« Why oh why can't we have a better press corp? | Main | This Global Show Must Go On »
The carbon footprint of food
Ezra reports:
...two Carnegie Mellon researchers recently broke down the carbon footprint of foods, and their findings were a bit surprising. 83 percent of emissions came from the growth and production of the food itself. Only 11 percent came from transportation, and even then, only 4 percent came from the transportation between grower and seller (which is the part that eating local helps cut).
In other words, when it comes to food the greenest things you can do, if that is your standard, is to eat less meat and have fewer kids.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 7, 2008 at 02:57 PM in Food and Drink | Permalink
Comments
Or use less intensive agricultural processes.
Posted by: at Jun 7, 2008 4:48:14 PM
And buy local is a joke.
Posted by: aaron at Jun 7, 2008 4:58:33 PM
If you do eat meat, eat pasture fed beef instead of grain fed, but better just eat less or no meat. That also happens to be good for your health (in Michael Pollan's words "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." (where food is not processed food): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html
See also "Vegetarian is new Prius" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/vegetarian-is-the-new-pri_b_39014.html and "Rethinking the meat guzzler" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html
Posted by: David at Jun 7, 2008 4:59:19 PM
@aaron
There's more to buying local than just saving the energy involved in the transportation cost. Read "The Omnivore's Dilemma"...you go away from that book realizing that buying (industrial) organic is a joke and buying local is the only way you'll have an idea of what you're actually eating.
Posted by: david at Jun 7, 2008 5:03:08 PM
I don't agree with Michael Pollan (I'm not really sure why he has become so popular). The scientific evidence doesn't really support his claim that it's significantly more healthy to not eat "processed food" or to eat very little meat. As long as you eat a balanced diet (i.e., meat, vegetables, fruit, fish, grains) you'll be fine. For most foods we either have no idea what they really contribute to long-term health, or the effects are small (20% less risk of a cancer than very few people get isn't significant). Likewise there's no evidence that organic food is healthier.
Pollan isn't very different from the various other people that try to sell "diets" or tell you what to eat. They don't want to admit that it doesn't really matter that much for almost everyone (unless you have a specific condition or nutrient deficiency).
Try asking someone what the effect on your lifespan would be if you switch to eating the way they want you to. Unlike things that are clearly harmful, like smoking (6-8 years less, on average), there's no data at all on various diets.
Posted by: Andy at Jun 7, 2008 5:32:35 PM
Since local producers are likely to be much less efficient than big firms, it seems likely that local food actually has a larger carbon footprint. That won't go down well at the farmers' market.
Posted by: jonm at Jun 7, 2008 5:33:14 PM
Don't eat less meat. Eat less factory-farmed meat. Grass-fed meat is quite green.
Posted by: maurile at Jun 7, 2008 6:03:52 PM
Tyler:
While activists try change to their fellow consumers' preferences and their fellow suppliers' habits, perhaps economists should do their part by encouraging policy makers to force both suppliers and consumers of food to fully internalize the costs of their pollution:
(1) A sales tax on food that varies by the volume of carbon emitted in its production,
or (2) have the government auction off tradable pollution permits for food. The cap can be reset periodically by whatever the professional/academic consensus in the peer-reviewed journals(immune to political pressures) judges to be optimal/sustainable/environmentally-conscious.
Are either of these crazy/plausible? Enforceable? How will they effect the economy/growth/jobs? (Un)acceptable deadweight losses? Will black markets in polluting food appear? Has any country/state/municipality tried these?
As for the poor: negative income tax? Earned Income Tax Credit? food stamps (minus the rest of those horrendous agricultural subsidies)?
Posted by: dilorybark at Jun 7, 2008 6:36:21 PM
dilorybark-
There is no reason to use "a sales tax on food that varies by the volume of carbon emitted in its production" if you're worried about the externalities of food production. All you have to do is slap a Pigouvian tax on CO2 emissions, and then the externality is internalized. Problem solved without forcing the government to make calculations on the true carbon cost of varying kinds of food production.
Posted by: Curunir at Jun 7, 2008 6:53:35 PM
maurile,
Less factory-farmed meat means less meat, period. The loss of productivity means that the overall meat supply would drop drastically and prices would go up. Some people would inevitably have to give up meat entirely... how about you? (I have, by the way).
Sure I'd like to see factory farming end, but the only way it'll happen is if the human race gives up carnivorism, some day. Telling everyone who eats meat today to eat only grass-fed meat is the 21st century equivalent of "let them eat cake", an elitist non-solution for the rich only.
