Buying local foods is not the solution to the climate crisis

In fact, local foods might even have a higher carbon footprint than foods that logistically have a longer way to your home country’s grocery stores.

As the global population is growing, the demand for food is increasing at a rapid speed. In order to meet this enormous demand, extensive agriculture and livestock farming are needed. This even goes to the extent that farm animals are exceeding the number of wild animals. To be exact, 94% of the mammal biomass is defined by farm animals, while only 6% are wild animals. Additionally, in order to be able to produce a large number of foods, agriculture uses up 50% of the habitual land on earth of which 77% is dedicated to livestock.

In total, the food industry is responsible for 26% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. This includes the production of methane during the enteric fermentation of livestock animals, nitrous oxide from the application of fertilizers and carbon emissions that result from the use of machinery and logistical processes. To break it down, here are how much the different categories are contributing to the total greenhouse gas emissions of the food industry:

• Meat, dairy, eggs, and seafood production: 31%

• Crop production for humans and animals: 27%

• Land use for livestock and crops: 24%

• Food processing, transport, packaging, retail: 18%

Equally, necessary to mention is that only 6% of the greenhouse gas emissions of the food industry are actually caused by transportation, which would be expected to be the main reason for the high contribution of this industry to the current climate change. However, the prior production of the food is rather the problematic part. In fact, only products that are being transported by airplane to other countries are problematic as planes emit higher amounts of carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, only small amounts and only highly perishable foods are actually being transported through air-freight. Most of them come by ship or transporters that comparatively produce less emissions.

This, however, also indicates that the origin of our foods does not matter as much when trying to create a more sustainable lifestyle. Therefore, it does not always mean that local foods are the best and most sustainable solution to fight against climate change. Especially for countries that are not able to produce nutritious foods, be it due to the season or due to its geographic features, having access to global food providers would majorly benefit them and the environment. This is because they would otherwise have to grow specific foods in an unnatural environment and manner that requires a lot of energy and an intensive use of fertilisers.

Hence, what really matters in a sustainable and environmentally friendly diet are our consumption patterns and what we are eating. As most of the greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock it is therefore recommendable to go for a plant-based diet. Especially, because a plant-based diet can generate the same amount of proteins at a lower environmental cost. For example, 100g of protein from peas produces only 0.4kg of carbon emissions, while the same amount of protein coming from meat creates 35kg of carbon dioxide. Thus, instead of meat, maybe the next time you should try out peas, beans, nuts and tofu as environmentally friendly protein sources or at least cut down your weekly meet consumption as this will equally already reduce your carbon footprint.

Learn how you can make a difference and reduce the environmental impact of the food industry:

• Nine cooks that show you how to start an exciting plant-based diet

• Seven apps that help you eat and buy more sustainably

Source:

Ritchie, H. and Roser, M., "Environmental impacts of food production," Our World in Data, 2021, https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions, accessed 14 November 2021.

#food #fastfood #localfood #livestockfarming #agriculture #greenhousegases #carbonfootprint #sustainability #plantbaseddiet