Skip to main content


Many believe a significant way to address #climatechange is to 'eat local,’ but that’s not always true. The impact all depends on the kind of #food + how & where it’s produced.

Some foods require fewer resources (water, energy) in some parts of the world. Season can be important. Overall, transportation has a much lower carbon footprint than land use change. And so on.

So instead of ‘eat local,’ let’s go with ‘eat thoughtfully.’ https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

This entry was edited (7 months ago)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I'm certainly down with this in principle, but it sounds like a tremendous cognitive load when you think about a three course meal or, inordinately and brain-breakingly worse, for a party. Where are all the ingredients sourced from? What are the most climate-friendly options balanced against price, geography, another important climate consideration, dietary requirement/preference etc.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I love this. I've always tried to put this into some coherent thought process, but didn't know enough to do so.

This article at least showed that I was on the right path. Now to continue the research and fine tune our purchasing.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

oh wow I thought transportation would have a way bigger impact. Thanks for sharing
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

similar to how "eat vegan" should really be "eat animal products thoughtfully." Healthy ecosystems need animals of all kinds and their produce makes good food. Just because something is plant based doesn't make it sustainable or even ethical.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I’m still trying to wrap my head around the wide difference between the farm impact of “milk” and the “beef” from dairy producing herds.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Sustainable or regenerative agriculture could use a certified label like organic food has to identify which products are grown using practices that promote sequestering more atmospheric carbon in the soil and not releasing it back into the atmosphere through tillage.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

the only thing to eat that will actually solve climate change is the rich.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

hard agree. "Food miles" is an oversimplification - the same journey by boat or plane is very different.

I tend not to have much red meat and cheese, and work on "probably hasn't come on a plane" for everything else.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

you were almost there. You had the data, had a good run up - and then fell totally sprawling flat with that conclusion. “Eat thoughtfully” is the most useless advice possible. At least “eat local” means you’re doing *something*. Really though, looking at that graph, how about just “eat plants”? Seems simple and useful enough, right?
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

this is interesting, I mean one has to check the stats, its opposite of the general perception that transportation is the major factor here
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

people really hate this chart whenever I post it.
It does make the path forward glaringly obvious: reduce consumption of beef, lamb, and dairy. Doesn't mean never eat them, just eat them less!
Which is probably why people hate it.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I appreciate easy-to-consume data like this, because it seems like our assumptions about what choices are better or matter most are often (almost always?) wrong. (paper vs. plastic bags, cloth vs. disposable diapers, for example) So it's great to be able to focus our attention back on things that matter. thanks!
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

so many of us are oblivious or numb to the impact we cause personally. Many still think their ‘small’ impact doesn’t matter but it really does
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

It looks like the current version of the chart is a bit different, making chocolate look even worse for example. But I agree with other people here that re-indexing to serving size would more clearly show impact.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I agree that this is a good thing to consider, but I am allergic and sensitive to so many foods that when I go out to eat, my main consideration is what is on the menu that I can safely eat.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

We demand the building of all the energy systems needed to end carbon fuels or we don't make it. Built now, like the US rebuilt its fleet after it was sunk at Pearl Harbor, or we dont make it. We stop burning carbon fuels or we dont make it.
This entry was edited (7 months ago)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Thank you. Eat local drives me nuts. It doesn’t account for the fact that most of the burned fossil fuel happens when people drive to the store. Long range shipping is remarkably efficient. And frankly, eat local often devolves into “make special trips to the farmers market.”

Rather than “eat local”, it’s more useful to reduce auto trips. Walk/bike sometimes, carpool, plan/combine errands, etc. And, BTW, these changes can also save families time or money.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

What's missing here, is the concept of a diet. Per kilo misses a great deal of what's going on.

For example, people eating a lot versus those eating little have a lower relative impact than meat eater versus plant eaters...

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Thank you for this, Sheril.
Important to get the details right, or we're making things worse while thinking we're making things better.
Appreciate it.🙏
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I like this quote though I feel like they favor eggs over milk unfairly given their data showing milk as lower emission “substituting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from beef and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a plant-based alternative reduces GHG emissions more than buying all your food from local sources”
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

interesting. While we don't have the worst "offenders" on the table usually I was most bamboozled by the relative low print of bananas. We kinda eradicated these from our shopping in favour of other "local" food - which apparently has a higher print than I expected 🤔

Thanks for sharing!

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

"how bad are bananas?" Is a book by Mike Berners-Lee in which he lists the carbon footprint of everything from an SMS message to Peruvian asparagus. First published in 2009 but I think they're was a reprint in 2020.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

As a friend who worked in Ontario's former environment commissioners office said, "you can pretty much take any food, fly it twice around the world and the emissions are still less than local, grass fed organic beef"

Yet he wasn't allowed to include that in information materials.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

@schwinghamer It’s be neat if food labelling required a “red light/yellow light/green light” emissions logo to tell consumers how carbon intensive their food is.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

just wanted to share this answer I got from a friend ex-biologist:

False. Eat cows to save the planet. Biogenic carbon cycling is not an issue. The people that produce that data are too smart and arogant for their own good. Or vegetarian propagandists. "The ends justifies the means" folks. Sure, we can (and do) raise ruminants in stupid ways, which contributes more carbon, but not eating ruminants is a bad solution, putting in proper grazing regs is the proper solution.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I really like this.
I also am ruminating, now, about wild (ruminant) game. Both local and reducing population would seem to reduce the antelope farts. 🤷‍♂️

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.