Posted by: at Jun 7, 2008 8:53:21 PM
But the more people there are, the more innovation. Is population control really the solution?
Posted by: John B. Chilton at Jun 7, 2008 9:29:32 PM
The solution to what problem? Environmentalists have considered humans a cancer on the earth for quite a long time. They want to return to Eden--with as few humans as possible. Killing off humanity sounds like a win to them.
Posted by: mouse at Jun 7, 2008 9:34:14 PM
Less factory-farmed meat means less meat, period. The loss of productivity means that the overall meat supply would drop drastically and prices would go up.
Actually, beef cattle already spend most of their lives on pasture. The feedlot is used primarily to induce marbling--i.e., the growth of intramuscular fat--using a grain-based diet not entirely dissimilar to that recommended by vegetarians.
Posted by: Brandon Berg at Jun 7, 2008 10:15:39 PM
Tyler you said
In other words, when it comes to food the greenest things you can do, if that is your standard, is to eat less meatWith all due respect and a little bit of good natured personal abuse I have to say that is the single most ignorant statement I have ever read on this blog :-)
I say that because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the root cause, and driver of, the most environmentally destructive aspects of agriculture, Government Agricultural Subsidies.
We pay farmers to raise grain, on top of that we mandate the use of grain to produce ethanol for fuel. Somehow in the face of these cold, hard facts innumerable people still blather on about not eating meat as a way to reduce grain production. The mind boggles at the ignorance.
If you really want to improve how your food consumption impacts the environment do two simple things.
1. Work to end ag subsidies
2. Eat more beef
Many ecosystems evolved being grazed and they require grazing to maintain their health. Cattle grazing can produce food from areas that would suffer massive environmental degradation if crops were planted on it.
Also, cattle are very effective at creating additional food from farming. For example cattle can graze wheat while it is growing and then be removed when the wheat starts to mature. This wheat is harvested after it matures and the cattle have the weight they gained from grazing the wheat while it was growing. Cattle can do very well grazing on cornstalks after the corn has been cut. They pick up the grain the harvesters missed and again produce two crops from the same ground.
As a bonus for those concerned about animal welfare cattle raising is the most non intensive and animal friendly form of meat production there is.
Posted by: TJIT at Jun 7, 2008 10:23:52 PM
Also, contrary to the impression one might get from reading the articles linked above, meat really doesn't account for a very large portion of the typical American's diet. Average consumption is about two three-ounce servings per day. Americans get fewer calories from meat than from sugar, flour,
Even if the price of the cheapest cuts were to skyrocket to $6/lb (what grass-finished hamburger or stew meat generally costs now), it would only take an extra dollar or two per day to make up the difference--a price easily affordable to all but the poorest among us.
Posted by: Brandon Berg at Jun 7, 2008 10:27:34 PM
Ending biofuel mandates and subsidies would do far more to improve the environment then any dietary change would. The link below gives some details of just how environmentally destructive these policies have been.
What About the Land? A look at the impacts of biofuels production, in the U.S. and the world
The hype over biofuels in the U.S. and Europe has had wide-ranging effects perhaps not envisioned by the environmental advocates who promote their use.Throughout tropical countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia, rainforests and grasslands are being cleared for soybean and oil-palm plantations to make biodiesel, a product that is then marketed halfway across the world as a "green" fuel.
Posted by: TJIT at Jun 7, 2008 10:29:25 PM
The link below provides some more information on ag subsidies as they relate to this years revolting farm bill. You will notice meat is not listed as one of the products receiving the lions share of farm subsidies.
Crop the Crap, An unacceptable farm bill.
Since the last farm bill was enacted in 2002, the five crops that receive the lion’s share of farm subsidies have also enjoyed massive price hikes: cotton (105 percent price hike), soybeans (164 percent), corn (169 percent), wheat (256 percent), and rice (281 percent).The article proceeds to list some of the other damage ag subsidies cause
They harm the environment by encouraging over-planting. By undermining America’s trade negotiations, subsidies raise consumer prices and restrict U.S. exports. Cotton subsidies undercut impoverished African farmers desperately trying to make a living. They contribute to obesity and rising health care costs by subsidizing corn and soy (from which sugars and fats are derived) rather than healthier fruits and vegetables.
Posted by: TJIT at Jun 7, 2008 10:37:26 PM
I forgot to finish my sentence above. What I meant to say is that the typical American gets more calories from added sugar, from flour, or from added fats than from meat. Not just all three together, but from each of those three groups independently. Taken together, Americans get more than four times as many calories from flour, added sugars, and added fats than from meat.
