[T2_t2]

The cost in carbon of a thing is complicated, and this sort of X (local) is good, and Y (non-local) is bad causes a lot of the issues.

There was a debate about Dutch flowers vs Kenyan. The debate was framed as "local vs grown in sunshine", e.g. the cost of growing in cold greenhouses vs sunshine. I think you know where this is going...

https://ecoligo.com/blog/2018/08/08/the-air-miles-debate-are... (https://only-roses.co.uk/U/files/Cut_roses_for_the_British_m... is the study). Even after accounting for distance and transport, the Kenyan flowers have lower carbon usage.

A book like https://www.amazon.com/Drawdown-Comprehensive-Proposed-Rever... provides the context needed to choose between options, and the solutions are often odd, like replacing old fridges which has a HUGE climate change benefit (because the refrigerants are 1,000s of times worse than CO2), but that's not a story that is told because, well I think complicated narratives lose to simpler ones.

[r00fus]

Forget carbon cost, and focus simply on taste. Does fruit that ripens in storage appeal to you over local?

While I can understand your garden-path re: fridges, the kenyan flowers is a strawman.

The vast majority of local produce will cost less, taste better and keep better than ones shipped across the border or an ocean.