387 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Here's a couple authors that make sense:

Today’s food activists think that “sustainable farming” and “eating local” are the way to solve a host of perceived problems with our modern food supply system. But after a thorough review of the evidence, Pierre Desrochers and Hiroko Shimizu have concluded that these claims are mistaken.

In The Locavore’s Dilemma they explain the history, science, and economics of food supply to reveal what locavores miss or misunderstand: the real environmental impacts of agricultural production; the drudgery of subsistence farming; and the essential role large-scale, industrial producers play in making food more available, varied, affordable, and nutritionally rich than ever before in history.

They show how eliminating agriculture subsidies and opening up international trade, not reducing food miles, is the real route to sustainability; and why eating globally, not only locally, is the way to save the planet.

http://www.thebukows...om/Locavore.htm

[jklymak]

^ I think I agree with much of that. However, I think it should be rolled in with more carbon taxes to pay for the externalities of carbon usage. Carbon taxes would compensate society for long distance hauling of produce, and also for excessive use of greenhouses. I doubt it would be to the benefit of small local farmers, though.

[Bernard]

^ I think I agree with much of that. However, I think it should be rolled in with more carbon taxes to pay for the externalities of carbon usage. Carbon taxes would compensate society for long distance hauling of produce, and also for excessive use of greenhouses. I doubt it would be to the benefit of small local farmers, though.

The transport carbon footprint of produce at Fairway or Thrifty comes mainly from the people driving to the store to shop there.

One pound of strawberries from California will have a transport CO2 footprint of about 7 to 10 grams to get to the store. A trip to the store and back in a minivan will have a CO2 consumption of around 500 to 1000 grams of CO2. You would need to buy about 100 pounds of groceries to reduce the impact of the trip to the store to the same level as the transport from California.

Putting a price of $30 per tonne for CO2 emissions would increase the transport costs from California for a pound of strawberries by almost nothing. It would add around a penny to 80-100 pounds of berries.

The BC Carbon tax adds about $0.036 to $0.072 to the cost of the trip the store.

Food that comes in by ship has an even lower transport CO2 impact. Here in Victoria apples from New Zealand could possibly have a lower CO2 footprint than ones from BC.

If fuel prices were to go up by a factor of five, the increased cost in transportation would still be pennies per pound of food.

[Mike K.]

If fuel prices were to go up by a factor of five, the increased cost in transportation would still be pennies per pound of food.

So we're being fleeced by supermarkets when we're told the cost of fuel has led to drastic increases in prices? I mean half of the products on our shelves have jumped by 20% in cost over the last 12 months.

[Bernard]

It should not have that big an effect. Though keep in mind I was only talking about transport and not the fuel used in production which I assume is reasonably constant no matter where you are producing the food

So we're being fleeced by supermarkets when we're told the cost of fuel has led to drastic increases in prices? I mean half of the products on our shelves have jumped by 20% in cost over the last 12 months.

[jklymak]

^ I agree with all that. A carbon tax (or tariff on countries that don't impose one) would favour whoever could grow and ship the produce the cheapest, which should satisfy people who feel guilty about buying apples from New Zealand.

I doubt any of this invalidates the basic idea that buying local in-season food is likely the best for the environment. Its just that most people aren't into reducing their diets to root vegetables in the winter.

[Bernard]

^ I agree with all that. A carbon tax (or tariff on countries that don't impose one) would favour whoever could grow and ship the produce the cheapest, which should satisfy people who feel guilty about buying apples from New Zealand.

I doubt any of this invalidates the basic idea that buying local in-season food is likely the best for the environment. Its just that most people aren't into reducing their diets to root vegetables in the winter.

I personally to buy a lot of local produce and grow my own but for it is much more about being in touch with the place in live in than environmental reasons. It is because of my work that I have decent understanding of the agricultural industry especially the economics of growing crops and the costs of the inputs. It also means I know enough about the business to know that many small scale farmers use more fuel per pound of produce than larger more efficient farms.

