Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Eating locally would only have a significant impact if transport was responsible for a large share of food’s final carbon footprint. For most foods, this is not the case.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation make up a very small amount of the emissions from food, and what you eat is far more important than where your food traveled from.
For most foods — and particularly the largest emitters — most GHG emissions result from land use change (shown in green) and from processes at the farm stage (brown). Farm-stage emissions include processes such as the application of fertilizers — both organic (“manure management”) and synthetic; and enteric fermentation (the production of methane in the stomachs of cattle). Combined, land use and farm-stage emissions account for more than 80% of the footprint for most foods.
Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.
And now those people are the ones crying about fuel prices while I don’t give a shit because I don’t even want it.
I just refuse to budget more for fuel when its more expensive. Gimme an excuse to refuse to leave the house because I don’t have the fuel in my car to drive across town for whatever non-sense and still make it to work until pay-day, I’m going to take it.
Suppose I do this too, just that my budget is always zero
I mean, yes, but the point I was making is that most people don’t, and so demand doesn’t adjust to supply or pricing quite as-it-should. I’ve got a few more payments to make on the vehicles I have before EV’s become anything-like a feasible option for me.