Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Walk on Green
Tim Harford steps up to bat in the debate about the
damage done by food miles, the
distance and environmental cost of shipping food worldwide, with
some new data from British economists, who find that:
flying fresh food around the planet carries an environmental cost of no more than a few cents per meal. That sounds astonishing, but perhaps it shouldn’t be. Those Chilean grapes aren’t flying first class: They’re packed tight to save money, which incidentally saves on pollution.
Plus:
locally grown food has its own environmental costs. Academics from New Zealand have produced evidence that it is environmentally friendly to produce dairy products, apples and lamb in New Zealand--where there is plenty of space to accommodate natural, energy-efficient methods of farming--and ship them around the world. Maybe the New Zealanders would say that, but it's not a crazy observation. Eating local can consume fossil fuels too: [Local food advocate Bill] McKibben enjoyed berries in the winter because he froze them for months. Local tomatoes are grown in northern climes in gas-heated greenhouses. And local doesn't necessarily mean "natural": local apples can be stored for months--in storage sheds filled with nitrogen.
If you're really worried about how to reduce the social costs of your diet, consider this: "Two-thirds of the social costs of the food distribution system have nothing directly to do with the environment at all: They are attributable to accidents and congestion." So your picturesque drive into the city center to hit the farmer's market, or out to the country for leaf peeping and apple picking are imposing more social costs than my Chilean grapes. By extension, walking to the big "industrial" supermarket in your neighborhood may be most responsible food choice you can make.
|11.19.07 @ 3:16PM|#
So your picturesque drive into the city center to hit the
farmer's market, or out to the country for leaf peeping and apple
picking are imposing more social costs than my Chilean
grapes.
Good thing people don't have to drive to buy grapes. Oh, wait.
|11.19.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Again?!?
Seriously, what.the.fuck?
You know, I have an irrational hatred of Robin Williams and Glenn
Close only I don't post about it on my blog every fucking week.
Episiarch|11.19.07 @ 3:24PM|#
So your picturesque drive into the city center to hit the
farmer's market, or out to the country for leaf peeping and apple
picking are imposing more social costs than my Chilean grapes. By
extension, walking to the big "industrial" supermarket in your
neighborhood may be most responsible food choice you can
make.
But KMW, going to the supermarket doesn't make it look like you
care. So you'd better come up with something else, with
the required appearance and no substance.
|11.19.07 @ 3:25PM|#
No argument, Jaimie, just religious language? Color me
surprised.
Now, why would you call someone who acknowledges that walking
causes less damage than driving a heretic?
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Oh, right, you aren't trying to make sense. That's just what you do
in place of thought.
Episiarch|11.19.07 @ 3:25PM|#
You know, I have an irrational hatred of Robin Williams and
Glenn Close only I don't post about it on my blog every fucking
week.
Maybe you should. I'd read it. I hate those fuckers.
iih|11.19.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Based on the license plates and the background scene, this is most definitely rural Egypt :-) (funny and sad)
|11.19.07 @ 3:29PM|#
OK, Joe, you can either address Mangu-Ward's conclusions, or you
can STFU and come up with counter arguments on your own.
I operate under the assumption -- based on life experience and
evidence -- that liberals are almost always so blinded with
"community" concerns that all logic fails them, and that you're
just another one of those fucking idiots.
|11.19.07 @ 3:30PM|#
I think a far better expense of our thoughts regarding food procurement would be the fact that we have so many options, rather than weighing the guilt and the alleged environmental onus each carries with it. Western civilization has come far enough that we needn't hunt, forage, and toil for our food the way we used to, and the way many in the third world currently do. It is also an even greater crime that many carbon fanatics support initiatives that posit humanitarian efforts in the third world, yet impose draconian limits to their industrialization, in order to maintain the expanses of pristine jungle and pastoral beauty in which they live. While these people would gladly benefit from the industrial revolution we have witnessed, intellectuals nevertheless insist on keeping the third world in a state of agrarian primitivism for their own sake and for the environment's. Life is too short to quibble endlessly on how many carbon miles and what not are spent on shipping food, and what environmental benefits there are to eating local food. Modern civilization affords us the luxury to buy our food rather than grow and hunt it, teetering every day on the edge of starvation. Whether it's Shopright or the farmer's market, it's all the same to me, just as long as they have what I need and it's close to my apartment and it's reasonably priced.
|11.19.07 @ 3:30PM|#
If government is Kool-Aid, joe, you're that big fucking smily pitcher that walks through walls.
