I am a big fan of Freakonomics, and have always found their conclusions to be sound. When I found this podcast essentially debunking the myth that eating local food can save the planet I was both intrigued and skeptical. The boys at Freakonomics did not disappoint, and this podcast gave me plenty to think about. I had always assumed that shipping food constitutes the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions related to the food I eat, not taking into account all of the other massive requirements for food production, especially in geographic areas not blessed with a mild growing climate (i.e. the Front Range). Farm machines in the field, climate controlling, manufacturing, and packaging account for the lions share of carbon emissions related to the food we eat, and those variables are the same or even worse if you are eating food locally.
Take tomatoes as an example. Let’s assume that we intend to continue to eat tomatoes along the Front Range, and that everyone will be eating locally. Have you ever calculated the CO2 footprint of a climate controlled greenhouse on the Front Range? Consider the CO2 emissions of a greenhouse – the manufacturing, shipping, and eventual running of the greenhouse. The energy required to extend seasons in commercial growing operations along the Front Range is enormous, and would actually increase our overall carbon footprint if we were to pursue this endeavor with any real fervor.
The analysis that is represented in this podcast focuses on agribusiness agriculture – food that is grown using conventional growing techniques. These techniques rely heavily on energy from all sources, even if the food is grown organically. These conventional food production methods also rely on huge energy inputs to process the food – think stewed tomatoes, a loaf of bread, or pasteurized milk. It turns out that shipping food is less than 1% of the total energy required in the foods production, a number that is easily overrun if food is grown in regions with less than ideal growing climates. This analysis does not take into account micro growing operations in urban environments that use human labor, or low energy systems like permaculture.
The idea that eating locally is not good for the planet is contrary to what many of us believe intuitively. Before you outright dismiss this idea take a few minutes and listen to the podcast and draw your own conclusions – I know I had to.
So why even bother eating local food? The bottom line is that there are many reasons to eat locally, reasons that include such things as community resiliency, combating the urban heat island phenomenon, having greater control over what is in your food, supporting local economy, and regional identity to name a few. That being said, unless we convert entirely over to carbon zero growing methods, saving the planet is not a reason to eat locally.
What do you think? Leave a comment and tell us why or why not you think eating local food is the way to go.
Eating locally and IN SEASON is a great way to lower your impact. Tomatoes don’t grow in the Colorado (nor Maryland) in December so stick to canned. Greens are growing really well now, however, so we have lots of them in the fall – spring. And even in CO they can grow in unheated greenhouses.
I used to have a lot of respect for the Freakonomics guys until they went off the deep end and decided somehow that because they crunched a few numbers climate change doesn’t exist. I’d take what they say now with a grain of salt.
Good to know about Freakonomics and climate change – I will bear that in mind. As for eating locally and in season, I couldn’t agree more! And I would also put in a plug for eating more of what DOES grow here and less of what doesn’t. Nothing wrong with a regional cuisine.
Haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but I’ve been mulling the 1% transportation figure over for several days now. At best, I believe this to be an AVERAGE figure, taken across all agriculture. In the case of things like out of season fresh grapes flown here from Chile the transportation percentage must be a lot higher.
Rather than pursue a 24/7/365 greenhouse with hydrocarbon based heat inputs, I’d pursue a passive solar greenhouse that could easily give one a ten-month growing season here on the front range. (If one really put some work into the project, such a greenhouse would, at the least, be able to keep cold season greens growing all winter long.)
Also, it’s my suspicion that a well designed and built greenhouse – even a large one, could easily function year-round here on the front range with little more thermal input than a solar collector for a domestic hot water system would provide. I’m thinking of a serious investment in insulation, along the lines of an earth-sheltered north side and ICF’s all around that go well below the frost line, but if you’re into aquaponics, this could make locally raised Tilapia a reality.
As I’ve said before, it’s a given that the world’s remaining resources will be used up just as quickly as mankind can arrange to use them. So, forget about embedded energy – it’s far better that you invest some of our dwindling resources in the future than grandstand on the “emergy” issue and end up with a marginal structure that won’t last out your own lifetime, let alone be able to be passed on to someone else.
So, grab some of those dwindling resources (concrete for ICF’s, thermal solar collectors, copper pipe, etc.) and build yourself as efficient, durable and sustainable a long-term food source as you’re able to engineer. Beats the heck out of most things we’re doing with our resources!
I read somewhere (Elliot Coleman? Joel Salatin?) that the only appropriate use for petroleum currently is the production of food growing systems (greenhouses was implied) and an energy investment into wind/solar energy. I tend to agree.
The 1% figure for just shipping takes into account all of the things that go into food production – fertilizers, tools, machines, equipment, factories for food processing, pesticides, moving workers to the fields, packaging, refrigerated/freezer storage, and the list goes on and on. When you walk the isles of a conventional supermarket consider what brought that product to you; there is the other 99% of fossil fuel use. Grapes from Chile, or produce from any of the nations that make up our “always summer” produce supply adds significantly to the footprint of that food, but shipping them to us from Chile does not compare with trying to grow those same grapes on a commercial scale in January in Denver. ‘Guess it’s sun dried raisins for me in the winter.
If we grow our own (human powered instead of fossil fuel powered), change what we eat (eat what grows here), when we eat it (seasonal), and what state it is in (processed or not) we would do more to lower our CO2 footprint than just eating locally alone.
Locally the Parmenters who garden at 8100 feet in Westcliffe have demonstrated that one can grow food year round in solar greenhouses due to the intensity of the sun in Colorado. They are helping design and build the off-the-grid greenhouse at the CC Student Garden. Should be interesting to watch.
I agree – it should be interesting to see if food can be grown without added heat year-round in Colorado. It doesn’t get us out of from under the carbon footprint for the greenhouse and such, but it definitely helps.
I know a window contractor who will save old windows for any one who might want to recycle them into greenhouses.
Awesome! How should folks get in touch with you? You can route interested parties through my contact page if you want, to keep your e-mail or phone number private. If you e-mail me the information (through my contact page) I will pass it along to anyone interested.