4 ms·

> Local farms aren’t much better. They often times use old pickup trucks which are way less efficient than trains to deliver food. This doesn't really make sen

> Local farms aren’t much better. They often times use old pickup trucks which are way less efficient than trains to deliver food. This doesn't really make sense to me. Trains don't deliver from foreign farms to my door. You have to drive the food from those farms to the train, and drive the food from the train to its final destination. I don't see how that can possibly be less resource-intensive than getting food from local farms. And that's not even mentioning the difference between monoculture industrial agriculture and small-scale organic farming. In any case, if you're worried about your resource consumption, you can always make more of your diet plant-based, drive your car less, and avoid flying when possible. In every carbon impact calculator I've used [1], these things make a significant impact. And I agree with the above poster that these decisions can, far from being sacrifices, greatly improve your life. [1] https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/ https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/

i_am_proteus 7y ago
Large farms move their crops in larger, more efficient vehicles. The efficiency offsets, to some degree, the distance. You also are conflating organic and polyculture farming. Most organic farming is monoculture and much of it is industrial.
- ashtonbaker 7y ago
  > Large farms move their crops in larger, more efficient vehicles. The efficiency offsets, to some degree, the distance. Yes I understand this. My point was that it's not as simple as comparing trains to old pickup trucks, which seemed like a strawman. But I've been doing some research and was surprised to learn that food-miles are a relatively small portion of the emissions associated with food, so point taken. > You also are conflating organic and polyculture farming. Most organic farming is monoculture and much of it is industrial. I didn't mean to conflate them, I meant that monoculture + industrial is more resource-intensive than organic + small-scale. But I guess I was using "organic" as a catch-all for sustainable farming practices, e.g. polyculture, rather than literally "USDA organic". Debate about "local produce" aside (which I probably should have let go), my more important point is that it's definitely possible to reduce your carbon footprint meaningfully.

i_am_proteus 7y ago

Large farms move their crops in larger, more efficient vehicles. The efficiency offsets, to some degree, the distance. You also are conflating organic and polyculture farming. Most organic farming is monoculture and much of it is industrial.

ashtonbaker 7y ago
> Large farms move their crops in larger, more efficient vehicles. The efficiency offsets, to some degree, the distance. Yes I understand this. My point was that it's not as simple as comparing trains to old pickup trucks, which seemed like a strawman. But I've been doing some research and was surprised to learn that food-miles are a relatively small portion of the emissions associated with food, so point taken. > You also are conflating organic and polyculture farming. Most organic farming is monoculture and much of it is industrial. I didn't mean to conflate them, I meant that monoculture + industrial is more resource-intensive than organic + small-scale. But I guess I was using "organic" as a catch-all for sustainable farming practices, e.g. polyculture, rather than literally "USDA organic". Debate about "local produce" aside (which I probably should have let go), my more important point is that it's definitely possible to reduce your carbon footprint meaningfully.