A can of tomato soup travels 20.000 miles before it’s on your cupboard shelf … not really but that’s what it comes to after you calculate the distance that all the ingredients traveled …
Same goes for organice beans … eaten in Europe but grown in Kenya … it’s organic allright but what about the environment? They are mostly flown in from Africa and the Middle east in winter and early spring …
Unilever searches worldwide to find the ‘CHEAPEST’ oil to use in the production of the ready made foods and sauces
100 kiwis (the fruit) imported to Europe from New Zealand are eaqual to 10.000 miles driven by a diesel truck …
Should we follow enviromentalist that say that the industry should put a milage sticker on each product and the governments should charge a tax on it …
Shoudn’t we try to go back to more local food sources instead of the cheaper lower quality from abroad? Environmental wise …
Kiwi fruit is freighted by ship, not by air, so the figure above is nonsense. But in general, i agree with the idea of eating local stuff.[/quote]
Not always, as are pineapples …[/quote]
I may be wrong, but I would expect that foodstuffs (or anything really) transported by air would be more expensive than the same thing transported by sea. Also, sea transport is the dominant form of large scale freighting because so much more cargo can be handled by volume. It’s also cheaper.
but ships don’t use windpower anymore. and they don’t just go with the current. they still use plenty of fuel. have you seen the engines on these things?!
and to belgian pie: both your answers are correct; especially the ‘buy local’. many communities where i live have this option. even in scantily populated montana, we have many choices of local products from wheat products galore, seasonal fruit and preserved/canned/bottled fruit products, corn products, cooking oils, cake mixes, to chai mix and date raisin chutney. the farmers markets are a great source too for about 5 months here. at least buy “some” or “mostly” local. obviously oranges and bananas will always have to be transported to montana. so at least give some support to these neighbors wherever you live!!
as an aside, i just learned from someone today at work (i work at an organic market) that if you eat honey, you should eat honey that was produced by bees living within 50 miles of where you live. this is mainly for people with allergies, but since the bees are local they have some type of something or another antibiotic that staves off the allergins of the plants they are pollinating, which helps your allergies. she recommended a tablespoon per day. anyone else heard of this? something to think about as far as benefits of keeping it regional.
Kiwi fruit is freighted by ship, not by air, so the figure above is nonsense. But in general, i agree with the idea of eating local stuff.[/quote]
Not always, as are pineapples …[/quote]
I may be wrong, but I would expect that foodstuffs (or anything really) transported by air would be more expensive than the same thing transported by sea. Also, sea transport is the dominant form of large scale freighting because so much more cargo can be handled by volume. It’s also cheaper.[/quote]
It’s just an example, but the Kenian beans are airfreighted because they are fresh green garden beans … just for people to have beans out of season … so let’s levy environmental tax on them … I guess there are more of these fresh foods airfreighted for use out of season …
Off course we need to support poor countries but not in any way …
almas john wrote [quote]Kiwi fruit is freighted by ship, not by air,[/quote]
Belgian Pie wrote [quote]Not always, [/quote]
Yes, always (well, 99% anyway). My dad handles the loading of cargo at Auckland International Airport so I am pretty famaliar with what goes out by air.
The Brit complaining about kiwi fruit was talking out of his arse. However, there are plenty of other products that get air freighted from New Zealand; cut flowers and seafood are the two that spring to mind. We even export live eels and quite a few honey bees.
Yes, always (well, 99% anyway). My dad handles the loading of cargo at Auckland International Airport so I am pretty famaliar with what goes out by air.
The Brit complaining about kiwi fruit was talking out of his arse. However, there are plenty of other products that get air freighted from New Zealand; cut flowers and seafood are the two that spring to mind. We even export live eels and quite a few honey bees.[/quote]
BP wrote [quote]You say yourself 99%, so not always …[/quote]
Well, I was underestimating. It’s actually 99.9999% so i think we can round it up to “always”. The stuff they air freight would be samples only, and not the stuff consumers are buying.
SO I WIN!
Produce from New Zealand sold in Europe may travel further on average than local produce, but more efficient production methods in New Zealand compared to Europe may still mean that the total fuel used in producing the New Zealand item and transporting it to the customer is still less than for an equivalent European item. I understand this is the case for a lot of products.
People say that rising energy gosts should increase the competitiveness of New Zealand farmers and growers because their efficient production methods mean they consume less energy per unit produced than competitors, even after factoring in the fuel costs of transporting the goods to market. Obviously this is assuming no artificial barriers like a ‘food miles tax’ or similar are created.
To be fair I think environmental taxes should look at the total energy costs involved in production, otherwise they just turn into another subsidy for inefficient farmers - something the US and Europe already have too much of.
I think back home in the UK, most of what I bought was local produce, even in the medium sized town where I lived.
There was a greengrocer’s down the road where I would pop in every couple of days and get vegetables and stuff.
Most of the produce was from the Vale of Evesham which of which I live on the border.
Even in the supermarkets, local produce is sold - for stuff like tomatoes, huge greenhouses are used all year round.
Obviously kiwi fruit, bananas and oranges are all imported and their cost reflects this.
