Pelican, yes spot on.
Globalisation will disappear with the oil.
At some point, probably well after the depletion starts the Coles
and Woolworths method of food retailing will no longer be viable.
For some time previously they would have been on a down spiral in
profit and turnover.

Local farmer markets would have been eating into their profits.
Eventually their least profitable stores would be closed and the space
in the shopping centre would be taken over by the local farmer markets
each having their own stall. They might migrate to a system where the
local farmers would employ staff to operate the market as a co op
and they just bring in their local product in every day.

Perhaps Coles & Woolies may change to buying their produce locally as
it would be the only product available.

It seems inevitable that petrol and diesel rationing will be necessary
fairly early in the decline so that might prompt very sudden change.
Much tinned food and other processed foods might also be in difficulty
due to fuel rationing unless the old idea of goods sheds at every
main railway station are reestablished.
Shipments of processed food could be delivered for each supermarket
by rail just as it was done in days of yore.

This article appears to be ideology in quite a number of ways. It seems that Tony Burke’s sin was to make the point that promotion of low food miles for food as a means of reducing carbon outputs is simplistic and needs to take into account other issues. In fact, he was quite correct to do so. Two of the issues in food miles are: the production of produce in high energy situations, such as heated glasshouses, can use more energy than importing produce from the other side and the use of food miles as a trade restriction. We see both of these happening in the UK at the moment. The Soil Association for example wants to remove the organic label from any imported produce, supposedly as a way of reducing carbon footprint, but really in order to protect the UK organic industry from more efficient off-shore producers. Strangely, Grayson recognises both these issues, but that doesn’t stop him taking a shot at Burke for not being a true believer. Secondly, Grayson seems to think that a conference in Lismore that almost nobody from the agricultural sector attended should be demonstration that Burke is wrong. Thirdly, Grayson points to statements made by a fringe organisation in the UK that virtually no-one has heard of is also evidence Burke is wrong. Grayson would do better to look at statements made in the popular press as the point of criticism.

Somewhat predictably michael_in_adelaide accuses Burke of being bought by the multinationals. m_i_a seems to believe that if people don’t agree with him, they must have been bought by big business. Sadly for m_i_a the truth could well be that Burke and his advisers have looked at the issue and come to a conclusion on the basis of evidence rather than m_i_a’s anti-globalization ideology.

Agronomist said;

Two of the issues in food miles are: the production of produce in high
energy situations, such as heated glasshouses, can use more energy
than importing produce from the other side and the use of food miles
as a trade restriction.

unquote

Surely the issue is will there be fuel to transport the food over long
distances, whether it is more economical in fuel or not compared to
glasshouses.
Glass houses may not be available anyway because of the lack or cost
of energy but does it just mean we will have to eat what is in season
rather than rely on glasshouses.

Fuel will be rationed either by price or regulation and this will
simply rule out long distance transport, except perhaps by electric
rail or sea born transport.

Yabby's comment regarding NZ lamb being more efficient for the UK than UK lamb may be premature, methinks. We are nowhere near a workable carbon footprint system yet and i dont think people are taking into account all of the embodied energy in the import/export industry. For example, it took 2 years for a research company to come up with a 'Dust to Dust' report on ALL of the embodied energy in automobiles. It is not just about the litres of diesel burnt by the specific cargo ship getting from point A to B.

Also agronomist, do you really think that Soil Association (if they were removing certficiation for imports) would be protecting UK farmers because the importers were more efficient? Not because the UK has the most valuable currency in the world?

I also feel there is a spiritual side to this conversation - i would much rather eat local food because its grown close to me, by people close to me, plain and simple. There are certain anomalies to the 'eat local', though. Victoriaan rice, for example, desert-grown, pesticide covered cotton also.

Bazza, you are correct that as fuel prices rise choices will have to be made. However, at the moment in the UK you have the silliness of glasshouse-grown tomatoes and lettuces being described as “greener” because they have fewer food miles than out-doors grown produce from North Africa.

In terms of transport, ship transport is probably the most energy efficient and certainly lamb from New Zealand can be landed cheaper in the UK than home-grown lamb. Whether there is less energy involved, I don’t quite know, but UK lamb fed on grain imported from South America would suggest not.

Mule, one of the problems with the expansion of the EU has been an increase in competition from countries like Romania. Land and labour are very much cheaper in Romania than the UK. The same is true for a number of third world countries. The Soil Association has been moaning over the last 4-5 years about the increasing percentage of organic food bought in the UK that has been imported. Then last year they come up with the food miles proposal. Call me cynical if you will, but this looks, feels and smells like protectionism.

That you want to eat local food for religious (spiritual) reasons is fine, but how local is local? Is it 5 km, 10 km or 2000 km. If it is the latter, why shouldn’t New Zealand produce also count as local?

Point taken Agronomist,
I believe that the scale of sheep farming in the UK is a much
more expensive operation than it is in New Zealand.
Even so it is easy to believe that by the time refrigeration and
transport is taken into account the fuel consumed must be very
significant. That it is cheaper says more about the cost of bunkering
oils than it says about food production.

We are moving past the point where cost on the butcher's counter is
the start and finish of the matter, but from here on the energy cost
is all that matters. CO2 is a sideline consideration but if it
reduces that it will make some happy.

What it needs is a study by an agronomist and a shipping transport
expert to do an energy audit of the process.
They would need to know how much of the cargo is, in this case, frozen
lamb, how much fuel is used in keeping the containers frozen, and
the land transport at each end. A non trivial calculation.

No longer can pure cost be the measure of whether a process is valid.