Ian McCusker
Microbreweries, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Local Food
Greenhouse gas emissions, especially CO2 emissions from human economic activity, are having a
significant impact on our planet’s climate, and have the potential to cause much more. A large part of
this impact is through the global transportation network. We live in an interconnected world, with goods
and people in constant motion to all parts of the globe. In recent years, the concept of food miles has
risen as a measure of how far your food has traveled to arrive at your plate, and thus the relative energy
expended and greenhouse gasses emitted. This system likely has inefficiencies that can be eliminated,
thus helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avert global climate change.
The problem of food shipment is a very real one. Long distance shipment of goods from global
production centers emits significantly more carbon than local production and distribution. [1] While
these differences are less significant for food than for other products, they are still worth
eliminating.[1][2]
Microbreweries, brewpubs, and other craft breweries have been growing in popularity in the
United States since 1980.[3] There are now more breweries in the country than at any time since the
1880’s. Of the 2126 breweries operating in 2012, over 97% were regional size or smaller. These beer
production locations are usually far closer to consumers than national distributors, and thus are
responsible for less shipment emissions of greenhouse gases than larger producers. Yet the large,
national producers and importers continue to dominate the market, selling over 94% of the beer by
volume. A perfect example of this is a beer consumer in Troy, New York. This consumer could either
walk to the corner store to purchase a pack of Budweiser beer, or walk to Brown’s Brewing Company to
purchase one of their craft productions. The Budweiser beer represents over 1,000 miles of shipment.
While bulk shipment of beer spreads the emissions out amongst many packages, it is not negligible. On
the other hand, the Brown’s beer represents no emissions from shipment of the beer.
The microbrewery example is analogous to consumption of local food in general. While not a
catch- all solution,[2][4] consumption of truly local food does lower greenhouse emissions. So, their
frequent superiority in taste aside, drink craft beers. You might just save the planet!
1. Paul Nieuwenhuis, Anthony Beresford, Andrew Ki-Young Choi, Shipping or local production? CO2
impact of a strategic decision: An automotive industry case study, International Journal of
Production Economics, Volume 140, Issue 1, November 2012, Pages 138-148, ISSN 0925-5273,
10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.034.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.rpi.edu/science/article/pii/S0925527312000497
2. Christopher Weber, H. Scott Matthews, Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food
Choices in the United States, Environmental Science and Technology, 2008, 42 (10), p 3508-3513
http://pubs.acs.org.libproxy.rpi.edu/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f
3. Brewers Association, Craft Brewing Statistics, Number of Breweries
http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/business-tools/craft-brewing-statistics/number-ofbreweries
4. David Coley, Mark Howard, Michael Winter, Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A
comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches, Food Policy, Volume 34, Issue 2,
April 2009, Pages 150-155, ISSN 0306-9192, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.11.001.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.rpi.edu/science/article/pii/S0306919208000997
Annotations
1. Christopher Weber, H. Scott Matthews, Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food
Choices in the United States, Environmental Science and Technology, 2008, 42 (10), p 3508-3513
http://pubs.acs.org.libproxy.rpi.edu/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f
2. Christopher Weber was an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University, and a research staff
member at the Science and Technology Policy Institute. He writes about life cycle assessment
techniques and applications to greenhouse gasses.
3. The study argues that production and processing of food contributes the majority of greenhouse
gases to the total produced by a food item. Their main point is that a change in diet, favoring
low emissions options like chicken instead of steak, will outweigh any decision to eat local.
4. First, the study examined the shipping contribution of different stages of a food’s production
and delivery cycle. It was determined that the contribution of final delivery to total emissions
ranged from 9% for red meat to 50% for fruits and vegetables. Next, the study examined what
impact on emissions zero food miles would have. Finally, the study looked at how a shift in diet
away from carbon intensive foods would impact emissions, and compared it to the elimination
of food miles. Switching from high emissions foods to those that are less intensive has a far
larger impact.
5. “only 21−24% reduction in red meat consumption, shifted to chicken, fish, or an average
vegetarian diet lacking dairy, would achieve the same reduction as total localization”
“Final delivery (direct t-km) as a proportion of total transportation requirements varied
from a low of 9% for red meat to a high of around 50% for fruits/vegetables, reflecting the
more extensive supply chains of meat production (i.e., moving feed to animals) compared
to human consumption of basic foods such as fruits/vegetables and grains”
“GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing
83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption”
6. While the study argues in favor of dietary shifts instead of localization, different beers can be
assumed to have similar levels of total emissions. Thus, reducing the transport side of
consumption would have the largest possible effect.
1. David Coley, Mark Howard, Michael Winter, Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A
comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches, Food Policy, Volume 34, Issue 2,
April 2009, Pages 150-155, ISSN 0306-9192, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.11.001.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.rpi.edu/science/article/pii/S0306919208000997
2. David Coley is a professor in the University of Exeter’s Department of Architecture and Civil
Engineering. He specializes in low carbon design of buildings.
3. The paper looks at the emissions of food transportation, and compares the emissions created by
a food distribution service with those of a private consumer driving to a farmers market. It is
concluded that consumers driving to local markets for a food item is more efficient within a
3.3km radius of the consumer’s home, with a total trip of less than 6.7km. Outside of this, it is
more efficient from a carbon perspective for a delivery service to bring the food item to the
consumer’s door.
4. First, the emissions of the entire delivery chain for a home- delivered vegetable were assessed.
This includes production, cold storage, handling and transport to hubs, more storage, delivery,
and consumer storage in a refrigerator. Then, the emissions chain for consumer pickup was
assessed, with only production, consumer travel, and consumer storage. A comparison of the
two methods was performed, and the relative carbon savings of local travel was converted into
distance traveled. This yielded a maximum distance of 6.7km round trip in order to save
emissions vs. home delivery.
5. “Our work shows that the concept of food miles, as typically used, is of little value per se and that
it is the carbon emission per unit of produce over the transport chain that really matters.”
“This suggests that with regard to such emissions, some of the ideas behind localism in the food
sector may need to be revisited. But such a conclusion needs to be seen in the broader context of
sustainability”
“What is needed is a sophisticated public debate on food systems in which catch phrases, such
as ‘food miles’, which were useful to initially capture media attention, now give way to more
nuanced approaches based on strategic case studies of specific retail systems and/or key
commodity sectors”
6. The authors reach the conclusion that local food is only so valuable in the search for lowering
emissions. In the case of microbreweries, their findings have only so much value. For instance,
assuming that the transport chains of vegetables and beer emit similar amounts of carbon, a
consumer driving from Troy to Deerfield, MA in order to purchase beer will be emitting more
carbon. However, walking or driving downtown to Brown’s Brewing will result in fewer
emissions. Furthermore, making the choice to buy local beer vs. a national brand at the store
will have the largest impact. Both brands can be assumed to have similar efficiencies in their
transport networks (bulk shipping, etc.), only over a much shorter distance in the case of the
craft/ local brew.