locally grown

[weakwarrior]

I really don't know enough to evaluate this article, but here's food for thought.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162

[Jester]

The organic, locally-grown movement is emblematic of the aesthetic, rather than pragmatic, side of environmentalism. It sounds good, and it doesn't work. This is one of the major reasons why a price on carbon is a major goal for reducing carbon footprints: anyone who engages in well-intentioned but wasteful practices will go bust. Ideas that actually save emissions, whether they are hippie-inspired or the calculated product of industrial analysts, will thrive.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . anyone who engages in well-intentioned but wasteful practices will go bust. Ideas that actually save emissions, whether they are hippie-inspired or the calculated product of industrial analysts, will thrive.

Until government subsidies for stupidity unbalance the equation. Then politically correct will trump right.

--Pete

[eppie]

I really don't know enough to evaluate this article, but here's food for thought.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162

The guy uses a few stupid actions of pro local food people to prove a point.

Although the examples he gives are completely right he uses it to get a wrong conclusion.

The conclusion he should have made was: try to eat food that can be grown locally in the right season. SO if in northern Europe it is winter, try to ease on the strawberries and eat more thing like cabbage and potato. Don't eat pineapple every day, and try to eat less meat and fish in general.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The conclusion he should have made was: try to eat food that can be grown locally in the right season.

Right. Did you even read the article?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

The organic, locally-grown movement is emblematic of the aesthetic, rather than pragmatic, side of environmentalism. It sounds good, and it doesn't work. This is one of the major reasons why a price on carbon is a major goal for reducing carbon footprints: anyone who engages in well-intentioned but wasteful practices will go bust. Ideas that actually save emissions, whether they are hippie-inspired or the calculated product of industrial analysts, will thrive.

Because what the developing world needs is a 50% to 100% hike in food costs to offset the artificial price of carbon added into the food supply chain (beyond the actual cost of the fuel used to grow, transport, etc.). Unless you want to exempt them, and then we can buy our grain on the black market from Mexico.

[eppie]

Hi,
Right. Did you even read the article?

--Pete

Yes, what's your point?



I know this type of person, there are many like this in the climate debate. People proudly saying they are skeptic or like this huy say 'polticially incorrect'.

Actually like I said, the examples he gives and what is wrong with them are valid, and even politically very correct. However, people like this guy try to use this to poke fun at those less smart people that want to do something good but fail. Instead it would be much better if he would use his findings in a constructive way.

Locally grown food in principle is better, however there are many exceptions (which he mentioned). He fails to mention all the examples that show that it is better to eat e.g. a cabage in winter than a pineapple. The people he focusses on with these kind of columns might not know this, so he would help them making better decissions. But you can of course clearly see that that is not his interest.


He also fails to mention that the reasons that much food is cheaper coming from far is not because they use less energy producing it, but because energy/labour and land are much cheaper there.

Take an example of tomatoes. In holland we produce a lot of tomatoes in greenhouses which use quite some energy. The alternative is getting southern Italian tomatoes (there is a lot of sun there). However, apart from the shipping energy, they use many more people to work on the fields (many of them are modern day slaves; illegals from africa), they use much bigger land area's to produce the tomatoes, they have no regulation about using pesticides (well there are but nobody gives a damn).

For normal people making a good decision (so calculating all the pro's en cons regarding energy, human rights, chemicals, economy use of valuable land) is very difficult, and it wouldnt be a bad idea to get good sources to show them the big picture. What the guy in the article does is just flame a few good people that made idiotic choices.

[eppie]

I really don't know enough to evaluate this article, but here's food for thought.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162

What is your opinion on this?

[kandrathe]

What the guy in the article does is just flame a few good people that made idiotic choices.

When I used to work for the RR, there was a few runs from California to NY we called the salad bowl express. I guess BNSF still does this with refer trailers on flat cars. It is all produce that has to get from CA to New England asap. It was a very low carbon way to move the food, and would be cheaper than similar items grown in a hot house locally (and would have a smaller carbon footprint as well). So, no. Local is not always better. In a capitalist market we strive for cheapest price with highest quality, and fulfilling the other things the customer seeks. Another point related to "shipping" things like coffee, cocoa, banana's etc. Ships are huge and hold an awful lot of cargo, so I would imagine that shipping exotic products remains a consistent price throughout the year (unless demand changes). The fuel efficiency of ships is such that the carbon footprint is less than 1/50th that of the equivalent trucking capacity. There is this whole economy of scale issue, that actually reduces "greenness" if done locally whether we are talking about a train, a ship, solar power on every home (as opposed to a few large generating plants), or a 1200 acre field of broccoli in the Salinas valley.

