Forget buying local. Buying global is better.

[Speck Tater]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/food/4277371/Long-haul-food-produces-lower-carbon-emissions.html

Long haul food can produce lower carbon emissions than local produce

Buying locally produced food can produce more greenhouse gases than buying products transported long distances to customers' doors, a new study has revealed. The findings contradict the belief that buying local food is the best option for the environment and cast doubt on the attention being paid to the "food miles" accumulated by food.

Researchers at Exeter University compared the carbon dioxide emissions of organic vegetables from local farm shops with mass produced organic vegetables delivered to customers' doors as part of a large scale vegetable box scheme.

They found that if consumers had to make a round trip by car of more than four miles to visit their local farm shop, the carbon emissions produced were greater than the mass produced vegetables that had been kept in cold storage and transported by heavy goods vehicle.

--- more at link ---

I know, we all really wish this were not true, but let's not fall into the Republican trap of believing what we wish were true instead of what is actually true.

A similar study at Lincoln University in New Zealand came to the same conclusion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html

--quote--

the Lincoln University scientists expanded their equations to include other energy-consuming aspects of production — what economists call “factor inputs and externalities” — like water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of other cultivation inputs.

Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists reached surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.
--/quote--

Another study from George Mason University: http://mercatus.org/publication/yes-we-have-no-bananas-critique-food-miles-perspective?id=24612

[ljm2002]

1. There are some assumptions built into this...

...mainly, the assumption that each family who buy locally must drive 4 miles to and from the point where they purchase their wares.

Whereas, if we all were to buy more locally, you would find that the local grocers would be bringing the wares in, people would be group-buying, etc. There is no reason whatsoever that every person who buys locally will be driving 8 miles to do so.

Anyway my own farmer's market is less than 1 mile away, just a bit longer than my standard drive to the grocery store.

[Speck Tater]

4. Correction...

A four mile ROUND TRIP was assumed, not 4 miles one-way. That simple oversight doubles your claimed carbon cost. Using the correct figure, however, is usually preferred.

Furthermore, the round trip distance driven by the final consumer was only one of many factors included in the analysis. "Food miles are a very simplistic concept, but it is misleading as it does not consider the total energy use, especially in the production of the product."

On the other hand, if you choose to buy locally because local food tastes better, which it certainly does, at least acknowledge that you are creating a higher carbon footprint for the sake of satisfying personal tastes and preferences, and that "food miles" is just a phoney-baloney smoke screen to make people feel better about doing something that is, in the final analysis, meaningless.

Each person must, of course, decide for themselves whether to acknowledge reality or to adhere to dogma. It's the kind of mental struggle we all face every time reality contradicts our cherished beliefs.

[ljm2002]

9. Nevertheless...

...the study assumes that things remain as they are now. Whereas, if we go to more local production, then systems will grow up around it.

I'm all for looking at facts and figures. Just not for letting facts and figures dictate behavior, when systematic changes could make those facts and figures a moot point. In this paper, the facts and figures support leaving our food distribution system just the way it is. But it does not address ways in which the current system could be restructured.

Anyway I'm just trying to point out the study may not be taking all factors into account.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Though the New Zealand study has been disputed

According to the New Zealand study, the energy used to produce 1 tonne of UK milk solids (these constitute about 10-14% total milk) is 48.3 GJ. According to the recent UK study it's only 25GJ which is comparable with the 23 GJ for the NZ dairy production. the study allows another 2GJ for shipping. If milk is imported as fresh (which it isn't) or as cheese or butter (which it is) then the transport figures need to allow extra for refrigeration, which they don't appear to. Incidentally both studies take the embedded energy of capital equipment into account.

Again, according to the New Zealand study, I tonne of lamb produced in the UK requires nearly 46GJ compared with New Zealand lamb which only needs 8.6 GJ. An extra 2GJ is added on for transport. However, according to the Silsoe study lamb production requires only 23 GJ of energy per tonne. It is, interestingly, still higher than the New Zealand equivalent but the figure is halved.

http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/lca/other-studies/study-agribusiness-and-economic-research-unit

[nuxvomica]

3. These studies appear to be slanted

The Telegraph story compared to home delivery. I think if we still had home delivery of dairy like when I was a kid we'd be saving unnecessary trips to the store.

The Lincoln University study appears to have been designed to promote New Zealand exports.

