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
You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local
'Eat local' is a common recommendation to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet. How does the impact of what you eat compare to where it's come from?Our World in Data
This entry was edited (7 months ago)
Erwin Rossen
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Justin Macleod
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Blaidd Drwg
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.
CubeOfCheese
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Soliyra (she/they)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •kingdom krumb
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Bored Baby
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Stan Wise
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Beeks
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Jen
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.
Voltaire
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Yaqub. M
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Lee Fife
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •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.
Erik Haugen
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •WarrenTB
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •btosch
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Cheryl G Kasson
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Kevin Russell
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Count Regal Inkwell
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Benjamin
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.
Nemo
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...
Steffen Christensen
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Important to get the details right, or we're making things worse while thinking we're making things better.
Appreciate it.🙏
Tom Resing
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Tom Resing
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Shonin
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Beko Pharm
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!
bzzzzzdroid
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Chu 朱
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 • • •Don Rudo
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.
Greg Haas
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •I also am ruminating, now, about wild (ruminant) game. Both local and reducing population would seem to reduce the antelope farts. 🤷♂️