Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 11.2  Comparison of CO2 emissions and global warming potential for roses produced in the
Netherlands and Kenya, and delivered to a common point in The Netherlands
Emission
Relative magnitude of (Dutch
emissions/Kenyan emissions)
Altitude effect included?
CO 2
16
No
CO 2 A 1
5.8
Ye s
GWP 100 A 1,2
6.0
Ye s
Kenya and air freighting them to Holland required 53,000 MJ of primary energy
and the emission of 2,200 kg CO 2 . Dutch production was much more expensive:
550,000 MJ primary energy and the emission of 35,000 kg carbon dioxide. Dutch
production required large inputs of natural gas (greenhouse heating) and electricity
(assimilation lighting for photosynthesis) and ultimately yielded significantly fewer
stems/hectare. The major carbon dioxide cost for Kenyan roses was air freight. In
total, growing roses “locally” in The Netherlands incurred ca. 6-fold greater carbon
dioxide emissions than growing roses in Kenya, even including the carbon cost of
airfreight and specifically, allowing for a greater GWP for Kenyan airfreight due to
the high altitude of greenhouse gas emissions of the cargo jet. A summary of this
comparison is in Table 11.2 .
This is highly contrary to instinct, as most people would believe that the air-
shipped flowers would incur a much greater carbon cost. But this is not the case.
Other horticultural examples are available, including apples, where southern hemi-
sphere production and ocean shipment incur less carbon dioxide cost than “local”
northern hemisphere production coupled with long-term cold storage (DEFRA
2008 ). Based solely on GWP and carbon dioxide footprint, Kenyan roses are much
better for the environment and discerning consumers would be expected to choose
these products and avoid purchasing the “local” Dutch-grown product. It should be
noted that the Cranfield study apparently omitted other possibly significant emis-
sions, such as… from the Kenyan rose farms that could have effects on nearby
Lake Naivasha, its wildlife and ecosystem. Certainly, some consumers do base their
purchasing decisions on carbon dioxide footprints and other attributes, but the pro-
portion is not significant. Results of air mile labelling by two major British food
chains revealed that air mile stickers had no effect on overall consumer preference
and relative sales, suggesting that consumers, were only concerned with price and
were not so concerned with carbon emissions that they avoided air-freighted fresh
produce (Shah 2008 ).
Within horticulture, and perhaps floriculture especially, we must be constantly con-
cerned with highlighting the value and improvements to our quality of life that flowers,
plants and landscaping provide to humans. Studies such as that from Cranfield, while
dispelling notions that all “local” product is more environmentally friendly, also high-
light just how costly floriculture production can be to both the grower and consumer.
Protected cultivation and the constant availability of flowers and plants that improve
our lives (to say nothing of fresh fruits and vegetables) do indeed have an environmen-
tal cost. One can visit websites informing us that boiling a litre of water is the equiva-
lent of 40 min of a Briton's projected daily 2050 carbon allocation, that a single beer is
Search WWH ::




Custom Search