[eppie]

When I used to work for the RR, there was a few runs from California to NY we called the salad bowl express. I guess BNSF still does this with refer trailers on flat cars. It is all produce that has to get from CA to New England asap. It was a very low carbon way to move the food, and would be cheaper than similar items grown in a hot house locally (and would have a smaller carbon footprint as well). So, no. Local is not always better. In a capitalist market we strive for cheapest price with highest quality, and fulfilling the other things the customer seeks. Another point related to "shipping" things like coffee, cocoa, banana's etc. Ships are huge and hold an awful lot of cargo, so I would imagine that shipping exotic products remains a consistent price throughout the year (unless demand changes). The fuel efficiency of ships is such that the carbon footprint is less than 1/50th that of the equivalent trucking capacity. There is this whole economy of scale issue, that actually reduces "greenness" if done locally whether we are talking about a train, a ship, solar power on every home (as opposed to a few large generating plants), or a 1200 acre field of broccoli in the Salinas valley.

Of course there is an economy of scale, I am not disputing that. But you should make these calculationson a per product basis (and also consider other aspects).

A ship can use 1/50th of the carbon footprint a truck does, but if a truck needs to travel 200 miles and a ship 10.000 miles things start changing. And to be fair, the produce doesn't grow in the harbour, it grows inland, and depending on how far inland this can have a huge influence.

Futher there are many cases in which there is an easy visible difference. If you live in California, the C-footprint of a californian wine is smaller than that of an french wine. And even better is buying a plastic bottle of ethanol and using tapwater to make wodka.:D


The whole point of the case is that people should use there brain to try and figure out what is best and they need help from organizations that have the correct data.


Mind you, the biggest difference you can make is going to the shop by bike instead of by a 3 liter engine car.

[kandrathe]

Of course there is an economy of scale, I am not disputing that. But you should make these calculations on a per product basis (and also consider other aspects).

At the bulk that some of these shipments are made, the transportation cost is less than 3% of the cost and so if the price demand varies (due to over supply in one place and under supply in another), then moving the product makes more sense than letting it rot or paying vast sums to store it until the demand in the local area improves.

A ship can use 1/50th of the carbon footprint a truck does, but if a truck needs to travel 200 miles and a ship 10.000 miles things start changing. And to be fair, the produce doesn't grow in the harbour, it grows inland, and depending on how far inland this can have a huge influence.

What doesn't make sense is mining coal from Montana, taking it by train to Duluth, then by ship to Germany, by rail to a power plant, to burn it to make steam to drive a turbine, to make electricity, to power a hot water heater in Frankfurt. But, the same is probably true about grain as well, as long as the wheat crop in the Ukraine doesn't fail.

Futher there are many cases in which there is an easy visible difference. If you live in California, the C-footprint of a californian wine is smaller than that of an french wine.

I don't know what to say about luxury goods. It would be a boring world if all we ever produced were essentials. Then again, we do seem overly concerned about entertainment these days. Do you ever walk down the street in any major city and pass by the sex super store and reflect on the fact that all those products were made in factories in China, and what those people in China who make this stuff must be thinking about a world that consumes it?

And even better is buying a plastic bottle of ethanol and using tap water to make vodka.:D

Or, maybe there are better drugs for compressing the brain stem and shocking the brain into near death rapture, if intoxication is all you are after.

The whole point of the case is that people should use there brain to try and figure out what is best and they need help from organizations that have the correct data.

The part people need to be more sensitive about is their buy into "prestige" or convenience at any cost, such as, fashionable women's hats and the passenger pigeon, or disposable products. I'm not sure what organizations you are talking about, since what we have now are the screaming meamie eco-nazi's claiming everything we do it harmful versus the greedy money grubbing capitalists with front men like Vince from Sham Wow, who are trying to sell you rubber dog poo made in China. China is certainly benefiting from the senseless manufacture of anything for anybody.

Mind you, the biggest difference you can make is going to the shop by bike instead of by a 3 liter engine car.

I don't think so. First, there is a level of suffering in that depending on the distance to the store and the climate. I wouldn't relish a grocery run even 2 miles by bicycle at 20 below F.

I think for example, choosing to squeeze into a smaller home, or live closer to where you work would have a bigger impact. Although, it also is often too big a sacrifice for many (all things considered, such as the quality of school districts, and levels of street crime). The biggest impact is probably not in what you drive (within reason), as long as you commute a short distance. At some point the amount of living space needing to be heated per person can become excessive. There are luxury homes near me that were recently built with over 1000 sq. meters of living space occupied by (executive) two people, although they were also made with walls double thick as well, but their carbon footprint for heating that "castle" is still higher.

