> But I don't think it's that surprising the meat travels so far - ever
> since refrigerated shipping was developed in the 1880s the antipodes
> have been an economical place to grow meat. If it were more profitable
> to do it in Iceland, it would have happened. I don't know too much
> about Iceland's agriculture but my guess is it has less productive
> land. Just as economies of fertility and scale can overcome the
> 'tyranny of distance' for trade, surely there are _carbon_ economies
> of fertility and scale that beat the carbon costs of transport.
FWIW, I've seen Icelandic mutton in Boston.
Intercontinental grain shipping goes way back, to at least Roman times, with plenty of other examples (dried fruit, wine) in the pre-steamship era. That sounds like a reasonable minimal proxy for carbon efficiency.
-- Andy