[ars]

> Does that mean the 'buy locally' idea has little climate impact?

No, buy locally has a large climate impact - only not in the direction you think. Local uses much more energy than non-local.

Local has no environmental benefits whatsoever - only negatives.

The only thing it has going for it is some nebulous social benefits of knowing your farmer.

I avoid local because it means the produce was grown not in the climate where it grows best, but rather forced (i.e. lots of extra resources) to grow near me.

[jestar_jokin]

But isn't part of the "buying local" movement also buying produce that's in season for your climate?

If you're buying local pineapples in Duluth, I can see it would defeat the purpose.

[ars]

Even if it's in season doesn't mean your climate is the best place to grow it.

If it was the best place, then it would be competitive on the open market, and produce from your area would be the primary produce on the market - without any hokey social movements.

[jacalata]

That's only true if you want to claim that the "best" place to grow $randomFruit cannot be more profitably used doing $randomThing. Downtown San Francisco could be the world best microclimate for tomatoes but it still probably wouldn't be worth using the land for that instead of an apartment.