GreenBuzz - Free Weekly E-Newsletter Read Current Issue
Recent Posts by Marc Gunther
  • I’m writing this post on my Apple PowerBook G4, which ordinarily does very well what I need it to do—except that right now it is sitting on my lap and giving off enough heat to keep me warm on a cool day. That might be welcome if today were a February day in Denver. But it’s August. I’m in the mile-high city where the sun always seems to shine to moderate a discussion on sustainability for Coca Cola Enterprises, the big bottling company; to attend a bunch of events on the environment and energy; and to soak up the atmosphere as the Democrats and thousands of hangers-on here to nominate Barack Obama. The Coke discussion went well, I thought—participants included the major of Atlanta, Shirley Franklin, who talked about the drought and water conservation, Majority Leader Steny
  • The other day, John McCain visited an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico to call for more offshore drilling. The massive Chevron rig produces 10,000 barrels of oil a day. Meanwhile, I just filled up my new Honda Fit with gas for the first time. After driving 282 miles, I bought 9.47 gallons at $3.62 a gallon. So I’m getting 29.6 mpg, mostly in the city. What’s the connection? The actions of millions of Americans like me—as we trade big cars for smaller ones, drive less, or do both—are going to have a whole lot more impact on oil prices, more quickly, than drilling for more oil. In fact, they already are. Gas prices have been falling by more than a penny per day and the price of oil has dropped from about $147 a barrel to about $115 a barrel in the last couple of months for one
  • Not only is the world flat, it is amazingly interconnected. Who would have thought that Oreos or Cheez-Its could contribute to deforestation and global warming? Today’s Sustainability column at fortune.com and cnnmoney.com looks at palm oil, the commodity that connects hundreds of products on supermarket shelves to the disappearing tropical forests of Malaysia and Indonesia. Enviros who take a confrontational approach (Rainforest Action Network) as well as those who prefer to consult or collaborate (Conservation International, WWF) are attacking the palm oil problem. So are big agribusiness companies like ADM, Bunge and Cargill, although they’re not moving fast enough or far enough to satisfy the activists at RAN. Interestingly, the palm oil story appears to be following a script
  • The Environmental Working Group looked at nearly 1,000 sunscreen products and found that “4 out of 5 contain chemicals that may pose health hazards or don’t adequately protect skin from the sun’s damaging rays. The Natural Resources Defense Council analyzed household air fresheners and found that “most contain chemicals that may affect hormones and reproductive development, particularly in babies. The EPA was so concerned about keeping rodenticides—rat and mouse poisons—out of the hands of children that the agency ruled this spring that four of the most most hazardous types of pesticides will no longer be sold for personal use These days, it seems like you can’t open the newspaper or, worse, search the Internet without hearing about the dangers of ordinary household
  • While carbon offsets are controversial and always will be, they have enormous potential to promote an elusive goal: sustainable development. At their best, carbon offsets are a low-cost way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, transfer clean technology to poor countries and help people out of poverty. Which brings us to JPMorgan Chase and cook stoves. The global Wall Street investment bank has begun subsidizing the production and distribution of efficient cooking stoves in Africa, an effort that could expand to India and southeast Asia as well. The project is the topic of today’s Sustainability column on fortune.com and cnnmoney.com. Here’s how it begins: By any measure, it is a long way from the Park Avenue headquarters of JPMorgan Chase, the global investment bank that
Sponsored Links












Connect with the Greenbiz.com® network of professionals on  

Do Food Miles Matter?

  • Email
  • Print
  • Share
  • Single
  • RSS

There’s no doubt that buying and eating local food is a hot trend. But is it good for the environment?

Recently, I got a press release from Wal-Mart saying that

Partnerships with local farmers have grown by 50 percent over the past two years—one example of the company’s efforts to support local economies, cut shipping costs and provide fresh food offerings.

For the 4th of July, a Wal-Mart Supercenter in DeKalb County, Ga., featured Georgia-grown Vidalia onions for burgers, Georgia cantaloupes and watermelons for fruit salad and Georgia peaches for cobbler, the company said.

Meanwhile, Chipotle Mexican Grill reports that it has stepped up its efforts to buy local produce. The fast food chain says it is the first and only national restaurant company committed to buying local on a significant scale:

Chipotle will purchase 25 percent of at least one of its produce items for each of its 730-plus restaurants from small and mid-sized local farms. The produce, which includes romaine lettuce, green bell and jalapeno peppers, and red onions, will arrive from local farms when seasonally available

What’s more, locally grown produce was voted No. 2 on a list of nearly 200 hot trends for 2008 in a survey of more than 1,200 professional chefs conducted by the Natural Restaurant Association. (Bite-sized desserts led the list.) A week or so ago, my wife and I tried a brand-new restaurant called Redwood in Bethesda, sure enough the menu is filled with beef, cheese and produce from the mid-Atlantic states.

