How correct are carbon measurements for goods and services? That is what is confusing most buyers today. As their concerns about food miles made them switch to local organic food, they did not take into account the vast amount of energy used by greenhouses to grow this organic produce.
Probably much more than the food miles of imported produce, which comparatively caused less damage to the environment. In many situations, the worst damage to the environment happens during the processing procedure of food.
So now, we there is talk about the ecological footprint analysis. This measures a food’s impact in “global hectares”, the notional land area needed to provide the resources to produce it.
Most conscious should probably go in for eco-diets. Presented on a sliding scale they only allowed foods with a footprint of less than 0.006 global hectares per kilogramme in the first diet, then 0.004 in the second and finally 0.002.
The researchers also looked at the footprint of an organic diet versus a non-organic diet and found that switching to organic brought a 22.9% reduction in the food footprint. However, they said these findings were offset somewhat by the 31.2% increase in cost to the consumer.
What if along with high prices corruption becomes rampant in these very carbon footprint labels? The bottom-line for the layman means that in real terms to reduce your carbon footprint, eat seasonally, locally, and limit the amount of meat in your diet.
Source: Guardian
