4 ms·

Do you have any sources for this? I was under the impression that the goal of the "eat local" movement is to get consumers to eat food that naturally grows in t

by sirsar 9y ago

Do you have any sources for this? I was under the impression that the goal of the "eat local" movement is to get consumers to eat food that naturally grows in their climate, not to start growing bananas under heat lamps in Canada.

ars 9y ago
So people in Canada should eat only Maple Syrup (and I guess Seals), the Midwest only Corn, and California only Almonds and Veggies? This is completely unrealistic, and unhealthy as well. There are lots of places were food grows OK (and humans lived that way for a long time), but the best is to grow food in the best place for it, not just "OK". You use less fertilizer, and energy that way. The slight added transportation cost doesn't even come close. And in any case, what's the value here? Why do that? What difference does it make where the food grows? I've heard silly things like "less pesticide" - but that makes no sense - what about the people living near that food? If they eat it does it somehow have less pesticide, but people far away get more?
- sirsar 9y ago
  Yes, the most generous interpretation of "eat food that naturally grows in their climate" is definitely "people in Canada should eat only Maple Syrup." Are you willing to have a discussion and apply the Principle of Charity or not? And again, do you have any sources? > The slight added transportation cost doesn't even come close [...] What's the value here? If you preferentially buy food that does not need to be shipped long distances, you can reduce your carbon footprint. > In 2005, the import of fruits, nuts, and vegetables into California by airplane released more than 70,000 tons of CO2, which is equivalent to more than 12,000 cars on the road. [0] https://food-hub.org/files/resources/Food%20Miles.pdf https://food-hub.org/files/resources/Food%20Miles.pdf
  - metafrag 9y ago
    Chile was exporting saltpeter to Europe by steamship to fertilize local fields before the Haber process was invented. Nowadays it's a little bit like, "Well, the entire world is connected by kinetic prisms and half the food is almost-literally generated by nuclear fission." If you can figure out the math, you're a better engineer than me. Puts on goggles and aviator's cap to resume tilting at the Organic Lychee windmill
  - ars 9y ago
    > Yes, the most generous interpretation Canada's most prominent food related export is Maple Syrup. Is it such a stretch? For them that's a very efficient export. And the native population used to eat a lot of Seal meat, so clearly that's the most efficient food for that area. > Are you willing to have a discussion and apply the Principle of Charity or not? Go for it. The growing season in Canada is so short you'd have to farm a ton of land to feed everyone. Tell me how you'd make it work. Again, you have not explained why bother doing that? > In 2005, the import of fruits, nuts, and vegetables into California by airplane released more than 70,000 tons of CO2, which is equivalent to more than 12,000 cars on the road. That's it?? That's nothing. But why are you looking at airplane to California? Most food is shipped by truck, and California imports relatively little food. And how much extra energy does it take to grow food in the wrong place? It's a comparison, not an absolute. > And again, do you have any sources? You can google just as easily as me. Here for example: http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/ http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local... "My conservative estimates are that under the pseudo-locavore system, corn acreage increases 27 percent or 22 million acres, and soybean acres increase 18 percent or 14 million acres. Fertilizer use would increase at least 35 percent for corn, and 54 percent for soybeans, while fuel use would climb 23 percent and 34 percent, for corn and soybeans, respectively. Chemical demand would grow 23 percent and 20 percent for the two crops, respectively. In order to maintain current output levels for 40 major field crops and vegetables, a locavore-like production system would require an additional 60 million acres of cropland, 2.7 million tons more fertilizer, and 50 million pounds more chemicals. The land-use changes and increases in demand for carbon-intensive inputs would have profound impacts on the carbon footprint of our food, destroy habitat and worsen environmental pollution. It’s not even clear local production reduces carbon emissions from transportation. The Harvard economist Ed Glaeser estimates that carbon emissions from transportation don’t decline in a locavore future because local farms reduce population density as potential homes are displaced by community gardens. Less-dense cities mean more driving and more carbon emissions. Transportation only accounts for 11 percent of the carbon embodied in food anyway, according to a 2008 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon; 83 percent comes from production."
    - notatoad 9y ago
      >Canada's most prominent food related export is Maple Syrup Canada exports ~$200mm worth of maple syrup a year, and $5bn worth of wheat. Similarly, seals were only an important food source for the Inuit, who have never accounted for a significant portion of Canada's population. >Go for it. The growing season in Canada is so short you'd have to farm a ton of land to feed everyone. Tell me how you'd make it work. Canada is a net exporter of food and food products - 56bn export, 44bn import: http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/canada/?id=1410072148230 http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/internat... You seem to be getting your facts from the book of lazy stereotypes. Do you think we also ride moose or polar bears to work instead of driving cars?
  - pjc50 9y ago
    I'm reminded that, during the war, when food importing to the UK was made extremely difficult and dangerous by U-boats, the country was a command economy, rationing was imposed, and the population was 10m smaller ... we were still unable to meet all our food needs domestically.
lmm 9y ago
There are various articles along the lines of https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/23/food.ethicalliving https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/23/food.eth... (which is a lot more sympathetic to "eat local" than some that I've read, but has some good examples of the kind of complexity involved in figuring out when one food is better or worse for the environment than another). (I'm of the view that carbon dioxide emissions are simply too complex for any central labelling authority to figure out; the only way that can work is imposing a cap and trade system on emissions (like we did for sulphur dioxide) and then letting the market incorporate those costs into food prices)
- sirsar 9y ago
  Thank you, that was a nuanced article that made me aware of some of the complexity of the issue.