Last week, too, The New York Times ran a story about community-supported agriculture on its front page—a reliable lagging cultural indicator, as ever.

Now, I’m a fan of local eating. Since joining a CSA last year, I’ve consumed a lifetime’s worth of Swiss chard. Buying local food supports the local economy, cuts down on shipping costs and greenhouse gases, encourages (or requires) consumers to broaden their palette of food choices (i.e., the chard) and gets fruits and vegetables to the table when they are fresher. That’s all laudable.

But before we get carried away, let’s keep a couple of things in mind. The first is that being a locavore is utterly impractical for the vast majority of people. It’s no surprise that the local-food movement is most popular in northern California, where you can get fresh produce year-round. I’m currently on vacation in Alaska where, as best as I can tell, they grow berries, catch a lot of fish and kill caribou. Not exactly a balanced diet—in fact, it makes me wonder how the Native Alaskans survived for as long as they did without imports. I enjoy a banana on my cereal or in a smoothie, and they don’t grow in the continental U.S. (Pity the farmers of Costa Rica and Ecuador if we were all to become locavores.)

The other thing to remember is that what we eat, and how it’s produced, matters a lot more to the planet that where our food is grown. As I’ve written before, the single easiest thing any of us can do to help prevent global warming is to eat less meat. This is confirmed by a life cycle assessment by Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews of Carnegie Mellon University, who found that when it comes to greenhouse gasese, food miles matter a whole lot less than agricultural production:

They found that transportation creates only 11% of the 8.1 metric tons (t) of greenhouse gases (in CO2 equivalents) that an average U.S. household generates annually as a result of food consumption. The agricultural and industrial practices that go into growing and harvesting food are responsible for most (83%) of its greenhouse gas emissions

Small changes in dietary habits can have significant environmental impacts, they report:

Replacing red meat and dairy with chicken, fish, or eggs for one day per week reduces emissions equal to 760 miles per year of driving. And switching to vegetables one day per week cuts the equivalent of driving 1160 miles per year.

That’s because everything we eat comes from plants, whether we eat the plants directly or rely on an inefficient animal intermediary to process them for us, as the excellent new website of the Peanut Butter and Jelly campaign points out:

The basic problem is that animals are inefficient at converting plants into meat, milk, and eggs. Relatively little of what they eat ends up in what you eat because animals use most of their food to keep them alive – to fuel their muscles so they can stand up and walk around, to keep their hearts beating, to keep their brains working.

That cow, pig, or chicken has to eat a lot more protein, carbohydrates, and other nutrients than it yields in meat, eggs, or milk. The result is that it takes several pounds of corn and soy to produce one pound of beef, or one pound of eggs, one pound of milk, etc. This holds true even if we’re measuring calories or protein; it takes several times the calories or protein in livestock feed to produce the calories or protein we get from the meat, eggs, or milk.

Check out the PB&J campaign. It’s the creation of a young Wesleyan graduate who we will call Bernard Brown. (He has a day job, and isn’t sure how his employer feels about his campaign on behalf of peanut butter sandwiches). “If you have a PB&J instead of a red-meat lunch like a ham sandwich or a hamburger,” he says, “you shrink your carbon footprint by almost 3.5 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Bernard’s little web startup, launched early 2007, has generated some interesting ripples, including coverage in Good Housekeeping magazine and support from, of all places, the giant food services company Sodexho which worked the PB&J campaign message into Earth Day events on several college campuses. He’s even designed a PB&J campaign T-shirt (made with organic cotton, natch) and baby bib.

No offense to the locavores, but I’ll take a PB&J sandwich over a plate of Swiss chard any day.

Post a Comment »Comments (1)

Eating Red Meat

It is commonly said that reducing intake of red meat will reduce one's environmental impact. This article is all about food miles and local food but does not take into account local, grass fed beef. If you were to switch from factory farmed poultry to grass fed beef you would drastically reduce your environmental impact. Grass-fed and small scale meat production is rarely mentioned but bears further thought in the mainstream discussion of environmentally friendly lifestyle choices...

Charter Sponsor

Integrated Facilities Management Sponsor

Design Sponsor

Document Management Sponsor

Work Environment Sponsor

Innovation Sponsor

Environmental Services Sponsor

Technology Sponsor

See GreenerComputing.com

Energy Management Sponsor

See GreenerBuildings.com

Climate Sponsor

See ClimateBiz.com

Public Relations Sponsor

Legal Sponsor

Greener World Media offsets its carbon footprint provided by Green Mountain Energy Company.