With global warming, shouldn’t we always buy fabric that’s produced nearby if possible?
An article which appeared in the New Yorker magazine by Michael Specter entitled “Big Foot” describes how easy it is to confuse morality and science. It turns out that the carbon accounting thing is extraordinarily complex and often counterintuitive.
Mr. Specter quotes Adrian Williams, an agricultural researcher in the Natural Resources Department of Cranfield University in England: “The idea that a product travels a certain distance and is therefore worse than one you raised nearby—well, it’s just idiotic,” he said. “It doesn’t take into consideration the land use, the type of transportation, the weather, or even the season. “ He cites as an example the environmental burden imposed by importing apples from New Zealand to England. New Zealand apples can have a smaller carbon footprint than those raised 50 miles outside London because in New Zealand they have more sunshine than in the UK, so the yield is higher and energy needed to grow the crop is correspondingly lower. Also electricity in New Zealand is mostly generated by renewable resources, none of which emits large amounts of CO2.
