New York Times
Math Lessons for Locavores
By STEPHEN BUDIANSKY
IT’S 42 steps from my back door to the garden that keeps my family supplied nine months of the year with a modest cornucopia of lettuce, beets, spinach, beans, tomatoes, basil, corn, squash, brussels sprouts, the occasional celeriac and, once when I was feeling particularly energetic, a couple of small but undeniable artichokes. You’ll get no argument from me about the pleasures and advantages to the palate and the spirit of eating what’s local, fresh and in season.
But the local food movement now threatens to devolve into another one of those self-indulgent — and self-defeating — do-gooder dogmas. Arbitrary rules, without any real scientific basis, are repeated as gospel by “locavores,” celebrity chefs and mainstream environmental organizations. Words like “sustainability” and “food-miles” are thrown around without any clear understanding of the larger picture of energy and land use.
The result has been all kinds of absurdities. For instance, it is sinful in New York City to buy a tomato grown in a California field because of the energy spent to truck it across the country; it is virtuous to buy one grown in a lavishly heated greenhouse in, say, the Hudson Valley.
The statistics brandished by local-food advocates to support such doctrinaire assertions are always selective, usually misleading and often bogus. This is particularly the case with respect to the energy costs of transporting food. One popular and oft-repeated statistic is that it takes 36 (sometimes it’s 97) calories of fossil fuel energy to bring one calorie of iceberg lettuce from California to the East Coast. That’s an apples and oranges (or maybe apples and rocks) comparison to begin with, because you can’t eat petroleum or burn iceberg lettuce.
It is also an almost complete misrepresentation of reality, as those numbers reflect the entire energy cost of producing lettuce from seed to dinner table, not just transportation. Studies have shown that whether it’s grown in California or Maine, or whether it’s organic or conventional, about 5,000 calories of energy go into one pound of lettuce. Given how efficient trains and tractor-trailers are, shipping a head of lettuce across the country actually adds next to nothing to the total energy bill.
It takes about a tablespoon of diesel fuel to move one pound of freight 3,000 miles by rail; that works out to about 100 calories of energy. If it goes by truck, it’s about 300 calories, still a negligible amount in the overall picture. (For those checking the calculations at home, these are “large calories,” or kilocalories, the units used for food value.) Overall, transportation accounts for about 14 percent of the total energy consumed by the American food system.
Other favorite targets of sustainability advocates include the fertilizers and chemicals used in modern farming. But their share of the food system’s energy use is even lower, about 8 percent.
The real energy hog, it turns out, is not industrial agriculture at all, but you and me. Home preparation and storage account for 32 percent of all energy use in our food system, the largest component by far.
A single 10-mile round trip by car to the grocery store or the farmers’ market will easily eat up about 14,000 calories of fossil fuel energy. Just running your refrigerator for a week consumes 9,000 calories of energy. That assumes it’s one of the latest high-efficiency models; otherwise, you can double that figure. Cooking and running dishwashers, freezers and second or third refrigerators (more than 25 percent of American households have more than one) all add major hits. Indeed, households make up for 22 percent of all the energy expenditures in the United States.
Agriculture, on the other hand, accounts for just 2 percent of our nation’s energy usage; that energy is mainly devoted to running farm machinery and manufacturing fertilizer. In return for that quite modest energy investment, we have fed hundreds of millions of people, liberated tens of millions from backbreaking manual labor and spared hundreds of millions of acres for nature preserves, forests and parks that otherwise would have come under the plow.
Don’t forget the astonishing fact that the total land area of American farms remains almost unchanged from a century ago, at a little under a billion acres, even though those farms now feed three times as many Americans and export more than 10 times as much as they did in 1910.
The best way to make the most of these truly precious resources of land, favorable climates and human labor is to grow lettuce, oranges, wheat, peppers, bananas, whatever, in the places where they grow best and with the most efficient technologies — and then pay the relatively tiny energy cost to get them to market, as we do with every other commodity in the economy. Sometimes that means growing vegetables in your backyard. Sometimes that means buying vegetables grown in California or Costa Rica.
Eating locally grown produce is a fine thing in many ways. But it is not an end in itself, nor is it a virtue in itself. The relative pittance of our energy budget that we spend on modern farming is one of the wisest energy investments we can make, when we honestly look at what it returns to our land, our economy, our environment and our well-being.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Local Is Not Necessarily Sustainable
By Sara Hessenflow Harper
Awhile ago I read a terrific op-ed in the New York Times (see below) about how the emerging fashion of preferring all things local was not a good deal for the environment in many cases. This story really gave voice to what I had been struggling to explain to many of my friends outside of agriculture -- that efficiency, scale and growing things in the most optimal soil, weather, etc provides both economic and environmental benefits.
The local farmer's market is a fine thing. But for some in the environmental community, "local food" has become the new "organic" in terms of its trendiness and believed superiority to our conventional food system. Yet, when you really examine the issue, you find that in fact, if we tried to make all or most of our food purchases strictly from local vendors, then we would be significantly increasing the environmental footprint of our food along with its cost -- and oh yeah, reducing our food choice options significantly in some areas of the country.
One of the great points made by this piece is that what may "seem" or "feel" green at first blush, isn't necessarily the best option for the environment or the people living in that environment. If you treat environmental policy as a religion or a political ideology rather than a scientific pursuit, it becomes all too easy to make the wrong policy choices or even individual choices. When I say "wrong choices" I mean wrong for the environment as well as wrong for people or the economy.
More often than activists want to admit, the welfare of people, the planet, animals and the economy are all wrapped together in complex ways. Out of some desire to be anti-corporate, a person can actually support inefficient practices or growers who cause greater environmental impact. That's not always what happens - but it can happen when a person allows themselves to be blinded by bias, opinion and culture.
Read the story below and then check out some of the responses and alternative thinking about this issue on the Grist website by clicking here. It is important to stay informed about how many environmentalists and celebrities think about these issues as they often have outsized influence on the vast "middle-of-the-road" consumer. In future posts, I will address some of these arguments as well.