by sirsar 9y ago

ars 9y ago

So people in Canada should eat only Maple Syrup (and I guess Seals), the Midwest only Corn, and California only Almonds and Veggies? This is completely unrealistic, and unhealthy as well. There are lots of places were food grows OK (and humans lived that way for a long time), but the best is to grow food in the best place for it, not just "OK". You use less fertilizer, and energy that way. The slight added transportation cost doesn't even come close. And in any case, what's the value here? Why do that? What difference does it make where the food grows? I've heard silly things like "less pesticide" - but that makes no sense - what about the people living near that food? If they eat it does it somehow have less pesticide, but people far away get more?

sirsar 9y ago
Yes, the most generous interpretation of "eat food that naturally grows in their climate" is definitely "people in Canada should eat only Maple Syrup." Are you willing to have a discussion and apply the Principle of Charity or not? And again, do you have any sources? > The slight added transportation cost doesn't even come close [...] What's the value here? If you preferentially buy food that does not need to be shipped long distances, you can reduce your carbon footprint. > In 2005, the import of fruits, nuts, and vegetables into California by airplane released more than 70,000 tons of CO2, which is equivalent to more than 12,000 cars on the road. [0] https://food-hub.org/files/resources/Food%20Miles.pdf https://food-hub.org/files/resources/Food%20Miles.pdf
- metafrag 9y ago
  Chile was exporting saltpeter to Europe by steamship to fertilize local fields before the Haber process was invented. Nowadays it's a little bit like, "Well, the entire world is connected by kinetic prisms and half the food is almost-literally generated by nuclear fission." If you can figure out the math, you're a better engineer than me. Puts on goggles and aviator's cap to resume tilting at the Organic Lychee windmill
- ars 9y ago
  > Yes, the most generous interpretation Canada's most prominent food related export is Maple Syrup. Is it such a stretch? For them that's a very efficient export. And the native population used to eat a lot of Seal meat, so clearly that's the most efficient food for that area. > Are you willing to have a discussion and apply the Principle of Charity or not? Go for it. The growing season in Canada is so short you'd have to farm a ton of land to feed everyone. Tell me how you'd make it work. Again, you have not explained why bother doing that? > In 2005, the import of fruits, nuts, and vegetables into California by airplane released more than 70,000 tons of CO2, which is equivalent to more than 12,000 cars on the road. That's it?? That's nothing. But why are you looking at airplane to California? Most food is shipped by truck, and California imports relatively little food. And how much extra energy does it take to grow food in the wrong place? It's a comparison, not an absolute. > And again, do you have any sources? You can google just as easily as me. Here for example: http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/ http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local... "My conservative estimates are that under the pseudo-locavore system, corn acreage increases 27 percent or 22 million acres, and soybean acres increase 18 percent or 14 million acres. Fertilizer use would increase at least 35 percent for corn, and 54 percent for soybeans, while fuel use would climb 23 percent and 34 percent, for corn and soybeans, respectively. Chemical demand would grow 23 percent and 20 percent for the two crops, respectively. In order to maintain current output levels for 40 major field crops and vegetables, a locavore-like production system would require an additional 60 million acres of cropland, 2.7 million tons more fertilizer, and 50 million pounds more chemicals. The land-use changes and increases in demand for carbon-intensive inputs would have profound impacts on the carbon footprint of our food, destroy habitat and worsen environmental pollution. It’s not even clear local production reduces carbon emissions from transportation. The Harvard economist Ed Glaeser estimates that carbon emissions from transportation don’t decline in a locavore future because local farms reduce population density as potential homes are displaced by community gardens. Less-dense cities mean more driving and more carbon emissions. Transportation only accounts for 11 percent of the carbon embodied in food anyway, according to a 2008 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon; 83 percent comes from production."
  - notatoad 9y ago
    >Canada's most prominent food related export is Maple Syrup Canada exports ~$200mm worth of maple syrup a year, and $5bn worth of wheat. Similarly, seals were only an important food source for the Inuit, who have never accounted for a significant portion of Canada's population. >Go for it. The growing season in Canada is so short you'd have to farm a ton of land to feed everyone. Tell me how you'd make it work. Canada is a net exporter of food and food products - 56bn export, 44bn import: http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/canada/?id=1410072148230 http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/internat... You seem to be getting your facts from the book of lazy stereotypes. Do you think we also ride moose or polar bears to work instead of driving cars?
- pjc50 9y ago
  I'm reminded that, during the war, when food importing to the UK was made extremely difficult and dangerous by U-boats, the country was a command economy, rationing was imposed, and the population was 10m smaller ... we were still unable to meet all our food needs domestically.

lmm 9y ago

There are various articles along the lines of https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/23/food.ethicalliving https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/mar/23/food.eth... (which is a lot more sympathetic to "eat local" than some that I've read, but has some good examples of the kind of complexity involved in figuring out when one food is better or worse for the environment than another). (I'm of the view that carbon dioxide emissions are simply too complex for any central labelling authority to figure out; the only way that can work is imposing a cap and trade system on emissions (like we did for sulphur dioxide) and then letting the market incorporate those costs into food prices)

sirsar 9y ago
Thank you, that was a nuanced article that made me aware of some of the complexity of the issue.