Guy Montag|11.19.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Katherine,
In your honor I shall be sponsoring
a vegetarian today.
beef,
chicken,
?????
Thank you for the reminder (no matter how far removed from the
topic)! I have not done this in a while.
Episiarch|11.19.07 @ 3:32PM|#
If government is Kool-Aid, joe, you're that big fucking
smily pitcher that walks through walls.
OH YEAH!!!
(it's better when you can hear his voice but I don't have time to
find a good sound clip right now)
thoreau|11.19.07 @ 3:36PM|#
Jamie, if you want to demonstrate that you're more rational than
joe, you might want to tone down the insults.
Although you do get points for humor on the Kool-Aid pitcher
reference.
|11.19.07 @ 3:39PM|#
thoreau,
I get angry because joe is so utterly, utterly predictable. When
the guy's not carrying water for the Democratic Party, he's
skipping along in merriment at how wonderful his big-ass government
is.
|11.19.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Actually, I find that analogy quite apt. In fact, I think joe should now post as Kool-Aid ☺
Bee|11.19.07 @ 3:40PM|#
As long as no one is forcing me to shop at one or the other, I'm
good.
Now, on to the hidden subsidies both shops enjoy....
R C Dean|11.19.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Good thing people don't have to drive to buy grapes. Oh,
wait.
If you stock up for the week at the supermarket, then you aren't
driving there "just" for grapes.
Most trips to the farmer's market are for a few things, and are in
addition to your weekly drive to the supermaket.
Even if you drive to farmer's market in your Prius, the marginal
fuel consumption attributable to your grapes is probably multiples
of that attributable to getting your grapes at the supermarket.
Paul|11.19.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Good thing people don't have to drive to buy grapes. Oh,
wait.
Oh, wait, but the real issue is
Mr. Organic Farmer driving his grapes to that market in
his qaint old pickup. Fuel used per grape?
The cost of the grapes are tied in with the energy used to produce
them. There is a good chance, albeit not guaranteed that the
cheaper foreign grapes have a smaller carbon footprint.
|11.19.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Wow, Jaimie, you are an angry, bigotted person.
I did address her conclusion and provide a counterargument, you
twit.
|11.19.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Now, why would you call someone who acknowledges that
walking causes less damage than driving a heretic?
No, I'd call them a snob, and I'd call them an asshole if they
pretended to have any moral leverage over a person who drives to
the store to load up on a ton of groceries.
So you go ahead and walk to the market, joey boy, and while you're
hoofing it 500 miles back and forth to get your month's supply of
food, I'll be doing other things. Like being productive. But you
worked for the government, so you wouldn't know anything about
that.
thoreau|11.19.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Oh, joe, you had to ruin it by calling him a "twit."
You two are working awfully hard to make the other one look
good.
|11.19.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Paul, RC,
Those are both good points. Rather than deliberately ignore all
considerations of the impact of one's choices, as Peter describes
above, or selectively ignoring the consequences of choices that
don't support one's predetermined conclusion while harping on those
that do, as Mangu-Ward does in over post on this subject, it's best
to look at the entirety of one's effects.
One point to keep in mind is that those who point out the benefits
of organic and local agriculture is that they are trying to
increase the scale at which these endevors take place - increase
the size of the market for those products. The economy-of-scale
benefits, therefore, should not be treated as set in stone. Even on
that particular measure - pretty much the only one by which
conventional industrial farming comes out ahead - the gap between
the two will shrink as organic and local agriculture expand.
Also, I'll point out that one doesn't run one's freezer purely for
the storage of local berries, anymore than one goes to the grocery
store purely to buy grapes. Like the fuel consumption for that trip
to the grocery store, the marginal increase in fuel used to freeze
those berries amounts approaches zero.
Episiarch|11.19.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Also, not sure what he did to merit the "bigot"
tag.
Uhh...he disagreed with joe. I think that's what merited it.
Guy Montag|11.19.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Another excuse to fire up the hybrid to search for the third
critter in my vegetarian sponsoring effort today.
I wonder if there is any dolphin available in Richmond?
despair|11.19.07 @ 3:51PM|#
For joe:
The only
consistent feature in all of your dissatisfying relationships is
you
|11.19.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Hmm, looking at my comments, not seeing anything about Democrats
or government.
