Footprint Nonsense

In today’s Daily Telegraph, there was a very interesting article concerning the carbon footprint of different types of foodstuffs, either locally produced or produced overseas.

‘Buy locally produced food’ is a motto commonly used by groups such as Greenpeace, the LibDems or whoever you want. Yet according to this article, the carbon footprint of a tonne of lamb produced in the UK is equal to 2,849 kg against 688 kg for one produced in New Zealand. The comparison is also valid, for products like apples 271 kg for British ones versus 185 kg for New Zealanders ones, lettuce with 3,720 kg versus 3,560 kg for Spanish grown lettuce.

The causes for this are numerous to say the least but I can certainly quote a few, in an area where soils are of a better quality, the use of fertilizers and thence of CO2 will be reduced. More extensive rearing of lambs in the wide open spaces of New Zealand, allows better yields, through better feed and healthier animals. What is striking however is the fact that in this case, what is ‘green’ is meeting what is cheap.

Energy efficiency always helped to cut costs. Indeed manufacturers of turbines, motors and the like where researching higher efficiency for their products, decades before the expression ‘global warming” became common place. Businesses do not need any kind of pressure in order to reduce their costs, as much as consumers want to buy the cheapest products when they enter into a supermarket. Interfering with consumers legitimates choices; by promoting products which have a higher carbon footprint than their overseas counterparts, is a complete nonsense. When this nonsense is still in the realms of foundations like Greenpeace, this is acceptable, but when political parties and senior politicians endorse this nonsense, this is unacceptable.

Another point which is linked to the ‘buy locally produced foodstuffs” frenzy, is the fact that discouraging imports from overseas, is a potential death warrant towards third world countries. African countries like Kenya or Zambia possess among the world best soils, growing plants has never been a problem there and most Africans farmers are willing to export their foodstuffs to Europe. A growing agricultural sector is an essential prerequisite to any kind of development. If we want African countries to develop and thence to reduce the uses of environmentally unfriendly practices like dumping waste in rivers, the use slash and burn agricultural practices and poaching of endangered species like elephants in order to make a living. Then only free trade will help them and the environment at the same time.

It is extremely strange to see that the same people on the left, who are promoting unrestricted immigration from third world countries to Europe, are the ones who want to end any chance of Africa developing herself. In order to promote their much vaunted ‘multiculturalism’ perhaps, yet preventing Africa from developing herself can be reasonably considered as racist.

When eminent scientists like NASA administrator Michael Griffin, question the current alarmism about climate change, the time to stop the frenzy concerning ‘green’ solutions to climate change has come. While it is perfectly normal to monitor climate and to protect biodiversity, using the pretext of a rise in temperatures by 0,3°C since the start of the 20th century in order to promote political agendas is not.