Sorry, should have included the link and explanation: basically growing food is energy intensive, but transporting food by ship is actually very efficient.
This results in a paradox where locally grown food, if it needs additional lights, spraying, ploughing, etc. is worse for the environment than food grown in perfect climage and transported to you.
It's probably still more efficient (both money-wise and GHG-wise) than growing bananas locally in UK; now that would need a lot of extra energy; but on the other hand it would be more efficient to eat food that normally grows locally in your climate instead of bananas.
Ofcourse that's true, but no-one is (or at least should be) eating multiple kilos of bananas, coffee and chocolate. They are not a staple food like meat and potatoes.
All I am trying to say is that in the total carbon footprint of a person, they account for a miniscule part of the whole, and that things like a well insulated house, transport, etc. will be vastly more important
This results in a paradox where locally grown food, if it needs additional lights, spraying, ploughing, etc. is worse for the environment than food grown in perfect climage and transported to you.
https://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-loca...