Somebody's got some issues to work through.
mike,
I could explain how prejudice and stereotyping based on political
labels is still prejudice and stereotyping, but it's probably best
to keep the "Jaime Freaking Out Because There Are People Who
Disagree With Him" segment of this thread as short as possible.
|11.19.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Oh, good, now there are a lot of people who'd rather talk about
me than the subject of the post.
That's always so much fun, isn't it?
Episiarch|11.19.07 @ 3:56PM|#
To be fair, though, joe has never (that I recall) called me a bigot, and I have disagreed with him plenty. However, he did claim that he had sex with my aunt, which was much better than the bigot thing.
SP|11.19.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Let me remark again:
It is astounding to me that Joe comes here day in and day out, post
in and post out, to troll. Ignore the content of his posts for a
minute and just appreciate the fact that he does this at all. His
comments are usually designed to come off as witty or "cool" in
some manner. Joe, you spend all day doing this, you aren't
cool.
None of you are cool. Posting biting remarks and witty comebacks on
an internet libertarian message board is not cool, not now, not
ever. Why do you do this? All of you?
Because you LIKE it! You like trading jabs with Joe. This is fun
for you, don't deny it. You like showing off and being cool in
front of the other super-geeks here. Joe likes showing off in front
of Dan T and vice versa. You are all incredible losers.
|11.19.07 @ 3:57PM|#
My argument boils down to this:
The organic-whole-food-public-market crowd is infatuated with
itself and its own perceived moral authority over others, and they
absolutely refuse to acknowledge that large-scale, global
production of the food that sustains the planet's inhabitants is
inherently a good thing and -- surprise! -- efficient as
well.
Now do I go to the farmer's market in Missoula, Montana? Fucking-A
rights I do. Because it's cheap and it's good -- not because I
think my farts smell like organically grown roses, as almost
everyone there does.
|11.19.07 @ 3:59PM|#
So I guess the point of the article (and some follow-up comments) was going to farmers markets is phoney and hypocritical. Hmmm. Whatever. I go there because most of the time the produce just tastes better. If I choose fresh, picked-this-morning strawberries at the FM over the yummy-as-cardboard ones at Safeway, am I violating some "going to farmers markets is only for liberals" ethic? I doubt 1 out of 500 people at the FM I usually go to would say they are there because they care about the social or environmental costs of food. But don't worry, it's closed for the winter now, so I'll be eating Chilean produce for a while. Happy now?
|11.19.07 @ 4:00PM|#
It doesn't seem productive to talk about a guy buying grapes or
freezing berries and then try to scale up to the global economy. It
would seem to be more convincing to start at the top - what are the
biggest uses of fossil fuels and how can we reduce them - and then
scale down to personal shopping decisions.
One problem is that if you say something to the effect of "Every
pound of steak consumed in the US required X amount of fossil fuel
to be burned," you're implying incorrectly that if I forgo steak
tonight, I will prevent the burning of that amount of fossil fuel.
You don't accomplish those types of savings/reductions at the
margin.
Episiarch|11.19.07 @ 4:02PM|#
To add to what Jamie said:
When you start micromanaging what you eat (something you need to do
to live) based on some strange calculus of carbon production +
green morality, you are a little too far down the road of obsession
and religion for me.
I don't want to spend my free time trying to figure out what I am
allowed to eat based on achieving the lowest possible "impact".
That's not living, it's hairshirting, and anybody who says
differently is selling something.
neil|11.19.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Interestingly, Chilean produce exporters have a lot of sway over
the Chilean government, and have lately been pressuring them over
the falling dollar. (Because when the dollar falls, they have to
charge more dollars for their grapes to get the same amount of
pesos.) The government, in accordange with their wishes, has
basically pegged the Chilean peso-US$ exchange rate, taking drastic
measures if it falls below a certain level.
Unfortunately, this sucks for most people earning Chilean pesos,
but it's great for northern hemispheric grape, apple, peach, cherry
and avocado consumers.
|11.19.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Why do the realitively wealthy eat-local people hate the poor brown people of Central/South America and Mexico?
|11.19.07 @ 4:09PM|#
mike,
People who think about their actions' consequences and change their
shopping habits aren't trying to drop out of the economy, but to
change it.
I know my personal choices are going to have an approaching-zero
effect on climate change. However, several people doing the same
thing can change the market.
