Join 3,441 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The myth of food miles?
March 23, 2008 5:15 AM   Subscribe

The locavore movement arose in recognition of the high environmental costs associated with imported food, particularly with respect to global warming (previously). This article from The Guardian (London) suggests that the carbon cost-benefit equation may be very hard to calculate, and that local (at least, without organic) may not always be better. As a planet we seem to be boxing ourselves into a very tight little environmental corner.
posted by cogneuro (43 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
check out the recipes...
cream of parsnip soup?
not happening anytime soon. heads out to denny's...
posted by billybobtoo at 5:28 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


if something is more expensive then it might be more expensive because more resources have gone into creating it. if more resources are used then this might mean it involved the releasing of more CO2. substitute prices at your peril.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 5:41 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh, man I love California.

*hugs Farmer's Market, nibbles on a locally grown apple and some raisins*
posted by loquacious at 6:17 AM on March 23, 2008


> local (at least, without organic) may not always be better

I'm sure that is true, that in some cases it's better to grow food distantly and ship it in, but that's not a good reason for people to reject the idea entirely. Which is obvious, or should be, but people sometimes do argue that way: "It's impossible to be a locavore 100 percent of the time, so the whole thing is a crock of shit and it's stupid to try to be a locavore at all." Whereas trying to eat locally -- being half locavore, say -- could improve your diet and your health in general, make your food taste better, and do great things for your own local environment as well as the world environment.

Also, eating locally should include the notion that there may be some things you shouldn't eat at all, or at least not during certain seasons. In the article, for example, they conclude "It is therefore better for the environment if UK shoppers buy apples from New Zealand in July and August rather than those of British origin." That may be, but it's not actually a binary decision. Perhaps it is better for the environment if UK shoppers don't buy apples at all in July and August, and instead eat other fruits and vegetables during that time.
posted by pracowity at 6:31 AM on March 23, 2008 [4 favorites]


As a canadian expat I was always aware that the locavore movement was stupid. What are we supposed to do for the winter half of the year? Eat melted snow and cured meat?

This kind of thinking only arises in places where local food is easy.

Food gets transported around the world because of production efficiencies not in spite of costs.

That may be, but it's not actually a binary decision. Perhaps it is better for the environment if UK shoppers don't buy apples at all in July and August, and instead eat other fruits and vegetables during that time.

You of course are referring to the massive abundance of winter fruits and veg that are so readily available. What are they again? Oh right. Nothing.
posted by srboisvert at 6:35 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


That was a bit harsh. Let me explain. My local grocery store is a Somerfield. It has a food selection of about a 1970 canadian grocery store. If you want to narrow my options from the already soviet levels they are at I might just try to punch you in the groin.
posted by srboisvert at 6:44 AM on March 23, 2008


the guardian article is a fatuous bit of food-industry PR constructed mostly of straw-man arguments and misleading pseudo-statistical B.S.
posted by facetious at 7:07 AM on March 23, 2008


Pracowity makes good points that I would like to second.

I work for a fruit orchard that sells its stuff at local farmers markets. The localvore movement has been big for us.

Maybe some people hear about the idea and immediately recognize the absurdity (or impossibility) of eating locally 100% of the time, year-round. But part of what's happening here is that as a message catches on and becomes more popular, it starts to lose nuance. The fact that an article like this is being written is a testament to the traction that localvorism has gained.

Overall, I welcome challenges to the notion of localvorism if it means we can start thinking a little more about where our food comes from and what exactly it is we're eating. I think eating locally is a huge part of that and as a guideline is hugely helpful, if not the answer to everything (the same might be said of organics).
posted by veggieboy at 7:16 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


As a planet, we already are boxed into a very tight little environmental corner.
posted by notyou at 7:22 AM on March 23, 2008


This is what I call a "neener neener neener" post. One of those that points out that you thought you were helping but, (sings) neener neener neener, turns out you're a chump! Some other examples:

Obama sounds great, but turns out-- he's a politician! neener neener neener
You bought a Prius, but turns out-- the environmental cost of building the engine wipes out the energy savings! neener neener neener
You changed all your light bulbs to CFs, but turns out you're the only one on your block doing it, so what's the point? neener neener neener

Screw the fucking Guardian (pardon me) and all the naysayers. Use common sense. Common sense tells you that buying local is better. So buy local. Common sense and 20th century sensibility tells you that if you live in Saskatchewan you are not going to want to live on dried apples and beef jerky 6 months of the year, so you'll import food. Common sense says turn out the lights. Common sense says drive a more energy efficient car. Common sense says BigAg, BigOil, and all the other Bigs are feeling threatened and they are fighting back. So use your common sense and don't listen to them. neener neener neener
posted by nax at 7:29 AM on March 23, 2008 [11 favorites]


Oh, and actually, billybobtoo? Parsnip soup is delicious. Just wanted to throw that in.
posted by nax at 7:31 AM on March 23, 2008


There's a fascinating New Yorker article on carbon foot prints and consumption, and in it there is a very powerful arguement that sometimes non-locally grown food is the better choice for the environment. Worth checking out.

Clearly the elephant in the room is meat consumption, btw. Stop eating meat and you can eat all the guilt-free bananas you want.
posted by DenOfSizer at 7:59 AM on March 23, 2008 [2 favorites]


there is a very powerful arguement that sometimes non-locally grown food is the better choice for the environment.

Yes. Sometimes.

It's the kind of thing you have to calculate product by product, which is why store buyers need to make the right decisions and store managers need to organize stores properly. If a store were stocked with only good (organic, local, etc.) products, you could buy anything in the shop without scanning the labels for country of origin and so on. And if the store made a separate aisle (or red price sign) for stuff that is borderline but perhaps acceptable in limited quantities, you would be able to decide on the fly whether you really need the kumquats flown in from Kumquatistan.
posted by pracowity at 8:48 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


the guardian article is a fatuous bit of food-industry PR constructed mostly of straw-man arguments and misleading pseudo-statistical B.S.

I completely agree. I went over some of these point with my ever-increasingly locavore spouse. She agreed with me that these were specious arguments, and we reckon they come from the food-industry PR machine. Of course since she is not only a locavore, and a vegetarian, AND buys almost exclusively organic food, it pretty much invalidates the first of their straw-man arguments.

And yes, if you live in some frozen wasteland like Canada, you are going to have issues with this. Apparently though, it is possible to do, as there didn't used to be flights of "fresh" South American fruit to last you through the winter. Move somewhere more hospitable or cool it with the attitude.
posted by Windopaene at 8:53 AM on March 23, 2008


Meat isn't my issue. Provenance is. Healthy farming can include livestock to great productive benefit. Their waste is a world better than a petroleum fertilizer. Chickens will keep your garden bug free and fertilize it for you as a thank you. Pigs can consume most of the waste a farm can produce. There is a place for livestock in sustainable agriculture.

One other issue not mentioned yet is scale. Gardening is about as local as it gets. It is a simple and healthy practice. And add composting and maybe a few chickens to that and you've reduced your carbon surplus to a debt. Without giving up variety or your car. Sure, those in more urban landscapes will have trouble with chickens, but if you've got a window or roof, or are near a community garden, you can grow your own.

And CSAs and Michael Pollan and yadayadayada.

Spring is coming. Start a flat.
posted by Toekneesan at 9:08 AM on March 23, 2008


As a canadian expat I was always aware that the locavore movement was stupid. What are we supposed to do for the winter half of the year? Eat melted snow and cured meat?

Wait, you only do that in the winter?
posted by lukemeister at 9:09 AM on March 23, 2008


I read this at first as loca + vore.

I was surprised when the rest of the post seemed to be dead serious.
posted by lostburner at 9:15 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm waiting for my copy of Paul Robert's The End Of Food (Amazon says it will be released June 4).
posted by acro at 9:26 AM on March 23, 2008


I completely agree. I went over some of these point with my ever-increasingly locavore spouse. She agreed with me that these were specious arguments, and we reckon they come from the food-industry PR machine. Of course since she is not only a locavore, and a vegetarian, AND buys almost exclusively organic food, it pretty much invalidates the first of their straw-man arguments.


