Farmland Footprints: Reducing Your Carbon Footprint through Local Sourcing

The Surprising Truth About Eating Local

It’s no secret that the world is facing a climate crisis. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, over 8 in 10 people across the globe see climate change as a major threat to their countries. And for good reason – our food system is responsible for a startling one-quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.

So, what’s a conscientious consumer to do? The common advice is to “eat local” – after all, reducing the distance your food travels must have a significant impact, right? Well, as it turns out, that’s actually one of the most misguided pieces of advice out there. The true carbon footprint of your diet has much more to do with what you’re eating, rather than where it came from.

The Shocking Realities of Food’s Carbon Footprint

Let’s take a closer look at the data. According to a groundbreaking study published in Science, the greenhouse gas emissions of different food products can vary dramatically. Producing a kilogram of beef, for example, results in a staggering 60 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents. In contrast, a kilogram of peas emits just 1 kilogram of CO2 equivalents.

The reason for this massive discrepancy? It all comes down to the production process. For beef and other ruminant meats, the majority of emissions come from land use changes and on-farm processes like enteric fermentation (that’s cow burps to you and me). Transport, on the other hand, accounts for less than 1% of beef’s carbon footprint.

Even when we look at the carbon footprint of entire diets, the story is the same. Researchers have found that while food transport accounts for only 6% of the average European’s dietary emissions, dairy, meat, and eggs make up a whopping 83%.

So, if transport isn’t the culprit, what’s driving food’s outsized environmental impact? It turns out that the type of food we choose to eat is by far the most important factor. Switching from carbon-intensive beef and dairy to more sustainable plant-based alternatives can reduce your dietary emissions by a much larger margin than simply buying local.

The Exceptions to the Rule

Of course, there are a few exceptions to this general rule. The first is air freight – for highly perishable foods that need to be transported quickly, such as asparagus, green beans, and berries, air travel can result in significantly higher emissions. However, these air-freighted goods make up a tiny fraction of the global food trade, accounting for just 0.16% of food miles.

The second exception is for foods produced in energy-intensive methods, like greenhouse-grown tomatoes in Sweden. In these cases, importing the produce from regions where it can be grown more sustainably (like Southern Europe) may actually have a lower carbon footprint.

But for the vast majority of foods we consume, the distance traveled is simply not a major contributor to their environmental impact. Whether your beef comes from the farm next door or is shipped in from halfway around the world, its carbon footprint will be predominantly determined by the production process, not the transportation.

Putting It All Together

So, what’s the takeaway here? If you’re looking to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, the most impactful changes you can make have nothing to do with “eating local.” Instead, focus on eating less meat and dairy, and choose more sustainable plant-based alternatives whenever possible.

For example, research has shown that substituting just one day’s worth of red meat and dairy in your weekly diet with chicken, fish, eggs, or plant-based options can reduce your carbon footprint more than sourcing all of your food locally.

Of course, that’s not to say that local sourcing is irrelevant. Buying from nearby farms can still provide benefits like supporting your local economy, reducing food miles, and increasing transparency around production practices. But when it comes to making a real dent in your environmental impact, what you eat trumps where it comes from every time.

So, the next time you’re strolling through the aisles of your local community-supported agriculture (CSA) service, remember – the true “farmland footprints” you should be focused on are the ones left by the livestock and crops, not the distance they’ve traveled. Make sustainable food choices, and you’ll be on your way to a greener, healthier future.

The Meat and Potatoes of Food Emissions

Let’s dive a little deeper into the numbers behind food’s carbon footprint. The following table showcases the greenhouse gas emissions of various food products, expressed in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilogram of product:

As you can see, the differences are staggering. Producing a kilogram of beef results in 60 times more greenhouse gas emissions than a kilogram of peas. And even within the meat and dairy category, there’s a huge range – lamb and cheese are more than three times as emissions-intensive as poultry and eggs.

The reasons for these disparities come down to the production methods. Ruminant animals like cows and sheep are particularly inefficient, producing large amounts of methane through their digestive processes. They also require vast tracts of land for grazing, which leads to significant land use changes and associated emissions.

In contrast, plant-based foods and non-ruminant animals like chickens and pigs have a much lower environmental impact. Their feed conversion ratios are more efficient, they don’t produce methane, and they can be produced on smaller land areas.

So, if you’re looking to shrink your carbon footprint, the choice is clear – ditch the beef and lamb in favor of more sustainable protein sources. Swapping out just one day’s worth of red meat and dairy for chicken, fish, or plant-based alternatives can make a bigger difference than sourcing all of your food locally.

The Limits of “Eating Local”

Now, I know what you’re thinking – “But I thought eating local was the key to reducing my environmental impact!” Well, I hate to break it to you, but that’s a bit of a misconception.

As we’ve seen, transport accounts for a tiny fraction of most foods’ carbon footprints. Even when you factor in the emissions from shipping goods across continents, it’s still a drop in the bucket compared to the emissions generated during production.

Let’s look at an example to illustrate this point. Imagine you’re buying beef – the ultimate climate villain of the food world. If you source that beef from your neighbor down the road, the transport emissions would be negligible, maybe around 0.2 kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram of beef. But the overall footprint of that local beef is still a staggering 60 kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram.

Now, let’s say you live in the UK and decide to buy beef that’s been shipped all the way from Central America, a distance of about 9,000 kilometers. The transport emissions for that beef would be around 0.21 kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram – just a tiny fraction of the total.

So, whether your beef is produced next door or halfway across the globe, the location itself doesn’t make a significant difference. What really matters is the fact that it’s beef, with all the inherent emissions associated with its production.

The same principle holds true for other food items as well. Researchers have found that if the average American household were to source all of their food locally, the maximum reduction in their carbon footprint would be a mere 5%. In contrast, swapping out just one day’s worth of red meat and dairy for more sustainable alternatives could save as much as 0.3 to 0.46 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.

The Exceptions to the Rule (Again)

Of course, as with most things in life, there are a few exceptions to the “eating local doesn’t matter” rule. The first is air freight – for highly perishable foods that need to be transported quickly, like asparagus, green beans, and berries, the emissions from air travel can be significantly higher than other modes of transport.

The second exception is for foods produced in energy-intensive methods, like greenhouse-grown tomatoes in Sweden. In these cases, importing the produce from regions where it can be grown more sustainably (like Southern Europe) may actually have a lower carbon footprint.

But these exceptions are relatively rare. The vast majority of the food we consume, even when shipped across the globe, is transported by the much more efficient method of ocean freight. And for the biggest climate offenders, like beef and lamb, the location of production is almost irrelevant compared to the production process itself.

Putting It All Together (Again)

So, what’s the key takeaway here? When it comes to reducing the carbon footprint of your diet, focusing on what you eat is far more impactful than worrying about where it comes from. Swapping out carbon-intensive animal products like beef and lamb for more sustainable options like chicken, fish, or plant-based alternatives can make a much bigger difference than sourcing all of your food locally.

Of course, that’s not to say that local sourcing is completely irrelevant. Buying from nearby farms can still provide benefits like supporting your local economy, reducing food miles, and increasing transparency around production practices. But when it comes to making a real dent in your environmental impact, your dietary choices are the true game-changer.

So, the next time you’re strolling through the aisles of your local community-supported agriculture (CSA) service, remember – the “farmland footprints” you should be focused on are the ones left by the livestock and crops, not the distance they’ve traveled. Make sustainable food choices, and you’ll be on your way to a greener, healthier future.