Peter|11.19.07 @ 4:11PM|#
The consequences of one's choices in this case ... JOE ... are negligible bordering on imaginary. It is moral masturbation for crunchy urbanites. And yes, I am generalizing, but I have some license, given that when I was younger, my family had to worry about how much food we'd have for the week - in which case, thank God for the local so-called "big bad corporate grocery store". It was cheap and close. One big point I try to make to people confounded by the inability of liberal politicians to woo lower/working class demographics, is this kind of rhetoric.
|11.19.07 @ 4:14PM|#
I really went organic last night. I ate some of the pheasants I shot last week; can't get anymore back to the land than that! It's pizza tonight, but quail tomorrow.
rosefart|11.19.07 @ 4:14PM|#
What are you going to eat when our empire finally collapses? Bye-bye Industrial-Food Complex. Might be nice to have some local, sustainable food systems in place...
|11.19.07 @ 4:15PM|#
It is moral masturbation for crunchy urbanites.
Excellent! I will have to remember that one. That is a good
line.
SP|11.19.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Is not Joe's game the oldest in the book? And yet you all fall
for it day after day. I can play it too, witness:
libertarians are just selfish!
free markets caused the great depression!
card and krueger proved the minimum wage helps!
Bush created a recession with tax cuts to the top 1%!
Ok, now everyone come after me! Call me a dickwad! I'll complain
and insult your intelligence. Next post we'll do this all over
again.
|11.19.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Why do the realitively wealthy eat-local people hate the poor
brown people of Central/South America and Mexico?
Why don't you ask a real bigot. joe?
SP|11.19.07 @ 4:19PM|#
If libertarianism made any sense, it wouldn't get less than 1% of the vote in every election!
|11.19.07 @ 4:20PM|#
One point to keep in mind is that those who point out the
benefits of organic and local agriculture is that they are trying
to increase the scale at which these endevors take place - increase
the size of the market for those products.
joe--I think mankind has already gone through this machination a
few hundred years ago. They found out that everyone, consumers
included, does a lot better when they can trade with neighboring
areas and increase the value and health of their market. It hedged
against the risk of famnine and provided a living to a good many
people. The consumer gets a better variety of food, the farmer gets
more for his labor. Why do we have to go through this exercise
again? To satisfy the moralistic moaning of a small group of
misguided people?
To that end, if this is important to you, then by all means, spend
your dollars where you want them spent. Put your values where your
mouth is; I've got no problem with that. But have the localistas
spare us the high-handed scolding. They can go back to farming shit
and showing us the violence inherent in the system.
|11.19.07 @ 4:21PM|#
Eating home-grown food helps the local economy!
Wal-Mart destroys communities!
Hate-crimes laws deter hate crimes!
Ethanol is the future!
The novels of Susan Sontage are NOT self-indulgent, overrated
crap!
carrick|11.19.07 @ 4:23PM|#
I'm still waiting for the definitive answer on paper-vs-plastic in regards to total environmental impact.
|11.19.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Health insurance is a right!
Without the Civil Rights Act of '64, we'd still be hanging
negroes!
Public education can ensure equality of opportunity for all!
Episiarch|11.19.07 @ 4:26PM|#
It's a pukefest of projection here today, folks.
Gotta have at least one thread go down this path...
|11.19.07 @ 4:28PM|#
Peter,
I'm not going to explain this again. You can reread the thread and
discover that I've twice pre-butted your "point," or not. I don't
care.
Pretty much any opinion that relies on talking about which sorts of
people one likes is useless to this discussion.
|11.19.07 @ 4:28PM|#
Honestly, if you're eating anything other than Ramen noodles, you're committing a crime against humanity. Mmmmm, MSG.
|11.19.07 @ 4:28PM|#
Tip: You probably won't teach someone not to scold by
scolding them.
Will it teach them to leave you the fuck alone? I'll settle for
that.
|11.19.07 @ 4:29PM|#
School choice and vouchers will lead to poor kids learning off
the back of cereal boxes!
The gold standard caused Krakatoa to erupt!
Republicans wipe their asses with the faces of single mothers!
|11.19.07 @ 4:29PM|#
carrick,
Buy reusable bags.
They're also a lot more convenient - as long as you remember to
bring them to the store.
neil|11.19.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Teach someone to leave you alone by giving them more attention? Hardly. (See how that worked?)
|11.19.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Republicans wipe their asses with the faces of single
mothers!
Alright Jamie, you're just being absurd now.
carrick|11.19.07 @ 4:34PM|#
Buy reusable bags.
