[subego]

Saw this in last week's Economist.

The short form:

Organic: less intensive than chemical farming. To increase output, you need more farmland. You get more farmland by cutting down trees.

Fair Trade: sucks like subsidies always suck. The reason the farmers are poor is because their product is overproduced (and hence cheap). Paying a premium for their product only encourages them to make more, which adds more fuel to the overproduction problem. It's having the exact opposite effect of what was intended. Not to mention that most of the extra money goes to the retailers and distributors.

Local: moving a truck full of produce emits less carbon than everyone driving their car to the farmer's market (there are more supermarkets than farmer's markets, and hence less people drive to the supermarket). Even with travel, it's still cheaper and more emission friendly to get, say, lamb from NZ rather than to grow it in the UK because of the extra energy it takes to grow sheep in the UK vs. NZ.

Makes sense to me.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by subego 

Local: moving a truck full of produce emits less carbon than everyone driving their car to the farmer's market (there are more supermarkets than farmer's markets, and hence less people drive to the supermarket). Even with travel, it's still cheaper and more emission friendly to get, say, lamb from NZ rather than to grow it in the UK because of the extra energy it takes to grow sheep in the UK vs. NZ.

Makes sense to me.

people (generally) drive to buy food regardless of where they get it. a supermarket has to ship food from the source, sometimes to a regional warehouse, and then to the store - possibly hundreds of miles. a local farmer only has to drive a few miles to go from source to market.

how is that more intensive?

[design219]

I somehow think it is a lot more complex than that. I would be interested to see the whole article, and then an informed reply.

The earth's problem is just too many people. I would support research on development of new super predators to thin the population down to about 1/20 th of the current. Yeah, that should get things back into balance.

Anybody with me?

[subego]

Originally Posted by black bear theory 

people (generally) drive to buy food regardless of where they get it. a supermarket has to ship food from the source, sometimes to a regional warehouse, and then to the store - possibly hundreds of miles. a local farmer only has to drive a few miles to go from source to market.

how is that more intensive?

But consumers have to drive less to get to the supermarket. I have 2, (used to be 3 until it burned down) supermarkets in walking distance. We have one irregular farmer's market during the summer.

Likewise, an 18-wheeler full of produce can service more customers than a pickup full.

Edit: or do it more efficiently than the amount of pickups it would take to move the same quantity.

[subego]

Originally Posted by design219 

I somehow think it is a lot more complex than that. I would be interested to see the whole article, and then an informed reply.

Unfortunately, you have to pay to play with them.

The article wasn't particularly more complicated than I presented though. It was more of an editorial rather than a deep scientific analysis.

If you want to pick one of the points, I can type up the relevant quotes.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by subego 

But consumers have to drive less to get to the supermarket. I have 2, (used to be 3 until it burned down) supermarkets in walking distance. We have one irregular farmer's market during the summer.

Likewise, an 18-wheeler full of produce can service more customers than a pickup full.

Edit: or do it more efficiently than the amount of pickups it would take to move the same quantity.

my farmer's market is closer to my cabin than my grocery store. ymmv i guess.

economies of scale will/should always be more efficient than doing something on a smaller scale. but generally home cooked meals are more nutritious than a mcfranchise meal, and sometimes just as cheap. a fast food joint is probably more energy efficient (energy in -> food out) than a home kitchen too but it doesn't necessarily make it better.

you get what you pay for. some people would rather support small farmers than big agribusiness. and i'll gladly take tasty fresh veggies over the ordinary supermarket kind when i can get it.

[IceBreaker]

Originally Posted by design219 

The earth's problem is just too many people. I would support research on development of new super predators to thin the population down to about 1/20 th of the current. Yeah, that should get things back into balance.

Anybody with me?

no, who are you going to kill off to "help" the planet?

[design219]

Oh, I don't know... why not start with left lane drivers. And then people with no sense of humor.

[IceBreaker]

Originally Posted by design219 

Oh, I don't know... why not start with left lane drivers. And then people with no sense of humor.

ok...and add the food police.

[subego]

Originally Posted by black bear theory 

my farmer's market is closer to my cabin than my grocery store. ymmv i guess.

Well, I do live in an urban environment.

Even so, It would seem to me that in general, people are closer to supermarkets.

I could be wrong though.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by subego 

Saw this in last week's Economist.
Local: moving a truck full of produce emits less carbon than everyone driving their car to the farmer's market (there are more supermarkets than farmer's markets, and hence less people drive to the supermarket).

