Freakonomist Gets Local Food Wrong Again
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 08.28.08
New York State used to be extremely productive
A few months ago Stephen Dubner trashed local food, primarily on the basis of the carbon footprint, since things like flavor are "subjective" and not therefore important. He also wrote that "the economies of scale and division of labor inherent in modern industrial agriculture would still render the greatest efficiencies in resource investment." We disagreed.
Now he has brought in a ringer, historian James McWilliams, to back him up.
It's time to throw Phoenix under the bus
McWilliams starts with the Phoenix defense: "Unless one can envision the government in a place like the United States telling citizens and corporations that they cannot settle in a particular region because the resources do not conform to a locavore vision, we’re back to the thorny reality that some places simply cannot justify, on environmental grounds, a localized food system.
Ever been to Phoenix?"
The problem with Phoenix is that until air conditioning, cheap fossil fuels and electricity made it possible to live there in summer and truck in food, it wasn't very big. Just because this gross misallocation of resources exists doesn't make it a justification. We won't need the government telling citizens that they shouldn't live in a place like that; as the temperature rises, the cost of electricity for AC becomes unaffordable and the cost of trucking in food and keeping it cool rivals that of shopping for vegetables in Alaska, people will move- at some point they are going to follow the water and the food.
Rebuilding New York State's Agriculture
McWilliams then writes that New York State is "naturally equipped to grow a wide variety of fruits, including pears, cherries, strawberries, and some peaches." but doesn't. If citizens were to eat locally, they "would have to give up tropical fruits altogether; rarely indulge in a pear, peach, or basket of strawberries; and gorge on grapes and apples — most of them in processed form (either as juice, in a can, or as concentrate)."
Why? because it would require “a rebuilding of the processing industry.” Whereas the global economy’s infrastructure allows the importation of fresh produce all year round, consumers — again, given the extremely unlikely prospect that they would tolerate a radically reduced menu of options — would have to accept only processed fruit and vegetables in the off season."
Where have you guys been for the last year? All kinds of people are tolerating a radically reduced menu of options right now, canning and bottling right now for winter, enjoying the explosions of flavor that come from tomatoes right now with every expectation that in six months they will be figuring out twenty ways of dealing with turnip.
New York State used to feed itself; then cheap transportation made it more economical to ship meat from Chicago and then vegetables from California. But transport costs have doubled in the last two years and could double again in the next two years, and suddenly farming in New York State may look like a very good business. ::New York Times
More on Local Food
Freakonomists on the Merits of Local Food
It’s so Hip to be Green: What will the next trend be?Oddly Shaped Vegetables Allowed in Europe
Strawberry Fields Forever: 5 Reasons Why Preserving Your Own Food Is Green
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- The Bad News of 2008 is Also the Good News
- New York Times Predictions for 2009, from 1909
- Passivhaus in the New York Times
- Away We Go Green: Focus Features Production Embraces More Sustainable Filmmaking
He's just angry that consumer preferences, for once, coincide with the best way of doing things. This keeps happening, there's not gonna be any jobs for economists.
Thank you (Yahoo) for providing this information service to your subscribers. This article is another case in point.
I am often times "amazed" at commentaries especially by so-called "experts." Your common sense views to environmental issues needs to be heard. I hope that it continues, especially in these times of "disinformation."
Please know that there are on-line readers who appreciate your mission and dedication. Keep it coming!
Best Regards,
Peter
to rob........
BINGO!!!!
I'm happy that this kind of reactionary responses are popping up everywhere because they herald the end of this stage of widespread denial we're in.
The more opposition it gets, the stronger and quicker the change of mentalities occurs.
As in their book, I think the unexpected (for them) people's response to something they perceive as economically questionable will again surprise and intrigue them.
This made me laugh.."again, given the extremely unlikely prospect that they would tolerate a radically reduced menu of options — would have to accept only processed fruit and vegetables in the off season."
