Eco-Fads: The High Environmental Cost of the Local Food Movement
One of the key tenets of environmental dogma is that buying locally produced food helps the environment. The fewer miles the food travels, they argue, the less energy used and the better it is for the environment. The King County "Ecoconsumer," a taxpayer-funded county employee, argued the case in the Seattle Times:
"Food miles" — how far food travels from the producer to your home — have become the latest preoccupation for folks concerned about their ecological footprint. Transportation of food requires copious amounts of fossil fuels and other resources that contribute to global warming and pollution, so the lower the food mileage we rack up, the better.
Simple enough, right?
Actually, no. Such a simplistic approach would actually increase energy and resource use in many cases.
Food production is much more complicated than that, and the amount of energy used depends on more variables than government can track. A free market price system, that incorporates the cost of energy and other resource inputs at every step of the process, is a much more accurate way to calculate the true impact – and provide incentives to reduce that impact. Focusing solely on the distance the final product travels to market ignores most of the energy and resources used in the growing process.
Over at the Freakonomics blog, Steve Sexton notes that buying locally can be extremely damaging to the environment. He notes that promoting small, local farms has some serious environmental costs:
...the smallholder farming future envisioned by the local farming movement could jeopardize natural habitat and climate change mitigation efforts, while also endangering a tenuous and temporary victory in the battle against human hunger.
He cites Idaho's famous potatoes to explain why.
In 2008, according to the USDA, Idaho averaged 383 hundredweight of potatoes per acre. Alabama, in contrast, averaged only 170 hundredweight per acre. Is it any wonder Idaho planted more acres of potatoes than Alabama? Forsaking comparative advantage in agriculture by localizing means it will take more inputs to grow a given quantity of food, including more land and more chemicals—all of which come at a cost of carbon emissions.
What does all of this add up to? Sexton offers an estimate.
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 whole thing is worth a read. The bottom line is that putting a price on energy and resources through the free market is, quite simply, a better way to reduce resource use even for something as seemingly "simple" as growing food.
To be sure, there are other reasons people cite for buying food locally, but some of them are simply feel-good justifications about buying from your neighbors. I still don't understand why buying from someone who happens to live 20 miles from me is morally superior to buying from someone in Idaho or Iowa. In fact, I find that attitude based in a creepy "us versus them" concept that is morally dubious.
Ultimately, people are free to buy food from whomever they choose. They should, however, understand that the simplistic notion that buying locally is better for the environment isn't true and that such an approach is likely to do more harm than good.
Comments
I see that the locally grown
I see that the locally grown crowd are still leaning on the food mile argument. Just like to add some facts of just what it costs in energy to transport food, or anything.
A typical tractor-trailer gets about 6 to 10 miles to the gallon of diesel when fully loaded (32 tons of cargo). This means anywhere from 192 to 320 ton-miles per gallon. What this means is to transport a pound of broccoli from California to New York, hitching a ride with the rest of this cargo, will cost about 0.00546 to 0.00911 gallons of diesel. That's .7 to 1.166 ounces of fuel to move that pound of broccoli 3500 miles. The numbers are even better for trains and ships.
You might then counter that it'll take more packaging. I then ask, what would the difference in packaging be if it were transported a mere fifty miles with 2-4 tons of other cargo in the smaller, local farmer's truck ?
And, then there is this argument we should simply forgo any foods not grown, raised or harvested in the local circle.
First, for those also advocating the support of thei local farmer, how does this support them if you ask them to give up their national and global customers, particularly those farmers in California that supply much of the US and Canada with fresh produce through the winter ?
Second, do you really expect the majority of people who are further than 100 miles from the sea to give up all seafood? Everyone above the Mason-Dixon, citrus?, Those not from the Northeast, Maple Syrup, everyone north of southern Florida, Bananas and Pineapple? The only way that would happen if we entered some sort of locavore's version of the Handmaid's Tale. And the local farmers of Hawaii and Florida will eternally hate you for it.
fear?
Why are so many comments bashing the authors points? You don't have to agree, but to disagree without citing facts seems more like fear than common sense logic.
I buy what I can locally, but only if I'm going to use it. I worry about my friends who grow what they can here in Western (wet) Washington. It seems very difficult for them to actually make a living selling fruits and vegetables.
The cost of buying locally is higher, but really, it just doesn't matter whether the local broccoli is less or more expensive than what I can get in the organic section of the grocery store. I buy it most often just to support my friends who are working so hard.
But like the author above, I wonder what we're creating, and what the cost of government regulations is doing to our small agricultural famers and friends.