Early in my marriage, we had to shop at one of the local
"warehouse" food stores. They required you to "bag" your own
groceries, and they sold these nifty cardboard crates that beat the
shit out of any type of bag for carrying large quantities of heavy
products. I can't remember the last time I saw a store that did
that.
Those were the days.
|11.19.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Particularly virtuous are those who kill, gut, clean, and consume their own Ramens.
|11.19.07 @ 4:40PM|#
Rather than deliberately ignore all considerations of the
impact of one's choices ... it's best to look at the entirety of
one's effects.
A rough and imprecise rule of thumb for measuring the environmental
impact of your decisions is to look at the cost. Generally, though
not always, the more something costs the more environmental impact
involved.
So, if your Prius costs more than a Corolla, even after factoring
in the tiny amount of fuel saved over the Prius' lifetime versus
the Corolla, and you got it so you can make a "statement", the
statement you're inadvertently making is that you're a jackass
posing as an environmentalist.
Kinda like that line from the movie "Gandhi", where a supporter
asks Gandhi, "Do you have any idea how much it's costing me to keep
you in poverty?"
|11.19.07 @ 4:40PM|#
I'm still waiting for the definitive answer on
paper-vs-plastic in regards to total environmental
impact.
Plastic bags good - I use them clean up after my dogs.
Urkobold™|11.19.07 @ 4:41PM|#
THE URKOBOLD WONDERS WHY REUSABLE SLAVES ARE NOT USED BY THE SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS RATHER THAN ENVIRONMENTALLY UNSOUND BAGS.
|11.19.07 @ 4:42PM|#
They're also a lot more convenient - as long as you remember
to bring them to the store.
That doesn't sound convenient at all. The bags they have at the
counter, that's convenient.
|11.19.07 @ 4:43PM|#
Not only that, PL, but they have found a use for every part
of the Ramen.
Are these free-range Ramen we're talking about?
carrick|11.19.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Plastic bags good
There are important social impacts as well, being that it nearly
impossible to find anyone with lighter colored skin than a plain
white plastic bag.
|11.19.07 @ 4:44PM|#
prolefeed,
Too rough, too imprecise, to static, and too influenced by other
factors.
The Prius example, for example - most of the additional cost of
Prius comes via brainpower, which has very low carbon
emissions.
Not to mention, the whole example of the "more expensive Prius"
falls apart if you look at lifetime costs.
|11.19.07 @ 4:46PM|#
JW,
You can carry a lot more in each of the reuseable bags, which makes
transporting them much easier. Like, one trip from the car to the
kitchen instead of two-easier.
I started using them, expecting it to be a burdern (although a very
slight one), and was pleasantly surprised to discover that they
actually made things easier.
|11.19.07 @ 4:47PM|#
If libertarianism made any sense, it wouldn't get less than
1% of the vote in every election!
If Einstein had made any sense, he wouldn't have been the only
person back in the early 1900s who thought that E=mc2.
If Darwin had made any sense, he wouldn't have been the only person
back in the mid-1800s to think that species evolved due to natural
selection.
If Jesus had made any sense, the mob wouldn't have yelled for the
Romans to crucify him.
Yes, by all means, let's discover truth via counting which
viewpoint has the most votes.
|11.19.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Guy Montag | November 19, 2007, 3:30pm | #
Katherine,
In your honor I shall be sponsoring a vegetarian today.
I am sponsoring so many vegetarians that I now eat only endangered
species. I bet you didn't know it, but fresh baby panda tastes a
lot like a cross between a whooping crane and a spotted owl.
carrick|11.19.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Not to mention, the whole example of the "more expensive
Prius" falls apart if you look at lifetime costs.
Not if you include the costs to decommission all the batteries
which contain very high levels of very toxic chemicals.
As hybrids gain market share and the economies of scale kick in,
they may prove to be more cost effective than a straight
gas-powered vehicle. But were not there yet.
|11.19.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Rather than deliberately ignore all considerations of the
impact of one's choices ... it's best to look at the entirety of
one's effects.
Like the dubious economics and environmental soundness of recycling
every freaking scrap of paper? The missus insists on recycling
cereal boxes. It's just a bit much to take.
Recycle when it makes sense, like metal and certain plastics, not
because The Man tells you to do so, which is most often the
case.
I started using them, expecting it to be a burdern (although a
very slight one), and was pleasantly surprised to discover that
they actually made things easier.