Posted by: Brandon Berg at Jun 7, 2008 10:37:47 PM
It is perfectly clear that reducing meat consumption is not going to improve the environment and is likely to increase environmental destruction.
My question is why does this perniciously counterproductive concept continue to get so much attention and support.
Could some of the economists in the house please explain that to me?
Posted by: TJIT at Jun 7, 2008 10:42:14 PM
My question is why does this perniciously counterproductive concept continue to get so much attention and support.
Uh, that would be: because it's true.
You have every right to lobby for your position, but less histrionics please.
Posted by: at Jun 8, 2008 6:24:30 AM
O_O
The amount of shit these Capitalists get up to, how well they hide it and how well they passed it off as completely normal.
....sickens me.
Posted by: Black Lynx Fillmore at Jun 8, 2008 9:45:24 AM
Far and away the greatest threat to the environment is the incessant breeding. When a couple has two kids, it effectively doubles its carbon footprint and its demands on the abundance of the world. There is very little the childfree person can do, including switching to a Hummer and eating meat exclusively, that could have such an adverse impact on our universe as breeding does.
Posted by: Jimbino at Jun 8, 2008 10:44:59 AM
"Since local producers are likely to be much less efficient than big firms, it seems likely that local food actually has a larger carbon footprint. That won't go down well at the farmers' market."
In what way are they more likely to be less efficient? Isn't the presence of ag subsidies and their tilt towards large producers a good indication of efficiency (or lack thereof)? I've come across research that indicates that small to medium farms are much more efficient over a broad variety of crops, but the large ones are better at turning tax revenue, marginal land, and petroleum-based chemicals into corn. It isn't largeness, per se, that makes a farm efficient, but location, location, and location (i.e. rain, soil, and sunlight conditions).
"The feedlot is used primarily to induce marbling ... using a grain-based diet not entirely dissimilar to that recommended by vegetarians."
No, vegetarians don't generally recommend this diet for cattle, they recommend it for people. Cows are a poor mechanism for turning sunlight into calories and protein.
"the typical American gets more calories from added sugar, from flour, or from added fats than from meat"
Yes, but from where do they get their protein? We don't need as much protein as had been claimed in the past, and we don't need to get it from meat. About the only thing that is difficult to get in a strictly vegan diet is B12, but a few free-range eggs and supplementation takes care of that.
TJIT, you should realize that if you got rid of all ag subsidies, meat would be one of the first things to go. BLM is sometimes said to stand for Bureau of Livestock and Mining because of their tendency to support intensive cattle ranching in areas where ruminants were sparse. Yes, ecosystems evolved in the presence of grazing, but not at the levels at which modern industrial meat production wants to do it. Cattle are fed primarily on corn and cotton seed, both of which are heavily subsidized crops. Eating less beef would require less, not more, land to be devoted to crops to get the same dietary inputs. In this article in The Economist ($?), they claim, "Calorie for calorie, you need more grain if you eat it transformed into meat than if you eat it as bread: it takes three kilograms of cereals to produce a kilo of pork, eight for a kilo of beef. So a shift in diet is multiplied many times over in the grain markets."
Posted by: Eric H at Jun 8, 2008 11:33:40 AM
Just wanted to make sure all the people touting high-beef diets need to specify that the cattle be raised on pasture. It is correct that raising cattle in this way damages less land (though I disagree that this should be the measure of environmental value). However, if you are references CAFOs, or feedlot systems, the cows are fed on corn anyway. So while the actual institution uses less land, the entire system does not.
In fact, since cows waste 6/7s of the calories they consume, the feedlot systems constitute a seven-fold increase in the land damaged.
Also, vegetarianism as suggested by this thread is more about sustainability than diet health. So is Pollan's book, so it is hardly the advocation for nutrition.
Lastly, everyone who is blaming agricultural subsidies are spot on. Any thoughts on what aspects of argiculture should be subsidized (or, for those libertarians out there, non-taxed for pollution or environmental damage)?
Posted by: Zach Piso at Jun 8, 2008 11:49:05 AM
There is very little the childfree person can do, including switching to a Hummer and eating meat exclusively, that could have such an adverse impact on our universe as breeding does.
Universe?
The bipedal fungi of Planet Zontar are drafting a stiff letter of protest, since all this breeding activity raises the microwave background temperature in their galactic neighborhood by 50 picokelvins per century...
Posted by: at Jun 8, 2008 12:22:31 PM
