Transport is a teensy tiny part of the climate/environmental impact for food. In 99.9% of cases, a plant-based food will beat out any meat from next door.
That being said, local in the sense things that actually grow locally and are in season is still a good idea, though more from a community building perspective.
Transport is a teensy tiny part of the climate/environmental impact for food
Food Transport is estimated to be as high as 3 gigatons tons of CO2 emissions per year, a full 20% of all food-related CO2 emissions. From my point of view (not considering all animal-related CO2 emissions as a single line-item), that makes transport the single largest cause of CO2 related impact in the entirety of agriculture/horticulture.
For context, ALL manure CO2 emissions is only 2.6 gigatons (full disclosure. I lost and re-found this link, and see another source estimates manure closer to 7B. I’m sure you know my thoughts on that. Food Transport is still of dominant significance and fertilizer impact cannot be that effectively reduced). And in many cases, that manure is less harmful to the environment, yes EVEN CO2 impact, than the other fertilizer options that replace it when used in crop farms.
There’s a strong argument for “less meat” being good for the environment, but I am convinced (in part from hands-on experience) that the only arguments for “no meat” being any good are entirely fabricated.
I don’t agree with Hannah, in this case. Specifically, I challenge anyone who leaves cow methane on a chart or in an argument without covering the CO2 production by non-manure fertilizer or the fact that only depopulation will stop cows from pooping. And unfortunately, a plethora of studies are showing that synethetic fertilizer production creates massive amounts of methane gas as well. I’m fairly convinced she is (perhaps inadvertantly) including that under “cow farm” when it should be under “plant farm”.
She also just handwaves saying transport costs are low despite studies she opted not to cite or rebut that place them at 20%. But here’s the funny part. That was the first link. The second agrees with the 20% figure for logistics (though she uses the term “Supply Chain” and separates physical transport from processing, packaging, and retail storage (all of which are cut out or down from local). Digging into supply chain figures in the left article’s graph, she just disagrees with herself (and, to be honest, other experts).
In fact, the numbers on her second article suggest bias to me in her first article. She blames land use for 1/3 of beef GHG production. But in the second article, only 2/3 of Land Use GHG goes to animal, with the other 1/3 going to “land use for human food”. I’m sure you can see the next line. If Land Use is such a large part of meat GHG production and crops are so good at everything else, then Land Use should be dominant and in-your-face on the crop chart in the first article. Instead, apparently she’s undecided about that?
Look. I can see why you might decide that eating less meat might be the wrong choice for you. But when there are studies that say eating local is important and studies saying eating less meat is important, one article is not going to get me to change my entire life, and risk the environment, just to feel good about myself.