It seems Todd's point is that
It seems Todd's point is that "buy local" has become an ideology. In other words, it has become something its practitioners adhere to regardless of the real facts and evidence. I get the sense, and Todd can correct me if I'm misreading him, that there may be instances where buying the local product makes the most sense economically and environmentally. Conversely, there are instances where buying something made on the other side of the world might make the most sense in those ways. The point is let's look at the evidence and evaluate the true environmental impact and cost from all stages of product creation and delivery, not just one segment such as the number of miles it's transported to get to market. Look at the whole picture, and then decide. But don't make an ideological assumption from the get-go, which the "buy local" movement seems to do.
Thumbs Up
I can't give a thumb's up here, but consider this a metaphorical "thumb's up." This is exactly right and the irony is that by taking an ideological approach actually leads to increased environmental impact in many instances.
Potatoes are not apples nor oranges
Mr. Meyers,
I think you are mistaking potatoes for apples. The point of producing local is not to produce what doesn't grow best in a certain location but what grows very well under local micro and macro climate conditions. This reduces the need for all the items you state are part of the equation that actually increases the carbon foot print of producing and selling locally. Thus, because it is cheaper to produce food this way it will actually cost less than that produced in mass beyond a regional distance.
The only setback is that if you like potatoes in an area that is best suited for apples, you aren't going to find many to eat. I suggest you get used to the taste of apples.
I don't think you understand
I don't think you understand elementary economics. Instead of mouthing platitudes to your environmentalist fanaticism, I suggest you actually read Steve Saxton's post on Freakanomics, get acquainted with the phenomena *comparative advantage* and *economies of scale*.
in the spirit of good debate
Neo-L,
thanks so much for talking down to me.
Calling me a fanatic and lacking "elementary" knowledge does not make your point at all. It only proves that if you can't talk reasonably about a subject you resort to belittling comments direct personally rather than taking time to help who you think is lacking in certain knowledge a proper understanding.
FYI, I have read the post and still feel that Mr. Saxton is assuming the point of local economy is to supply every kind of good to all people. If he understood the local economy movement better, he would know that the people involved sacrifice that which can not be produced locally to consume what is best produced in that region. Instead, he preaches specialization costs less because of land costs and chemical demand with no mention of transportation costs, disposal costs, and the burden places on natural resources in order to produce all foods for everyone. By limiting his input variables he can control how his output looks in comparison to the alternatives. This is not a new method in science.
On the other-hand, local economy reduces transportation costs and the secondary costs and wastes that are created by it. How much gasoline is used in walking down the street to pick fruit and vegetables?
Specialization has lead people to be knowledge-less in producing what they need and slaves to what others tell them they need. Ever wonder why the DIY trend has taken off over the past decade (rhetorical)? People are taking back control over what they can do for themselves. This should resonate with conservatives because it is people creating their own destiny rather than being dependent on lager systems like government or large corporations. It also creates more jobs because more people are starting new, small businesses.
Mr. Saxton's position is an outdated one that assumes the world can only survive on a global economy. Why should people living in Washington State have any care that the economy is failing in Greece? What if all our yogurt or feta cheese came from there? We'd be pretty screwed, no?
In spirit of good debate I will look past your crass comments and allow you an opportunity to actually make points rather than just trying to get under my skin.
I'm looking forward hearing what you have to say. Input from many sources only improves our understanding on important issues.
The Tradeoff - Prosperity
Ben, I do appreciate your comments and am glad you made them because they demonstrate the unstated assumption of the buy local movement.
You assume that if a "local" area cannot provide a product, we should probably go without it for the sake of environmental sustainability.
I disagree for three reasons. First, I believe human prosperity is important and ought to be sacrificed only when there is a good reason -- like permanent damage to the Earth or to others. So, the burden is on those who risk human prosperity to prove an impact.
Limiting trade with others based on arbitrary rules of locality harms prosperity. Nobody can do it all themselves. It is better for the environment, and prosperity, to do what you are best at. Grow food where there is rain and water and not in the desert. Trade ensures we do exactly that.
Second, just because apples grow well here, does not mean they are environmentally sustainable. Indeed, it might be better for the Earth to eat potatoes grown in Idaho and shipped here. Washington-grown apples (or whatever) might actually use more resources than Idaho-grown potatoes that are shipped here. Thus, the environmentally friendly thing to do is to eat Idaho potatoes even though we grow apples better than anyone. Being relatively better at something does not mean you are better in absolute terms.
Finally, the word "local" misleads more than it informs. Is Bellingham local? Is Vancouver, B.C. local? It is certainly closer than Spokane, despite the fact that it is in another country. The definitions of local are very arbitrary. A better standard would be resource use -- from seed to delivery -- of food. As long as producers and consumers pay the price for each input of resources and energy, those foods and goods that use less will win in the free market.