This problem disappears when many people switch to buying at farmer's markets. The farmer's markets become closer and more numerous while the supermarkets (at least potentially) become less numerous.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, I do live in an urban environment.

Even so, It would seem to me that in general, people are closer to supermarkets.

I could be wrong though.

you're probably right. when i lived in austin, tx it was that way.

the argument, as far as i can tell, is that if something is not as efficient as it can be then it is bad or worse than the more efficient option. i used the example of fast food/home cooked meals earlier. there are probably more efficient ways to make a computer than apple does, but that doesn't mean that that computer is better than a mac. there are more efficient ways for people to move around in a city via mass transit, but that doesn't make it inherently bad to travel by car.

if you pay for organic food, you will get a better, tastier (imo) product. you may use more land, but at the same time, those people/plants/animals that live downstream will be better off without all the chemicals that would be used otherwise in the watershed. environmental concerns are generally not an economic concern and don't play into economic evaluations.

now, bottled water is the biggest, most egregious scam to be subjected on the public.

[subego]

Both good points.

Allow me to ponder.

[subego]

Originally Posted by black bear theory 

the argument, as far as i can tell, is that if something is not as efficient as it can be then it is bad or worse than the more efficient option.

It's more specific than that. The equation they are dealing with is whether the chemicals needed for intensive farming are more damaging than the amount of land required for organic. IIRC the article quotes an average four times more production per acre with intensive over organic. Most of the good farmland is used up (especially in the UK), the way you get more land is to chop down trees.

So the idea is, are an acre's worth of chemicals worse than knocking down two or three acres of trees?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by design219 

I somehow think it is a lot more complex than that. I would be interested to see the whole article, and then an informed reply.

The earth's problem is just too many people. I would support research on development of new super predators to thin the population down to about 1/20 th of the current. Yeah, that should get things back into balance.

Anybody with me?

We could kill off all the microsoft windows users.

That's about 95% of people right?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

This problem disappears when many people switch to buying at farmer's markets. The farmer's markets become closer and more numerous while the supermarkets (at least potentially) become less numerous.

Sorry it took me so long here.

Doesn't this get offset by the inefficiency of moving so much produce by the pickup-full rather than the 18-wheeler-full?

[Sherman Homan]

We could kill off all the microsoft windows users.
That's about 95% of people right?

Snow-i

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by design219 

I somehow think it is a lot more complex than that. I would be interested to see the whole article, and then an informed reply.

The earth's problem is just too many people. I would support research on development of new super predators to thin the population down to about 1/20 th of the current. Yeah, that should get things back into balance.

Anybody with me?

nope. Have you ever driven more than two hours in any direction?

Some people believe the super predators are people who drive SUVs, the Bush Administration, proponents of evolution and creationism, neocons, liberals, atheists and Christians. No need to support research on development of new predators, just stop opposing whichever one or more of the above.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sorry it took me so long here.

Doesn't this get offset by the inefficiency of moving so much produce by the pickup-full rather than the 18-wheeler-full?

I don't know. Do 18-wheelers go from farm to farm picking up goods? If not I imagine smaller trucks must move the goods to some sort of distribution center. Neither option seems significantly more efficient to me than using the local pickup truck method.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I don't know. Do 18-wheelers go from farm to farm picking up goods? If not I imagine smaller trucks must move the goods to some sort of distribution center. Neither option seems significantly more efficient to me than using the local pickup truck method.

Damn-it!

You hit me with the zingers, don't you?

Back into thinking mode.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

We could kill off all the microsoft windows users.

That's about 95% of people right?

No, that would be 95% of personal computer users. I think the majority of humanity is not using computers at all.

Taliesin

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I don't know. Do 18-wheelers go from farm to farm picking up goods? If not I imagine smaller trucks must move the goods to some sort of distribution center. Neither option seems significantly more efficient to me than using the local pickup truck method.

Many if not most farms these days are corporate and farmers on them are just employees now. They indeed use 18-wheelers in many cases to haul the crop directly from the farm itself. Even many smaller, privately owned farms do this. If you have a crop small enough to efficiently move with a pickup you are either growing pot or farming is not your primary source of income. In addition, a lot of the food (but not all) you see at the farmer's market in many cases has been purchased and is being resold by a third party--much like the produce section at a grocery store.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by design219 

I somehow think it is a lot more complex than that. I would be interested to see the whole article, and then an informed reply.

The earth's problem is just too many people. I would support research on development of new super predators to thin the population down to about 1/20 th of the current. Yeah, that should get things back into balance.

Anybody with me?

Isn't that what they call War, Murder and other such things? It helps to thin the population.