which one, a car key or a fork, contribute more to global warming?

I don't believe local products necessarily have a smaller environmental footprint than less local products. At least there are examples to the contrary here in northern Europe where some food crops can be grown locally in greenhouses, but because of the heating required, it would create a smaller environmental footprint if the crops were grown on open land in Spain or Morocco, and then transported here on trucks.

Land that isn't suitable for food production for humans can be used for other purposes that are also important. For example, growing hemp for making clothes, or growing trees for wood products, and protected areas for wild animals.
 
Land that isn't suitable for food production for humans can be used for other purposes that are also important. For example, growing hemp for making clothes, or growing trees for wood products, and protected areas for wild animals.
Yes, yes, yes, BUT!

Hemp, trees, wild animals and stuff like that can't be used for making bacon sandwiches, cheese burgers, fried chicken or any of the other truly important things in omnis lives.
 
Frances Moore Lappé is probably the leading writer pointing out the connection between animal agriculture and environmental destruction. Her 1971 book, Diet for a Small Planet, has been reprinted many times.

Diet for a Small Planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Her philosophy has been called environmental vegetarianism.

Did anyone notice that the song of the omni-environmentalists in the Cowspiracy clip was "can we please ignore the meat industry as I/we really don't want to give up the meat that we crave"?

I can't really see why omni-environmentalist should be anything but comforted by the fact that vegetarian-environmentalists want to ignore the dairy and egg side of the animal abuse industry as they don't want to give up the cow-pus and avian-ovulations that they equaly unnecesarily crave.

It's like watching two bunches of thieves, both agreeing that their theiving must not stop. Just bickering over the difference twix stealing peoples stereos and stealing their TV's.
 
I don't believe local products necessarily have a smaller environmental footprint than less local products.
If you think about individual products, yes, but a local food systems is going to be more sustainable than one based on imported goods....but a local food system is going to hinge on the sorts of foods that can be efficiently grown/raised locally.

Land that isn't suitable for food production for humans can be used for other purposes that are also important. For example, growing hemp for making clothes, or growing trees for wood products, and protected areas for wild animals.
Growing plants for hemp isn't going to be any different than growing plants for food. But its the land surrounding population centers that is at issue, the fact that you can use land many miles away to grow a crop doesn't help since the further the land is from the population the higher the environmental costs to transport it.
 
While there are obviously differences I'm not sure why you'd think that vegetarian and vegan diets are radical different, both avoid meat which is the largest source of animal based foods in western culture.

Because one is entirely plant based and the other includes dairy and eggs, chickens and cows. Unless you are talking about a family farm where the cows graze in ideal pastures and the chickens roam about eating worms. Adding conventionally raised dairy cows and chickens you are adding layers of complexity which cause environmental effects. You have an entire agriculture system just to grow food for the animals. Infrastructures to build, waste disposal to contend with. The entire world of veterinarian medicine is now involved. The animals need medical care which, among many other issues, creates medical waste, an entirely separate vastly complicated environmental issue.
 
Eight Pitfalls in Evaluating Green Energy Solutions
Renewables may not be the savior we make them out to be.

I read the article, complex and thought provoking.

Some of the statements she makes, "Solar PV and offshore wind are both likely net energy sinks because of storage and balancing needs" contains words such as "likely". She is dismissing the backbone of the entire renewable energy sector with the word "likely". Also someone in the comments section states that this statement is incorrect and points out why.

She is a casualty actuary, which is a necessity in our modern world although I believe there are certain issues left out when this perspective is taken; quality of life, quality of the environment, etc.,

At the beginning she did point out that there is some environmental degradation possibly caused by renewables but did not specifically address these in the body of the article. She never specifically talked about climate change and the main causes of it relative to any form of energy generation. Is there a more dangerous and environmentally damaging problem than excess carbon and its disastrous effects on our planet? How much carbon is released into the atmosphere from Soar and Wind generation compared to burning coal and oil?

Regardless I do think we need to consider all the issues she brought up and as a society be very intelligent in our decisions.

And if she is accurate in her analysis then drastic conservation and severe population control would be the only solutions I can see that would work.