Connect with us

News

Is getting food delivered worse for the climate? Sometimes it’s better

Published

on

Is getting food delivered worse for the climate? Sometimes it’s better

Micaeli and Gerhard du Plessis sometimes use a grocery delivery service, as well as prepackaged meal kits, and they get takeout delivered to their suburban Washington, D.C., home about once a week. With two full-time jobs and two children, it makes time-saving sense. But they’ve wondered how it affects their carbon footprint.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Climate change is affecting our food, and our food is affecting the climate. NPR is dedicating a week to stories and conversations about the search for solutions.

There’s a whiteboard on the refrigerator in the du Plessises’ kitchen that the couple uses to plan dinners for the week — what to make and who will do the cooking. But with two young children, full-time jobs and the nearest supermarket 20 minutes away, figuring out what to eat sometimes feels like a chore.

To lighten the load, Micaeli and Gerhard du Plessis regularly use a grocery delivery service. They’ve also tried prepackaged meal kits and they get takeout delivered to their suburban Washington, D.C., home about once a week.

Advertisement

“Obviously, we’d rather be able to go out and buy fresh stuff every day, but that’s not realistic right now,” Micaeli says, as she holds her youngest, Eva, in a baby sling and unpacks boxes that have just arrived by Instacart. “With two little kids … at Costco, it’s just a really unpleasant experience. So I’d much prefer to pay someone a few extra dollars to just deliver it for us.”

America’s appetite for online grocery sales soared more than 50% during the COVID-19 pandemic, from $62 billion in 2019 to $96 billion in 2020, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. One in five consumers now has groceries delivered to their door at least once a month. By 2029, Statista estimates, the market will be worth $455 billion.

Meanwhile, there’s been a steep increase in demand for restaurant takeout via such services as DoorDash and Uber Eats. Meal kits like HelloFresh and Home Chef, which come with premeasured ingredients, are also experiencing strong growth.

An Uber Eats delivery courier rides an electric bicycle through the Park Slope neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough of New York.

An Uber Eats delivery courier rides an electric bicycle through the Park Slope neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough of New York.

Amir Hamja/Bloomberg via Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Amir Hamja/Bloomberg via Getty Images

At the same time, food production and transportation make up as much as one-third of a typical U.S. household’s annual contribution to climate change-inducing emissions. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 30% of food produced in the U.S. is wasted. And once in landfills, rotting food creates methane — a potent gas that heats the Earth. So, changing consumer behavior to minimize waste and reduce transportation could have a significant impact on the overall pollution that is fueling climate change.

Advertisement

“It’s crossed my mind,” Micaeli says about the environmental impact. “Unfortunately, it’s one of those things like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. It’s like we have to meet our basic needs before we can be concerned about things like that.”

Gerhard du Plessis grabs a dinner plate while preparing to eat the Thai food he ordered for delivery.

Gerhard du Plessis grabs a dinner plate while preparing to eat the Thai food he ordered for delivery.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ryan Kellman/NPR

In 2022, researchers from the University of Michigan and Ford Motor Co. modeled a single 36-item grocery cart to compare greenhouse emissions from an e-commerce grocery delivery and a traditional trip to the store to get the same items. Gregory Keoleian and colleagues at the university’s Center for Sustainable Systems found that using an electric vehicle to pick up groceries could cut emissions by as much as half, compared to a gas-powered vehicle.

They also found that home delivery could be an even better option. That’s because with a delivery vehicle, orders are often clustered, with a driver dropping off not just your groceries, but also hitting neighbors during the same run. “Delivery is actually going to be more efficient in general than driving yourself in a gasoline SUV to the store to pick up your groceries,” Keoleian says.

After waving goodbye to the delivery person the du Plessises children stand outside with their parents.

After waving goodbye to the delivery person, the du Plessises’ children wait outside with their parents.

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Advertisement

Meal kits versus cooking from scratch

In Sonora, Calif., Scott Jones, his wife and elderly father have made extensive use of HelloFresh. One of the company’s meal kits that is designed to feed two people works out “absolutely perfect [with] very little waste” for the three of them, he says. He’s also impressed with the packaging, much of which is compostable or recyclable.

Still, he’s a bit worried about the size of the carbon footprint such meal kits might produce, a concern echoed by the du Plessis family.

“I think the worst would probably be the meal kits,” Micaeli says. “Yeah, with all that packaging,” her husband, Gerhard, agrees.

In fact, a 2019 study found that, comparatively, meal kits could be one of the best options for lower greenhouse gas emissions. Shelie Miller and a group of researchers from the University of Michigan’s School for Environment and Sustainability compared the carbon footprint of meal kits with the same recipes sourced from a grocery store. She and her colleagues looked at emissions for each meal caused by food waste and packaging, and the supply chain structure.

