On the other hand, it is extremely disingenuous to assert that buying/eating locally is fundamentally harmful to the environment across the board, as the closing graf of this post states unequivocally.

I do understand the emissions-to-weight ratio of the anti food-miles argument, but this is just as flawed an approach as the original food-miles rule of thumb. The emissions-to-weight ratio implies that GHG emissions shrink as a function of increased weight and distance shipping, such that there comes a point when enough food has been shipped long enough distances that GHGs are actually removed from the atmosphere. This is clearly absurd.

Ultimately, the atmosphere simply cannot absorb ANY further GHG emissions without catastrophic climate consequences. Shipping ANYTHING halfway around the world contributes countless tons of GHGs to the problem, regardless of how few tons those may be compared with anyone else. Planet Earth is going down in flames; decreasing the number of matches one throws on the fire is not helpful.

Relocalizing food production ó ALL aspects of food production, including local production of renewable fuels, recycling everything possible, and relearning to eat seasonally ó is a major step in the right direction, not only because of the reduced GHGs that result from reduced transport, but because it would give population centers a chance to reach some level of homeostasis with local ecosystems. I don’t see why any national food brand can’t create local and regional supply chains utilizing low-emissions inland transportation like rail and river barge. That would go a lot further toward reducing GHG emissions than replacing a continent-wide trucking scheme with an additional 8,000 miles of ocean freight.

A final note ó the concept of “food miles” originated among the peak oil crowd and was co-opted by environmentalists. It was never intended to address carbon emissions. Originally, “food miles” was used as a rule of thumb to determine a community’s food insecurity in the face of escalating fuel costs. The logic was that the further a food item had to travel to get to the grocery store shelves, the likelihood of its disappearance increased along with fuel prices. Turns out, the peak oil crowd was right, regardless of whether shipping food long distance equates to fewer GHG emissions or not.

Fiji Water’s attempts to project a green image is nothing short of hilarious.

I sticking to my guns on increased CO2 concentration being good for the planet. (Not insane levels, but an increase to what we have today)

Better yet…
Sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, ideallllllly from your packing plants, convert it to dry ice and sell half for carbon credits and sink the other half deep into the ocean, combating both global warming both directly, through lowering ocean water temperatures, and through atmospheric CO2 removal!

Yes Fiji, I will gladly do PR work for you.