Hannah Ritchie of Our World In Data has published a chart illustrating where carbon costs of food production are highest, based on food type:
As it says in small print on the right side, just above the Beef line, “Transport emissions are very small for most food products.” In fact, once the food is off the farm, carbon costs drop:
Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions.
This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.
Not incidentally, beef production appears to be the most pernicious food to grow:
The most important insight from this study: there are massive differences in the GHG emissions of different foods: producing a kilogram of beef emits 60 kilograms of greenhouse gases (CO2-equivalents). While peas emits just 1 kilogram per kg.
Overall, animal-based foods tend to have a higher footprint than plant-based. Lamb and cheese both emit more than 20 kilograms CO2-equivalents per kilogram. Poultry and pork have lower footprints but are still higher than most plant-based foods, at 6 and 7 kg CO2-equivalents, respectively.
Too bad for me – I like most meats, with the exception of sea-food. The fish thank me for the dislike. But at least Ritchie clarifies how to reduce your carbon footprint:
So, if you want to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, avoid air-freighted foods where you can. But beyond this, you can have a larger difference by focusing on what you eat, rather than ‘eating local’. Eating less meat and dairy, or switching from ruminant meat to chicken, pork, or plant-based alternatives will reduce your footprint by much more.
Or find a way to induce allergies to ruminant meat.
