locavores take note

In the global marketplace, one of the things that South Africa should be concerned about is the effect of carbon labelling on its food exports. Companies like Tesco in the UK are leading a strong drive to account for the carbon impact of the products it sells, and carbon labelling could soon be commonplace. America's Climate Security Act is also considering forcing carbon labelling on imports to the US. The implication is that food (and other products) shipped long distances will not be able to compete with locally grown produce, because of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from transportation.

A recent article in the New Yorker raises a word of caution worth taking seriously. Nobody can dispute the high carbon emissions of transportation, and there are certainly valid reasons for buying locally produced goods; but if we are going to be carbonsmart, there are a few other things to take into account — and some of them will help maintain the competitiveness of products that are shipped long distances, while still reducing carbon emissions. Consider this:

• Water use, cultivation and harvesting methods, quantity and type of fertilizer, even the type of fuel used to make the package all affect carbon impact, and some countries can grow certain crops with a lower impact than other countries growing the same things. A country that relies more on renewable energy sources will further reduce the carbon impact of its products. (South Africa will lose out on that score, while New Zealand and other countries that have pledged to go carbon neutral will be the winners.)
• Buying food that is in season — even if it is grown far away — could have a lower carbon impact than food grown closer to home but bought out of season, because of the energy requirements of storing food.
• It is actually more “green” for New Yorkers to drink wine from Bordeaux, which is shipped by sea, than wine from California, sent by truck. That is largely because shipping wine is mostly shipping glass. (One or two South African wine estates are already going carbon neutral in their on-farm operations, so they should be able to compete handsomely in New York.)
• The impact of importing apples from South Africa to New York could be less than if the apples were grown 50 km away, because more sunshine hours increases the yield and the energy required to grow the crops is correspondingly lower.
• Pastures in New Zealand need far less fertilizer than most grazing land in Britain, so shipping New Zealand lamb to London can be better than having Londoners eat British lamb.
• Importing beans from Uganda or Kenya — where the farms are small, tractor use is limited, and the fertilizer is almost always manure — tends to be more efficient than growing beans in Europe, with its reliance on energy-dependent irrigation systems.
• And how do you cook your food once it's in the kitchen? Do you turn the heat up with the lid off the pot, or do you use a hot box — or even a solar cooker? That decision will have a far bigger impact than where your potatoes were grown.

The point of all this is that what seems the obvious ethical choice — or sound environmental choice — may not be what you or I think. The choices may seem difficult, but we are going to have to make them, and taking the simplistic approach to carbon accounting could be more damaging in the long run.

[via Maribo]

Comments

[Vernon]

I notice you haven't got any articles relating to vermiculture, reducing your kitchen waste by means of earthworms. Look at my blog, www.worms.blat.co.za.

[Rory]

Hmmm... quite right, I have never mentioned vermiculture on Carbon Copy, and composting household 'wet waste' should certainly be an important part of municipal strategies to reduce landfill by sorting waste at source.