The Footprint of Flowers: Carbon and Social
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 02.13.07
UK minister if International Development Hilary Benn is asking consumers to buy flowers flown in from Kenya, rather than European hothouse flowers.
"People want to buy ethically and do their bit for climate change, but often don't realise that they can support developing countries and reduce carbon emissions. Recent research shows that flowers flown from Africa can use less energy overall than those produced in Europe because they're not grown in heated greenhouses. So, this Valentine's day, you can be a romantic, reduce your environmental impact and help make poverty history. This is about social justice and making it easier, not harder, for African people to make a decent living."
Mr Benn said: "Climate change is hugely important to the future of developed and developing countries but if we boycott goods flown from Africa we deny the poor the chance to grow; their chance to educate their children and stay healthy."
Florists disagree: "As a member of the government perhaps he also should be looking to support the UK's own cut flower production industry, which currently supplies about 10% of our domestic cut flower needs, but just 10 years ago was supplying over 20%, and 20 years ago was supplying 45% of the UK's cut flower requirements."
This is a challenge we will face over so many things in the coming years; do we buy Bangladeshi rice and support farmers there, or California rice which uses huge amounts of water and energy to grow? Are we putting South American farmers out of business when we shop local? Are the 70,000 Kenyan flower workers being helped by this or hurt? (this website calls them "Flowers of Evil") ::BBC
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Universities Taking the Initiative to Reduce Their Carbon Footprint
- Thanksgiving Travel Expected to the Lowest for Six Years
- Doubting Renewable Energy
- Greenwash Watch: Whole Foods' "Green" Beaujolais Nouveau
How about not buying flowers? Among the thoughtful things my girlfriend did for my birthday last year, my favorite was a bouquet of locally harvested invasive weeds in bloom. they were beautiful flowers for me to have in my home and their remoival benefitted our local ecosystem. there is no justification for adding CO2 to the atmosphere so i can have a few big tulips on my table.
I call "spin" on this. Show us a link to the peer reviewed "recent research" or be still.
This study was produced by the supermarket Sainsbury's and World Flowers “the UK’s largest importer of cut flowers, transporting over 700 tonnes of flowers by air each week” (http://www.world-flowers.co.uk). Infer what you will from that.
Treehugger missed a chance to interview experts and practitioners of looking at the LIFECYCLE and TOTAL ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT of purchased items and not just ONE factor.
Consider - How much greenhouse gas is produced by the planes flying those flowers? How does that compare with local jobs, and short rail-based commutes? What about local urban agriculture for food and flowers? Are the greenhouses burning local landfill or sewage gases, which would actually REDUCE greenhouse gas emmissions? (factoid- methane causes 21 times the harm of an equal amount of CO2). Not every sound-bite uttered by a politician is worthy of a firestorm response, but this was a journalism opportunity missed to bring up some powerful messages.
PS I like the locally grown invasives comment. Alternatively, they could grow flowers and seed bearing plants that actually help local wildlife and ecosystems, and give a small percentage of the native plants or seeds to others for holiday gifts and future local plantings.
That is a bit tricky. I guess they both should advertise and promote both products, meaning the local ones and the ones from Kenya. In that way, everyone benefits from and prospers.