"As a source of global warming, the food we eat-and how we eat it-is no more significant than the way we make clothes or travel or heat our homes and offices. It certainly doesn't compare to the impact made by tens of thousands of factories scattered throughout the world. Yet food carries enormous symbolic power, so the concept of "food miles"-the distance a product travels from the farm to your home-is often used as a kind of shorthand to talk about climate change in general. "We have to remember our goal: reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses," John Murlis told me not long ago when we met in London. "That should be the world's biggest priority." Murlis is the chief scientific adviser to the Carbon Neutral Company, which helps corporations adopt policies to reduce their carbon footprint as well as those of the products they sell. He has also served as the director of strategy and chief scientist for Britan's Environment Agency. Murlis worries that in our collective rush to make choices that display personal virtue we may be losing sight of the larger problem. "Would a carbon label on every product help us?" he asked. "I wonder. You can feel very good about the organic potatoes you buy from a farm near your home, but half the emissions-and half the footprint-from those potatoes could come from the energy you use to cook them. If you leave the lid off, boil them at a high heat, and then mash your potatoes, from a carbon standpoint you might as well drive to McDonald's and spend your money buying an order of French Fries."
and later in the article...
"The environmental burden imposed by importing apples from New Zealand to Northern Europe or New York can be lower than if the apples were raised fifty miles away. "In New Zealand they have more sunshine than in the UK, which helps productivity." Williams explained. That means the yield of New Zealand apples far exceeds the yield of those grown in northern climates, so the energy required for farmers to grow the crop is correspondingly lower. It also helps that the electricity in New Zealand is mostly generated by renewable sources, none of which emit large amounts of CO2. Researchers at Lincoln University in Christchurch found that lamb raised in New Zealand wand shipped eleven thousand miles by boat to England produced... about a fourth of the (emissions) produced by British lamb. In part, that is because the pastures in New Zealand need far less fertilizer than most grazing land in Britan (or in many parts of the United States). Similarly, importing beans from Uganda or Kenya-where the farms are small, tractor use is limited, and the fertilizer is almost always manure-tends to be more efficient than growing beans in Europe, with its reliance on energy-dependent irrigation systems."
Michael Specter, "Big Foot"
The New Yorker, Feb 25, 2008
newyorker.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Wendy: This excerpt is really interesting and raises important questions and makes some good points. It's important to understand that buying local is not the only thing we must do. There is so much more we must and we can do. However, while I don't think the author intends this or thinks this, it may leave the impression that not only is eating local not important but that sometimes it could be counterproductive. While you can imagine a scenario where eating imported food could have less of a carbon imprint than eating local, in the vast majority of cases consuming locally will be better. Where we get into trouble is if we are driving out to the farm to get our locally produced goods, or driving to Suters produce, or driving to Weirauchs for milk. That can very easy turn a noble activity into a bad activity which destroys the environment. We need to try to reduce our cabon impact to zero, and think about other ways in which our actions effect the environment, the hungry, and those suffering from war and oppression. In the original New Yorker article you quote, I really like the idea of carbon labels on products. Michael Spector writes "Tesco would develop a system of carbon labels and put them on each of its seventy thousand products. 'Customers want us to develop ways to take complicated carbon calculations and present them simply,” he said. “We will therefore begin the search for a universally accepted and commonly understood measure of the carbon footprint of every product we sell—looking at its complete life cycle, from production through distribution to consumption. It will enable us to label all our products so that customers can compare their carbon footprint as easily as they can currently compare their price or their nutritional profile.'"
So let's continue to buy and produce as much as possible locally, but lets try not to use any fuel, chemicals, or to destroy land to do so.
Those are my thoughts,
Paul NW
Post a Comment