When it comes to doing the right thing for the planet, the thorniest dilemmas are often about what we eat. Leo Hickman tackles 10 of themIs having
shopping delivered better than driving to the shops yourself?As a rule, yes. Would you rather see 30 cars drive back and forth to a supermarket, or just one van delivering to 30 households? Not only does the van boast a massive weight advantage, but it is also likely to have worked out the most efficient journey possible.But if you want your shopping to arrive within a very precise delivery window, then there's a far greater chance that the delivery driver will have to make a special trip to you, or, at the very least, make an inefficient diversion. Best to be as flexible as possible with your delivery requests if you want to cut your carbons.Not all home deliveries are the same. Ocado operates out of one centralised distribution centre in Hertfordshire, whereas others tend to "store pack" at the closest branch to your home. However, Ocado claims that an independent audit has shown "each delivery now has a lower carbon footprint than walking to a supermarket".What about supermarkets versus the local market or high street?If we are to look at this question only through the prism of carbon emissions, the answer will hinge on how you
travel. Did you drive to the out-of-town supermarket, or did you walk, cycle or catch a bus to the high street?That's the easy part. It's harder to work out the embedded
energy within each option. Supermarkets tend to be warehouses that need plenty of lighting, heating and refrigeration (about three-quarters of a supermarket's energy is used to refrigerate and freeze
food prepared elsewhere). A local shop requires far less energy, and if it only sells locally sourced, less processed produce, it will have an advantage over a supermarket. If not, the economies of scale of a supermarket might make it preferable in pure emissions terms.Which meat leads to fewer emissions: beef, chicken, lam ...
Try our segmented RSS Feeds
