> Local is good. While we can get materials from nearly anywhere on earth, buying locally typically keeps the carbon footprint smaller.
Is this true? Shipping things from where its more efficient to produce them I thought was better? The scale of ships and shipping containers means the carbon involved per item is pretty small.
It's not about scale, but about the efficiency of growing.
Trees, for instance, don't grow well in areas with little soil. Or for extreme example they don't grow at all in places that are cold enough. So shipping them in from places where they do make more sense then attempting to grow them locally.
I mean I'm sure there are scale advantages in gravel quarries and logging mills, but I'm not certain how much that matters.
The example I always heard about growing locally was tomatoes. Tomatoes grown in Canada, in greenhouse – and eaten in Canada – have a larger carbon impact than importing Tomatoes from Brazil where they grow without a heated greenhouse.
Trees are obviously able to grow in lots more places, but that doesn't mean they grow equally well everywhere I'm guessing. I'm not an expert but the carbon cost of moving things around the world is often quite small comparatively.
Is this true? Shipping things from where its more efficient to produce them I thought was better? The scale of ships and shipping containers means the carbon involved per item is pretty small.