You talked to your wife? And she agreed with you? Well that settles it then. You can't beat that kind of local reasoning.
posted by srboisvert at 9:26 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


I did make the post to sneer at anyone.
I don't see much thoughtful discussion of the points that the article makes, just rants.
"Facetious," you want to explain your comment "the guardian article is a fatuous bit of food-industry PR constructed mostly of straw-man arguments and misleading pseudo-statistical B.S." or are we just doing "truth by assertion" here?
posted by cogneuro at 9:29 AM on March 23, 2008


I did make the post to sneer at anyone.

cogneuro, I should have added that I didn't think you personally meant neener neener neener, but that you were simply reporting it as a backlash phenomenon. Should have put it in my original response. My apologies.
posted by nax at 9:36 AM on March 23, 2008


cogneuro:

nope, i don't want to explain it. it's obvious. i only mentioned it so that i didn't have to have a stain on my soul from reading such drivel and not saying something. more of a 'cri de coeur,' really.

it has motivated me, though, to get out there and dig, and to empower myself with knowledge. and it's gotten me way psyched up for a delicious spring/summer season. and for that i am genuinely grateful.
posted by facetious at 9:44 AM on March 23, 2008


cogneuro:

also, i want to say i'm not trying to jag on you or insult you in any way shape or form. truly. i just can't stand reading that kind of stuff. rubs the old critical thinking knob the wrong way.
posted by facetious at 9:47 AM on March 23, 2008


I do believe that buying locally can be better for the environment and stimulates the local environment. I, too, read The Omnivore's Dillemma so I feel relatively informed on the subject of eating smart and I do shop at the local farmers' market, etc.
However, I've always thought of them flying over huge shipments of food to be not as evil as some make it out to be. It's like a bus. Yeah, the bus is huge and might take a lot of gas and emit some pollutants, but it holds 40 people who are in that one bus instead of in 40 cars.
That one plane is holding tons and tons of food. And if those tons upon tons of food were all grown in an environmentally conscious manner (like the Kenyan green beans example), you have to figure out whether that one plane's carbon footprint is larger than if those tons upon tons of green beans had been grown locally with petrochemicals.
Anyway, I'm not an expert, but just something I've thought about. Could be wrong.
posted by fructose at 10:00 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


I read this at first as loca + vore.

Exactly -- those who eat crazy women. What's not to like?
posted by msalt at 10:15 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


So the northern Canadian winter conundrum is probably actually a choice between eating fresh produce/fruit shipped from ridiculously far away or eating the canned/preserved local equivalent. Given the resources involved in canning vs. shipping, how does one make the ecological footprint analysis?

Also, I try to be a 'locavore' (not CRAZYPEOPLECANNIBALIST) not so much for ecological reasons, as for gustatory enjoyment. I can enjoy fresh fruit picked locally at the peak of ripeness and flavor, instead of fruit that is picked one or two weeks before peak ripeness, and which will never develop the flavor or perfume of full ripeness.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:17 AM on March 23, 2008


On the other hoof... it is reasonably easy, with a small outlay for equipment and time, to do your own canning. And getting a chest freezer to put up vegetables in is one of the best investments I've ever made. Local eating year round.

Oh, and Kale will grow anywhere. Yes, even in frozen tundra.

So, canada CAN get green veg in the dead of winter.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 10:49 AM on March 23, 2008


Given the resources involved in canning vs. shipping, how does one make the ecological footprint analysis

You don't make the analysis. Everybody analysing every possible outcome to death, and prognosticating based on faulty or questionable assumptions is why nothing gets done. Common sense folks. Common sense says that eating canned fruit from local orchards, while not as yummy, is certainly the better choice.

Which brings up the piece that is almost always left out the discussion. So often we acknowledge that we know what to do-- buy the EE car, use the EE light bulbs, buy locally, grow your own, ride a bike, whatever-- but you want fresh fruit in the winter, and it's too cold to ride the bike, and the bus never comes, blahblahblah. Fixing the world is going to take sacrifice, and really, not eating fresh tomatoes in February is not a huge sacrifice folks.
posted by nax at 10:51 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


The best argument for eating locally, I think, is that it keeps economic and infrastructural connections between cities and surrounding food producers strong. That way, when the shit hits the fan, it will be a lot easier to secure a food supply--whereas cities that are dependent on faraway imports will be facing large-scale food riots and starvation when the distribution chain is disrupted.
posted by nasreddin at 11:05 AM on March 23, 2008 [2 favorites]


You don't make the analysis. Everybody analysing every possible outcome to death, and prognosticating based on faulty or questionable assumptions is why nothing gets done. Common sense folks. Common sense says that eating canned fruit from local orchards, while not as yummy, is certainly the better choice.

