I like stating the possibly obviousmizarchivistDecember 1 2010, 20:48:22 UTC
I'm looking at thusly: If I can buy it from Porter Sq. Books instead of Amazon, I do. If it's a matter of Etsy vs. Target? No question which way I want to go. Mind you, I don't weed out the Etsy sellers by location and only get the ones I can ride my bike to visit if I were a big stalker.
Re: I like stating the possibly obviousinahandbasketDecember 1 2010, 20:55:59 UTC
yeah, this. Similar to what catya said above, I prefer to avoid the large corporate entities and when possible divert my cash to actual people making or selling actual things.*
Re. food: I prefer to eat local for many reasons out of scope of this discussion.
*yes, I'll grant you that Amazon and Target employees are, in fact, actual people. But the profits from my purchasing something at that company go to the company, lots of overhead, and huge advertising budgets. Purchasing the same mass produced product at a small retailer puts the money more directly into their pocket. Also granted Target and Amazon employ more people than the friendly little retailer, and it could be argued that I'd be supporting ALL of those people by giving my money to a big store. My retort would be that they also tend to shaft the little people (cashiers, stockers, etc.) involved in favor of the management and executives, and I don't care to support that.
Re: I like stating the possibly obviousinahandbasketDecember 1 2010, 21:29:33 UTC
yup yup. I prefer not to have lots of stuff delivered for me as it tends to be a huge part of the carbon footprint, so when possible/convenient I'll buy locally as well, but it's a lesser concern to me.
And I do send a good chunk of money Amazon's way to be honest about it.
Re: I like stating the possibly obviousmzrowanDecember 1 2010, 21:36:11 UTC
So does that mean that you focus on products produced locally? Because it seems to me that shipping an item from India to Tags vs. shipping it from India to my home is pretty much a wash.
Not to mention that items are *always* shipped to your home -- either by you or by a delivery service. Is it more efficient for you to take your car to go shopping, or for the UPS truck to make a stop at your house along its route?
Re: I like stating the possibly obviousinahandbasketDecember 1 2010, 21:49:43 UTC
Bulk shipping has far less of an impact than to-the-home shipping, so if you're being green in your transportation choices you are, in fact, lessening the impact by purchasing at a local retailer.
Interestingly if you were in NYC and purchaed a bottle of wine from California and one from New Zealand, the NZ wine would have a far smaller carbon footprint. It was flown directly into NYC on a large cargo plane which is actually relatively fuel efficient. The one from CA was trucked across the country in a diesel truck that has a far larger carbon footprint. (Like, an order of magnitude or two if I remember correctly.) There are MANY factors involved here, it's quite an interesting thing to research.
As to production of said goods, that's far more of a grey area. I do prefer to buy directly from a producer when possible, be that locally, via Etsy, or simply direct purchasing from companies.
Re: I like stating the possibly obviousmrf_archDecember 2 2010, 01:56:30 UTC
The one from CA was trucked across the country in a diesel truck that has a far larger carbon footprint. (Like, an order of magnitude or two if I remember correctly.)
Co2 emissions per metric ton per kilometer: (sourced from http://timeforchange.org/co2-emissions-shipping-goods) Air plane (air cargo), average Cargo B747 500 g Modern lorry or truck 60 to 150 g Modern train 30 to 100 g Modern ship (sea freight) 10 to 40 g
Even modern cargo aircraft suffer from the simple fact that defying gravity is hard.
"Buying local" versus having products shipped also may not be as easy a trade off as you think - if I can walk or take mass transit to a place to shop my carbon cost for the last few miles to my house is low, but that's a convenience of being a city dweller. In rural or suburban areas, delivery trucks may be competitive in carbon terms with having everyone drive their personal car to the store.
Re: I like stating the possibly obviousmrf_archDecember 3 2010, 01:27:30 UTC
I see where the confusion comes from - the graph does show a lower carbon footprint for transporting an Australian wine - but by ship, not plane. (They appear to actually assume ships and trucks are the only two possible shipping modes - I don't see trains or planes on the graphic.)
If I can buy it from Porter Sq. Books instead of Amazon, I do. If it's a matter of Etsy vs. Target? No question which way I want to go. Mind you, I don't weed out the Etsy sellers by location and only get the ones I can ride my bike to visit if I were a big stalker.
Reply
Similar to what catya said above, I prefer to avoid the large corporate entities and when possible divert my cash to actual people making or selling actual things.*
Re. food: I prefer to eat local for many reasons out of scope of this discussion.
*yes, I'll grant you that Amazon and Target employees are, in fact, actual people. But the profits from my purchasing something at that company go to the company, lots of overhead, and huge advertising budgets. Purchasing the same mass produced product at a small retailer puts the money more directly into their pocket.
Also granted Target and Amazon employ more people than the friendly little retailer, and it could be argued that I'd be supporting ALL of those people by giving my money to a big store. My retort would be that they also tend to shaft the little people (cashiers, stockers, etc.) involved in favor of the management and executives, and I don't care to support that.
Reply
Reply
I prefer not to have lots of stuff delivered for me as it tends to be a huge part of the carbon footprint, so when possible/convenient I'll buy locally as well, but it's a lesser concern to me.
And I do send a good chunk of money Amazon's way to be honest about it.
Reply
Not to mention that items are *always* shipped to your home -- either by you or by a delivery service. Is it more efficient for you to take your car to go shopping, or for the UPS truck to make a stop at your house along its route?
Reply
Interestingly if you were in NYC and purchaed a bottle of wine from California and one from New Zealand, the NZ wine would have a far smaller carbon footprint. It was flown directly into NYC on a large cargo plane which is actually relatively fuel efficient. The one from CA was trucked across the country in a diesel truck that has a far larger carbon footprint. (Like, an order of magnitude or two if I remember correctly.) There are MANY factors involved here, it's quite an interesting thing to research.
As to production of said goods, that's far more of a grey area. I do prefer to buy directly from a producer when possible, be that locally, via Etsy, or simply direct purchasing from companies.
Reply
Co2 emissions per metric ton per kilometer: (sourced from http://timeforchange.org/co2-emissions-shipping-goods)
Air plane (air cargo), average Cargo B747
500 g
Modern lorry or truck
60 to 150 g
Modern train
30 to 100 g
Modern ship (sea freight)
10 to 40 g
Even modern cargo aircraft suffer from the simple fact that defying gravity is hard.
"Buying local" versus having products shipped also may not be as easy a trade off as you think - if I can walk or take mass transit to a place to shop my carbon cost for the last few miles to my house is low, but that's a convenience of being a city dweller. In rural or suburban areas, delivery trucks may be competitive in carbon terms with having everyone drive their personal car to the store.
Reply
Maybe the data is wine specific.
And I agree on the carbon trade-offs of the last mile, but I'm only speaking for myself as a city dweller. ^_^
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment