>
> 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.
Hey Andy,
I don't think it's a problem with the underlying argument - surely the main point is that 'food miles' is a single-factor measure when a multiple-factor measure is called for, or at least, if carbon emissions is your interest, make that your single measure. How is the source of electricity not relevant?
Mike Beggs