Freakonomics: Does Eating Local Hurt The Environment? (VIDEO)

Does the recent passing of Earth Day have you thinking that you want to do more for the environment? One popular solution is to eat local, but according to economists, that might not actually be the best idea. What you might want to consider instead is eating less meat, particularly beef. That's because 30 percent of the world’s ice-free land is devoted to live-stock production, according to The New York Times.

Comments

[CTraft123]

08:32 PM on 05/03/2012

I understand that cows produce methane emissions, which is bad, but what are we supposed to do about it? Cows are here, whether we like it or not. Not eating them is not going to make them all go away, is it? What do we kill them all or what? There are over 1 billion of them for Chrissake! Seriously, what are we supposed to do?

[mangoforest4321]

02:50 PM on 04/30/2012

what a complete idiot! The carnegie mellon heads are NOT TO BE TRUSTED!

[NotBuyingThat]

05:35 AM on 04/29/2012

.... be sure to drink every drop of that yummy koolaid as well, we want to be obedient followers.

[wirepaladinSF]

11:00 AM on 04/27/2012

Freakoconomics, a college major for liberals ......

[cnsmdjrf]

05:14 PM on 04/24/2012

One question if anybody knows the answer we might solve the "Global Warming " Issue. How many cows are there currently in the world compared to human beings. How is the human methane production compared to the cows? ( Who farts more? [ discarding the ladies which of course we know they don't do that ] [ lets just say they produce more CO2 by talking more, which would be comparative to the male methane production in farting ]. Ok now that we have that part potentially solved. Lets see if we control the world population to 1 child per couple ( a bit drastic and dictatorial, but China has implemented this to control their own population growth ) and 1 calf per Bovine couple,while continuing to consume beef which produces a lot less methane emmisions than vegetable/plant nutrients we could potentially solve the " Global Warming" issues in as little as 2 to 4 generations. Reducing the world population to about 1/4 of the current 7 billion people and X number of cows ( bulls included as well )
Disclaimer: I am not a FARTOLOGIST, just someone that is being affected by the high methane and Co2 levels that are being put out. Just someone concerned about this human dilemma.

[robertaruth]

09:47 PM on 04/24/2012

Tell that to the extreme wing of the right to lifers who are even against birth control in every form.

[cnsmdjrf]

09:10 AM on 04/25/2012

I agree and while we are at it lets include the welfare mother with multiple kids and no father of record for anyone of them. Rather than using birth control they keep having kids as asource of income. So as you see my friends extremes are bad on either side. So what tune do you have for the middle?

[1ness]

04:39 PM on 04/24/2012

Being sustainable means taking into consideration multiple variables that often conflict with each other. Work by people like Pollan and others on the ethics of food production says that the farming efficiency that is promoted by the article and some comments here is unhealthy for the animals and the people who eat them.

Local food production has the benefit of being healthier for the planet in other ways other than CO2 levels. I appreciate knowing the info presented here but will still prefer free range eggs and chickens and local produce over factory farming with antibiotics and pesticides and herbicides. I do agree that we should cut way down on red meat whether local or long distance.

[TwoZeroOZ]

04:23 PM on 04/24/2012

Funny how the locavores come out in full force when their ideology is threatened.

Also interesting how not a single one is capable of providing any evidence to the contrary... There's nothing but "I know what I know because It feels right! Any evidence you have is paid for by corporations!!".

Same kind of rationality you'd expect from global warming denialists...

[mothergrace]

04:46 PM on 04/24/2012

Why wouldn't we?

This is a very misleading sound bite with virtually nothing to recommend it.

Those of us who try to look at things more comprehensively are appalled not only by it but by those who blithely support it without citing any data or even the link to the original report so people can read for themselves.

[TwoZeroOZ]

05:04 PM on 04/24/2012

If I had to hold hands and do all the work every time someone refused to do some basic research, I'd die from exhaustion.

It's unreasonable to expect anyone to spoon feed you knowledge. You can do the work yourself, if you feel you'd benefit from it.

