A Research Update Mechel S. Paggi,Fumiko Yamazaki and Sean Hurley * 52nd Annual Conference of the...
-
Upload
alexander-beasley -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
2
Transcript of A Research Update Mechel S. Paggi,Fumiko Yamazaki and Sean Hurley * 52nd Annual Conference of the...
A Research Update
Mechel S. Paggi ,Fumiko Yamazaki and Sean Hurley *
52nd Annual Conference of the October 15-19, 2011
Portland, Oregon
* Director & Senior Research Economist respectively, Center for Agricultural Business, California State University, Fresno, Jordan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology;Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Business, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.
“The Contribution of Food Distribution to Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of
the Transportation of Fresh Produce,”
• Importance of California Produce• Means of Transportation and Destinations• Some Issues with the Current System
• Why Look at CO2
• Examples from the Study• Summary and Implications
California: Supplier of Domestic Fruits and Vegetables
• 98% of U.S. Table Grape Production• 70% of U.S. Head Lettuce; 85% of Leaf Lettuce; 74% of Romaine• 86% of U.S fresh strawberries• 88 % of U.S. Broccoli• 94% of U.S. Celery• Etc.
UC-Davis, AIC, The Measure of California Agriculture, August, 2009
Preferred Conveyance to Minimize Emissions
297
25.2
Atlanta GABaltimore MDBoston MAChicago ILColumbus OHDallas TXDetroit MILos Angeles CAMiami FLNew York NYPhiladelphia PAPittsburg PASan Francisco CASeattle WASt. Louis MO
For Produce: Trucks Haul About 90% Of All Refrigerated Perishables
With 15 Key Domestic Destinations
USDA, AMS
USDA, AMS
USDA, AMS
USDA, AMS
The Heart of the Matter
Food Climate Research Network
Transportation Only Part of the Issue
“Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of Life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from
Producer to retail contributes only 4%. “
Over the Road Miles Only Part of the Transport Story
Modal ShareCelery
Mileage Chart
Ship From:
Fresno CA Salinas CA Santa Maria CA El Centro CA Oxnard CARancho Palos Verdes
CA Yuma AZ Average
Ship To:
Atlanta GA 2301 2397 2305 2032 2230 2202 1973 2205.71429
Baltimore MD 2826 2923 2830 2615 2755 2727 2556 2747.42857
Boston MA 3112 3197 3116 2941 3042 3013 2882 3043.28571
Chicago IL 2144 2229 2148 2045 2074 2045 1986 2095.85714
Columbus OH 2377 2473 2380 2166 2306 2278 2107 2298.14286
Dallas TX 1557 1654 1561 1250 1486 1459 1191 1451.14286
Detroit MI 2409 2494 2413 2275 2338 2310 2216 2350.71429
Los Angeles CA 219 303 170 212 61 31 269 180.714286
Miami FL 2870 2966 2906 2548 2797 2757 2489 2761.85714
New York NY 2912 3004 2915 2701 2841 2813 2642 2832.5714
Philadelphia PA 2845 2972 2849 2634 2774 2746 2575 2770.71429
Pittsburg PA 2561 2674 2564 2350 2490 2462 2291 2484.57143
San Francisco CA 192 106 264 591 388 404 648 370.428571
Seattle WA 928 895 1053 1347 1144 1160 1403 1132.85714
St. Louis MO 1956 2052 1959 1744 1884 1856 1686 1876.71429
Average Distances From Shipment Points
15 City Destinations Derived from USDA. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Arrival Totals for 20 Cities, last published in 1998. Washington, D.C., Agricultural Marketing Service, FVAS-3; Smaller volume cities added to nearest major volume destinations;
Emissions Per Truck Load:
Average Mileage from Shipping Points MPG
Quantity of Fuel (Total Gallons)
Carbon Coefficient Fraction Combusted Kg/gal
Emissions per Truck Load (MT
CO2)
Atlanta GA 2205.7143 5.8 380.2955 10.04724 99% 3782.7 3.7827
Baltimore MD 2747.4286 5.8 473.6946 10.04724 99% 4711.7 4.7117
Boston MA 3043.2857 5.8 524.7044 10.04724 99% 5219.1 5.2191
Chicago IL 2095.8571 5.8 361.3547 10.04724 99% 3594.3 3.5943
Columbus OH 2298.1429 5.8 396.2315 10.04724 99% 3941.2 3.9412
Dallas TX 1451.1429 5.8 250.1971 10.04724 99% 2488.7 2.4887
Detroit MI 2350.7143 5.8 405.2956 10.04724 99% 4031.4 4.0314
Los Angeles CA 180.71429 5.8 31.1576 10.04724 99% 309.9 0.3099
Miami FL 2761.8571 5.8 476.1823 10.04724 99% 4736.5 4.7365
New York NY 2832.5714 5.8 488.3744 10.04724 99% 4857.7 4.8577
Philadelphia PA 2770.7143 5.8 477.7094 10.04724 99% 4751.7 4.7517
Pittsburg PA 2484.5714 5.8 428.3744 10.04724 99% 4260.9 4.2609
San Francisco CA 370.42857 5.8 63.867 10.04724 99% 635.3 0.6353
Seattle WA 1132.8571 5.8 195.3202 10.04724 99% 1942.8 1.9428
St. Louis MO 1876.7143 5.8 323.5714 10.04724 99% 3218.5 3.2185
Emissions per Truck Load=(Quantity of Fuel x Carbon Coefficient x Fraction Combusted)/1000 Industry Sources
For Rail Transport: Ton-Miles=(Arrival x Avg Weight of Shipment (lbs) x Avg Shipping Distance (mi))/2204(lbs)
Total Yearly Emissions (in MT CO₂)=(Ton-Miles x (0.055 lbs CO₂ per Ton-Mile) www.carbonfund.org
CELERY-TRUCK Arrivals
Emissions Per Truck Load (MT CO₂) Total Yearly Emissions (MT CO₂)
Atlanta GA 1459 3.7827 5519
Baltimore MD 2467 4.7117 11624
Boston MA 1415 5.2191 7385
Chicago IL 4933 3.5943 17731
Columbus OH 104 3.9412 410
Dallas TX 2423 2.4887 6030
Detroit MI 4020 4.0314 16206
Los Angeles CA 5481 0.3099 1699
Miami FL 1181 4.7365 5594
New York NY 3788 4.8577 18401
Philadelphia PA 1668 4.7517 7926
Pittsburg PA 1563 4.2609 6660
San Francisco CA 2606 0.6353 1656
Seattle WA 1876 1.9428 3645
St. Louis MO 1283 3.2185 4129
Total: 36,267 114,613
USDA/AMS Daily Movement Reports,;48-53 foot refrigerated trailers, 40,000 lb. shipment units;
CELERY-RAIL Adjusted Arrival
Avg Weight of Shipment (lbs.)
Avg Shipping Distance (miles) MT-Miles
Train Shipping Emissions Factor (lbs CO₂ per MT-
Mile)Total Yearly Emission MT CO₂
Atlanta GA - 40,000 2205.7143 - 0.0252 -
Baltimore MD 29 40,000 2747.4286 1,446,015 0.0252 36
Boston MA 179 40,000 3043.2857 9,886,536 0.0252 249
Chicago IL 302 40,000 2095.8571 11,487,275 0.0252 289
Columbus OH - 40,000 2298.1429 0.0252
Dallas TX - 40,000 1451.1429 0.0252
Detroit MI - 40,000 2350.7143 0.0252
Los Angeles CA - 40,000 180.71429 0.0252
Miami FL - 40,000 2761.8571 0.0252
New York NY 360 40,000 2832.5714 18,506,819 0.0252 466
Philadelphia PA 157 40,000 2770.7143 7,894,776 0.0252 199
Pittsburg PA - 40,000 2484.5714 0.0252
San Francisco CA - 40,000 370.42857 0.0252
Seattle WA - 40,000 1132.8571 0.0252
St. Louis MO - 40,000 1876.7143 0.0252
Total: 1,027 40,000 49,221,420 0.0252 1240
Ton-Miles=( Arrivals x Avg Weight of Shipment (lbs) x Avg Shipping Distance (mi))/2204.6 (lbs)
Total Yearly Emissions (in MT CO₂)=(Ton-Miles x (0.0252 kg CO₂ per Ton-Mile))/1000
Source: EPA430-R-08-006
Modal ShareIceberg Lettuce
LETTUCE, ICEBERG-TRUCK Arrivals
Emissions Per Truck Load (MT CO₂)
Total Yearly Emissions (MT CO₂)
Atlanta GA 5222 3.7827 19753
Baltimore MD 4307 4.7117 20293
Boston MA 4743 5.2191 24754
Chicago IL 7483 3.5943 26896
Columbus OH 753 3.9412 2968
Dallas TX 2846 2.4887 7083
Detroit MI 4776 4.0314 19254
Los Angeles CA 9121 0.3099 2827
Miami FL 1346 4.7365 6375
New York NY 4389 4.8577 21320
Philadelphia PA 2153 4.7517 10230
Pittsburg PA 2316 4.2609 9868
San Francisco CA 2638 0.6353 1676
Seattle WA 1400 1.9428 2720
St. Louis MO 2092 3.2185 6733
LETTUCE, ICEBERG-RAIL Adjusted Arrival
Avg Weight of Shipment (lbs)
Avg Shipping Distance (mi) Ton-Miles
