Skip to main content

There are massive differences in the GHG emissions of different foods & "local" isn't always best for the environment.

This chart continues to be a great reference I return to in my work. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local #science #climate #food

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
#science #Climate #food
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Andy Mouse
Andy Mouse
• •

eh... Chocolate and coffee higher than pigs?

... so it takes less GHG to feed a pig into maturity, kill it, package it and ship it than to grow coffee?

Actually, does coffee take about as much GHG as poultry, pigs and farmed fish combined?

My hypothesis: That graph is complete and utter bullshit.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

OddOpinions5
OddOpinions5
• •
This is slightly dis satisfactory as 1Kg of coffee is a lot more coffee then 1 Kg of Beef
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

sqrly
sqrly
• •
This should me calculated on a per serving basis, not per kg. A kg of coffee lasts my family a couple of weeks. a kg of beef is one or 2 meals +/-
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

relogi
relogi
• •
yo know, I get that we all have to think responsibly... and I do on a daily basis. But even if every consumer did it all perfectly, we would still be dying because corporations will NEVER put people over profit...plz stop talking to the consumer and talk to the corporations who are RESPONSIBLE
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

8rent Poligofsky
8rent Poligofsky
• •
Does the "wild fish" number account for the collateral damage to ocean ecosystems by factory trawlers? I love fish, fresh or wild, but I worry when I don't know the provenance.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Carl B. Latro
Carl B. Latro
• •
The chart in the image there differs quite a lot from the current World In Data chart...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain
The image being from 2020 probably explains it.

Food: greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain

Greenhouse gas emissions are measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO₂eq) per kilogram of food.
Our World in Data
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Jon (spelled the cool way)
Jon (spelled the cool way)
• •
Well, there are a lot of reasons people prefer local foods besides the GHG costs of shipping. “Local” is usually also shorthand for smallIer, farmer-owned rather than corporate, more diversified, and more sustainably farmed. All of which worth supporting. But I guess it is worth noting that plant foods are still low GHG impact even if they travel a long way by freighter.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

lmnewey
lmnewey
• •
what's misleading about these charts though is people use them to confirm "eating beef is killing the planet" so
you need to give the full context before mindless people start badgering everyone.... At 0.2% C02 the plants die. so.... you need a base load of GHG. We wouldn't want it to keep going up but we don't want it to drop either. the reality is its not as bad as people are making out

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

⇧