Thanks, Alan Davies, for bringing some sense into this conversation. I think that you lay out the key issues well and back up your opinions with good references.

The major article by Weber and Matthews to which Davies refers essentially validates what I said in my OLO article almost 2 years ago (www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5695). They wrap up their analysis in fairly sophisticated terms (life cycle input- output analysis), which ultimately rely on average energy intensities for a multitude of economic sectors involved in an acitivity. All this boils down to "if it costs more, it uses more energy". New Zealand products in London have been analysed to embody less energy- and hey! they cost less too! It's the same for all products.

Davies also looks at the "externalities" beyond the immediate carbon use- like environmental and population issues. The only two ways we know of dealing with economic externalities are legislation or surcharges that are assessed to compensate for the externalities. A levy, or tax on carbon shouldn't be seen as a "compensation", but seen as a way of first, deterring certain practices and secondly, by using the levies to sponsor the development of systems that have lower life-cycle carbon use.

Great article, except it's a shame there's no reference to the fact that higher atmospheric CO2 levels increase world food production. Greenhouse tomato growers actually pump in more CO2 to increase yields. I guess simple facts like these would be counterproductive to the subliminal intent of the article.

The author makes some valid points about the foodmiles story.

Its another one of these "feelgood" issues, which with a bit
of scrutiny, reveals that the figures simply don't stack up.

The biggest wastage of fuel is commonly in the last miles.
ie people will drive 10km and back, to buy their ingredients
for dinner, burning up more fuel then it ever took to grow
and transport the stuff in the first place.

While the author makes some valid points, shouldn't the objective be to reduce the carbon footprint with a combination of sustainable practices. Food miles and means of production are all part of the same story.

Obviously growing bananas in Tassie is almost impossible on a large scale without polluting forms of intervention so in that case, bringing in banans from QLD makes sense. However when food crops are suited to the climate in which they are grown, where good soil health and water management practices are in place locally grown reduces the carbon footprint. Bringing in rice from Asia may be less polluting than growing rice in dry inland areas affecting the health of the Murray, but not less polluting than growing in a suitable local area where water is not an issue.

You cannot just take one aspect of the discussions around sustainable food production ie. food miles, without looking at the big picture, otherwise the argument just looks like more spin for supporting unfettered free trade and food imports.

Pelican: the point is that food miles are such a poor indicator of the environmental impact of ag production that they are not worth bothering with - see the figure quoted that only 4% of farm emissions in the US relate to transport from farm gate to retailer. In fact food miles are downright counter-productive because they lead consumers to think they are doing the right thing when they very likely aren't.

I note “dietary shift” is deemed to save more than local food production. So, if you want to live a vegetarian lifestyle, fine but most of us choose not to and we are still free to make that choice, we are not the vassals s of some vegetarian despot

This is just another theory on how other people could better deploy the resources they are presently free to decide, without prior reference to an “economic planning consultant”.

So, who cares.

As for the price of fuel, it is part of the delivered product.

If a producer can get his product to a wholesaler, who can deliver it to a retailer for a consumer to buy at a price they are prepared to pay, then the component price of fuel just does not matter.

The fuel component, along with the wholesaler and retails costs and margins and the freighter cost of capital and fleet operating and maintenance costs, is reflected in the difference between the price the producer is prepared to accept for producing the food and the price the consumer is prepared to pay to consume the food.

And in that, calculation to explain why grow and consume locally does not necessarily work it is simple

the offsetting benefits of Economies of scale.

Pontificating the component cost of fuel, it is like this -

Now you think you know - what on earth do you think you can possibly do with the information?

Answer - not a lot, in fact, nothing at all.

The Market price has an uncanny way of regulating itself to ensure the supplier and consumer are happy, if they are not they either do not produce or they do not consume.

This article does explain that well known theory regarding economic planning consultants

They have long been considered similar to

a man who knows and can consummately execute every position in the Karma Sutra........

But is lacking of a lady to enjoy them with.