Unfortunately, our government pays huge subsidies to Europe for European farmers. However, our farmers see virtually nothing of these subsidies and are virtually self sufficient.
Another thing which is annoyingly common is the unnecessary transportation of goods. For example, I wanted to buy a drumkit last year.
The kit was manufactured in Taiwan, then exported to a company in Japan where it sat around for half a year waiting to be sent to the company in the US which contracts the company in Taiwan to make it.
The music shop bought the kit from the company in the US and had it exported to Taiwan to be sold to the end user - all this hikes up the cost of the product.
This happens a hell of alot. Such a waste.
Too busy to post a detailed response on marine air pollution but it is worth a look. Some facts quickly pulled from the internet:
Ships are a leading source of smog-forming nitrogen oxides.
Marine diesel engines are the dirtiest of all diesel engines.
The vessels are powered by low-quality diesel bunker fuel, so dirty each particle of exhaust legally can be 3,000 times higher in sulfur than the fuel soon to be used by new diesel trucks. Even industry lobbyists have said international ship-fuel standards for sulfur, a primary component of acid rain, are ridiculously high.
Ships in the Los Angeles/Long Beach ports already produce nearly as much smog as Southern California’s 350 largest industrial polluters combined.
In B.C.'s Lower Fraser Valley, marine emissions account for 33% of total sulphur oxide emissions, 22% of nitrogen oxide emissions and 12% of fine particulate emissions, called PM 2.5.
And I know someone is going to come back and say that ships are really not that bad, that they are better than XYZ, and blah blah blah. The only point that I am trying to make is that marine pollution has a significant impact and one that most people choose to ignore or remain ignorant of - like so many things to do with the ocean.
but ships don’t use windpower anymore. and they don’t just go with the current. they still use plenty of fuel. have you seen the engines on these things?!
jm[/quote]
Yes, mate. I was in the Navy, and I guarantee you they’re not all that heavy on fuel (obviously they’re not exactly light as in running on fumes, but they are very economical), especially after you consider how much freight they transport it actually works out fairly economically (and pretty eco friendly). But I do agree, that by and large, it is better (and MORE eco friendly) to support locally produced goods.
[quote=“damafen”]Too busy to post a detailed response on marine air pollution but it is worth a look. Some facts quickly pulled from the internet:
Ships are a leading source of smog-forming nitrogen oxides.
Marine diesel engines are the dirtiest of all diesel engines.
The vessels are powered by low-quality diesel bunker fuel, so dirty each particle of exhaust legally can be 3,000 times higher in sulfur than the fuel soon to be used by new diesel trucks. Even industry lobbyists have said international ship-fuel standards for sulfur, a primary component of acid rain, are ridiculously high.
Ships in the Los Angeles/Long Beach ports already produce nearly as much smog as Southern California’s 350 largest industrial polluters combined.
In B.C.'s Lower Fraser Valley, marine emissions account for 33% of total sulphur oxide emissions, 22% of nitrogen oxide emissions and 12% of fine particulate emissions, called PM 2.5.
And I know someone is going to come back and say that ships are really not that bad, that they are better than XYZ, and blah blah blah. The only point that I am trying to make is that marine pollution has a significant impact and one that most people choose to ignore or remain ignorant of - like so many things to do with the ocean.[/quote]
What you say is also true. The proverbial “other side of the coin”. But there is no competing with marine transportation for sheer bulk and economy per unit. Also, alternative powerplants for large sea-going vessels are something that isn’t too long in the coming and will make sea going transport all the more efficient.
You should also check out the powerplants used for US Aircraft carriers. They are obviously nuclear (as I’m sure anyone knows) and in a study done (the where and why of I’m not at liberty to say) not to long ago it was found that a US nuclear carrier puts out less toxic waste (especially of a radioactive nature) in a month than your average sized hospital does in a day. It is also notable (probably largely due to the high standard of the technicians and the advanced technology itself) that there has never been an incident on a US nuclear carrier. Russian submarines, on the other hand…
Point is, it could be better. And it will. Several other technologies are also currently available that will eventually revolutionise marine shipping and address the factors you mentioned.
each person has to decide for themselves what to eat, what to buy, what to purchase, what to support.
for each person it is a decision they get to make.
there are over 6 billion of us out there though, so we’ll see how it works out over the years.
times are different now from when my ancestors considered an orange or a banana ‘exotic’. now people simply expect to see oranges and bananas at every grocery store in america-or elsewhere.
we are global. our markets are global. our economies are global.
but we still hold the power as consumers.
buy locally, think globally. as best we can.
live and let live. eat and let eat. grow and let grow.
the global cat is out of the bag. let us just try to keep the kitty litter contained as best we can.
If you’re consistent about this policy you will all stop buying any imported goods here. No more going to Jasons/Breeze/Wellman’s, no more imported beers, no more good ice cream or candy (all imported), etc.
Alternatively compromise by switching from beer to whiskey? Less bulk to transport means whiskey is better for the environment. Whiskey can also help the environment by reducing your trips to the toilet and thus saving water.
But why target food? Why not target all goods? Also its far easier to tax the fuel itself rather than the product because how does one know where the final destination will be?
These environmentalists are completely impractical.