3 ms·

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

by 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?
  - ars 9y ago
    You are nitpicking on irrelevant details. Partly my fault, I admit, since I added those details to try to make my point. Can I ask you to redirect to the actual topic of: Is preferring to eat local good or bad for the environment? > Canada is a net exporter of food and food products Good. So there are things that grow well there. It doesn't really have any bearing on my point. > 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? This is really unnecessary, and derails conversations.
    - astrodust 9y ago
      The growing season may be shorter in parts of Canada than in, say, Florida, but that doesn't mean it limits produce to a handful of things. Pick any major city in Canada and you can get local, fresh berries when they're in season, lettuce, squash, beans, corn, wheat, any of the usual staples. It's only when you go above the Arctic Circle that your options get more constrained. Just because the growing season is shorter doesn't mean it's not possible to farm. You just need to pick appropriate crops and be more selective about their varieties. An example of this is Winter Wheat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_wheat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_wheat) which is a specific variety of wheat that grows much better in the northern praries. There's a lot of other crops like this with hardier, more durable varieties that have been adapted over decades by farmers. Fruits and vegetables of all kinds do just fine with the right choices and careful attention. You won't get local avocado, bananas or oranges, but the same holds true for about a quarter of the continental US, states in a row from Washington over to Maine. Instead there's apples, strawberries, blueberries, peaches and apricots. There's also a wide variety of livestock that don't have any trouble with the winter weather or can be housed indoors, from chickens to cows to goats to ostrich and emu if you prefer. There's also vast amounts of land for ranches in the western part of the country. I don't know what your point is other than blathering on about total nonsense regarding maple syrup and seals. (Honestly, the biggest single export from Canada is probably marijuana. In many cases it eclipses lumber in terms of revenues.)
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.

by sirsar 9y ago

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?
- ars 9y ago
  You are nitpicking on irrelevant details. Partly my fault, I admit, since I added those details to try to make my point. Can I ask you to redirect to the actual topic of: Is preferring to eat local good or bad for the environment? > Canada is a net exporter of food and food products Good. So there are things that grow well there. It doesn't really have any bearing on my point. > 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? This is really unnecessary, and derails conversations.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    The growing season may be shorter in parts of Canada than in, say, Florida, but that doesn't mean it limits produce to a handful of things. Pick any major city in Canada and you can get local, fresh berries when they're in season, lettuce, squash, beans, corn, wheat, any of the usual staples. It's only when you go above the Arctic Circle that your options get more constrained. Just because the growing season is shorter doesn't mean it's not possible to farm. You just need to pick appropriate crops and be more selective about their varieties. An example of this is Winter Wheat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_wheat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_wheat) which is a specific variety of wheat that grows much better in the northern praries. There's a lot of other crops like this with hardier, more durable varieties that have been adapted over decades by farmers. Fruits and vegetables of all kinds do just fine with the right choices and careful attention. You won't get local avocado, bananas or oranges, but the same holds true for about a quarter of the continental US, states in a row from Washington over to Maine. Instead there's apples, strawberries, blueberries, peaches and apricots. There's also a wide variety of livestock that don't have any trouble with the winter weather or can be housed indoors, from chickens to cows to goats to ostrich and emu if you prefer. There's also vast amounts of land for ranches in the western part of the country. I don't know what your point is other than blathering on about total nonsense regarding maple syrup and seals. (Honestly, the biggest single export from Canada is probably marijuana. In many cases it eclipses lumber in terms of revenues.)

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.