Implicit in the argument that local farming is better for the environment than industrial agriculture is an assumption that a “relocalized” food system can be just as efficient as today's modern farming. That assumption is simply wrong. Today's high crop yields and low costs reflect gains from specialization and trade, as well as scale and scope economics that would be forsaken under the food system that locavores endorse.
The main reason for localised production to gain popularity is based exactly in the same framework as what Flatman talks about. To do whats better for the nature we depend on. Being because local food can be more ripe when harvested because it wil not travle far before it gets to the store or end customer, and spessifically, that, there is little energy and pollution produced from transporting it half way accross the world. And when you buy local food you support the local community that is also important.
In addition the negative environmental impact from large scale spessialized farming is what emerges when that becomes the focus, to be as profittable as you can on your farm. Then spending more time to make sure the plastic isnt ending up in the soil isnt proffitable, unless people dont buy from u unless you do care, but large scale farms sell to other corporations that do not care . Aswell as its depleting the soil of its nutrients and not really feeding back biomass into it. As thats not proffitable compared to just using chemical fertalisers. Not to mention the chemicals used to keep weeds and bugs away.
I could go on, but I hope you get the point.
I agree with your argument. «local food» is very inefficient when i comes to distributing the products economically and as such, less green.