OK, that makes sense.
Ikea has the right idea to encourage re-use: start charging for
bags. Now you have a choice, pay it or BYO. It's a nickel, and I
don't go too often, so I eat the cost.
|11.19.07 @ 4:57PM|#
They're also a lot more convenient - as long as you remember to bring them to the store.
Shit, joe, I can't even remember to take my bags back to Whole
Foods and they give you a wholle nickel back for each one you
reuse. :)
Actually, I have a few reusable bags that I use when I go to Sam's.
A couple of them are big. But I see Albertsons is selling cloth
bags now and they don't look any bigger than the regular plastic
ones.
|11.19.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Too rough, too imprecise, to static, and too influenced by
other factors.
The Prius example, for example - most of the additional cost of
Prius comes via brainpower, which has very low carbon
emissions.
Most of the additional cost of the Prius comes from a more
expensive manufacturing process to produce the extra parts
(batteries, electric motors, etc.)
And that brainpower carries an environmental cost -- extra
engineers commuting to work, consuming oil, extra money for
computers and lighting and heating of the workspace.
Not saying it's a perfect measure, but if you simply try to get
good value for your money for two fairly comparable goods, you more
often than not inadvertently benefit the environment by taking
account of the aggregate damage reflected in the price. It's
probably a more precise measure than a layperson trying to
calculate carbon footprints, and ignoring all sorts of relevant
harms that the price reflects.
Plastic bags are way cheaper than paper bags, and surprise -- if
you insist on bulky expensive paper bags, you're harming the
environment more versus thin cheap plastic bags.
Price is a better measure of environmentalism, for people who don't
have huge amounts of spare time to spend researching stuff in
excruciating detail, than anything else I've heard about.
Peter|11.19.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Whoever said Sweden is proof the Welfare State works, SP I think ... take a long hard look at their past economic state, the stifling of freedom of speech in the country, the nationolization of all alcohol purveyors,and most industry, which has just recently started a rollback ... not to mention their immensely high unemployment. This has all been fairly well documented. Are you joking!!! It's also up there in the most suicides and the last country to outlaw state sponsored sterilization and eugenics (1976).
VM|11.19.07 @ 5:15PM|#
"The novels of Susan Sontage are NOT self-indulgent, overrated
crap!"
isn't that claim a little excessive for the Carolina League?
|11.19.07 @ 5:16PM|#
joe - I'm a big supporter of using your wallet to speak your
mind. I just think that some types of micro to macro scaling
present a distorted picture of environmental/carbon impact. For
example, it's difficult to get an accurate picture of the carbon
footprint of one guy eating Chilean grapes. Speaking
comprehensively about the carbon footprint of transporting food
(via air vs. rail vs. truck) vs. the impact of growing produce in
areas not conducive to those products, I think, presents a better
picture and gives a clearer map to reducing environmental
impact.
With all that said, I'm not trying to imply that you don't support
approaching the debate using both strategies, or that setting
personal buying priorities is not useful, especially in the
aggregate.
iih|11.19.07 @ 5:21PM|#
I am not sure what the problem is (I have not read all the
comments, but the fact that there is too many of them tells me that
people have strayed).
If you want to eat local and find the supplier great. Buy local. If
not, don't. Environment? Well, those who believe that buying local
save the environment should keep working hard to convince the rest
that the environment needs saving and should be able to sell their
product. If they do not adhere, well, nature has its ways at
striking back (if indeed there is danger).
(this comes from one who believes in "better safe than sorry", so I
am trying to do my part towards the environment, though that does
not include eating local)
|11.19.07 @ 5:42PM|#
isn't that claim a little excessive for the Carolina
League?
Goddamnsonofabitchin'motherfuckingshit!
Minion of URKOBOLD|11.19.07 @ 5:47PM|#
BREATHING OUT OF THE WRONG EYELID, AGAIN.
TROLLING IS A SIMPLE GAME. YOU BAIT THE PERSON, YOU CONTRADICT
YOURSELF, YOU REPEAT.
JUST TAKE IT ONE POST AT A TIME.
Kolohe|11.19.07 @ 5:58PM|#
They required you to "bag" your own groceries, and they sold
these nifty cardboard crates that beat the shit out of any type of
bag for carrying large quantities of heavy products. I can't
remember the last time I saw a store that did that.
