The headline on this item is: "Global food trade 'not hurting climate'" and purports to be saying that the envirnmental costs of trucking and flying food around are negligible. However what it appears actually to be saying is: "Calculating the environmental impact of food shopping in monetary terms, the report found that the environmental cost of a person's typical weekly expenditure of �24.79 was �2.91."
In other words it's not the environmental impact that is calculated but the monetary cost of that impact. Fair enough in one sense but at over 10% of the price ... and that is given that "the environmental impact of global food miles was "trivial", as most people's weekly shop comprised food grown in the UK or elsewhere in Europe". I'm sorry it doesn't wash: they can't be serious that all that freighting is something we wouldn't be better without in environmental terms... without the whole report it's hard to tell but it is suspicious and 10%+ isn't negligible: heck it's more than a lot of producers get for growing the food!
FT.com / World / UK - Global food trade 'not hurting climate':
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Retelling atonement forgiveness centred (10)
After quite a while, I return to this consideration because Richard Beck wrote a very interesting blog post about forgiveness. It's prov...
-
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
Unexpected (and sorry, it's from Friday -but I was a bit busy the end of last week), but I'm really pleased for the city which I sti...
No comments:
Post a Comment