Unlike most mainstream media, Canada’s National Post has given considerable pre-Copenhagen coverage to what they call The Climate Question. This is not to say that they are now ignoring Copenhagen, because they’ve been running The Climate Question front and centre, so to speak.
For those who are not convinced that “the science is settled” (or even “solid” as one virtual friend – much to my disappointment – claimed in an E-mail I received today!) the Post’s five-part series, “Rethinking Green” which looks at “unexpected ways to help the environment”, might be of interest.
Today’s Front Page feature is headlined, “The 100 MILE Delusion” (superimposed on a deliciously ripe tomato!) Tagline (and conclusion) of story:
“Eat global, not local”
In part, farmer vendors charge more because they’ve been suddenly blessed with customers willing to pay more. But locally grown food, in many cases, is also more costly to produce, because Canadian labour and, often, land is worth more than in Brazil or China. Above all, though, local growing conditions for most foods are less productive than elsewhere. Every climate, obviously, has its strengths and weaknesses, and frequently, locally grown food is less efficiently produced than the imported stuff. Accounting for “food miles” — the key measure used by locavores (local produce eaters) — tells you how far food travels. It doesn’t tell you how much energy — and greenhouse gas emissions — went into growing it. When you add that in, and if your aim is to conserve fossil fuels and emissions, the best way is actually to skip the farmers’ market and eat global. [emphasis added -hro]
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that “green is good” and I much prefer the taste of local produce. But as the studies cited in this article demonstrate, it would seem that the global warming alarmists who advocate slavish adherence to the “100 MILE Diet” have been hoist on their own carbon canard!