In article ,
ComandanteBanana writes:

Yes, it is easily possible to use more gas getting fruit from the store
to your house than it took to get it from the field to the produce
aisle. That this isn't an obvious result is a bit surprising to me: you
can't spend much on fuel when the fruit costs less than a dollar at
retail.

But you must remember, goods movement is highly
inter-modal. *Those watermelons going across the
Pacific Ocean have to be offloaded by motorized
cranes, and moved around by all kinds of motorized
vehicles before they ultimately end up in the
supermarket or green grocer's. *And then ports
generally have a bunch of security personnel,
supervisors and other staff driving around.
I think both moving a 5 ton SUV to the supermarket and shipping a
watermelon from foreign lands is wasteful, and directly responsible
for Climate Change, a stupid foreign policy in the Middle East, as
well as starving the local farmers, among other evils.

So you're against international trade. *I assume that
includes shipping North American goods, produce,
medical supplies, etc overseas.
No, I'm against Globalization when it means losing American jobs to
China or Mexico.

So am I, but international trade doesn't necessarily always
boil down to Corporate Globalism.

Besides, you're ranting against fossil-fueled vehicles
in general (the very things that bring your beloved
bananas to your local green grocer's) and how you get
3 miles per banana as opposed to burning fossil fuels,
not macro-economics.

You're overlooking how your bananas got to your
marketplace in the first place.

I hope they're Fair Trade bananas. But they'd still
need fossil-fueled vehicles to convey them to market.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca