This is a down-the-road consideration, but let’s say this approach becomes wildly popular, pushing people who would have shopped in person online in order to get their easy vegan options. Do the environmental benefits of a new vegan outweigh the environmental costs of a new online supermarket shopper, order process, and deliveries?
Why do you expect it to be worse environmentally to order online?
If the alternative is driving, it seems much less efficient to have 10 people independently drive to the shop and back than to have one van deliver all their food in a single round trip.
If the alternative is public transport, I guess it’s less clear, but ordering online probably allows bigger shops in that case, which I’d guess would be more efficient again?
The only way I can see it clearly making things worse is if the alternative is walking to the shops. But in that case, I’d still guess that the environmental costs of the products themselves would be much more important than the environmental costs of their transport (just because this is a claim that seems to be made a lot, and I think must factor in the transport costs of getting it from the shop to your home as well!)
It depends on the specifics, but I live in Brooklyn and getting deliveries from Whole Foods means they probably come to my house in an electric truck or e-cargo bike. That’s pretty low-emission. (Fun fact: NYC requires most grocery stores to have parking spots.)
As I currently live in an urban area in the Netherlands, I made the comment with the consumer walking or biking in mind. While ordering my groceries would be more convenient for me, I specifically do not because of the higher environmental costs. My using the app, and so being limited to online ordering, would be a worse environmental outcome than my continuing to walk and review products myself manually. But I am, to your point, likely not in the majority.
There are two main reasons I ask: first, because I don’t know that the environmental costs of the products themselves would be higher (seems likely, but I don’t know) or that transportation to the home, rather than the store, is factored into estimates as a point of course. The second reason I ask is because I think any valuable solution should consider the system implications of wild success.
I do think it is a good solution, and probable that, even at universal scale, is more sustainable.
Your online shopping delivery is batched with other houses’ deliveries which means that the petrol required to get groceries from the supermarket to your house is lower. Also online shopping encourages shopping in bulk which means fewer trips to the supermarket.
The dietary shift dwarfs transportation effects. Animal agriculture is dramatically more emissions-intensive than transport associated with grocery shopping.
This is great for online supermarket shopping.
This is a down-the-road consideration, but let’s say this approach becomes wildly popular, pushing people who would have shopped in person online in order to get their easy vegan options. Do the environmental benefits of a new vegan outweigh the environmental costs of a new online supermarket shopper, order process, and deliveries?
Why do you expect it to be worse environmentally to order online?
If the alternative is driving, it seems much less efficient to have 10 people independently drive to the shop and back than to have one van deliver all their food in a single round trip.
If the alternative is public transport, I guess it’s less clear, but ordering online probably allows bigger shops in that case, which I’d guess would be more efficient again?
The only way I can see it clearly making things worse is if the alternative is walking to the shops. But in that case, I’d still guess that the environmental costs of the products themselves would be much more important than the environmental costs of their transport (just because this is a claim that seems to be made a lot, and I think must factor in the transport costs of getting it from the shop to your home as well!)
It depends on the specifics, but I live in Brooklyn and getting deliveries from Whole Foods means they probably come to my house in an electric truck or e-cargo bike. That’s pretty low-emission. (Fun fact: NYC requires most grocery stores to have parking spots.)
As I currently live in an urban area in the Netherlands, I made the comment with the consumer walking or biking in mind. While ordering my groceries would be more convenient for me, I specifically do not because of the higher environmental costs. My using the app, and so being limited to online ordering, would be a worse environmental outcome than my continuing to walk and review products myself manually. But I am, to your point, likely not in the majority.
There are two main reasons I ask: first, because I don’t know that the environmental costs of the products themselves would be higher (seems likely, but I don’t know) or that transportation to the home, rather than the store, is factored into estimates as a point of course. The second reason I ask is because I think any valuable solution should consider the system implications of wild success.
I do think it is a good solution, and probable that, even at universal scale, is more sustainable.
Interesting point!
Your online shopping delivery is batched with other houses’ deliveries which means that the petrol required to get groceries from the supermarket to your house is lower. Also online shopping encourages shopping in bulk which means fewer trips to the supermarket.
The dietary shift dwarfs transportation effects. Animal agriculture is dramatically more emissions-intensive than transport associated with grocery shopping.