首页> 外文期刊>Environmental & Resource Economics >Is Local Food More Environmentally Friendly?The GHG Emissions Impacts of Consuming Imported versus Domestically Produced Food
【24h】

Is Local Food More Environmentally Friendly?The GHG Emissions Impacts of Consuming Imported versus Domestically Produced Food

机译:当地食品对环境是否更友好?食用进口食品还是国产食品的温室气体排放影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

With the increased interest in the 'carbon footprint' of global economic activities, civil society, governments and the private sector are calling into question the wisdom of transporting food products across continents instead of consuming locally produced food. While the proposition that local consumption will reduce one's carbon footprint may seem obvious at first glance, this conclusion is not at all clear when one considers that the economic emissions intensity of food production varies widely across regions. In this paper we concentrate on the tradeoff between production and transport emissions reductions by testing the following hypothesis: Substitution of domestic for imported food will reduce the direct and indirect Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions associated with consumption. We focus on ruminant livestock since it has the highest emissions intensity across food sectors, but we also consider other food products as well, and alternately perturb the mix of domestic and imported food products by a marginal (equal) amount. We then compare the emissions associated with each of these consumption changes in order to compute a marginal emissions intensity of local food consumption, by country and product. The variations in regional ruminant emissions intensities have profound implications for the food miles debate. While shifting consumption patterns in wealthy countries from imported to domestic livestock products reduces GHG emissions associated with international trade and transport activity, we find that these transport emissions reductions are swamped by changes in global emissions due to differences in GHG emissions intensities of production. Therefore, diverting consumption to local goods only reduces global emissions when undertaken in regions with relatively low emissions intensities. For non-ruminant products, the story is more nuanced. Transport costs are more important in the case of dairy products and vegetable oils. Overall, domestic emissions intensities are the dominant part of the food miles story in about 90 % of the country/commodity cases examined here.
机译:随着人们对全球经济活动“碳足迹”的兴趣日益浓厚,民间社会,政府和私营部门正在质疑跨大洲运输食品而不是消费本地生产的食品的智慧。乍看之下,本地消费会减少一个人的碳足迹的主张似乎很明显,但当人们认为食品生产的经济排放强度在各个地区之间差异很大时,这个结论就根本不清楚。在本文中,我们通过检验以下假设,集中在减少生产量和减少运输量之间的权衡:用进口食品替代国内食品将减少与消费相关的直接和间接温室气体(GHG)排放。由于反刍牲畜的排放强度在整个食品部门中最高,因此我们将重点放在反刍牲畜上,但我们也考虑其他粮食产品,并以少量(相等)数量来扰乱国内和进口粮食产品的混合。然后,我们比较与每种消费变化相关的排放量,以按国家和产品计算当地食品消费的边际排放强度。区域反刍动物排放强度的变化对食物里程辩论产生了深远的影响。虽然富裕国家的消费方式从进口畜牧产品转移到国内牲畜产品可以减少与国际贸易和运输活动相关的温室气体排放,但我们发现,由于生产温室气体排放强度的差异,这些排放量的减少被全球排放量的变化所淹没。因此,当在排放强度相对较低的地区进行消费时,将消费转向本地商品只会减少全球排放。对于非反刍动物产品,故事更加细微。对于乳制品和植物油,运输成本更为重要。总体而言,在这里调查的大约90%的国家/商品案例中,国内排放强度是食品里程故事的主要部分。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号