Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Eating locally would only have a significant impact if transport was responsible for a large share of food’s final carbon footprint. For most foods, this is not the case.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation make up a very small amount of the emissions from food, and what you eat is far more important than where your food traveled from.
For most foods — and particularly the largest emitters — most GHG emissions result from land use change (shown in green) and from processes at the farm stage (brown). Farm-stage emissions include processes such as the application of fertilizers — both organic (“manure management”) and synthetic; and enteric fermentation (the production of methane in the stomachs of cattle). Combined, land use and farm-stage emissions account for more than 80% of the footprint for most foods.
Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.
For many years after I retired I didn't drive at all. I could go a month without using the car. Really was proud of myself for saving the planet.
Then my health went to hell. I'm always driving to the doctor, and eating a lot of beef (anemic). I'm actually tired of eating beef. But the other option is transfusions, so carbon footprint be damned.
Give me a couple of years and I'll show how to reduce carbon footprint. It's not going to look pretty thought.
But as others have said, how much carbon footprint does Bezos yacht have?
This is my conclusion as well.
I am conscientious about what I use/buy/eat, preferring local products even if they cost a bit more. I like walking and public transport is super convenient.
As long as I'm not buying Nestlé (as much as I can, I'm still surprised by finding Nestlé products). Fuck Nestlé