Many, including yours truly, are already tolerating a radically reduced menu of options because of PRICE. As for only processed fruit and vegetables in the off season, leave it to an economist to deny the existence of winter vegetables like potatoes, cabbage, carrots, daikon etc.
I think you're ignoring a keen point that he makes, though:
"Regions with climate and soil conditions poorly suited for diversified agricultural production must dedicate substantial inputs to fossil fuel and water."
Are there any peer-reviewed, quantitative studies out there that attempt to really nail down the overall impact of transporting food as a percentage of its total lifecycle energy use?
The main problem right now is the means that we use to move things: largely fossil-fueled trucks. But what if we could change that? Electric trucks, more trains, freight airships even.
While I am all for living simply, I don't necessarily think we need to give up the diversity of choices that are available to us now. Realistically, if everyone cut out a few meat meals a week (or all of them, if you're crazy like me), you could ship all your vegetables halfway across the continent and end up even in the carbon balance.
I think we're on the cusp of a green technological revolution. We're far less reliant on petroleum than we think - more than 2/3 is burned for transportation, and that doesn't account for the rest of it that ends up in asphalt to maintain our road infrastructure. The systems we've got aren't designed for energy efficient transportation, but that's not to say that such a thing isn't possible.
I think it's worth considering that using local soil and conditions to efficiently produce an abundance of specific crops that can be efficiently transported and traded could result in a system that lets us have our cake and eat it too. I'm not saying monocropping (because that's not efficient), but there's no point in trying to grow avocados in Ontario.
Food miles are a funny thing. Local tomatoes in England are grown in hot houses, and so end up being dramatically more energy intensive than those grown in Spain and shipped across the channel. But they're local, right, so they've got to be better?
Dichotomies in any form are dangerous (local = good, imported = bad), when really what we should be looking at is a comprehensive overview of the energy lifecycle embodied in all our products. Production, transport, and disposal. It's not easy, but if we ignore that, we could easily end up compromising quality of life for a straw man argument.
I'm not sure about citations, but this study seems to indicate that:
"...they traced 83 percent of the average household's food-related footprint of greenhouse gases to the origins of the food itself. Transportation only contributes 11 percent of greenhouse gas emissions on average—with the transportation leg from producer to retailer accounting for just 4 percent. "
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0602-ucsc_liaw_food_miles.html
It's important that we don't end up becoming yes men for a cause simply because the reality is counter-intuitive.
I'm not trying to be an apologist for flawed economic policy, but reality dictates that both environmental and economic viability are taken into account if we want broad scale changes to come into play. The world is too big for individual action - which is why I think a carbon cap and trade system that places a realistic value on the externality of environmental damage is so important. We might as well prosper as we make the world a better place...
No one disagrees that economies of scale can lower costs and save energy, even when it involves trucking stuff long distances, Plus I wish that greenmarkets would do something to make individual transport from separate farms more efficient, but that doesn't mean we have to actively suppress local food production like we do, especially as whipsawing energy prices make the existence local option especially prudent.
As Andrew pointed out, only 4% of the energy used to produce and ship your food is embodied in those last few "food miles" necessary to bring the food to your store.
But saving 4% is worth it, right? Well maybe, if you actually saved 4%. But probably not. When I go to my farmer's market (by bike), I notice that >95% of people drove there, and the lot is full of SUV's. The farmers are all coming from towns 30 miles away, driving big diesel trucks....oh wait...weren't we supposed to be saving energy?
McWilliams (and Wilkins) argument is much more convincing than the author of this post stating that people will eventually move away from Phoenix due to AC costs. Their point deals with something that is currently happening, and the author is trying to explain it is wrong due to a situation that may or may not happen in the future?
Honestly, the title of the article told me that the author was already unwilling to listen to Mr. Dubner after reading his first article. It just reminds me that liberals aren't people who are open-minded, they are people who think a certain way about things, just like conservatives.
Liberals? Conservatives? What are you talking about?