BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Shops and consumers should buy their produce based upon their overall environmental impact

Buying local is not actually environmentally friendly. The idea of food miles sounds wonderfully green, but the concept is deeply flawed. Often it takes much more energy (for heated glasshouses and fertilisers) to grow fruit and vegetables locally than it does to grow them in a country with a more suitable climate and then transport them by road, sea or air. Studies have found that it is better for the environment to produce butter, cheese, lamb and apples in New Zealand and then ship them to Britain, than it is to buy the same items from English producers.[1] And most of the food miles travelled by products come from refrigeration and consumers driving to and from the shops.[2] Indeed, the carefully packed lorries of the huge supermarkets are a more energy efficient way of distributing food than having lots of small producers driving pick-up trucks to farmers markets. Therefore consumers and retailers should concentrate much more on the overall environmental impact rather than just upon food miles. [1] McKie R., ‘How the myth of food miles hurts the planet’, guardian.co.uk, 23 March 2008. [2] Linster, Greg, ‘Protect the Environment: Eat Global!’, Coffee Theory, 12 April 2011.
Prevents Monoculture

There are other, better ways to be environmentally friendly than insisting on shopping for local produce. Locally grown food is still just as likely to be very intensively farmed so a change will have no effect on the decline of birds. If sustainability is important organic food should be bought regardless of where it comes from. Preventing monoculture should be managed by governments through their farming policies protecting biodiversity such as the set aside schemes that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) promoted and the ‘Greening’ of CAP and pillar 2 involving encouraging environmental stewardship.[1] [1] Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, ‘The balance of funding between direct payments and payments for environmental public goods’, parliament.uk, 15 April 2011.
Supports the local economy

Farmers and food products are only a very small part of the economy in the developed world. In the UK Farming contributes £7.2 billion a year to the economy,[1] less than half a percent of the whole economy. This is not an industry that needs to be sustained. There may often be more productive ways to use the land that does not involve farming such as creating wildlife sanctuaries to encourage tourism. [1] Business Link, ‘An overview of the UK economy’.
Fresher produce

Buying local foods from farmers markets does not necessarily mean that the produce is fresher. Today supermarkets’ efficient supply chains mean that green beans are on the shelves in Britain or the USA within 24 hours of being picked in Kenya or Peru. As most farmers markets only operate once or twice a week, the chances are that their produce is no fresher than this. In addition, farmers markets are a great marketing brand, but there is no guarantee that all of the goods sold are really local at all. British farmers markets often feature such items as olives and coffee beans, which cannot accurately be described as local. And if there is no source for a particular product within 20 miles or so of the market, a producer from much further away will be allowed to come in and take a stall. As mentioned in the introduction supermarket’s definitions of local are often even more expansive and the US Congress in 2008 considered local to be “less than 400 miles from its origin”,[1] which is not really local at all. [1] Martinez, Steve, ‘Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues’, Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 2010.
Trade means lower costs

Consumers and retailers need to take more in to account than just the standard price of the product. Another country may be able to produce a product cheaper but if that cheaper production damages your local community then in the long run the cost is higher. When buying local produce many local businesses benefit through a multiplier effect as the money stays within the local economy making everyone within the community richer and allowing the expansion of companies and employment.[1] [1] Schwartz J., ‘Buying Local: How It Boosts the Economy’, TimeBusiness, 11 June 2009.
Localism is Protectionism

Buying local is not protectionism as most of the products that can be easily grown locally are not in direct competition with developing world producers as they have different climates. Encouraging buying local products does not mean attempting to grow coffee or even oranges in the northern climates, it means that produce that has traditionally been grown locally should be bought from local suppliers. When it comes to development agriculture is not a true way out of poverty in poor countries and is often what has trapped them there in the first place as economist Paul Collier argues people "get charity as long as they stay producing the crops that have locked them into poverty". There is no incentive for these farmers to diversify their crops or to expand their farms. They have to stay small and family run.[1] Instead poor countries should be doing what all countries that have developed have done in the past, move up the value chain so providing non-agricultural jobs. [1] Chambers A., ‘Not so fair trade’, guardian.co.uk, 12 December 2009.
Greater consumer choice

