2008 Woodie Awards
Eat local? No, eat global.
By: Andrew Johnson
Issue date: 4/25/08 Section: Opinion
Every few months Café Mac does something that requires me to skip the meal in protest of the one sided logic used behind the presentation. This week it was another attempt to try to establish a dichotomy between globalization and the environment, specifically in regards to eating local.
I understand that this charge is largely supported by the campus and that there are some compelling arguments on the side of eating local, but I do believe there are several compelling arguments on the side of eating global. These reasons are the motivation for writing this opinion piece, while enjoying my protest Jimmy John's sandwich, which I truly hope has as many imported things as possible.
I am going to focus on the environmental reasons to eat global, because I feel that they will be the most compelling for the average Macalester student, but when you are evaluating the whole issue do not forget the importance of issues like comparative advantage and division of labor.
Another concern is the loss of utility, take for instance me not getting my daily banana and being very distraught. I find these points extremely compelling, but they will be left for another article or a discussion some afternoon.
The key issue is that calculations of the impact of food based solely on the distance that the food travels is woefully inadequate as a measure of the complete carbon impact of food. Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, a prominent New Zealand-based environmental research group found that factoring in other externalities of production, such as, "water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of other cultivation inputs,"1 leads to surprising outcomes.
Surprisingly, they found that, "lamb raised on New Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed."
I understand that this charge is largely supported by the campus and that there are some compelling arguments on the side of eating local, but I do believe there are several compelling arguments on the side of eating global. These reasons are the motivation for writing this opinion piece, while enjoying my protest Jimmy John's sandwich, which I truly hope has as many imported things as possible.
I am going to focus on the environmental reasons to eat global, because I feel that they will be the most compelling for the average Macalester student, but when you are evaluating the whole issue do not forget the importance of issues like comparative advantage and division of labor.
Another concern is the loss of utility, take for instance me not getting my daily banana and being very distraught. I find these points extremely compelling, but they will be left for another article or a discussion some afternoon.
The key issue is that calculations of the impact of food based solely on the distance that the food travels is woefully inadequate as a measure of the complete carbon impact of food. Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua, a prominent New Zealand-based environmental research group found that factoring in other externalities of production, such as, "water use, harvesting techniques, fertilizer outlays, renewable energy applications, means of transportation (and the kind of fuel used), the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during photosynthesis, disposal of packaging, storage procedures and dozens of other cultivation inputs,"1 leads to surprising outcomes.
Surprisingly, they found that, "lamb raised on New Zealand's clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed."
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 7
fruit-less
posted 4/25/08 @ 12:55 PM CST
I miss bananas, too.
: (
Declining dollar overseas and food inflation
posted 4/25/08 @ 1:44 PM CST
It's not just about the environment. My Mac student friend is overseas this semester, and suddenly, a couple weeks ago, they started getting locally-grown food marked "for export to US" (which clearly wasn't exported because it showed up in their market). (Continued…)
AndyFan
posted 4/25/08 @ 3:47 PM CST
Andy Johnson, you are my economic superhero!
Bob
posted 5/01/08 @ 3:19 PM CST
How am I supposed to convince my friends that I'm an environmentally conscious superhero if not by bragging about my superficially green but ultimately counterproductive eating habits? Spare me the realities of globalization and its massive benefits; I'd much rather base my life on rhetoric!
HUH
posted 5/02/08 @ 10:27 AM CST
In other words, it's my banana and I'll cry if I want to.
Carolyn
posted 10/15/08 @ 5:58 PM CST
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I'm sure you wrote this in a very short amount of time. It's really minimally researched. You're points are valid but overlook the big picture. (Continued…)
Post a Comment