Train Shipping Emissions Factor (lbs CO₂ per Ton-
Mile)Total Yearly Emission (in MT CO₂)
Atlanta GA - 40,000 2205.7143 - 0.0252 -
Baltimore MD 1 40,000 2747.4286 49,863 0.0252 1
Boston MA 4 40,000 3043.2857 220,928 0.0252 6
Chicago IL 8 40,000 2095.8571 304,299 0.0252 8
Columbus OH - 40,000 2298.1429 - 0.0252 -
Dallas TX - 40,000 1451.1429 - 0.0252 -
Detroit MI - 40,000 2350.7143 - 0.0252 -
Los Angeles CA - 40,000 180.71429 - 0.0252 -
Miami FL - 40,000 2761.8571 - 0.0252 -
New York NY 8 40,000 2832.5714 411,263 0.0252 10
Philadelphia PA 3 40,000 2770.7143 150,856 0.0252 4
Pittsburg PA - 40,000 2484.5714 - 0.0252 -
San Francisco CA - 40,000 370.42857 - 0.0252 -
Seattle WA - 40,000 1132.8571 - 0.0252 -
St. Louis MO - 40,000 1876.7143 - 0.0252 -
Total: 24 1,137,207.66 28.66
Modal ShareTable Grapes
GRAPES, TABLE-TRUCK Adjusted Arrival
Emissions Per Truck Load (MT CO₂)
Total Yearly Emissions (MT CO₂)
Atlanta GA 2210 3.7827 8360
Baltimore MD 3642 4.7117 17160
Boston MA 2016 5.2191 10522
Chicago IL 4133 3.5943 14855
Columbus OH 163 3.9412 642
Dallas TX 2578 2.4887 6416
Detroit MI 4104 4.0314 16545
Los Angeles CA 7713 0.3099 2390
Miami FL 1146 4.7365 5428
New York NY 3553 4.8577 17259
Philadelphia PA 1596 4.7517 7584
Pittsburg PA 1228 4.2609 5232
San Francisco CA 4338 0.6353 2756
Seattle WA 2210 1.9428 4294
St. Louis MO 1900 3.2185 6115
Total: 42,530 52.48 125,558
GRAPES, TABLE-RAIL Arrivals
Avg Weight of Shipment (lbs)
Avg Shipping Distance (mi) MT-Miles
Train Shipping Emissions Factor (lbs CO₂ per Ton-
Mile)Total Yearly Emission (in MT CO₂)
Atlanta GA - 40,000 2205.7143 - 0.0252 -
Baltimore MD - 40,000 2747.4286 - 0.0252 -
Boston MA 87 40,000 3043.2857 4,805,188 0.0252 121
Chicago IL 223 40,000 2095.8571 8,482,325 0.0252 214
Columbus OH - 40,000 2298.1429 - 0.0252 -
Dallas TX - 40,000 1451.1429 - 0.0252 -
Detroit MI - 40,000 2350.7143 - 0.0252 -
Los Angeles CA - 40,000 180.71429 - 0.0252 -
Miami FL - 40,000 2761.8571 - 0.0252 -
New York NY 192 40,000 2832.5714 9,870,303 0.0252 249
Philadelphia PA 82 40,000 2770.7143 4,123,386 0.0252 104
Pittsburg PA - 40,000 2484.5714 - 0.0252 -
San Francisco CA - 40,000 370.42857 - 0.0252 -
Seattle WA - 40,000 1132.8571 - 0.0252 -
St. Louis MO - 40,000 1876.7143 - 0.0252 -
Total: 584 27,281,203 687
Cost of C02 EmissionsCalifornia Fresh Produce Transport
• California to Boston Rail = 1.4 metric tons ; Truck = 5.2191 metric tons;
• UK plans a carbon floor price of $25.09 per metric ton from April 2013*; Australia initiaitive to start at A$23; ($22 US); Current estimates in CA $11 per metric ton for initial credit value;
• Origin-Destination Truck Rates for Selected Routes and Commodities, 2nd Quarter 2011 California to Boston , Lettuce, $7,710 **
• About 1000 cartons per load (60 lbs. per); By Truck --- @$23.5/MT about 12 ¢ per carton / 0.2 ¢ lb.
* Reuters Oct 3, 2011, 03.51pm IST ; ** USDA/AMS Ag Refrigerated Truck Quaterly , April – June, 2011.
Summary & ImplicationsObservations
• Market Demand for Variety Creates Need for Transport (Local may be desirable, but not practical for certain products)
• Dominance of Truck Mode Imposes a Definable Transportation Carbon Footprint
• Alternative Transport Scenarios Difficult if not Impossible in Foreseeable Future;
• Internalize Existing Costs at current value for carbon low per unit;
• Who Pays The Costs?
Needs
• Better data on shipment numbers/destinations by mode. • Leads to Better data & accountability to quantify the costs • Development of Efficiency Options for the Existing System
Green House Gas Solutions Require Global Action