Koplowicz.com

A new Op-Ed from today's NY Times attacks the "locovore" movement--people who want to eat locally so that their food has a smaller "carbon footprint" because it hasn't been trucked across the country.

Off the bat, here are several problems I see with his argument:

1. He claims "studies have shown" but fails to show the studies.  It's hard to review his assertions if he won't provide evidence.
2. His arguments about the "energy" used for fertilizer and chemicals is a straw man at best; I think the real issue there is with pollution, although I'll concede that that doesn't add to or detract from the "locovore" debate.
3. Transportation costs may only come to 14% of the energy cost of putting food on my table, but that's still significant.  All the more reason to invest in alternative fuels.
4. He only hints at the proposition that growing food locally may actually cost more (electric hothouses in New York State), but doesn't back up that proposition with any facts at all.

That being said, he raises a very interesting point.  Indeed, adding to his energy argument is the economics argument: our country, and in fact the entire world, relies on free trade and, more specifically, comparative advantage.  California can't grow oranges as cheaply as Florida, and Florida can't grow strawberries as cheaply as California, so it makes sense for each state to do what it does best and trade with the other.  When you add Mexico into the picture (not terribly far away if you live in California), you also have to consider that our free trade is benefiting a third world country - a country that desperately needs our help.  I'd much rather be buying their products, than handing them fistfuls of cash as "aid."

Finally, with fish, you get the issue that there has been no fresh wild fish on the Western Seaboard for the past two years.  If you want salmon, it's either going to come from Alaska, or from a farm.  Last I read, fish farms were terrible for the environment.  Some farms now claim to be "sustainable," but again, I haven't seen any proof.  And no, I won't take the butcher's word for it.  His job is to take my money.  I'd like to know how many calories per pound it takes to transport via boat.  Given the immense size of those cargo ships, and the fact that you're traveling on a frictionless surface, I bet it's pretty good.

Ultimately, this op-ed falls short of what I'd like to see, but I think it is a useful addition to the debate.

J<