Claudiecat
I would dispute the 4% figure - I have read 25% of CO2 emissions from intra-UK transport (for eg.) once foodstuffs have reached its shores and that is not counting the international journey.

I agree there is more to environmental impact than food miles but it is an important factor in making buying decisions (for me anyway).

The argument is that food miles are not important when factoring in costs of production when climate is not ideal for the crop grown. However in an ideal climate these impacts are minimised other than the usual on-farm impact but that would be applicable to all suppliers. Luckily in Australia we have a variation of climates which is why we shouldn't need to import many foodstuffs.

There are many other reasons to buy local even if you don't subscribe to the food mile concept and that is to support local industry while not aiding and abetting the exploitation of cheap labour in other nations and contribution to decreasing food security in those nations. There are also issues of pesticide use including toxic preventative treatments at point of arrival.

Many countries are now arguing the 'food mile theory' as bogus because it has a direct impact on exports. NZ marketers dissed the idea in reaction to an increased interest in local food in the UK.

Pelican

The are are many problems associated with the food miles concept, the major one being that it takes the focus off all the other issues, including value-chain energy consumption, environmental impacts and labour conditions.

Just because we don't have significant labour problems with food production, we should not delude ourselves about our associated environmental problems. I have read estimates that we have already halved the topsoil of Australia in 200 years of agriculture- the Chinese have literally kilometres of topsoil in many areas. And there is growing evidence that the changes in surface moisture and albedo (reflection of solar radiation)are significant contributors to climate change- "rain follows the axe" is an old farmers' saying.

In summary, while I agree that we should outright ban certain products- like old growth forest timber, goods that are clearly made under labour conditions that are not ILO-acceptible and goods that use materials that are toxic- we should be careful about focussing on one-dimensional issues. If we are prepared to pay more for goods and services, then we must be prepared to accept lower standards of living.

JediM
Our standards of living are pretty good compared with others. Topsoil is an issue granted and soil health, monoculture etc are all worthy issues in the debate about sustainable populations.

China has already surpassed the US in emissions (just recently), imagine what the footprint will be once they emerge as a new economic power. We in the West have to reduce our standards or get away from repeating the same mistakes of the rest of the world in terms of overpopulation which places strain on arable land for food production. We will have to reduce our living standards to ensure others can increase to some extent but many would have us think this equates with living in grass huts, eugenics or eating soylent green.

Materialism and consumerism is also part of the problem.

I agree with the premise that food miles are not the whole story but one piece of the puzzle so to speak.

Pelican

I think we need to distinguish between facts and values before we make our decisions.

Growing things locally, or "organically" may be a lifestyle preference, but it doesn't necessarily follow that these preferences will have a lower "carbon footprint" than some other preference.

The fact that China is emitting a lot of CO2 doesn't necessarily mean that less CO2 would be emitted if we made all (or any) of the things that we import from China. It is plausible that it is better that they do it and achieve economies of scale (and hence reduced cost and CO2) than if we do it in our small factories and community gardens.

It is not easy to sort this out. I refer you to the following article, that has gone to great lengths to address these issues. It is hardly likely that limited data (eg food miles) and subjective preferences are going to give a more reliable picture:

"China’s Growing CO2 Emissions-A Race between Increasing Consumption and Efficiency Gains" by Peters, GP, et al in Environmental Science & Technology, v9 p5939

Jedimaster

I agree it is hard to sort this out - a bit like the recycling issue (energy used vs benefits of reuse etc).

Organic is a lifestyle preference for many and I understand the difficulties of mass production which is why I think we need to get away from monoculture agriculture which would also have benefits on soil health. Just one small example, some farmers are using a legume crop in rotation as well as planting different crops which take-up different mineral elements in each rotation. But I agree this is difficult when looking at large scale production of crops like wheat for the export market.

A quote from an abstract of the article you refer:

"We find that infrastructure construction and urban household consumption, both in turn driven by urbanization and lifestyle changes, have outpaced efficiency improve ments in the growth of CO2 emissions. Net trade had a small effect on total emissions due to equal, but significant, growth in emissions from the production of exports and emissions avoided by imports."

This would seem to contradict the anti food-mile argument if I have interpreted it correctly.

China has it's own huge market inbuilt, our market is really quite insignificant in that context in terms of agricultural products. I take your point about economies of scale in some areas of manufacturing but one would need to work out whether the CO2 emissions from manufacturing on a smaller scale in Australia would be = to the emissions from the freighting of same to Australia.

If one takes the humble tomato, it would be difficult to see how importing tomatoes would result in less CO2 emissions than growing them locally where the climate is suitable and where other clever agricultural methods are being used to aid soil health and reduction of pesticides.

Again, I agree it is often difficult to get one's head around it all. Arjay's new thread on the emissions from shipping are also interesting reading although I cannot comment on the source.

Pelican

I think that the article is saying that most countries are now about as energy efficient as each other, ie each dollar in the economy requires about the same amount of energy in each country. The International Energy Agency published average energy intensities of different countries a couple of years ago, but their latest "Energy Outlook" does not have it.

The main point is that economies of scale prevail in many situations, but not all. Other factors, like fragile goods (like some veges) and goods that have a low value per unit volume or weight have relatively high transport costs. But in many cases, China produces goods in volumes that are unimaginable in Australia, giving great economies of scale (on capital used), added to which are their lower labour costs.

Conventional economic theory says they we should do things that we are good at. We are good at mining high quality coal (if that's not an oxymoron) and iron ore and some other minerals. We can sell them relatively cheaply in large volume and purchase cheap, large volume manufactured goods. Theory has it that if China had to use its own (relatively expensive coal and iron ore, goods would be more expensive. Not to mention their poor quality coal, which adds more particulate pollution per dollar

The last factor is that, if the cost of our goods is too high, then we have to sell them cheaper, therefore making our dollar worth less so we can't import as much. So it all reaches an equilibrium unless someone is cheating.

So there's international economics in a nutshell. Food miles are just a factor in the value chain. They may be important in some cases, but not all. People who think that the world is one dimensional are our greatest risk.