Additional note, about carbon pricing

Looking at the post below, you get an idea of how difficult it is to a) calculate the ecological impact of spending behavior, and b) actually follow through on adhering to an optimum spending behavior once you figure out what it is. At the end of the day, it's very convoluted and difficult to keep track of, and all sort of hopeless because people, by and large, are not going to exert the effort required to eat sustainably--and if 90% of the people aren't on board, then what's the point of trying?

This is why carbon pricing--i.e., factoring the ecological cost of products into their price via a tax--is such a beautiful idea. What you do is target a few key carbon producers way "upstream" in the chain of production, so that the increased cost of carbon filters down into the price of everything. For example, say you were to slap a carbon tax on barrels of oil sold. This would result in higher prices--and less demand--not just for gasoline, but, say, for a toy manufacturer that transports stuffed dolls halfway around the world in a fuel-ineffecient fleet of boats and trucks. If you slapped a carbon tax on energy, then suddenly everyone's electricity bills would rise and you would see alternative energy sources like solar, wind, gas, and nuclear start to become competitive with coal. Competition in the free market--rather than arbitrary government grants and subsidies--would then determine which alternative energy source becomes dominant. Shopping at the market, you would have to look no further than the price tag to compare the ecological impact of different foods; if a food is very carbon intensive, then this will naturally be reflected in a higher price.

As it is right now, the costs of climate change end up being socialized, because it is tax-payer backed governments that fix (or in the future will fix) the damage. These costs should not remain external to the market, but should instead be internalized into the market, via a carbon tax, so that the costs are distributed proportionately to those who are causing the problem.

Where does he get those wonderful charts?

You can always count on Ezra Klein for a good chart. Here is one that breaks down the greenhouse gas impact of different kinds of food as it moves from the production phase to the transit phase:

As you can see, the first three colors--the ones that cover the greenhouse gas impact of the transportation of the food from the farm to the supermarket--are just a small sliver compared to the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during food production. In fact, according to this report, a mere 11% of greenhouse gases emitted because of food consumption are attributable to the transportation of the food. And so this whole "locavore" movement, while tasty, does not have much of a ecological impact.

If you really want to cut back on the ecological impact of your diet, you'd do well to keep cows out of the picture, as they account for about half of all greenhouse gases emitted from food production:


So all you vegetarians out there, this is your free pass to take longer, hotter showers.

Ok that got weird.

EDIT: Eric sensibly asks how much of the total greenhouse gas emissions are caused by food. The report says: "For perspective, food accounts for 13% of every U.S. household's 60 t share of total U.S. emissions; this includes industrial and other emissions outside the home." So food transportation accounts for 11% of 13%, or 1.4% of every U.S. household's emissions.