The World Watch Institute has published a great article explaining the complex way in which our U.S. agricultural system – and by extension the food systems of the rest of the western world – contribute to global carbon emissions.
Is Local Food Better? by Sarah DeWeerdt – published in the latest issue of World Watch magazine – explains that miles traveled by our food from farm to table are not the whole story in calculating the contribution of agriculture to carbon dioxide emissions.
Food delivery from farms and factories to your table accounts for only 4 percent of the U.S. food system’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the article.
More emissions come from the transport of fertilizer, pesticides, and animal feed. When these extra activities are considered, ‘food miles’ account for about 11 percent of carbon emissions, writes DeWeerdt.
Climate scientists – true experts, who study our world’s complicated climate using computer models and other tools of science – are now in near unanimous agreement that human-caused carbon emissions are causing Earth to warm. Meanwhile, only about half of non-experts (other sorts of scientists, the public) believe human-caused emissions are the problem. Those results come from a study by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman released in the January 2009 issue of EOS. Good explanation of that study here.
We here in the modern United States are indeed blessed by having cheap, fresh and available food in our supermerkets. Keep in mind that food comes literally from all over the world. If we were to lose our transportation and distribution companies, we would only have what food could be grown locally. For those in Northern climes, the choices would be meager indeed for the biggest part of the year.
Those of you that live in or near a large city might be interested in going to the central market area early (I am talking midnight or so) in the morning on a Monday morning and watch the trucks coming in. The trucks are bringing vegetables and meats from all over the country. This food is in and out of these facilities very quickly.
Our supermarkets don’t store much food at all. There is generally less than three days supply in a store. If our distribution networks were to be stopped, most communities would be out of food in three days.
The “carbon emmisions” caused by our food production and transportation are well worth it. Especially since the carbon dioxide that the industry is accused of polluting the atmosphere with is the single feedstuff plants use to create carbohydrates. A warmer world would increase plant uptake rates of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, the earth is now cooling and that will stunt plant growth.
Hi Ben,
I’d hoped you, as a truck driver, would weigh in here – excuse the pun!
First, I’m thankful to you and other drivers for the distances you travel to bring us our food. Thank you.
And I ask that we ignore the Earth warming issue for the moment, because we both know we disagree on that.
I just have question. Will the food system in the U.S. look the same 100 years from now as it does now?
Culture evolves, and while I agree that we in the U.S. are fortunate to have plenty of food in our supermarkets, I also submit to you that our food system may yet evolve in ways that do not involve trucks, or long-distance transport of food. The system works well, for now. But it’s not a system that has been with us for very long, and it’s not a system that must stay with us forever. Will trucks – or some form of vehicle, fueled by some form of fuel – always bring our food over long distances to supermarkets nearby? Or is the current food system simply an outgrowth of the abundant cheap fuel we have believed was our birthright over the past 50 years?
Things changed for the better when the trucks began rolling, bringing food to people who needed it – like those in the northern U.S. during the wintertime. Things can change for the better again, you know, in a way that does not involve trucks.
Thank you for visiting.
Deborah
Deborah,
Our food system will look very much like it does today if it is allowed to. If we regulate it out of existence, who knows what will happen? The urban areas haven’t the area to feed themselves amd the northern climes do not have the ability to grow many of the foodstuffs we have become accustomed to.
Once again, we have a looming problem. It is political rather than climatic or technical. If folks get hungry, they get ugly. Here is hoping our food continues to flow in an efficient and cheap way.
I have been a farmer (rowcrop and dairy) and I am here to tell you that the food you and I eat takes a lot of effort and capital investment to produce. If we opt for the collective farm, we will starve as the Russians did. If we allow government to regulate and determine who grows how much of what, you can count on shortages and huge piles of wasted money.
Ben, who is opting for the collective farm?
I don’t think you can predict what our food system will look like 100 years from now. No one can. EarthSky just finished a big series on nanotechnology and agriculture, for example. I’m not touting nano as a be-all-end-all – but 10 years ago I had not heard the word ‘nanotechnology’ and now there are serious discussions about nano and food. Consider also the genetic modification of seeds. Perhaps seeds will be developed to deal with issues of small area and/or climate that is too cold at northerly latitude – or too warm. More developments are surely ahead. Food technology will be very very different in 100 years.
Likewise, energy use will be different.
The world will be as different 100 years from now as our world is from the world 100 years ago … more different. Change is the one constant … yes?
Deborah
Deborah, On that we can agree. Change is constant. And I do believe, that left alone, the economic pressures on agriculture and consumption will lead to more efficient food production and distribution.
One hundred years ago, a farmer could only feed two or three people. Now, the American farmer feeds over one hundred. Truly miraculous.