The meal kits “did have more packaging overall and more impact associated with that packaging,” Miller says. “But what we really saw was that the meal kits had more efficient use of food.”

Advertisement

On average, the greenhouse gas emissions for a meal made with ingredients purchased at a grocery store are 33% higher than a comparable prepackaged kit, the study found.

The du Plessises sit down for dinner, Thai food, which they had delivered.

The du Plessises sit down to eat the Thai food they had delivered for dinner.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ryan Kellman/NPR

The reason? When we cook from scratch, we tend to buy more ingredients than we need. Some of that goes to waste, Miller says. And leftovers get shoved to the back of the refrigerator and forgotten.

Case in point: At the du Plessis household, Gerhard says finishing up leftovers is a “50-50” proposition. “If you want to look in the fridge, there’s just Tupperware full of leftovers from last night and the night before” that might never get eaten, he says.

But shopping at a farmers market can help offset the carbon footprint of cooking from scratch, says Jury Gualandris, a professor at Western University’s Ivey Business School in Ontario, Canada, who studies food waste in supply chains. In one research paper, he and co-author Sourabh Jain consider the sustainability of individual consumer choices at a supermarket or farmers market compared to those made by a meal kit provider.

Advertisement

“When you cook your own meal, if you do it by sourcing materials that are grown locally, then you will cut the carbon footprint by a substantial amount …” Gualandris says.

Zelda leans in for help with a bite from her father.

Zelda leans in for help with a bite from her father.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ryan Kellman/NPR

E-bikes, drones and robots deliver a smaller carbon footprint

When it comes to delivery services like DoorDash, Uber Eats and Grubhub, Gerhard du Plessis theorizes that “because this guy’s literally delivering two burgers and like two sodas,” such options would have a big footprint. “For the volume of food compared to the amount of carbon emitted, yeah, the equation doesn’t quite add up.”

Unlike grocery deliveries, it’s difficult to coordinate multiple drop-offs in a single vehicle, according to William Rose, an associate professor of supply chain management at Iowa State University.

A driver typically picks up an order quickly and, in the case of takeout food, ideally gets it to the customer while it’s still hot, Rose says. It becomes “impossible to cluster those deliveries,” he says — unless people who live near each other decide at the same time to order from the same restaurant or eateries within close proximity.

Advertisement

But there are ways to reduce the heavier carbon footprint even for this type of delivery.

E-bikes can save a lot on emissions and they are substantially cheaper to operate compared to automobiles. Keoleian says the study he worked on also looked at emerging technologies such as drones and sidewalk robots, finding that they could significantly reduce carbon emissions on small deliveries, such as restaurant takeout.

But he is quick to point out that the “last mile” of a delivery accounts for only about 10% of the greenhouse gases in the food supply chain. A much bigger factor is the type of food we eat, and “about a quarter to a third of the emissions are due to the food waste.”

Zelda receives a treat in the form of a temporary tattoo after dinner. Later, pictured at right, Micaeli loads dishes into the dishwasher.

Zelda gets a temporary tattoo as a treat after dinner. Later, pictured at right, Micaeli loads dishes into the dishwasher.

Ryan Kellman/NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Ryan Kellman/NPR

Key takeaways for ordinary consumers

For any type of delivery, sedans are better than SUVs, which are better than pickup trucks, Keoleian says. Bundling a grocery run with other errands or the work commute is another good strategy to reduce your footprint.

Advertisement

But these options aren’t for everyone. Meal kits and food delivery can be more expensive and aren’t affordable for everyone. And yet, they can also be indispensable.

It wasn’t the pandemic but a serious accident that changed Halima Jenkins’ shopping habits. About a decade ago, she fell down a flight of stairs and now, she says, “I have days where I can’t drive. I have days where I can’t move.”

Her daughters don’t drive yet, and her husband doesn’t always have time to shop. So grocery delivery has become the norm in their Hyattsville, Md., home. The family also gets restaurant food delivered by DoorDash or Uber Eats once or twice a week.

“There are days where I just feel like existing is profoundly difficult,” Jenkins says. “I’m happy to just have something delivered depending on how capable I am that day.”

So, what are the simple takeaways for ordinary consumers?

Advertisement

If meal kits fit your lifestyle, they may be the most climate-conscious choice. The packaging might put you off, but you’re less likely to waste food.

When it comes to groceries, delivery via a service like Instacart may be a better option for the environment compared to driving to the store, unless you can bundle grocery runs with your work commute or other errands.

Limiting restaurant takeout via DoorDash or Uber Eats also will help reduce your carbon footprint. But with these services, the mode of delivery makes a difference. In a busy city, where the driver uses an e-bike or electric car, the footprint of the service will be significantly less than a meal brought to you in a gasoline-powered vehicle.

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending