Another clarification is that local does not necessarily mean farmer’s markets – which I think you were implying. Plenty of supermarkets sell locally produced goods. But of course, I would also assume that a farmer’s market takes less energy to run than a supermarket.

This is, however, as I said a first assumption. Most mainstream environmentalists mainly agree that local foods is more sustainable based on the reasons I have given above but, as I have said, I am no expert in these matters and I would be interested in learning more about it.

To address your second question, you are probably right that there are some social costs and these are things that people should think about. But I don’t believe that just because there are some immediate social costs means that we shouldn’t be trying to move towards a more sustainable future. As with all innovation or change, markets and jobs will be altered but that is no excuse to not move forward. Should India think about the social cost of American software engineers when trying to lure American clients? Should we have not have invented the telephone to preserve the jobs of telegram companies? While your question is a legitimate one that should be addressed, I think it is safe to say that the benefits outweigh the losses in the long run.

Is buying local always more energy efficient than buying at the regular supermarket?

What is the social cost of being a locavore? (how many farmers in the developing world lose their jobs because of your decision to eat local?)

Along similar lines, what is the social cost of cutting our meat consumption?

Given that both being a locavore and a flexitarian have a social cost attached to them, would you say we know about their environmental gains with enough certainty so as to justify the social loss such decision would be inflicting upon the world’s poor?