And the Mercatus Center has a stated mission to promote the benefits of markets. It has Charles Koch and Ed Meese on its board. I don't think I'd trust anything coming out of that place.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

13. Are you denying that there is such a thing as "special interest science" ?

Both the ethanol and nuclear industries have proponents in the academic community that will produce research that, while technically accurate, are crafted in ways that lead people to false conclusions about the larger truths involved.

Unless you are skilled in how to read academic research for both internal and external validity, and unless you are able to fit that research into a larger body of research that serves to help define what the parameters of the problem being studied are, then it is at least as likely you will mistake the significance of the information as it is that you will get it right.

For example, can you explain why this information on ethanol's energy balance is "special interest science"?

Paper: "Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results of Fuel Ethanol"
Author: Michael Wang, Center for Transportation Research Argonne National Laboratory
Presented: The 15th International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels 2005
Download: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/375.pdf

[Nihil]

14. Thank you.

> The Telegraph story compared to home delivery.

> The Lincoln University study appears to have been designed to promote
> New Zealand exports.

> And the Mercatus Center has a stated mission to promote the benefits of markets.
> It has Charles Koch and Ed Meese on its board. I don't think I'd trust anything
> coming out of that place.

The idea of eating locally-produced food seems to be total anathema to some people.

:shrug:

[txlibdem]

15. Thanks for shining the light of truth on these Koch and bull studies

In the real world, whoever pays for the "scientists" gets to determine the outcome of the study. They may have to fire a few people along the way but in the end they'll get a "scientific study" that says exactly what they wanted it to say.

[damntexdem]

5. And what makes you think we'll still be able to buy?

[Blue Meany]

7. Rather than jump to the conclusion that global is better based

on a single metric in specific circumstnaces, they should be asking broader questions like: what is most sustainable? What is the best method of food production and distribution in terms of global warming?
These studies do point to the need for better distribution systems for local food, something that local food advocates are both aware of and are working on. The local food buying club was formed partly to address this various issue and create more energy-efficient methods of getting local food from farms to customers. We are also thinking ahead to the impact of peak oil, which will cause the cost of shipping to skyrocket, and make local food the only viable option for most people. Then, perhaps food will be distributed by human or animal powered vehicles, or electric vehicles that don't leave a carbon footprint.

Bear in mind, too, that the food industry has been trying to undercut the local food movement because the only way they can continue to profit is through a centralized system. One of the things they have been doing is planting articles in newspapers and journals that feign concern about environmentalism and food quality while simultanously arguing against the movement that is seeking to pursue these. I don't know if the food industry is behind these studies or the articles based on them, of course, but that is a possibility.

[Speck Tater]

8. Clearly the global model is not sustainable, especially in the face of growing oil prices.

In the long run I agree that local is the only possible answer.

But I do love to stir the pot by playing devil's advocate from time to time. After all, we really do need to think more deeply about these issues rather than just reflexively parroting the party line. Hopefully that kind of open mindedness is what makes us better than dogmatic Republicans.

For families barely able to get by on a poverty level income what is best for them is the cheapest food that can be had. And if that food comes from giant global agri-busines then that is clearly what is best for the poor. Choice is for people who can afford choice. But it's a mistake to automatically assume that the latest preppy/liberal marketing fads, like "food miles" are the correct, simplistic answers to very complex problems. They are at best "feel good" solutions for otherwise obscenely extravagant liberal consumers.

[GliderGuider]

10. "In the long run local is the only answer"

We are heading towards a "reversion to the mean" in many of the trends we have become used to over the last 200 to 2,000 years. By this I mean that the activities in question will reacquire many (though perhaps not all) of the characteristics they had before the rise of industrial civilization.

One of those reversions is going to involve a complete relocalization of food production, except for high-value items like spices and salt. This reversion will be driven by the incremental loss of transportation fuel over the next 10 to 50 years. The issue of carbon footprint of transportation becomes decreasingly significant as transportation itself becomes increasingly difficult, costly and rare.

So local is not necessarily the chosen answer so much as the inevitable outcome. Eat Chilean grapes while you still can.

[Blue Meany]

11. I agree the food miles is a metric with limited utility...

It matters how things are shipped: shipping by sea requires little in energy in cmoparison with land transport; trains are much more efficient than trucks. And shipping produce by air seems absolutely obscene. But the point is that it often takes less energy to ship from Europe or Asia than across the continent.

[ZombieHorde]

12. I have to recommend this, I have no choice in the matter.

Like a moth to a flame, I am drawn to iconoclasm.

[SpoonFed]

16. I call *cough* *couch* bullshit *ahem*... n/t