Buy local and doing it yourself sounds good. But the problem is that we cannot do everything ourselves and by wasting time and resources doing what we are poor at by limiting who we trade with only makes it more difficult to live up to the core of the environmental ethic: doing more with less and reducing waste.
Prosperity is not a Trade Off
Mr. Meyers,
It's ironic that you choose to name Bellingham, WA in your response. Bellingham is actually the best example of a successful local economy in the USA. Maybe you are springing a trap or just don't know your subject matter as well as you want your readers to believe.
I won't deny that certain places in the world are better at producing certain kinds of food stores but I haven't seen a credible argument for our need to have access to all kinds of food.
In the spirit of all the college football that is going on these days let me tackle your three contrary points.
First: human prosperity. Holding humans above all things is exactly the reason why we have exploited many living and non living things to near, if not complete, extinction. Remember even our beloved bald eagle fell on hard times after the increase in humans in the west. Remember how we thought is was okay to capture Africans and bring them to "America" to use as slaves? Declining resources, whether living or non-living, are indicators of some kind of impact on the planet.
Do we have to be so self centered to think that something else has to be in dire straights before we make changes to the way we live? Although, ants make up the largest biological mass on the planet do they consume fossil fuels at any rate above none? Do owls or trees? Even if they do, who is responsible for consuming the most mangos or emeralds?
By putting forth the notion of having to prove impact is a reactive strategy. It is this kind of thinking that is outdated. We must be more thoughtful in our decisions and take more time understanding the implications our choices make as the world's population grows beyond controllable numbers. We will never be able to implement population control (for many reasons that are not relevant to this discussion). But, if we are able to teach people to fish, so to speak, and give them a place to fish with the right knowledge to not over fish their needs then people will be better off. The will be able to take care of themselves rather than rely on others to control their supply of food. That's a pretty old conservative value that is tried and true.
Next, as the old adage goes you are comparing apples and oranges (or, in this case potatoes). That's the point I was making. People can, and have, survived without potatoes or apples or avocados or chewing gum. We seem to have this false ideal that choice between everything is good for us. That is the other part of my point. Just because we are able to ship avocados around the world doesn't mean that people living on Iceland need avocados to survive. I would say that would be up to you to prove the NEED (in this situation) rather than demand someone prove the detriment.
Finally, a true Free Market will define it's own boundaries. That is the true nature of a free market, not the one that is assumed boundless or defined by political property lines. Otherwise, slavery is created via a market system that can choose to deliver or not deliver foods to certain areas.
The mentality of "what I can buy is mine and what you can buy is yours" as a basis of economy aides in separating the rich from the poor. By creating a wealth distinction with food sources as a delineation we continue the cycle of poor people staying poor because they have to spend a majority of the time scraping for the low nutritional valued food that the rich do not have to buy. For example, how many Coop groceries do you see in poor and impoverished neighborhoods in the USA (even more on point when you compare the number of fast food options to healthy food option in the same places).
We blame poor people for eating poorly because they make uneducated choices rather than understanding that it is harder, not easier, because of mass food production, for access to better foods. For instance, you use Idaho as an example of potato production but you do not acknowledge that most of Idaho's potato crop goes to fast food markets than grocery options. Thus, poor people become slaves to a poor food market because it is their best and only option for quick nourishment between jobs or after school because no one is around to help poor children make any other decision. Thus, they are poorly nourish and in bad health and get blamed for consuming government sponsored healthcare resources due to the fact that their parents can not afford proper healthcare.
The trouble with specialization is that it limits a person's view on the larger context. I am not saying that specialization is wrong or bad, it has it's place in a local economy. It has its benefits. But, when someone like yourself reads an article written like the one you have posted on and it rings sound the tending reaction is to make it gospel without examining the larger ramifications. Heck, the author, an economist, doesn't even examine the economic history or suppositions of this view. This was the same problem with the Industrial Revolution that lead to mass pollution by that population's context. Do you propose we act as those people did?
"...the problem is that we cannot do everything ourselves..."
Exactly! Why have we been lead to believe that we can not do things ourselves? Where is all our time going that we can not learn or teach our neighbor how to re-roof his house? How in the heck did we even get to this stage in the evolution of technology if, at some point, people were doing a heck of a lot more than what we do now? Why is it that we revere people like Thomas Jefferson or Leonardo Da Vinci? These people did a lot more with their time than someone living in a specialized world today. Instead, we chastise people for living on welfare rather than trying to properly feed and educate each other so that they can be less (or not be entirely) dependent on the resources provided by the government.
I've heard a lot of talk around conservatives about how great Chile's economy has been over the last decade, yet, none acknowledge the hard work the Chilean government did in educating, feeding and providing proper healthcare to its people that lead to the boon in their economy. Why is it that "America" can not understand that Trade Off?