That may be common but it sure as hell ain't sense.
posted by srboisvert at 11:16 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


> And if those tons upon tons of food were all grown in an environmentally conscious manner ... you have to figure out whether that one plane's carbon footprint is larger than if those tons upon tons of green beans had been grown locally with petrochemicals.

That's valid, but I think it's a bit of a false dilemma. In many cases, the choice is the opposite: food grown with petrochemicals thousands of miles away, brought in using more petrochemicals, versus food grown both locally and with far less artificial fertilizer. Often it's just a matter of where you go to get your food (farmers' market versus mega-mart) and being willing to pay slightly more to overcome the lack of economies-of-scale.

In many cases I think the apparent economies of scale from mega-farms, particularly concentrated animal-raising operations (CAFOs), are due in large part to their externalization of costs on the public. If we regulated CAFOs and modern fertilizer-intensive farms as tightly as we do chemical plants -- and really there's no reason not to, since the runoff from an over-fertilized farm is no less toxic and environmentally damaging than a lot of what's produced in chemical plants (it's a little perverse that the plants producing the fertilizer have more stringent environmental requirements than the people who are dumping those chemicals onto the ground) -- and required them to pay for the environmental damage that they do and emissions they produce, I suspect that cleaner, smaller-scale operations would start to be more competitive.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure that "cheap food" as a public-policy goal is a really great idea. Preventing shortages and famine is one thing, but providing trillions of dollars in distortive, environmentally unsound and cruelty-inducing subsidies to ensure that we can buy a double cheeseburger at McD's for $1 seems like a pretty terrible waste of resources.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:47 AM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


I really like my $1 double cheeseburgers though. Really.

Okay, I guess, I understand the locavore impulse, but people are still going (and many time rightfully) going to eat foods that are just flat-out impossible to grow locally.

I really dig bananas. I can't move to Hawaii to make my banana dreams come true. I suppose the same is true of delicious beef, pork, artichokes, and yams. I can consider where they come from, but asking me to cut them out of my diet isn't going to get very far. In fact, I consider the widespread access to foods from across the world to be a good thing, not a bad thing.

Maybe I'm just selfish (I am), but my belly comes before the planet any day of the week.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 2:44 PM on March 23, 2008


Maybe I'm just selfish, but my belly comes before the planet any day of the week.

And there's the problem in a nutshell, folks.
posted by nax at 3:02 PM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


thanks to everyone upthread for pointing out how dumb that article was! when the author has to create a fictional community to backlash against, they should probably just find a real topic instead. these fictional folks are like the junkies on pulp novel covers: he wanted local produce AT ALL COSTS....and would stop at nothing to get it!
posted by snofoam at 3:07 PM on March 23, 2008


Wait -- an article suggests that we analyze carefully the ideas behind an environmentally conscious movement and evaluate how best to consume and save the earth at the same time and clearly it's a piece of corporate propoganda we shouldn't believe? If the locavore movement were restricted to buying locally-made goods at farms that don't use tractors or oil-based fertilizers, then yeah, no argument. But otherwise? It's worth taking a closer look at the assumptions we make about what really helps.

Before I switched entirely to reusable bags, I always chose plastic (and recycled it, thank you) after reading stuff like this and this. Sometimes, common sense requires some altering upon further analysis. Perhaps the locavore movement is just one of those circumstances.
posted by incessant at 4:27 PM on March 23, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'll second what nasreddin said. It keeps alive the potential to produce local food. Particularly, it keeps the necessary land available. In my area, farmers are selling land to developers because they can't make money farming. That land is now housing. This is hard to reverse. But it's being slowed by people who eat locally, which raises demand for local food in exactly those places where real estate prices are high.

Here are two more pieces of "thoughtful discussion." First, something grown locally can be harvested either by tractor or by hand, just like something grown in Africa. The fact that the field is near San Francisco does not force tractor use. So saying local food is bad because local farmers do other bad things is not logical. It's guilt by correlation (not causation). Why not instead pressure local farmers to hire laborers for the harvest?

