eating local or long-distance food
A vast majority of food-buyers in the US does not care about local vs. long-distance food. On food transportation:
Pirog, who probably counts as the nation's most rigorous analyst of food-miles, told me that as recently as 1980, trains accounted for fully half of food transport in the United States. By 1997, following a period of low petroleum prices and steady decay of rail systems, just 13 percent of food traveled on trains. Trucks hauled the other 87 percent.
I've heard much about truck drivers union who went on a strike for higher pay from Safeway. Perhaps it would be in Safeway and other supermarket chain's best interests to support rebuilding the aging rail infrastructure.
Labels: global warming, politics
posted by Alan at August 24, 2007
2 Comments:
That's something of an answer, but until diesel prices become enormously prohibitive no grocery chain will take that move. Even if trains return to become the major long-haul food transportation mode, local distribution from depots will still require trucks. A recovery to the 50% number of 1980 is unlikely in this scenario, especially given the extensive suburbanization of the past 30 years. Addressing this problem would require not only repairing but enhancing the railways, an unlikely investment for a margin-squeezing enterprise like a supermarket chain. Government intervention will be required, an unlikely proposition for penny-pinching Republicans and union-beholden Democrats alike.
Good point. The Democrats and Republicans have also proved unwilling to invest even in road repair, so potholes and deficient bridges are common and unsolved problems.
Post a Comment
<< Home