4 ms·

Food-miles sound good, but the reality of modern shipping is that it takes far less energy to move food than grow it. The carbon/energy cost of bringing a plan

Food-miles sound good, but the reality of modern shipping is that it takes far less energy to move food than grow it. The carbon/energy cost of bringing a plant product from a hot country to a cold country is far less than the energy needed to grow that product in a cold country. That's why nobody grows bananas in new york. We could, but the cost/energy to do so is hugely more than the energy to ship bananas from place where they grow easily. If we want to address global climate change, then we need to look into minimizing total energy put into things like food. Often that will mean growing things where they can grow most easily, with the least amount of energy. A banana brought thousands of miles by very efficient transport is more sustainable than grown in an ill-suited climate through the application of energy-expensive heat/light etc. Distance is not everything.

uoaei 5y ago
In-built into this comment is the implicit entitlement of the globalist consumer: that we should have access to anything we want at any time of year. But that doesn't really need to be the case. Reducing food-miles by feeding people locally-first would drop food-miles drastically, possibly more than other proposals thus far. Minimizing total energy is indeed the name of the game. To do that, we have to recognize that we may have over-extended a little bit as a civilization, and to pull back on some of the more hubristic enterprises like bananas in Maine or avocados in Sweden during winter in the Northern hemisphere. We can still have those things, but at a minimum the costs for the consumer should reflect the costs of transportation, including costs normally externalized (excluded) from supply chain analyses.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > that we should have access to anything we want at any time of year. But that doesn't really need to be the case. Interesting you should mention that, this was actually the dinner table subject a few days ago when I explained to my kids that what they think is 'normal' has only been the case for a couple of decades at best and that in the not so very distant past winter meant that you were not going to have a whole lot of fresh stuff. They found it quite incredible that you would not be able to buy apples or bananas year round.
jabl 5y ago
> If we want to address global climate change, then we need to look into minimizing total energy put into things like food. Often that will mean growing things where they can grow most easily, with the least amount of energy. The big issue with agriculture and environmental disasters like climate change and biodiversity loss is land use patterns. That implies a need to drastically replace consumption of very land-inefficient uses like beef with mostly plant based foods. But yes, I completely agree with you that 'food miles' is largely a distraction.
problemis7 5y ago
The problem is republicans can cut off food to liberal strongholds when the government drops the facade and becomes tyrannical so they need to look at producing food in the cities and make up a load of lies about land use patterns and climate change hoax funding all this with things like inflation

uoaei 5y ago

In-built into this comment is the implicit entitlement of the globalist consumer: that we should have access to anything we want at any time of year. But that doesn't really need to be the case. Reducing food-miles by feeding people locally-first would drop food-miles drastically, possibly more than other proposals thus far. Minimizing total energy is indeed the name of the game. To do that, we have to recognize that we may have over-extended a little bit as a civilization, and to pull back on some of the more hubristic enterprises like bananas in Maine or avocados in Sweden during winter in the Northern hemisphere. We can still have those things, but at a minimum the costs for the consumer should reflect the costs of transportation, including costs normally externalized (excluded) from supply chain analyses.

jacquesm 5y ago
> that we should have access to anything we want at any time of year. But that doesn't really need to be the case. Interesting you should mention that, this was actually the dinner table subject a few days ago when I explained to my kids that what they think is 'normal' has only been the case for a couple of decades at best and that in the not so very distant past winter meant that you were not going to have a whole lot of fresh stuff. They found it quite incredible that you would not be able to buy apples or bananas year round.

jabl 5y ago

> If we want to address global climate change, then we need to look into minimizing total energy put into things like food. Often that will mean growing things where they can grow most easily, with the least amount of energy. The big issue with agriculture and environmental disasters like climate change and biodiversity loss is land use patterns. That implies a need to drastically replace consumption of very land-inefficient uses like beef with mostly plant based foods. But yes, I completely agree with you that 'food miles' is largely a distraction.

problemis7 5y ago

The problem is republicans can cut off food to liberal strongholds when the government drops the facade and becomes tyrannical so they need to look at producing food in the cities and make up a load of lies about land use patterns and climate change hoax funding all this with things like inflation