
The Food Miles Mistake: Saving the planet by eating New Zealand apples - robg
http://www.reason.com/news/show/129855.html
======
ivankirigin
Food miles is a great example of an oversimplification that actually hurts a
cause. Just because something pollutes more in a single dimension, doesn't
mean the total pollution from 30 different aspects of the production is less.

But a single number is so easy to understand, people latch on to it.

Add to this to repulsive, smug attitude of some people, and I get doubly
annoyed.

~~~
wmf
Correctly accounting the carbon (if it could be done accurately) would produce
a better number than food-miles. And then if you add a carbon tax, in theory
the supply chain would account for it automatically and the only number you'd
need is price.

~~~
ojbyrne
Here in Canada, the Liberal party recently ran on the platform of a carbon tax
("The Green Shift"). They lost badly. People just heard "tax."

It's not entirely a clear data point, because they also had a leader perceived
as weak. But the carbon tax was a big part of why he was perceived as weak.

~~~
Xichekolas
I wonder if they tried to market it as a 'Fossil Fuel Tax' ... and then sold
it to voters as a tax on Big-Bad Oil Companies ... if it'd garner more
support.

People seem pretty convinced that oil companies are the root of all evil, so
they might actually embrace the word 'tax' in this case.

(Of course, the oil companies and utilities could just point out that it would
raise the price of gas, which would kill it. You could propose a law that gave
everyone free ice cream for life and people would impose it if it raised their
gas prices by a penny.)

~~~
ojbyrne
That wouldn't work in Canada, because of the oil sands boom. Basically vast
amounts of oil that weren't viable below $40 a barrel suddenly created
billionaires overnight. And took our dollar from $0.75 to $1.05 (though now in
retreat).

------
frankus
The realization I keep coming back to is that a carbon tax is the most
fair–and only reasonable–way to let consumers trade off the climate-change
impact of one product over another.

Markets don't lie, or at least do so less often than politicians,
environmentalists, or corporations. If the cost of carbon emissions were built
into the prices of everyday products, we wouldn't have to do any complicated
math or what-if scenarios to figure out which product is the best deal for
both us and the earth. The best deal would be (all else equal) the cheapest
product.

~~~
jimbokun
Taxing carbon-based fuel sources is even simpler.

The problem is, most people want to be "for" fighting global warming, while
also wanting cheap gasoline prices.

~~~
Xichekolas
This generalizes. Most people are 'for' any cause, as long as somebody else
handles it.

------
ars
"Food miles are supposed to be a simple way to gauge food's impact on climate
change."

Nope. There is a better one - the price. The cheaper the product the better
for the environment.

Some other commenters here have said somewhat similar things, but I can I
point you to: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=346912>

So, new rallying cry: Buy cheap!

~~~
vlad
Pricing between two similar products doesn't necessarily reflect difference in
impact on the environment. It can also indicate scarcity in resources, an
advantage in being the first (which may include setting your own price),
protection by patent, or monopoly. Also, scale is another variable. While a
rural area may have less-expensive housing and transportation costs than a
major city, the city may have more efficient delivery methods and
transportation (which could include the upkeep of having lit and paved roads
to encourage walking), when accounted for on a per-person basis. However, with
some refinement, I think your theory could be potent.

~~~
yters
The economy of scale is a good point. I'm not sure there is necessarily a
linear relationship between cost and energy use. It is more likely super
linear.

In my mind, the costs passed onto the consumer in terms of pollution seem to
be a big hole in the theory, though I do like it. Is there some way to
theoretically cap it? Otherwise, it isn't possible to even hypothetically say
how much price correlates with environmental impact.

------
noonespecial
Food Miles:

A good example of something that makes such perfect sense that it _must_ be
true. It just isn't.

------
ibsulon
The fundamental fallacy the article makes is that the original writers and
thinkers in the movement spoke of eating seasonal foods suited to the local
climate. Instead of growing tomatoes in a greenhouse, you treat tomatoes as a
treat and eat foods local to your region or, at least, friendly to the
climate. Further, these lower miles would allow for varietals that are evolved
for taste rather than shipping.

------
edward
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey>

------
alaskamiller
I like how things cycle.

First the world was localized. Then the information age / digital revolution
made global accessible. Then the world became flat. Now we're back to
localizing it again.

~~~
yters
Ah yes, but localization has moved up a level.

------
dgordon
Or, you know, you could eat something that's actually in season when apples
are several months out of season where you are. Strawberries would probably be
a good bet. If nothing else, the variety is good for you and makes your diet
more interesting.

------
dirty_harry
Yes! Eat our apples!

Also stop subsidizing your yokels. Giving money to uncompetitive farmers is
like burning fuel.

------
parenthesis
_Consumer shopping trips accounted for 48 percent ... of British food miles._

Walk to the supermarket.

~~~
seano
Lots of people do not live within walking distance of a supermarket.

------
RobertL
I think the best way to save the planet is to buy more carbon offsets.

And, by the way, I happen to have a few for sale.