[TwoZeroOZ]

05:38 PM on 04/24/2012

30 seconds of work:

Smith, A. The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development; UK DEFRA: London, 2005; pp 1- 117

Sim, S.; Barry, M.; Clift, R.; Cowell, S. J. The Relative Importance of Transport in Determining an Appropriate Sustainability Strategy for Food Sourcing Int. J. Life-Cycle Assess. 2007 12 6 422 431

Canals, L. M.; Cowell, S. J.; Sim, S.; Basson, L. Comparing Domestic versus Imported Apples: A Focus on Energy Use Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2007 14 5 338 344

Jones, A. An Environmental Assessment of Food Supply Chains: A Case Study on Dessert Apples Environ. Manage. 2002 30 4 560 576

[Goingtoomaha]

08:28 AM on 04/25/2012

The video suggests larger farms are more efficient than smaller farms and cite as an example a large container ship hauling food as opposed to multiple trucks. In reality, multiple trucks are used on farms of all sizes to get the food to the next destination. The further away that destination is the more fuel will be consumed to get it there. If the destination is so far away you have to use rail and container ships, it is most likely the next distribution method will involve more trucking. Trucks to ships. Ships to trucks. More trucks to grocery stores.

[TwoZeroOZ]

10:37 AM on 04/25/2012

Goingtoomaha,
The video is based on a research paper done by a couple of university professors. The video simplifies everything a great deal. I'd suggest reading the paper itself to have your questions answered.

[mothergrace]

03:54 PM on 04/24/2012

If anyone is interested in reading the article this research is based upon, go here-

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f

But, this study is old. It was published in 2008 with data from 1997 and even the authors realize that there are a lot of factors to be considered and their study is not the be all and the end all of this issue.

[TwoZeroOZ]

04:25 PM on 04/24/2012

Very rare to have someone actually seek out information, I applaud your intellectual curiosity. You should go one stop further and find more papers on the subject. There's quite a few out there, all coming to the same conclusion.

[mothergrace]

04:38 PM on 04/24/2012

Funny how you argue this and yet do not provide one link.

[MRstoner2udude]

03:32 PM on 04/24/2012

Eating local and eating less meat is an excellent way to improve the environment, the economy and your health. Provided you don't puff on potato-ey crap.

[slowhanddean]

03:13 PM on 04/24/2012

It's Obamas fault for eating dog.

[Bones Rhodes]

03:12 PM on 04/24/2012

"That's because 30 percent of the world’s ice-free land is devoted to live-stock production, according to The New York Times."

While I totally agree that livestock production creates a huge carbon footprint, is destructive of environment, and generally not good for our overall health; making wild-ass bogus claims is NOT the way to convince people of this. 30% of the world's ice-free land represents ALL of the world's arable land by MORE THAN 3 TIMES and about TWICE all agricultural land ( which includes all arable land ). The way to get people to pay attention is NOT to lie to them so they can see your 'truth".

[THATSRACIST]

03:00 PM on 04/24/2012

DONT BELIEVE THESE LIES FOR A MINUTE. jUST THE GOVERMENT TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE LITTLE GUY GETS NOTHING

[TwoZeroOZ]

03:10 PM on 04/24/2012

EVERYONES LYING ESPECIALLY THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE ITS ALWAYS A CONSPIRACY WHO SAID WE LANDED ON THE MOON? THE GOVERNMENT. THEY LIED. WE DIDNT. ALSO, TOBACCO IS GOOD FOR YOU.

[Blue Event]

04:00 PM on 04/24/2012

Do you always reply to yourself? With all caps?

[houseiowapark]

03:21 PM on 04/24/2012

It is probably sponsored by big growers and importers.

[butter51nut]

02:55 PM on 04/24/2012

What they fail to disclose that these countries still use DDT on ag products.
You can eat that stuff but I like clean food

[TwoZeroOZ]

03:11 PM on 04/24/2012

I suggest you do some research on DDT....

[houseiowapark]

03:28 PM on 04/24/2012

you seem to have all the answers today. Please, enlighten us with all your knowledge. What of DDT?

[whitcombc]

02:54 PM on 04/24/2012

You MUST be joking - OH WAIT! I forgot! AOL, HUFF POST, MEDIA GIANTS! RIGHT! So I guess the ad revenue isn't up this month and so we get interesting and thought provoking articles and videos like this one. Next is the real benefits of staying with Oil and Coal for energy since it would be a real strain on the recycling and land fills to get rid of all those Oil Burners, and those smoke stacks. Or maybe the changeover from Nuclear to solar and wind would be actually very dangerous - all those tall towers which could fall over in all the tornados we are getting from Climate Change, and the solar panels would shad too much of the house making everything cold. Yup - Corporate science makes headlines again.

[TwoZeroOZ]

03:10 PM on 04/24/2012

The video was based on other research.

This issue is well researched by many Universities, all coming to the same conclusion: eat local is NOT better for the environment.

[houseiowapark]

03:40 PM on 04/24/2012

LOL

[reddbeats]

02:36 PM on 04/24/2012

Sounds like you want me to kill myself eating less and less! Nice try coward the people aren't buying it!