Also, the details cited are changeable. It is easier to change them than to replace an entirely lost local food economy. My greenhouse's carbon emissions may be higher or lower dependeing on whether it is heated by natural gas or wind power or livestock. But those things are not that hard to change. In contrast, a culture of eating locally, a local workforce trained in food production, physical infrastructure, a local economic supply chain, and available fertile agricultural land all take much more time to develop.

But this article wants to throw into question whether developing or protecting all of that is worth it ... based on persnickety number-crunching ("oh now you've stored the apples eight months instead of seven") and experts who say "the concept of food miles is unhelpful and stupid"? (No, your concepts are stupid!) My take: the article is a statistically pretentious attempt to undercut something that is significant far beyond carbon use.

Yes, "local" is not a perfect indicator for "low carbon use." (It does nearly guarantee that airplane fuel carbon is lower.) To me, that's of secondary importance. The movement is also working to raise people's concern for local landscapes and their attunement to the place they live. It hopes to encourage diversification of unique local food cultures. It resists anonymous consumerism by encouraging people to know about or even produce their own nourishment and resists global homogeneity by making the local climate and soil matter again.

And these scientist think it's "stupid" based on a spreadsheet calculation? Some people actually like having where they live matter, or having it matter what season it is. Some people like having actually seen the place their food comes from. Other people believe changes like this -- an increased sense of "what makes sense for this ecosystem?" and "how can we produce what we need in our local community?" and "how should our local culture be adapted to this place in particular?" and "what natural resources do I personally depend on?" -- are changes that we should be cultivating in all sectors, not just food.
posted by salvia at 9:04 PM on March 23, 2008 [4 favorites]


Common sense says that...

Your version of common sense seems to be the one where you want to make an assumption and not validate it. You think there's no carbon footprint for preserving equipment + reducing your preserves + boiling water on the stove + paraffin and other canning supplies + refined sugar? I don't know where that stands up compared to shipping your produce from Chile or Mexico to Canada, but I know I can't just assume that the analysis is not worth doing. Frankly I get extremely pissed off when knee-jerk environmentalists (as opposed to rational environmentalists) start advocating for a way of life when they are too lazy to do the math and/or research to back up their point. I'd rather not add another environmental fallacy to the ones that have already screwed up America and increased our fossil fuel dependency ( anti-nuclear, slow diesel adoption, pressure to implement CAFE standards on passenger vehicles while leaving a truck loophole).

Also, I think the best environmentalism is when you analyze the descrepancy between an items fiscal cost and its environmental costs and implement tariffs or pigovian taxes to bring them in line. Then you don't need everyone to be an environmental engineer to save the world from global warming, you just have everyone vote with their wallet.
posted by BrotherCaine at 9:57 PM on March 23, 2008


you just have everyone vote with their wallet.

I also like this idea, but, unfortunately, people already vote with their wallets: they vote for the idiot who promises them less government funding for public programs (lower taxes) and more "freedom" (to cause long-term damage for short-term gain).

You have to sell environmentalism piece by piece, as a series of great and independent products that benefit the individual immediately, as things that will give any dumbass instant gratification. It's like trying to reason with Homer Simpson -- you have to keep positioning the box of doughnuts on the environmental side.

For example, wild areas filter the local air and water. You have to sell them as ready made, construction-free, maintenance-free, self-renewing, lifetime-guarantee, noiseless, odorless air and water filtration plants for the local community. Tell them how many million dollars in taxes it would cost to build a big, ugly industrial plant that would do the same things for you. Tell them that if that green space next door becomes another built-up area, you're going to be coughing more often, cleaning your windows more often, washing your car more often, and painting your house more often. Your kids will get sick more often and stay home from school more often, and you'll be buying them the medicine. The traffic past your house will increase, as will the accident and crime rates. Your houses and cars will be broken into more often and your insurances rates will go up. [And don't mention saving the damned owls or whatever, which will just flick an anti-environmentalist switch in a lot of easily switched heads.] I don't have any sources for these claims, of course; I'm just spouting them off the top of my head (save the whale!) as possible approaches.
posted by pracowity at 2:09 AM on March 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


Your version of common sense seems to be the one where you want to make an assumption and not validate it

Brother Caine, How is it any different from choosing to believe one article over another ("I like your assumptions, I don't like that other guy's"). I'm not a scientist, I cannot "validate" every assumption by holding my own study, and I have to rely on what I read. I have been more convinced by the local food movement (among other things), *because* it validates what "common sense" tells me. (see salvia's response, which says it better than I apparently can.) This is far different from choosing, for instance, to eat bananas simply because "my belly comes before the planet any day of the week."

