The WWF is run at a local level by the following offices...
- WWF Global
- Adria
- Argentina
- Armenia
- AsiaPacific
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Belgium
- Bhutan
- Bolivia
- Borneo
- Brazil
- Bulgaria
- Cambodia
- Cameroon
- Canada
- Caucasus
- Central African Republic
- Central America
- Chile
- China
- Colombia
- Croatia
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Denmark
- Ecuador
- European Policy Office
- Finland
Our News
Logging Food Miles for the Climate
As if the climate-sensitive masses didn't have enough green guilt on their plates these days, with humans spewing more carbon into the atmosphere now than ever before, recent studies have shown that “food miles” can rack up quite a number on one's eco-odometer. This is particularly intriguing for Hong Kong—a city that boasts some of the best cuisines in the world from almost every corner of the globe.
But reducing food miles is proving to be a mind-teaser even for the most dogmatic of carbon neutral devotees—which leaves climate-saving neophytes, who are just warming up to the carbon footprint concept, utterly flummoxed when seeking out a carbon-light meal.
Food miles, as defined in wikipedia, is a term that refers to “the distance food travels from the time of its production until it reaches the consumer, and is one dimension used in assessing the environmental impact of food.” And in Hong Kong—an urban metropolis of nearly 7 million, with more than a handful of international palettes enjoying the imported foodstuffs that comprise 95 percent of the city's total consumed food —the collective culinary carbon footprint could be enough to make even notorious climate change skeptic Bjorn Lomborg blush.
But don't trade in your pricey head of US organic cauliflower for local greens quite yet. With big-box retailers Wal-Mart and Tesco taking on the onerous task of carbon labeling products, and European greenies rallying for a food miles labeling system, evaluating the carbon footprint of food is proving to be a hotly contested debate. And it's fast become obvious that carbon emissions go well beyond the distance food travels from farm to plate.
Professor Tim Lang of London's City University, who is credited with introducing the buzzword in question, says “the point was to highlight the hidden ecological, social and economic consequences of food production to consumers in a simple way, one which had objective reality but also connotations.” In line with this more well-rounded definition of food miles, scientists from Lincoln University in New Zealand sought to expand the equation for food's carbon footprint beyond mere miles to the actual life-cycle of food, analyzing “external” factors such as water requirements, harvesting techniques, renewable energy applications, methods of transport and types of fuel used, the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed during photosynthesis, waste generated through packaging, storage procedures and so on to infinitum, or so it seems.
Food mile skeptics in New Zealand, no doubt egged on by the threat that food miles labeling poses to their exported food markets, have glommed onto Lincoln University's study, and put forth what is now an iconic food miles debate by pointing to the University's finding that clover-fed kiwi lamb, shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produce 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton, whereas their British counterparts, who grow fat on feed rather than bucolic pastures, produce 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton. So in this case, it would appear that the choice is New Zealand lamb for carbon-aware Brits—or maybe not. Proponents of the buy-local movement have countered the New Zealand study saying that organic lamb raised on small farms and transported negligible distances in the UK is by far the best answer when it comes to climate savings.
And so the debate rages on—is it better to buy imported foodstuffs from impoverished Africans, who tread significantly lighter than gastronomes from developed countries, and are therefore perhaps entitled to bigger export emissions? Or is it more eco-savvy to go local, rather than rack up food "air miles," even though delivery methods can be inefficient and by some calculations even more carbon-costly? And what about imported organic goods—have all those pesticide and health conscious zealots been duped in their efforts to boycott Monsanto for the environment? It seems that only time will tell—and for now it may be enough to bravely dive headfirst into the debate to further shed light on the concept of food miles, and in doing so give the carbon footprint movement some good PR.
In the meantime here are a few suggestions to keep your plate carbon light:
Cut down on meat consumption. According to a report published last year by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the global livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transport.
Buy food in season, that doesn't require the greenhouse heating that off-season produce does.
Walk or take public transport to buy groceries rather than drive, as miles to and fro the supermarket can quickly add up.
Buy food with zero, or minimal packaging and consider composting your foodwaste. And buy only what you will eat!
Try out your green thumb and grow your own food! If you live in an apartment consider growing your own herbs on the windowsill.
Buy local, organic produce when it's available, especially from nearby farms - according to Martin Cottingham of the UK's Soil Association, organic farming cuts down on the fossil fuels used to manufacture and transport the chemicals used in mainstream agriculture. You can get information on local, organic produce in Hong Kong from the Hong Kong Organic Farming Association's website.
Click here to find other carbon saving tips. In the meantime keep your ear to ground for our exploration what we can do about the food issues in Hong Kong!
Pua Mench