Shopper's Food warehouse in the east used to do this (maybe still
does), but currently, doesn't Costco also do this? Not selling you
a cardboard crate, but having a pile of cardboard boxes to use to
pack and carry your stuff?
Kolohe|11.19.07 @ 6:08PM|#
Ok, help me out here.
1) On one hand we have joe arguing that certain ideas held by a
fraction of a minorty may have a neglible system wide effect
immediately, but could increase with time as the ideas
permeate.
2) On the other hand, we have prolefeed arguing that certain ideas
held by a fraction of a minorty may have a neglible system wide
effect immediately, but could increase with time as the ideas
permeate.
What am I missing?
|11.19.07 @ 6:09PM|#
Rather than waste all the time/effort/cash buying either FM or Big Box each of us have been tasked to provide as much subsistence of our own as we can. Dig up your back yard, plant and harvest your own. Beat the rush!!! I grow my own and have successfully pushed down the prices for y'all. No shortage of potatoes in my house !!!
|11.19.07 @ 8:10PM|#
There was a column from some guy in Albuquerque who was
advocating the depopulation of the desert so that the limited
amount of available water could be used to grow food locally. I
think the people in Illinois who advocate local food are pretty
nuts, but growing more food in a desert? Come on!
I've had to work on environmental issues a couple times in the past
year, and I've been surprised: when environmentally sound policies
will benefit consumers and companies a surprisingly large number of
environmentalists will favor environmentally unsound policies. It's
like they hate humans more than the like the environment.
|11.19.07 @ 8:11PM|#
hmmm I was pretty sure that the way markets work would insure
that cheap food was cheap because it used less energy. Food
producers and merchants like to make a profit like anyone else so
look for ways to cut energy costs.
Thank you Katherine Mangu-Ward for pointing out a study that
supports what my reasoned analysis told me.
|11.19.07 @ 8:14PM|#
Aside from all that, there ain't a whole lot of locally grown
produce available in winter in places like Buffalo, St Paul,
Toledo, or Helena. Ground's too got dam hard to stick a spade
into.
BTW, I'll take my grapes bottled. Thankee.
|11.19.07 @ 8:15PM|#
What am I missing?
Joe is a fool and as a consequence anyone who argues with him
(beyond just giving him quick kick once in awhile) is a fool.
Understand?
Iguana|11.19.07 @ 8:25PM|#
Jamie, if you want to demonstrate that you're more rational
than joe, you might want to tone down the insults.
Nah, Joe is enough to make a Baptist preacher take the Lord's name
in vane.
Maybe if he got laid his attitude would improve.
Can we take up a collection?
Maybe Nick could send him home with a note to his wife.
|11.19.07 @ 8:27PM|#
I'm not sure if Nick's wife would be too keen on jumping Joe's bones. Even with a note from Nick.
|11.19.07 @ 9:01PM|#
Hey Ammonium, we grow food in the desert all the time. It's
called the Imperial Valley.
And, that's how Phoenix got started. Farming. I know, hard to
believe that some guy on a horse wandered down from Wickenburg and
said: BO NAN ZA. We got water, fertile soil, we're good to go.
|11.20.07 @ 12:29AM|#
I don't really care where my food comes from as long as it is
more than not (no particular order):
Cheap (mui importante!)
Healthy (but DAMN DiGiorno is pretty good)
Tasty
Organic (mostly to do with freshness of taste)
Fair Trade (or at least not made by slavery)
Carbon-neutral
Minimal reusable/recyclable packaging
|11.20.07 @ 7:27AM|#
Cheap (mui importante!)
Healthy (but DAMN DiGiorno is pretty good)
Tasty
This is what the bulk of the world cares about. Even then, a large
part just want it to be caloric.
Organic (mostly to do with freshness of taste)
Fair Trade (or at least not made by slavery)
Carbon-neutral
Minimal reusable/recyclable packaging
This is what wealthy nations who solved their famine issues long
ago through *not* growing locally worry about. They have too many
calories to take in and now wring their hands over the intangible
minutiae.
|11.20.07 @ 8:53AM|#
Hey Ammonium, we grow food in the desert all the time. It's called the Imperial Valley.