Large scale farmers can also be much more effective and efficient with fertilizers they use and tend to use fewer chemicals per acre than smaller farms. They also tend to be the ones that can afford the capital costs better irrigation and better handling and storing. Few small farmers can afford cold storage and without having that a much larger portion of the crop is lost to spoilage.

In the case of New Zealand, on average their farms use a lot fewer chemicals per hectare than ones in Canada.

We like the idea of small local farms but they are not at all necessarily the best choice for the environment.

Finally, if we devote less land in BC to agriculture, we could open up more prime land for restoration as habitat for wildlife.

[PulpVictor]

What do you think about this? Have you ever tried to re-zone in Saanich?

http://www.saanichne.../183057711.html

[Mike K.]

Just a reminder that we request contributors to add context along with media links as articles are often removed several weeks after being published.

Saanich gives decision on Gordon Head farmland to Agricultural Land Commission
Kyle Slavin, Saanich News
http://www.saanichne.../183057711.html

The fate of an unused parcel of agricultural land in suburban Gordon Head is now in the hands of the Agricultural Land Commission.

The property at 1516 Mount Douglas Cross Rd. was recently slated to become a 12,000-hen poultry operation or, failing that, a cattle farm with 100 cows. But neighbours, outraged that Saanich council painted the landowners into a corner where farming was the only remaining option, rallied against the aggressive farm plans and asked council Monday night for reconsideration of a residential subdivision instead.

Instead, council voted 8-1 to send the owner's application to remove it from the Agricultural Land Reserve to the ALC, without comment from council, putting the decision in the hands of the ALC.

[VicHockeyFan]

...neighbours, outraged that Saanich council painted the landowners into a corner where farming was the only remaining option, rallied against the aggressive farm plans

Ah yes, everyone wants to live in a rural area, until someone wants to actually put the land to rural use.

So if the ALRC rejects the removal, does the "12,000-hen poultry operation or, failing that, a cattle farm with 100 cows" go ahead?

[phx]

So if the ALRC rejects the removal, does the "12,000-hen poultry operation or, failing that, a cattle farm with 100 cows" go ahead?

I think it becomes like the Spetifore lands.

[VicHockeyFan]

How about this. We let people that own their own land pretty much use it as they want to?

It's their land.

[North Shore]

How about this. We let people that own their own land pretty much use it as they want to?

It's their land.

And if someone decided to open a car-wrecking yard in the middle of Oak Bay, say, then that's ok?

[Bingo]

There are folks around these parts that say the deer were here first, and they own the land.

[sebberry]

There are folks around these parts that say the deer were here first, and they own the land.

I don't see the deer carring around guns.

[VicHockeyFan]

And if someone decided to open a car-wrecking yard in the middle of Oak Bay, say, then that's ok?

I think if sufficient safeguards are in place so that the operation does not affect neighbours (noise, sights), then yes. In some cases, that would not be practical, so the operation could not exist in some areas.

[PulpVictor]

Saanich planners are almost as bad as Metchosin's. Had a piece that I wanted to sub-divide, full of dead and dying trees. Paid an arborist a small fortune to prove they were dead and dying, and one of the planners who spoke very little English informed me that I had to save the trees.

[Kikadee]

Saanich planners are almost as bad as Metchosin's. Had a piece that I wanted to sub-divide, full of dead and dying trees. Paid an arborist a small fortune to prove they were dead and dying, and one of the planners who spoke very little English informed me that I had to save the trees.

Is that important to the issue at hand?

[sebberry]

I love the approach this landowner has taken.

My concern mirrors his lawyer's, however - if the ALR people remove the land from the reserve, what's to guarantee Saanich will approve the development? Then he'd be stuck in limbo, possibly without cows or chickens.

I think he needs to get Saanich's approval first, then remove the land from the ALR.

[Baro]

Spoke clearly enough that you got the message to save the trees.