In closing, I extremely disagree with you that we can not do more ourselves. That attitude is a scapegoat. Empowerment is the best method for improving our lives and the lives of others. Heck, it's even a value shared by conservatives: teach a man to fish..... There is no way you can deny that education is a waste of time or resources. By restricting education you only condemn people to a limited existence of poverty of the mind, body and pocketbook.
"Remember even our beloved
"Remember even our beloved bald eagle fell on hard times after the increase in humans in the west."
Bald eagles are found almost throughout the North American continent. Their hard times were caused by DDT, not the increase of humans in the west.
"Idaho Potatoes" Even if you were to shut down all fast food outlets, almost all of those potatoes will still be needed as we'd still have the same number of mouths to feed.
Focus on the Facts
Well, that was all over the map. I'm not sure how you got to linking in slavery -- a government-run and enforced institution.
That is a very long comment, but I see no facts to back up the claims. Here are two that undermine the basis of your argument.
First, Bellingham is not a "successful local" economy. One of its largest economic foundations is the University which relies almost entirely on production and funding from the outside. Without food and products produced outside the city, the university could not exist. For example, one of the bookstores that preaches the buy local movement in Bellingham buys its books from the same source as Barnes & Noble and Amazon. That is not local -- that is simply marketing disguised as "local."
Second, the poor are not the largest consumers of fast food. This is false. The middle-class are the greatest consumers of fast food, primarily because of convenience. This recent study demonstrates that fact. That is the problem with your general argument - it is based on assumptions, not facts.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simple-Dollar/2011/1214/The-middle...
The problem with arguments that preach enforced limits, setting arbitrary caps on consumption, is that they are based on assumptions and a philosophy that assumes the end is near.
The philosophy you promote is not "teach a man to fish." It is "require a man to fish, to hunt, to write software, to build a house, to fix his car, to build the road in front of his house.." Such an approach guarantees poverty as we are all forced to abide by arbitrary limits on "buying local." Worse, because those who are not expert waste more than those who are, it is a philosophy of do less with more. That is the antithesis of sustainability.
your facts are out of focus
"Well, that was all over the map." -- I suppose if an idea isn't easily distilled into a single notion you will find it hard to understand. Otherwise, your best argument isn't at all to take on my points but to single out two trivial points. Really?
What has Bellingham's largest employer got to do with proving your point? Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject shines through, even WWU participates in the local economy. Straight from their website,
"Students for Sustainable Food (SSF)
To facilitate a campus wide movement towards getting more nutritious choices, local foods and organic foods into all dining areas of the WWU campus."
Hmmm, facts, now you name that devilish bookstore?
"the poor are not the largest consumers of fast food" -- As much as you want your readers to think I said that the poor were the largest consumers of fast food, I did not. I used fast food as an example of the types of food available for exactly the reason the blog post on a food study you linked to says people eat fast food for: Convenience. Poor people don't have as much income to spend on fast food so they don't buy as much fast food as the middle class. That was the point of the study, not the ramblings that you got from the blog post.
"The problem with arguments that preach enforced limits, setting arbitrary caps on consumption" -- again, I did not say anything like that. I am all for consuming as much as people want to. I'm against, leading people to think that our resources are infinite and that our current lifestyle will have no bearing on the future.
"The philosophy you promote is not teach a man to fish." -- You are missing the point. It isn't really about teaching someone to do something, it's empowering them with the knowledge that they can do what ever they want to and that others will be willing to share what they know with each other, not for personal gain, but because it will be better for everyone. It is in fact, because our world is hyper-specialized that we do not have time to explore more with out lives. We live with a simple focus in mind because the world has become over so overcomplicated that we can only focus on a single thing at one time. This only leads to bad solutions, like a global food market with a limited number of producers.
Name Calling
So, you are upset when you think someone else engages in name calling but you start this with the snarky "I suppose if an idea isn't easily distilled into a single notion you will find it hard to understand"?
WWU may preach the goal of buying local food, but it does nothing to actually grow that food. I would be more impressed if WWU committed to growing all the food it needs. It won't, of course, because such an approach would be costly and foolish. My point exactly.
Calling it by it's name
After all that I have said, you find it necessary to bring up that you are using name calling because your feelings were hurt that I called you out on not understanding a bigger context? I guess I should be glad that you are at least admitting you reduced your argument to calling me names.
About WWU, your point is not made at all. It's easy to say the approach is costly and make judgements ("foolish") about what they are doing, but where did you make any attempt at showing what specifically WWU is doing is either costly or foolish? I guess what I'm asking is why they haven't sought you out as President of the university?
WWU
The fact that they haven't sought me out as President of the university is just one more piece of evidence of their foolishness.