Isn't most of that only possible because of irrigation that comes
from massively subsidised Federal water projects.
|11.20.07 @ 9:13AM|#
To Jamie and your minions,
If you can't respond to someone's arguments with rational reasons
and examples then best to get back to the sandbox. Why clutter up
this site with these childish personal attacks?
|11.20.07 @ 9:43AM|#
Isaac B,
Even when the cloth bags have the same volume as paper or plastic
bags, they end up holding more, because they are stronger overall,
and also don't rip if they get poked by a corner, like a paper or
plastic bag, so they can be filled more.
carrick,
That's a good point about economies of scale with hybrids, but
there's an even more important point I forgot to add when listing
costs to consider: uncaptured externalities. As long as the
atmosphere can be used as a commons-dumping ground, that will serve
as as subdidy for less-efficient technologies.
That goes for you, too, prolefeed.
Iguana, Damn did you pick the wrong day to make that joke.
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah!
|11.20.07 @ 9:49AM|#
"This is what wealthy nations who solved their famine issues
long ago through *not* growing locally worry about. They have too
many calories to take in and now wring their hands over the
intangible minutiae."
JW,
The slavery issue is probably the more important one to me.
Similarly, taxes used to fund the Farm Bill make me feel like a
slave. Much of the other problems on the part of my list you point
out would go away but for the Farm Bill.
|11.20.07 @ 9:54AM|#
Ending slavery, universal suffrage, and free speech are what
people in wealthy societies worry about, once they no longer have
to worry about the basic necesseties of life.
Therefore, they are unimportant. Or something.
Neu Mejican|11.20.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Generally, though not always, the more
something costs the more environmental impact involved.
Except that carbon emissions and other environmental impacts are
not part of the pricing calculation. E.G., because emissions are
"free" using the high carbon, but cheap energy, that coal produced
electricity would provide (as an example) makes many products
cheaper despite the larger carbon footprint.
By your argument, the industrial production process in China is
more environmentally friendly than any other. I don't think that
would stand up against empirical analysis...
Neu Mejican|11.20.07 @ 12:05PM|#
By extension, walking to the big "industrial" supermarket in
your neighborhood may be most responsible food choice you can
make.
Me, I walk to my neighborhood farmers market.
Or ride a bike to the local coop which has a bias towards local
produce/meat, organic, etc...
My grocery bills have gone down significantly as a result.
I am always AMAZED at how much more I have to spend at the local
"industrial" supermarket to get a week's groceries.
|11.20.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Ending slavery, universal suffrage, and free speech are what
people in wealthy societies worry about, once they no longer have
to worry about the basic necesseties of life.
joe--Without even considering your silly comparison (the size of
your carbon footprint is equal to the evil of slavery? LOL), the
U.S., at least, worried about all of these thing long before much
of the population had what we consider to be the neccessities of
life and long before when the U.S. was considered wealthy.
|11.20.07 @ 12:38PM|#
The slavery issue is probably the more important one to me.
Similarly, taxes used to fund the Farm Bill make me feel like a
slave. Much of the other problems on the part of my list you point
out would go away but for the Farm Bill.
Me too. But honestly, how much of our food is produced through
actual slave labor? Any?
And no, farm subsidies don't count, though yes, they should be
taken out back and shot.
|11.21.07 @ 12:39AM|#
"Me too. But honestly, how much of our food is produced through
actual slave labor? Any? "
I hear it is possible to buy a slave in certain markets along the
Ivory Coast for $40 a head. Cheap enough to work to death.
Allegedly a certain large chocolate company buys its chocolate
stock made from african slavery plantations...they are refusing to
not buy from these plantations until a multi-year long 'study' they
are sponsoring is completed.
"And no, farm subsidies don't count, though yes, they should be
taken out back and shot."
I aminterested in the degree of 'slaveryness' not so much an
either/or literal usage.
|11.24.07 @ 9:06AM|#
What are you going to eat when our empire finally collapses?
Bye-bye Industrial-Food Complex. Might be nice to have some local,
sustainable food systems in place...>>
a very good point...what are ya gonna do with the left-over
unsustainable 250 million people ,regardless of living
locally
In NJ they have 8 million people crammed into an area that didnt
even support 2 million in 1900,who did eat locally..
|11.25.07 @ 10:23AM|#
embutler,
I don't know if it is true, but there is a study from the
University of Michigan which claims to show that it is possible to
feed the worlds billions using the latest (not 1900) organic
(semi-organic?) agricultural practices.
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936
AFAIK Ron Bailey has never addressed this 4 month old study,
despite my pointing it out several times and the greens crowing
about it loudly.
Additionally some greens have noted that in certain contexts it is
acceptable in their opinion to import food from far away.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245