Globalization has helped society optimize consumption of food products. A huge and complex system of food trading has grown with time and its replacement seems unrealistic. However, km-0 or local consumption has arisen as a counterpart, to protect both local products and producers, but also, as a form of climate change mitigation. This concept consists of consumption of locally produced and seasonal products.
It is possibly a more responsible and respectful system with the environment. But, is it efficient in climate change mitigation? Is it economically sustainable? Are we willing to stop consuming certain products that cannot be grown locally?
Some side problems would also arise from switching to a km-0 system of consumption: how can societies that inhabit in rougher climates –which cannot produce much– have a quality diet in this system?
Dear Jan,
Nice topic and quite relevant. I would encourage you to draw clearer connection to the overarching course topic, i.e. “What are – or could be – our key contributions to researching and shaping climate futures?”. Additionally, you may want to investigate, why such a system is not in place yet and what makes our current system of food distribution prioritize long-distance transport. This may then lead to possible pathways towards a local consumption system.
Good success with your poster!
This sounds like a really cool idea to tackle! Global food production represents a huge source of emissions, and to some degree, the reliance on imported food constitutes a supply chain risk. I am very curious what you find on its efficiency for climate mitigation, economic viability, and consumer support, because I wonder if it is more efficient for most regions. For instance, while not every area can grow a lot of food, some regions also rely on their ability to export food to other countries. Considering also that many regions have decreasing agricultural yields due to climate change, how does climate adaptation and the resilience of communities factor into this? On the one hand, while climate change may impact local yield, it can also contribute to disrupting supply chains bringing food in from abroad, so there is risk on both sides, and about the sources of systemic risk in our food supply chains
Are you proposing a total replacement or just a small shift by some consumers/for some products? I wonder if the public would be open to this, both in terms of price and choice — certainly I might struggle to eat only potatoes, cabbage, and leeks while finishing my master’s XD. Additionally, I wonder how the mitigation effect will compare, since local agriculture isn’t necessarily lower emission (depends heavily on the techniques and yields), especially considering that the transportation supply chain is undergoing decarbonization. And do you intend to examine how to encourage this societal change, such as incentives, policies, activism, etc.? It would be interesting to hear about the mechanisms for enacting this type of change.
You also mention the equity perspective in terms of ‘how will this impact communities that do not produce enough to be self-sufficient?’. I would suggest considering how this will impact countries that produce excess agricultural products and rely on that income. In general, I also recommend positioning equity more centrally in your question, since we’re aiming for sustainable climate change mitigation (and adaptation), and equity is a core requirement for sustainability.