[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

3% of carbon from shipping is nothing compared to 25% of all carbon that goes into food production. We should optimize for the most efficient locations to produce food. Container shipping is extremely efficient by weight. Getting food from the warehouse to your local store and then back to your house in your car can be more carbon intensive than an intercontinental container trip for a food item.

That's bit of a bum argument. Most sources of emissions pale in comparison to transportation, which is the single biggest source of emissions. The whole food production industry is only about 10% of emissions.

Here's an analysis on how New Zealand lamb may be less carbon intensive for people in the UK to eat than UK produced lamb:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...onment-2240702

An interesting tidbit form this article that seems to counter the base argument many on here are making:

Researchers said the style of farming in New Zealand is considered to be less intensive than in Britain because of the large areas of land.

This points to the efficiency of large farms.

At the end of the day, it seems that we should be eating things that can be produced efficiently locally and not importing. If X product can be produced more efficiently somewhere else, then the solution would be to look for a more efficient local product and stop eating so much of X product.