I am not opposed to gathering information and acting on it in an intelligent way. What I'm opposed to is accepting every single oppositionary article as equally true--local good, no local bad! food miles true, no food miles false!--and allowing it to paralyse me, or allowing it to validate making no choice because "I'm still gathering information." It's a paradox-- you cannot deliberately choose an individual action specifically to affect a societal outcome, yet individual actions are what accumulate to affect societal outcomes. If we allow ourselves to be paralyzed because we give every opposing viewpoint equal weight then nothing changes. Perhaps my "common sense" approach is naive, or maybe I'm just using the term poorly, but at least I have made choices, and chosen to act in certain ways that I hope will affect our planet in a positive way.
posted by nax at 4:42 AM on March 24, 2008 [1 favorite]


(Rewrites previous post that was lost in the maelstrom)

I apologize for my previous tongue-in-cheek comment, which came off pretty flippant and dismissive of the movement. I also have little room to critique as I cannot myself participate in the locovore lifestyle (I can only eat given meals or at restaurants and do not have a kitchen). I applaud what the movement is trying to accomplish and would likewise commend other aspects than reducing carbon footprints: uniting communities, (sometimes) healthier food, and an emphasis on local traditions and cultures. In fact, while on vacation in Barcelona, I fondly remember going down to the local market each day and picking up fresh meats, eggs, fruits, and cheeses and taking them back to my flat's kitchen. Simply delightful. So, if you want to (and can) go locovore, power to you. Perhaps I'll join you some day.

However, not everything works out like that. Some people (like myself) access food due to the nature of their careers in different ways which is unavoidable. Some don't have the access to local markets in their area. And some live in places where the natural food (especially seasonally) is unpalatable. Instead of changing where we live or work (mass exodus from Canada to the Bahamas), we should instead work on improving the efficiency and reducing the waste of food transport. Perhaps it's more viable to ship New Zealand apples across the world at reduced waste so that everyone can eat them all year around!

Isn't that a goal worth striving for? Wouldn't it be great if we could all enjoy both local foods and the exotic foods like bananas, buffalo, and dates?

There seemed to be almost a moral imperative with the food movement described in this thread, that if somehow transport costs were reduced to zero, that it would still be wrong. I'm probably misrepresenting, so I shall chalk up that perception to a mistake on my part. If you think you can live off the land and love it, that's great! If you think you can make already existing infrastructure better, even better for everybody. But people get ancy when you take away their bananas and cheeseburgers.

(Is say this as someone who has butchered their own chickens and drank goat's milk most of their life. However, the ability to get a cheeseburger is still a plus.)
posted by Lord Chancellor at 12:41 PM on March 24, 2008


Nax, thanks for restating yourself. I pretty much agree with you. Especially:
If we allow ourselves to be paralyzed because we give every opposing viewpoint equal weight then nothing changes. I do make what environmental choices I can, especially eating locally, and trying to avoid meat from concentrated feeding operations. However, I often feel like my environmental efforts may not be doing the good that I wish they were. Especially when it's some trendy environmental movement that the science hasn't weighed in on.

For example, I'm not sure if I should bother washing and seperating type 3-7 plastics for recycling. As far as I know, they aren't recycled or incinerated in my community, and wasting water and energy to clean them isn't helping anything. I'm also pretty sure that any efforts I make to save energy are mostly just dropping the cost slightly so that someone in our interlinked economy can afford to waste more.

There are people making the kind of environmental analysis that I'd like to see, but it seems hard to find in the noise of propaganda and counter-propaganda out there.
Newspaper media seems to do a poor job of science reporting in it's efforts to get sound-bites out there. I'd like to find some kind of blog with the credibility of nature or consumer reports that covered environmental issues.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:38 AM on March 25, 2008


*its* efforts
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:38 AM on March 25, 2008


Exactly. I was framing an answer that would have gone on and one in its brilliance, eloquence, and cogency, but, um. What you said.
posted by nax at 5:05 AM on March 25, 2008


« Older If you were a North American kid (well, a kid stuc...  |  With Comcast, your TV watches ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments