Comments on: Food’s Carbon Footprint

By: Decatur Metro

Decatur Metro — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:02:10 +0000

Very interesting segment Doug. They were pretty general, but quite clear, that they believe that buying local creates a larger carbon footprint.

Luckily for the consistency of my never-ending argument, I’ve never been a huge “global warming” town crier, and have always been more concerned about the rate that we consume our finite supply of natural resources, than the threat of warming. I wonder if they address that aspect in the book.

As another commenter (and the authors in the piece) said, there are lots of other reasons to buy local. But the movement does continue to struggle with the problem of “Could you ever feed the world that way?”

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:57:45 +0000

Ikea furniture ain’t what it used to be. We installed a complete bedroom and living full of Ikea furniture in the 1970s, and it outlasted every other piece of furniture we bought. I am still using one of the bookcases. The bedroom furniture was passed on to another family, since our son grew out of it. But he kept the bookcase and two chest of drawers, which he was still using in the 1990s. Recently, he and his wife bought an Ikea chest of drawers with changing table for their new baby. The item lasted about 1 year and then began to fall apart. Very disappointing! However, I bought a toddler bed from Ikea that is doing very well. I don’t know if certain items are more fragile than others, but I just figure I like the design so well and the price is cheap, so I’ll probably continue buying Ikea furniture of one kind or another. On the other hand, I have a sofa made by Flexsteel that will probably last another 100 years at the rate it is (not) disintegrating.

By: Decatur Metro

Decatur Metro — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:24:46 +0000

“In any event, let’s stipulate that an unavoidable consequence of modernity is that we absolutely have to emit carbon at some level. Let’s also stipulate that emitting less carbon would be a good thing. With that in mind, I’d say we should focus on reducing the 75% of emissions that do not relate to fundamental issue of feeding ourselves before we focus on the 25% that does relate to food.”

I’m on-board with your premise…that it’s probably a good idea to emit less carbon (ie use less energy), but I don’t understand why we should exempt food if it’s the second largest energy suck and there are viable options to reduce (NOT ELIMINATE) inefficient food production. Going after all the small fry culprits sounds like a pretty difficult model to support or stand-by. Slight modifications in behaviors of the largest energy sucks (transport, food) seems like a more practical method of reducing energy consumption than convincing people to go whole-hog on something (ie your Sweetwater/Chateau idea).

Not to take away anything from your valid observation that we often focus on one or two things when we’re intent on something (be it energy consumption, trying to save money on purchases), but then turn around and negate it with another choice that we don’t think as critically about.

By: cubalibre

cubalibre — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:32:16 +0000

Hmmm. Sweetwater I could do with, Chateau Elan– not so much. The only worse wines I’ve had were those from Biltmore House’s vineyards (those could almost be called local, too). Pity!

By: DEM

DEM — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:13:54 +0000

“Can be traced” is a tipoff that ther 25% number probably relies on some quirky math. I suppse if I drive to Roswell to go to the PGA Superstore, but drive through McDonald’s nt he way home, that entire trip can be traced to food. But it seems silly to include it.

In any event, let’s stipulate that an unavoidable consequence of modernity is that we absolutely have to emit carbon at some level. Let’s also stipulate that emitting less carbon would be a good thing. With that in mind, I’d say we should focus on reducing the 75% of emissions that do not relate to fundamental issue of feeding ourselves before we focus on the 25% that does relate to food.

Of course, if one deems it absolutely necessary to delve into the 25% for the sake of the environment, I suppose we’d start with luxury goods, right? So let’s all agree that we should, at a minimum, put an immediate stop to the transportation of beer and wine across state lines. Shipping cases of wine from Napa County to Georgia uses a lot of carbon. Ditto for kegs of beer from Brussels to the Brick Store. Do I have a volunteer for sticking to Sweetwater and Chateu Elan for life?