Lawrence's question is a very good one. I don't have data, but I surmise
that, except for large urban areas (perhaps excluding Detroit, which may
have land area available), most people's food could be locally produced.
However, answering this question would involve many considerations and
attempting this in the abstract probably would require some kind of
complex assessment (like Charles Benbrook et al.'s Shades of Green
Organic Dairy Farm Calculator
--http://www.extension.org/pages/31790/shades-of-green-dairy-farm-calculator-webinar-by-eorganic
--only more complex). Some things to think about would include:
What would people eat? (Probably it would have to be much different,
more diverse, more locally adapted, and very seasonal compared to what
people now eat.)
How much would they eat? (Possibly fewer overall calories, especially at
certain times--but this might not actually be a bad thing and one might
have to think seriously about how large a population could be supported
given the big picture.)
How would this food be produced? (Probably much more like permaculture
or what is advocated by the Transition Towns Movement or TCLocal
[http://tclocal.org/] than than currently, though a variety of types and
scales of agriculture and food processing might be incorporated.)
Who would be actively involved in its production? (Probably such a
system would be much more labor intensive.)
How much energy and resources like phosphate would be available?
(Probably more local food systems could be less energy intensive and
allow for more recycling of nutrients.)
What kind of government policies and subsidy programs would enable more
local food? (Doubtful that these would look like what we now have.)
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.