AlterNet: Is Eating Local the Best Choice?

[marmar]

Is Eating Local the Best Choice?

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted September 11, 2007.


Those who say eating local is not always the best choice for the planet are forgetting one very important part of the equation: community.


Some 30 years ago NASA came up with another BIG idea. Assemble vast solar electric arrays in space and beam the energy to earth. The environmental community did not dismiss NASA's vision out of hand. After all, the sun shines 24 hours a day in space. A solar cell on earth harnesses only about four hours equivalent of full sunshine a day. If renewable electricity could be generated more cheaply in space than on earth, what's the problem?

A number of us argued that the problem was inherent in the scale of the power plant. Whereas rooftop solar turns us into producers, builds our self-confidence and strengthens our sense of community as we trade electricity back and forth with our neighbors, space-based solar arrays aggravate our dependence. By dramatically increasing the distance between us and a product essential to our survival, we become more insecure. The scale of the technology demands a global corporation, increasing the distance between those who make the decisions and those who feel the impact of those decisions. Which, in turn, demands a global oversight body, itself remote and nontransparent to electric consumers.

NASA and most of the environmental community were impervious to arguments about scale and community. But environmentalists soon turned against the orbiting solar satellites when they concluded the microwave beams used to transmit the solar electricity to earth would wreak havoc on birds flying through its path. Ronald Reagan cut NASA's budget. The prospect of solar arrays dimmed.

My experience with distant solar came to mind when I read James F. McWilliams' recent column in the New York Times about food miles. McWilliams, a "passionate" advocate of "eat local," discussed new studies that conclude local is not always environmentally superior. One study he cites found the life cycle impact of a lamb raised in New Zealand and shipped to the United Kingdom was lower than a lamb raised and consumed in the U.K. Another more comprehensive study by University of Wales professors Ruth Fairchild and Andrea Collins found that transporting food from farm to store accounts for only 2 percent of the overall environmental impact of food systems. Food grown locally could have a considerably bigger footprint than food flown halfway around the world.

"I'm a bit worried about the food miles , because it is educating the consumer in the wrong way. It is such an insignificant point," says Fairchild.

McWilliams' column comes as the U.K. Soil Association (the certification agency for U.K. organics) proposes stripping the organic label from foreign-produced certified organic goods that are flown in. Some food stores in Europe have announced they will label products that have been transported by air. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/environment/60670/

[flashl]

1. Food miles. New?

Hasn’t it been long established that regional eating is healthy?

[OlderButWiser]

2. I'm not sure I get...

...the connection to eating locally and producing energy locally.

It's obvious that if I can pick up a dozen sweet corn around the corner that's better for me than going to the supermarket and buying a dozen trucked in from California. But if I could get my electricity manufactured in CA and 'trucked' here (to Michigan) all the 'mess' would be there.

[On the Road]

3. There Was an Actual NASA Plan

to harness solar energy from space and it was cancelled because of concerns about hitting birds? Get going, people, we're 30 years behind. I'm sure there are ways of repelling birds. Global warming and peak oil are on a completely different order of magnitude.

Who cares if people feel self-reliant and in touch with their own energy production? I don't want build my own car, construct my own house, and make my own clothes either. The world needs massive amounts of energy that are not to poison the planet or run short and cause a depression.

[Nihil]

7. As someone else said, it's a badly-written article

> ... cancelled because of concerns about hitting birds?

Nope, it was cancelled for a whole bunch of reasons including the damage
to wildlife (way down in the list) but more importantly because of the
unknown effects of heating the atmosphere in the transmission column,
the losses from the same, the difficulty in keeping the beam on target,
the dangers from beam 'wobble' (think of the energy involved), the dangers
to aircraft & satellites in lower orbit, the phenomenal cost, the poor
return on investment, the hazards of maintenance, the risk of deliberate
re-targetting (this plan derived from that of a weapon), the political
backlash of supporting such a boondoggle, the impact on astronomy, ...

You get the picture! :-)

[Javaman]

4. My advice? plant a garden yesterday. nt

[Kolesar]

5. Absolutely terribly written

This doesn't prove sh-t. Of course we want to get rid of transportation/fuel costs!

Another more comprehensive study by University of Wales professors Ruth Fairchild and Andrea Collins found that transporting food from farm to store accounts for only 2 percent of the overall environmental impact of food systems. Food grown locally could have a considerably bigger footprint than food flown halfway around the world.

I suppose that some locally grown gourmet meat could have a "bigger environmental footprint" than grain flown in from another continent, but that is irrelevant.

[razzleberry]

6. feasting on Patagonian Toothfish, flown by air ...

not the same as average stuff deliverd by rail.

start by reducing frivolous air travel
and air freight