• @azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
    34•1 year ago

    I’ve seen this argument pushed unironically, and quite convincingly.

    It of course depends on a lot of factors, and GHG emissions are not the only concern, but “short-circuit” consumption can (apparently, I did not run the numbers myself and read this a few years ago) emit much more CO2 than importing food from far away… simply because driving a car for 10 km to a farm for a bag of apples (or whatever) is a LOT worse per apple than the traditional container-on-ship->container-on-rail->semi-truck->local store supply chain which has a few times the fuel consumption of a car… but multiple orders of magnitude more cargo.
    This is in reality not so much a dig on short-circuit consumption, which is obviously overall good, than a dig at how polluting cars are, even compared to cargo ships whose emissions we intuitively over-estimate. Still, it has stuck with me as a good example of the complexity of making a life-cycle emissions assessment.

    Modern globalized economies are also often criticized to have gone too far into economies of scale, making them very brittle… as we saw in 2020/2021, as farmers re-discover every time one illness destroys an entire country’s mono-culture, and as we fear we may discover soon with TSMC.
    Furthermore almost every country (even very economically liberal ones like the US) heavily subsidizes their local agricultural sector to shield them from foreign competition, as it is of the utmost national security importance that a blockade on agricultural imports could not result in widespread famine.

    • @Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      7•1 year ago

      simply because driving a car for 10 km to a farm for a bag of apples (or whatever) is a LOT worse per apple than the traditional container-on-ship->container-on-rail->semi-truck->local store supply chain which has a few times the fuel consumption of a car

      Uh. Do you think those semi trucks are bringing apples right into people’s homes? Guess how far the grocery store is from people’s houses lmao

      That argument only works if every citizen in the country lives in high density, transit enabled city cores.

      • @azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        21•1 year ago

        IIRC the hypothetical scenario assumed you had a supermarket on your side of town (say 1 km) but had to to on the other side of town to get to a local farm (say 10-15 km). As a suburbanite this seems quite reasonable to me on both fronts.

      • @KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        12•1 year ago

        Or in a small walkable town. They exist. You don’t need a 100,000 people city to have easy access to apples.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
    22•1 year ago

    Increased productivity could do those things, but instead it just increases the wealth of the wealthy, and the suffering of everyone else.

    • Patapon Enjoyer
      7•1 year ago

      Does a straw man that only speaks for things that don’t speak for themselves speak for themself?

      • @pseudonym
        2•1 year ago

        Ah, a Russell’s Paradox joke. This is the kind of quality content I come to Lemmy for ⭐

  • FunkyMonk
    7•1 year ago

    Anything anything, just don’t make -me- deal with the rich.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺
        12•1 year ago

        I mean the economic arguement is sound. The problem is that capitalism remains on an imperative of full time employment of many for the insane wealth of a few, instead of distributing the productivity gained among all people to enjoy a better life.

        Bonus points for having the same product from the same factory in different packages at different prices, because people were brainwashed into identifying themselves with certain brands.