The amounts and types of foods eaten by people, and the choices of what particular products they "just had to buy". For example, I get annoyed every time my wife buys those "cup o soup" convenience packs with a Styrofoam cup holding a single serving of dried bullion and rehydrate-able noodles. Its so obvious to me that she just spent a dollar on 50 cents worth of packaging, and 10 cents worth of soup.

I think one aspect that is missing from this debate is how the third world participates in a global economy. If you start making people live local, how does that help to elevate the standard of living of island bound Maori? Or, do we just leave them to go back to primitive?

[LennyLen]

think one aspect that is missing from this debate is how the third world participates in a global economy. If you start making people live local, how does that help to elevate the standard of living of island bound Maori?

Um, are you trying to imply that Maori come form a third-world country?

[Jester]

Um, are you trying to imply that Maori come form a third-world country?

It can be so hard to tell sometimes.

-Jester

[Jester]

Because what the developing world needs is a 50% to 100% hike in food costs to offset the artificial price of carbon added into the food supply chain (beyond the actual cost of the fuel used to grow, transport, etc.). Unless you want to exempt them, and then we can buy our grain on the black market from Mexico.

You're right, that's one of the absolutely key issues here. How do you get global emissions down in a way that is just, rather than punishing to the extremely poor who have historically polluted almost zero? Somehow, third world countries (and their inhabitants) are going to have to pay less, or even less than zero, for their carbon, until their total emissions are more in line with rich countries'. Most systems that have some kind of mechanism for alleviating this problem, but it is one of the potential stumbling blocks.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You're right, that's one of the absolutely key issues here. How do you get global emissions down in a way that is just, rather than punishing to the extremely poor who have historically polluted almost zero? Somehow, third world countries (and their inhabitants) are going to have to pay less, or even less than zero, for their carbon, until their total emissions are more in line with rich countries'. Most systems that have some kind of mechanism for alleviating this problem, but it is one of the potential stumbling blocks.

Doesn't that have the effect of encouraging the emissions to go to the the third world where it is free, rather than reduce the emissions in the first world?

I don't think the first world working class "disposable income" is as high as you might believe. I'm a bit opposed to using the word "rich" to describe the majority of first worlders who have to work 40 to 60 hours a week until they are 65 or 70 years old, only to end up dying with about enough money left over to bury them (if they are lucky). I know none of my relatives end up dying filthy rich, and in fact due to the ever expanding life span (thank you medical science) they end up living far past the savings they had planned and begrudgingly die as wards of the state. Its a different path through life with some better choices by far, but its hardly a system ( at least corporate U$A Inc. ) for which one should willingly sell out their life and freedom. Were I to do it all over again, I would have made much different choices and led a simpler life. But then again, I'm older and seeking a simpler life. At 18, I was seeking an enriching life, which I did find.

I ponder if carbon credits are a mechanism designed by corporations that will end up further crushing the working class, whether they be first world or third world. This type of social engineering has been done before where people were taxed according to the amount of sunlight that entered their dwelling. It resulted in buildings with no windows, and eventually the black death. I'm ardently fearful of giving any government the right to place a tax on exhaling.

[kandrathe]

Um, are you trying to imply that Maori come form a third-world country?

Um... Some do. :)

[LennyLen]

Um... Some do. :)

Then they moved there.:P

Maori are only indegenous to two places, New Zealand and the Cook Islands, neither of which are third world nations.

[Taem]

When I read the topic for this post, I thought it was going to be about marijuana growers in California.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Maori are only indegenous to two places, New Zealand and the Cook Islands, neither of which are third world nations.

A New Zealander man
With a permanent tan,
That's a Maori.

With apologies to Dino;)

--Pete

EDIT: Not original -- I picked it up at a filk sing.

EDIT2: Two other verses that came to mind:

When you swim through the sea
And an eel bites your knee
That's a moray.

When two patterns sublime
Serpently intertwine
That's a moiré.

Now, maybe, I can get that damned song out of my head:)

[LennyLen]

Hi,
A New Zealander man
With a permanent tan,
That's a Maori.

With apologies to Dino;)

--Pete

EDIT: Not original -- I picked it up at a filk sing.

Hmmm, I'm a New Zealand man with a permenant tan. It's a shame that's not enough to be maori, or I could start claiming land for my iwi.