I hope it’s not too soon to be thinking about Thanksgiving. But for those of you who like to plan ahead, there was a nifty little article in Saturday’s P-I on buying locally grown food for the annual harvest-fest.
The article was much more than the usual puff piece. I mean, sure, there was the obligatory paean or two to the scrappy local organic farmer. But what made this article extra tasty was that it in addition to the platitudes, it served up a delicious, heaping helping of…data. Mmmm, data!!
In every case, the more local food was better for the climate than the food shipped long distance, and the organic produce was more climate-friendly than the conventional. But the patterns were interesting, and not exactly what I would have expected.
Take a look at this graph to see what I’m talking about. For apples and potatoes, as long as they’re grown nearby there’s not a big climate difference between conventional and organic. Organic had fewer emissions, but not drastically so. But start importing your apples from New Zealand, or your potatoes from Idaho, and boy, the greenhouse gases start adding up. So for apples and potatoes, the best strategy for the climate is to buy local.
But for asparagus, the situation is reversed. Conventionally-grown asparagus from local farms was only a bit better than asparagus shipped all the way from Peru. (Peru!!!) But organically grown asparagus blew both out of the water. Apparently, “conventional” asparagus grown nearby requires a lot of energy-intensive inputs—which local organic farmers eschew, and Peru’s soils and/or climate don’t need. In this case, the top priority (if you’re going for climate protection) is to buy organic.
But a helping of salmon caught in Alaska still required huge amounts of fossil fuels. Emissions from diesel powered fishing boats dwarfed the emissions from fertilizing and shipping produce. So where the climate’s concerned, apparently it’s better to double up on the asparagus and apples—even the ones from Peru or New Zealand—than to take a second helping of fish.
Obviously, salmon is something more than a meal around these parts. It’s more like a sacrament. So, really, I’m not trying to make every salmon fan give up on their favorite dish. Still, if you’re curious, it’s good to know: eating low on the food chain really does seem to lessen your impacts on the climate.
But the real lesson here may be that, when it comes to food, it’s just not always apparent what the trade-offs are. Studies like the UW researchers have done can help, but they also require attentive and well-informed consumers. Carbon labelling might help too; but then again, many of us have label fatigue. (I certainly do.) But the surest thing we can do to make people aware of the climate impacts of our purchases is to put a price on carbon, so that we’re not letting anyone pollute the atmosphere for free.
That way, information about the climate impacts of our Thanksgiving feast would be built into the one label that we’re sure to pay attention to: the price tag.
Matt the Engineer
Great study. I’d like to point out another lesson: that becoming a vegetarian can be one of the largest impacts on a person’s carbon footprint. (ok, quite an extrapolation from this limited study)I had the vague idea that fish was the one area where an omnivore can keep up with vegitarians when it comes to carbon impact due to not having to grow food for your food, but I guess that was a bad assumption unless you go out catch it yourself.
Clark Williams-Derry
Oh, one point I neglected to mention: driving a few extra miles to a farmer’s market may cancel out much of the climate benefit of buying local produce. So if you’re going to the market & you have the time to walk or take a bus, we’ll all have something to be thankful for.
Alan Durning
Right on about the price tag! Even uber-geeks like you and I can’t hope to keep straight the carbon footprint of different foods.Another point to notice from the chart—or to extrapolate wildly from it (Matt the Engineer)–would be that the difference between Alaskan wild salmon and farmed Norwegian salmon (900 grams) probably dwarfs the difference between the best and the worst apples, asparagus, and potatoes you might eat in a week.And your comment added just above is the main thing I took from the study: your own transport matters more than your food’s.Auctioning greenhouse gas permits would convey all these messages to consumers better than endless hours of educational campaigns.
