Country Guide has a good post on why Lower “food miles” may not be greener. I liked this article because it gives a quick peek into some of the complexity in deciding which alternative is the better one. If it takes Kenyan rose producers 6,000 kg of carbon dioxide to sell roses in Europe and it takes Dutch competitors 35,000 kg which is really greener?
It seems to me that this ties into a discussion that my dad and I have had about the efficiency of different farming models. Compare the energy inputs required for your average Manitoban farmer to produce a crop on an acre of land versus those required by your average third world farmer and Manitoban agriculture looks terrible. However, the Manitoban will likely produce a much better yield with fewer hours spent in the field. Which is more costly – the labor to work a field by hand or the energy to produce and run machinery? Your answer will determine which type of agriculture you pursue.
Pitchforks or Air Seeders?
Post a Comment