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
Andy Mouse
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •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.
sqrly
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •relogi
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Darth Poligofsky
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •Carl B. Latro
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain
The image being from 2020 probably explains it.
Food: greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain
Our World in DataJon voted, against fascism obv
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •NeonSoul77
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum • • •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