Brainfade Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Buying local conjures up images of happy, small family farmers selling lovingly grown fresh fruit and vegetables from a stall in Saturday's farmer's market. You know the grower, you know where your food is coming from, and that is very comforting. But, from an environmental point of view, is local food really more sustainable? Or is just a feel-good luxury? A freakonomics analysis: http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/ In order to maintain current output levels for 40 major field crops and vegetables, a locavore-like production system would require an additional 60 million acres of cropland, 2.7 million tons more fertilizer, and 50 million pounds more chemicals. The land-use changes and increases in demand for carbon-intensive inputs would have profound impacts on the carbon footprint of our food, destroy habitat and worsen environmental pollution. It’s not even clear local production reduces carbon emissions from transportation. The Harvard economist Ed Glaeser estimates that carbon emissions from transportation don’t decline in a locavore future because local farms reduce population density as potential homes are displaced by community gardens. Less-dense cities mean more driving and more carbon emissions. Transportation only accounts for 11 percent of the carbon embodied in food anyway, according to a 2008 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon; 83 percent comes from production.
Recommended Posts