Local vs Vegan

[Guest guest]

Over the last few years, ecological and energy depletion websites alike have

been telling us that eating locally will reduce transportation costs, which

saves energy and thus is a good thing. The term locavores has entered the

lexicon, meaning those who pledge to only eat food produced within a limited

distance of home.

 

But as reported in the Atlantic, Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews of

the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Department of

Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University have compared the

effect of eating foods that require less energy to transport with the effect of

eating foods that require less energy to grow. Their abstract:

 

Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the

environmental impacts of food, few studies in the United States have

systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated

with food production against long-distance distribution, aka " food-miles. " We

find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km

delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions

associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of

the average U.S. household's 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption.

Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and

final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food

groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around

150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary

shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household's

food-related climate footprint than " buying local. " Shifting less than one day

per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish,

eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all

locally sourced food. PDF

 

In short, not eating red meat, dairy and certain cereals (all of which I love)

should lead to a far greater reduction in household greenhouse gas emissions

than, " eating locally. " But can't one do both?

 

Atlantic's Marion Nestle notes:

 

I've always thought that the real benefits of local food production were in

building and preserving communities. I like having farms within easy access of

where I live and I like knowing the people who produce my food. If local food

doesn't make climate change worse and maybe even helps a bit, that's just icing

on the cake. Or am I missing something here?

 

One commenter to the Atlantic article replies, " there are BIG PROBLEMS with

substituting eco-theory for the economics of international trade. " Another

continues, " ... One needs to focus on eating what is in-season, locally and

then, and only then, look at infrequent treats of out-of-season, non-local

products. The thing that will motivate people to do this is some form of carbon

tax that will provide a more realistic cost associated with transportation of

non-local goods. "

 

I'm not sure we'll need the carbon tax. I already find out-of-season food to be

much more expensive than before.