Kristin Kolb
“Mmmm, data!!” :)Regarding salmon. Regional, wild salmon is not only better than the farmed Atlantic kind for carbon-cutting, it’s also far better for your health. There’s been a big push in BC for a number of years to get the word out about the benefits of eating wild salmon—and asking for it when you’re next dining out. See http://farmedanddangerous.org/. Currently, the campaign is focused on getting Safeway to stock wild salmon.Bon Appetit,Your Tidepool editor
ricardo
Hello Everyone:I just wanted to let you all know that we have just released a new audio podcast, “Plenty: Eating Locally on the 100-Mile Diet” for theWashington State Food and Nutrition Council that ties into eating local.WSFNC advocates for food, agriculture, and nutrition programs, services, and education. The Council enhances its members’ and the general public’s ability to discern nutrition issues and related public policy issues which impact the lives of Washington state residents.WSFNC Podcast Series: ‘007: The Year of Eating Dangerously!http://wsfnc.organicallyspeaking.org/All the best,-Ricardo RabagoExecutive New Media and Podcast ProducerHolistic Conversations for a Sustainable World Who Share Your Passion for: * high quality organic food * natural, sustainable lifestyle * ecology * holistic health
Morgan Ahouse
I quick rule of thumb I sometimes use: pound-miles. Say you drive a tiny 2k pound vehicle 3 miles to the market (6,000 pound miles) in order to buy 10lbs of local produce that traveled 40 miles to the farmers’ market (400 pound miles) instead of buying it from the grocery store, which gets its produce from, say, California (1,000 X 10 = 10,000). And, you can be sure that commercial transport is far more efficient than you and your car can be at hauling stuff around.
Michael Laurie
Glad to see you commented on the PI eating local article.Before I make a critical comment or two, I feel compelled to point out that I have been following Sightline/Northwest Environment Watch for over 10 years, I have read most of the organization’s books and reports. I am very impressed by the work you do. It has pointed to many local solutions and it has set an example for the whole country.I was offended by some of your comments about farmers in the eating local posting. The following section is what I was bothered by:”The article was much more than the usual puff piece. I mean, sure, there was the obligatory paean or two to the scrappy local organic farmer.”How are we ever going to get closer to the goal of a more abundant local food supply without featuring and praising and providing more examples of local farmers? Your choice of words could be taken as a slam on farmers and on how providing detail on their work is mostly a waste of time. If that was your intent I totally disagree.The detail about the farmers is just as important and possibly more so than the data.How are we going to encourage more people to take up the very hard work and low wage life of local farming without having more features on as you say scrappy local farmers? I agree that the data was great and we need more. I have been a water efficiency consultant for over 13 years and an energy efficiency consultant before that for 10 years. My work has required me to be a conservation data nerd for years. But living on Vashon I know a number of farmers and I do some growing in my own garden. While the growing is fun, we are up against a major challenge in getting enough people to go into farming locally. Their choice of that profession deserves our greatest support if we are serious about wanting to build a food system that is much more locally based.
Clark Williams-Derry
Sorry, Michael, I didn’t see your comment until today. No offense intended to farmers or farming—I was just very grateful to have some good context and solid data on the benefits of local agriculture. I suspect that the climate benefits are sometimes overstated or oversold—local hothouse tomatoes, for example, may be worse for the climate than tomatoes shipped from California. So speaking just for myself, this sort of data helps me know how to react to a story about local farmers, and to genuinely know that I should respond with a hopeful smile rather than a shrug.That’s just me, though. And it probably says something about me that I generally find human interest stories…not so interesting.
Michael Laurie
Clark, thanks for saying you meant no offense to farmers. No offense but I think you are missing my point. We have a shortage of local farmers in the rural areas outside Seattle and likely other areas. Don’t believe me, check it out for yourself. What you call farmer human interest stories are often a whole lot more than that. They are likely to be one way to influence more people to go into farming to reduce that shortage because they can point out some of the hard to quantify but appealing benefits of the farming life. More data will most likely never help convince more people to go into farming locally, because the data show that it is usually long hours of hard work for low pay.
Alan Durning
Michael Laurie,Thanks for your long interest in our work!Even better than “farmer human interest stories” for expanding interest in local farming careers would be: – a federal farm policy that helps small farmers who practice responsible land stewardship, rather than showering additional wealth on the biggest farms in the world.- an auctioned cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions that helps correct the nature-blind pricing of farm commodities and thereby reveals at the cash register the benefits of local, organic, and other responsible forms of farming.- procurement policies in schools and other public institutions that factor responsible local farm practices into decisionmaking. That’s the point of a bill expected in the Washington legislature in early 2008.- an end to Washington’s sales tax exemption for fertilizers and pesticides, with some of the proceeds dedicated to supporting reseach on climate-friendly farming at WSU, plus education through WSU and county extension agents.- a revision of the “food guide pyramid” along the lines recommended by Colin Campbell of Harvard.- an end to transportation policies that cater to Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers.Anyone care to add to this wish list?