Photo credit:
EvinDC, flickr
Bringing locally grown produce to market—ahhh, such a bucolic scene. Scattered local farmers loading a single week's worth of produce into the backs of their pickup trucks ... Greenhouse gases spewing into the air as they converge along spidery countryside roads, only to deposit a few crates of produce that are quickly snapped up ... Wait a minute. This isn't sounding very eco-friendly and efficient.
Delivering locally grown foods to market may in fact add up to more greenhouse gases than products transported en masse by a chain retailer. Research shows that while food travels more than 1,000 miles on average from farm to plate, transportation accounts for only 4 percent of the carbon impact of the average American meal. In other words, eating local shaves a mere 4 percent off your food footprint—a total you could easily equal simply by driving 1,000 fewer miles per year.
"But that's 4 percent," you protest, "and every little bit counts!" It does count—but at the risk of bringing out Captain Obvious, bigger bits count more. The bigger, more effective way to eat is to shift your diet away from animal products. Reducing your carbon footprint by the equivalent of driving 1,000 miles less per year is a piece of (vegan) cake by shifting just one day per week's worth of red meat to chicken, fish, or eggs—a reduction equivalent to 760 miles of driving. Switching red meat to fruits and veggies offsets 1,160 miles of driving, and swapping red meat entirely for other meats reduces the equivalent of 5,340 miles of driving. Going vegetarian knocks out a whopping 8,100 miles' worth of equivalent driving.
Far be it from Super Eco to take a 4 percent carbon reduction away from anyone. But 1,000 virtual saved miles versus a potential 8,000? That's an idea that could drive some real change.
How we can green our Summer
Comments (3)Add a Comment
Inappropriate or promotional comments may be removed.
While I make no claims to fully understand the study--it's quite complicated--it appears that the entire thing is based on heavily processed, traditional commodities. They are essentially saying that 3/4 of the miles they're accounting for are based on the distances food travels before "final delivery" which they say is delivery from producer to market. The rest appears to be accounted for by inputs to crops and other travel costs (growing, processing and shipping grains, processing of fertilizers and pesticides, travel of meat animals from one source to the CAFO, even air travel for expensive foods to restaurants) Quote:
"Of the 12000 t-km/yr per household, 3000 t-km were due to the "direct" tier of the food supply chain, i.e., delivery from the farm or production facility to the retail store" and "Thus, the total supply chain of food contains around four times the "food-miles" of just final delivery."
So a totally pastured animal product which only travels a few miles from home (born on the farm or nearby, moved from pasture to pasture, maybe a trip to a butcher, then farmers' market), and never eats any imported grains doesn't seem to fit into their picture because there are virtually no supply miles. I'd venture to guess that the majority of locally and/or organically grown, low or no input farm item--animal or vegetable--that's available at the farmer's market fare doesn't fit into this study at all. So in effect, you're probably shaving more like 70% of travel miles by eating locally, not "a mere 4%.
And as far as the 'vegan vs. meat' thing. I think it's pretty widely accepted that meat requires more input than vegetables, but I have yet to meet a vegan who eats totally from non-processed, locally grown foods, except in summer...it's pretty difficult to do this except in the middle of summer when produce is in full swing. The average processed veggie burger, or almond milk, even dried beans, have a lot of miles on their scorecard.
Besides, the copyright is this: "Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society" I can only venture a guess as to what their goals in discouraging people from going to farmers' markets might be.
OK, I'll shut up now. I'm dying to hear what others think of this article...anyone?
Another thoughtful comment, TemptressYarn. There's definitely some middle ground in there -- the sweet spot I always hope readers will see through the mists of all these studies and lobbying. I appreciate the scene from your point of view.
I finally had a chance to take a look at the study and, TemptressYarn, I have to agree with you. the big red flag is the portion of the study that says 83% of a food's emissions are from the production phase. well, geez louise, the carrots and potatoes I buy at the farmer's market have zero emissions in the production phase! (although, I'll confess, I *do* use the gas stove to cook 'em into soup, maybe those are my emissions ;)
I think the answer is this: if you greatly reduce or eliminate emissions during production (i.e. organic veggies and sustainably-raised meats) then you're saving way more than the environmental cost of transportation. local + seasonal + whole foods trumps vegetarianism/veganism/etc. in my opinion!