about how this assumption fits into the bigger picture.

Mr. Gill notes that for every $100 million spent on utility scale wind power projects, 16,000 homes in Vermont could be retro-fitted with automatic biomass pellet heating. Such a choice would result in better local control and have a great impact on Vermont’s carbon footprint and energy needs.

Of course to raise $100 million you need large financial institutions, also built on the presumption of efficiencies of scale. You need people to be interested and aware of the idea through large broadcast media.

How might a more decentralized project work? Perhaps a starting point is to explore microfinancing. A small network of community banks might do more for Vermont’s economy than the large investment banks of Wall Street. As money becomes available to be put to work, it could be lent out one household at a time. Instead of relying on large media organizations to get the world out, a similar decentralized grid of local blogs, citizen hyperlocal journalism, might be a better way to have the discussion and encourage new thinking about energy efficiency.

Mr. Gill ties this to various go local movements. In many ways much of the go local discussions are about the same thing, rethinking the economies of scale. Can we get people to rethink economies of scale through networks of small blogs, or should we have a really large conference for people all over the country to fly into? I think I’ll go with the blogs.

Cross posted at Greater Democracy