Environmental Responsibility News: green economy

Showing posts with label green economy. Show all posts

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Is Local Food More Equally Friendly?

Story first reported from USA Today

Which is better for the environment and the economy — a tomato grown nearby or one from the supermarket?

Local food, hip among urbanites and touted at the White House, is stirring more debate as new research suggests its benefits have been oversold.

"I like the food," says Joseph Conklin, a customer at the Local Market, a store in Falls Church, Va., that sells products made within 100 miles. He says he wants to support local businesses: "You get a better feeling shopping here" than at a national chain.

Such stores are popping up nationwide, and more farmers markets are open year-round. First lady Michelle Obama has added to momentum with her well-publicized backyard garden.

Two new books, however, say local food isn't necessarily more eco-friendly, even though it travels fewer miles. They cite research showing long-distance transportation accounts for only about 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions in food production; most occur at the farm itself through the use of tractors and other equipment and materials.

So if you want to buy local food for its freshness or to support area farmers, fine, but don't do it to save the planet, conclude researchers from the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group. Their two-year study, "Cooler Smarter," was published this spring.

Another book goes even further in debunking local-food "myths." Its title, The Locavore's Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet, plays off Michael Pollan's best seller, The Omnivore's Dilemma.

Co-author Pierre Desrochers, a geography professor at the University of Toronto-Mississuga, says large farms growing crops suited to their region are better for the environment because they use less energy per item and grow more food on less land. He says they offer economic benefits, too: lower prices.

Desrochers, who says he has received no funding from agri-business, has no problem with hobby farmers but doesn't want government supporting local food (or, for that matter, ethanol and sugar). Though kids may learn from community gardens, he says, they're better off learning computer and job skills.

"He's advocating a contrarian stance to sell books," says Chris Hunt of Sustainable Table, a non-profit advocate for healthy, eco-friendly food. Hunt says local food may not have a smaller carbon footprint but argues small local farms are more likely to avoid synthetic hormones, fertilizers or other chemicals that can damage the environment and harm human health.

He agrees it's not feasible to rely entirely on local food but adds, "no one's proposing that."
Erin Barnett, director of Local Harvest, a directory of farms and farmers markets, says local food encourages people to eat fresher, seasonal food and offers an easier way to track safety problems.
As part of its "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers grants to boost local food systems.

"Some of this is schmaltzy," says David Swenson, a regional economics researcher at Iowa State University. "How about your mechanic?" He agrees there's more economic benefit in growing large quantities of food where the climate is best: "That's why Iowa is so good at growing corn and Montana (stinks) at it."

Yet local food is about more than numbers, says Sarah Rich in Urban Farms, out in June. She toured 16 nationwide, including a one-acre rooftop garden in Queens, N.Y., and found that they anchor communities, beautify blighted areas and create havens for children. "Urban farming … can simultaneously reshape places we live and the way we eat."

For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.

For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan Business News blog.

For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical News blog.

For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics America blog.

For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.

For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.

For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.

For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Rio+20 Waste of Time?

Story first appeared in Bloomberg Businessweek.

Why is it that we share a common future, but so little common ground?

The result from Rio+20 is so lackluster, leaders and their delegates declined to bequeath it one of the grandiloquent titles normally attached to such things. It is not a Rio+20 Declaration, nor even a "roadmap." It is simply, awkwardly, uninspiringly, a "Rio+20 Outcomes Document."

The easy answer to the question of why leaders could not aim higher, is that the result reflects deep and stark divisions between developing and developed countries. And to some extent that is true.

Take the concept of the green economy, originally intended to be at the heart of Rio+20. Spearheaded by the European Union, the concept was supposed to put the world on track to place sustainability at the heart of economic decision-making.

Many developing countries saw it differently. For a start, they pointed out, money to transition to the green economy doesn't--by and large--grow on trees. And they were wary of anything that might impose rules on how they should develop.

But a simple "them and us" analysis of the failings of Rio+20 overlooks an important difference between 2012 and the time of the original Rio Earth Summit, held 20 years ago. Nor does it even do justice to the nuances of the green economy debate.

As the UNEP chief told a closing news conference, the world has changed, and consequently so too has what he termed "the arithmetic" of international negotiation, making the task of achieving consensus much harder.

Now, we live in a world where environmental leadership on various issues isn't solely the domain of developed countries, while pointing to Costa Rica's forest protection and reforestation efforts, Mexico's landmark climate law, and China's new status as the world's largest renewable energy investor.

Now we live in a world where concerns about poverty, unemployment, and economic security are also top of mind concerns for citizens in many developed nations. To complicate matters further, some of the world's new economic powerhouses--that can and should step up to the plate--are cautious about playing a leadership role in shaping global sustainable development policy.

It all means leaders, and laggards, are everywhere. North and South.

If you want proof, consider Rio+20's backing for new sustainable development goals--including themes on climate change, water and sanitation, oceans and seas, energy, and sustainable cities--ultimately lauded as a key achievement of the summit, although the conference eviscerated initial efforts to define more precisely at Rio what they should be. An expert working group was ultimately given the task of defining and quantifying the sustainable development goals and determining time frames to reach them.

The proposal originated in late 2011 not from a major developed country, but from Colombia, with the backing of Guatemala. At a Rio+20 news conference, Colombia's President recounted with pride a comment from Rio+20 Secretary-General. Colombia, while perhaps not the most important nation in the world, had given Rio+20 one of its most important ideas.

Given Rio+20's many weaknesses, is there hope? Perhaps. The summit was ultralight on big commitments, but it did encompass some big ideas. One of the most important was the need to value natural wealth. In short, Rio+20 cautiously, tentatively suggested that it is time for the international community, nations, and companies to stop cooking the planetary books and start valuing how they affect natural resources and ecosystems.

But as the world's leaders and legislators pass the baton to the world's bookkeepers, it is worth bearing in mind the thoughts of one of the giants of the international sustainability stage. She chaired the commission that produced the 1987 'our common future' report, which popularized the term 'sustainable development.' She was on a U.N. panel that prepared a report for U.N. Secretary-General --intended to inject start-up intellectual firepower to the Rio+20 talks--and she is one of three special climate change envoys appointed.

In a Rio+20 news conference, it was said that environmental concerns risked being overshadowed in the final document by the other two pillars of sustainable development: the economic and the social. Rio+20 had largely failed to acknowledge planetary boundaries and tipping points.

In other words, by all means do the math, but don't forget the science.