Buying local is bad for the planet?

I'm sure this will create some interesting comments from the local community!

(excerpted and reported by The Week magazine, Volume 11, Issue 534, dated September 30, 2011)...

Buying local is bad for the planet
The “first-world food fetishes” of the Whole Foods crowd aren’t always good for the environment, and they hurt the world’s poor, said Charles Kenny at Foreign Policy.

If foodies really care about the future of the planet, said Charles Kenny, they should give up buying local and shun organic food. The “first-world food fetishes” of the Whole Foods crowd aren’t always good for the environment, and they hurt the world’s poor.

Locally grown food often takes more energy to produce than food imported from the third world—especially when it’s out of season. It’s far “greener” to import fruits and vegetables from South America and Africa than to grow them in energy-intensive hothouses during a North American winter.

Organic farmers, meanwhile, get 8 percent less food out of their land than conventional farmers, and in eschewing chemical fertilizers, use tons of manure from energy-consuming livestock. That’s why organic produce is far more expensive. So the more land we give over to “lower efficiency organic production,” the more expensive all food becomes—bad news for the “1 billion people worldwide who are malnourished.”

If you really care about the planet, forget being a locavore, and become a “cosmovore”—a cosmopolitan consumer of food from everywhere.

Note: Mr. Kenny's complete column can be found at the Foreign Policy website (Here).

Sure, local farmers don't need income, they can just get factory jobs...oh wait....

Sounds great!

Sounds like Mr Kenny is using one of Kentuckys finest LOCAL products, either brown water or skinny green leaves.

I don't know many farmers that spend any time trying to grow fruits or veggies out of season. Every farmer I buy from grows what that can when they can.

This argument would not pass a Rhetoric 101 class.

If only people used conventional farming methods, then 1 billion people worldwide would not be malnourished.

Yeah, this is right up there with the 2011 rapture. Some people will ceaslessly abandon reason in favor of conservative propaganda.

Yeah...I'm pretty sure the farmers I buy food from at the farmer's market aren't growing hothouse tomatoes in January...and I would much rather buy organic produce than produce that has been pumped full of chemicals just because it requires less land. Not a good argument.

[Robin Garr]

Yeah, this is right up there with the 2011 rapture. Some people will ceaslessly abandon reason in favor of conservative propaganda.

[ Like ]

As a self proclaimed liberal I have to inform you guys that your 100% wrong on this one.

The population of the third world is rapidly exceeding it's ability to feed itself. Small boutique farms, while popular and often healthier, are far less efficient and much more wasteful. It would be impossible for the human race to feed itself in this manner.

Imagine everyone in the world needed a table and chairs. Now imagine artisans working with only hand tools carefully crafting each of those tables and each of those chairs. Would they be beautiful? Likely. Would they be high quality? Likely? Would they be expensive? Absolutely. Now compare that to a large, automated manufacturing facility churning them out one after another.

Which is the better way to provide them for the entire human race?

If the goal is to put enough food on the table to survive (which it should be) then large, efficient and cheap farms are the way to go. Billions of people are happy just to have some rice a scrawny chicken and a couple of veggies to make a meal out of.

Meanwhile, you side back with your fat bellies and comfy houses and wax poetic about the glory of organically grown produce and hand churned cheese.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be able to take advantage of the excess of riches our country and lifestyle provides. I'm saying don't kid yourself into thinking that the world as a whole benefits from boutique farming. It doesn't. That guy is right. Doesn't mean you should stop acting in your own best interests at the expense of those less fortunate.

Wait... which of you are the liberals again?

That's a great argument, and one that I've considered countless times. I'm no dummy, I get that logic. But it doesn't take into account the global warming "theory" that macro-agriculture deteriorates other third world countries from being capable of self-sustaining. The US and other flourishing countries should NEVER have been designated the global suppliers of agricultural goods. Fix it before it gets worse?

Wait... which of you are the liberals again?

Here. And I have no question that there is really good reason you raised this question. Let's have it.

Which is the better way to provide them for the entire human race?

Obviously, by toting my factory-farmed McDonald's Happy Meal into Harvest to keep the kiddos pacified.

Which is the better way to provide them for the entire human race?

Obviously, by toting my factory-farmed McDonald's Happy Meal into Harvest to keep the kiddos pacified.

One of these days I'll understand why your snarky and irrelevant posts are tolerated while others are not.

<sigh>

Anyway, to further illustrate the point, here is an article from today discussing the world's rapid approach to 7 billion people and our accelerated trip to 8 million and the problems it will cause.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44928812/ns/world_news/#.Tpx6Md482tQ

Wait... which of you are the liberals again?

Here. And I have no question that there is really good reason you raised this question. Let's have it.

I just typically find the attitude of doing what is in your own best interests and either not caring about or even being aware of the impact your actions have on others to be an approach more linked to conservatives than liberals. I would not expect this food concept to be news to most "liberals".

Liberals tend to think bigger picture.

This is a case where the prevailing liberal attitude is actually counter to what action would be in the best interest of the entire human race. Communal farms was originally a liberal idea intended to do more with less. To share in wealth. Now that corporations run those communal farms liberals think they are evil and must be exterminated, which would cause immeasurable harm to the human race.

I personally support small, local farmers. They produce higher quality items. I like them very much. But I don't pretend I'm acting to the betterment of others when I do so. I know I'm not. Not very "liberal" of me.

Just making that point.

I would just note that if it wasn't for the agricultural revolution and the fossil fuels that drive it, 90% of us would be subsistence farmers. Ironically, though we would be growing organic food, we would be too tired to appreciate it.