The Food Miles Mistake: Saving the planet by eating New Zealand apples | Hacker News Reader

The Food Miles Mistake: Saving the planet by eating New Zealand apples

reason.com

68 pointsrobg35 comments

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.

Food miles is a great example of an oversimplification that actually hurts a cause.

Exactly!

So true. It's not just oversimplification but also that these causes become fads quicker than the data can be collected in order to verify.

"Locavore" was Oxford's word of the year in 2007.

I call Fallacy of Accident. The guy only reasons special cases.

It's not an absolute truth but there is some relative truth in many cases of food transport. IMHO, the environmental cost should be added to the price tag in some way. The situation is similar to throwing garbage in public spaces.

Also note our minds tend to find ways to justify our actions when something we do bothers our conscience or sense of justice.

Price of production incorporates cost of energy. The price of a product can be a great indicator of cost to the environment.

If you want to increase the cost of producing energy intensive foods, the solution is to tax energy usage or carbon - NOT to somehow measure the environmental impact of each product directly. Such a bureaucracy would surely waste more resources than it saves.

The cost of energy doesn't offset the carbon emissions.

You know what's worse? It wouldn't be that bad in the final price you pay, it's usually around 2-3%.

Increasing energy prices through taxation lowers demand, drives money into research into now relatively cheaper alternatives.

Buying carbon offsets doesn't do anything.

The money a government collects on these taxes should go directly to funding research in viable alternatives.

There are many viable solutions right now for carbon offsetting. Financing electricity projects in the third world can decrease their carbon emissions significantly. This is quite often just financing powerlines and water network. Or just a small dam and generator somewhere.

You don't need research for ethical progress. And this would help the whole world economy as it creates and promotes wealth.

It doesn't actually solve the problem.

We already know the solution: a technology cheaper than coal to generate electricity and a technology cheaper than gasoline for energy storage and transport.

Helping third world nations is great. But it doesn't actually solve the problem.

You talk like it's mutually exclusive.

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.

Exactly. I commented in the other reply before reading this. You said it better than I did.

Yep. The problem with carbon tax is to get it implemented widely enough, so that you just don't displace the pollution to somewhere else. We have something similar today. In China it is nearly free to pollute, to have jobs with shitty work conditions. You could probably not run a factory in a country where the high tech goods (like iPhones) are being bought, the way you can in China. Because we don't have similar requirements for pollution, work environment etc. we have essentially pushed all the "unacceptable" behaviour to somewhere where it isn't "taxed" the same where as we would have. Maybe we just have to do it anyway, but it is going to be a problem.

Crypto-protectionists would have a field day. Since China hasn't adopted the carbon tax, we have to impose high import duties on all their goods...

Even there you will run into issues.

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.

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.)

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).

Environmentalism is a religion. It is hard to get heard if you disagree with the entrenched dogma, even if your ideas are better for the environment.

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.

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.

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

"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!

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.

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.

Food Miles:

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

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.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey

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.

Ah yes, but localization has moved up a level.

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.

Yes! Eat our apples!

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

Consumer shopping trips accounted for 48 percent ... of British food miles.

Walk to the supermarket.

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com