> "Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand’s
> clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain
> produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while
> British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part
> because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other
> words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy
> lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a
> producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy
> products and fruit.
>
> "These life-cycle measurements are causing environmentalists worldwide
> to rethink the logic of food miles. New Zealand’s most prominent
> environmental research organization, Landcare Research-Manaaki Whenua,
> explains that localism “is not always the most environmentally sound
> solution if more emissions are generated at other stages of the
> product life cycle than during transport.”"
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html
There were some problems with that one:
http://www.ethicurean.com/2007/08/10/shuman-on-lamb/#more-2270
...
The explanation of most of the difference in the two country’s carbon emissions turns out to be coal. Typical British farmers use more electricity – both directly and indirectly for the processing of its fertilizers, feeds, and additives – and are thereby saddled with the emissions from lots of dirty coal plants. New Zealand has lots of hydroelectric dams. So those poor bionic sheep in the United Kingdom inherit a huge carbon price tag. This also means that as the British move toward renewable energy sources, as they plan to do, the New Zealand carbon advantage will vanish.
What the New Zealand study really stands for is how awful industrial agriculture is for the environment in both countries. James McWilliams says that “poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed.” Force? The use of industrially produced feeds, chemicals, and electricity is a choice. And, again, the movement toward organic and natural alternatives can erase New Zealand’s carbon advantage.
Then there’s a little accounting problem. Buried in page 19 of Dr. Saunders’ report is the qualifier that “the transport of the finished product within New Zealand, the UK and any other country involved is not included….” This covers up one of the big disadvantages of New Zealand lamb, since it has to be trucked twice, once from the farm to a New Zealand port, and then again from a British port to the supermarket. On pages 43-44 we learn, moreover, that trucking transport emits four times more carbon per ton than the sea transport assumed by the researchers. Correction of this mistake would eliminate about a quarter of the Kiwi advantage. (Assuming air transport, as is necessary for fresh food, also would have totally undermined the study’s conclusion.)
...
-- Andy