Buying local produce does not have to mean giving up on different types of food that is grown elsewhere or is available at different times of the year in other locations rather that there should be a policy of buying locally where it is possible. There is no need to have dozens of variety of apples available all at once; rather just the ones that can be locally sourced should be available. Pineapples on the other hand are very difficult to grow in northern climes so would have to be sourced from countries where pineapples are native.[1] So yes there is a slight limitation on choice but shopping for locally produce will not mean turning the clock back. [1] Lusk J. and Norwood, B., ‘The Locavore’s Dilemma: Why Pineapple Shouldn’t Be Grown in North Dakota’, 3 January 2011.
Shops and consumers should buy their produce based upon their overall environmental impact

Local shopping does benefit the environment. At the moment most food in the stores has been transported huge distances, often from countries far away. Food, even if locally-sourced, may be trucked hundreds of miles to a big distribution centre, before being sent back to a store near its point of origin. The average distance that food travels in the US is between 4000 and 5000 miles.[1] These “food miles” represent an enormous environmental cost in terms of carbon emissions and contribute hugely to the problem of climate change. This is especially true of food that has been air-freighted, a very environmentally damaging practice. Shopping in farmers markets eliminates these food miles and the proposal that supermarkets should not transport food unnecessarily would significantly reduce food miles for local produce. [1] ScienceDaily.com, ‘Want To Reduce Your Food-Related Carbon Footprint? What You Eat Is More Important Than Where It Came From’, 22 April 2008.
Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources

In many senses nuclear energy is the cleanest of renewables. It does not produce emissions such as CO2 and greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the population and the environment. Roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in the United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other source; according to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars[1]. It is true that it does produce radioactive waste but since this is in solid form it can be dealt with relatively easily and stored away from centres of population. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently[2]) [1] Max Schulz. "Nuclear Power Is the Future". Wilson Quarterly. September, 2006 [2] ‘Breeder reactor’, Wikipedia.
Nuclear power gives countries energy security and self-sufficiency

In addition, the use of nuclear power reduces our foreign energy dependency. The European Union is a net importer for energy, and as such is reliant on Russia and Norway, predominantly, for oil and gas supplies. Events such as the dispute between Russia and the Ukraine over gas supplies demonstrated that the EU's energy can easily be disrupted by political situations outside its control1. It also means that the EU could be drawn into disputes between Russia and neighbouring countries because it has a vested interest in the region. This could set a dangerous precedent, where the EU could be intimidated by Russia, because the EU relies so heavily on Russian gas. Building more nuclear power stations would ensure a more secure supply of energy, thereby avoiding the potential for energy supply to become a politically charged issue on an international scale. 1 'Russia-Ukraine gas dispute', Wikipedia
Nuclear power is very expensive

For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power. Costs are high compared to coal fired generation precisely because the externalities associated with high carbon outputs are not taken into account, whereas similar externalities relating to nuclear generation are. If costs are calculated equivalently to coal power stations then nuclear power is competitive. Also the cost of construction and decommissioning of nuclear power plants is often overestimated; the French and Swedish nuclear industries estimate decommissioning costs to be just 10 -15 % of the construction costs and budget this into the price charged for electricity1. Nuclear is actually increasing its competitiveness as gas and oil prices rise, new technology makes nuclear power more efficient and construction and decommissioning costs less. An OECD study in 2005 showed nuclear overnight construction costs ranged from US$ 1000/kW in Czech Republic to $2500/kW in Japan, and averaged $1500/kW. Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, gas plants $500-1000/kW and wind capacity $1000-1500/kW2. The difference, when weighed against nuclear power's other advantages, is thus not that great. 1 'Cost of nuclear power',  2 'The Economics of Nuclear Power', World Nuclear Association, January 2009,
Promoting continued nuclear research is against our security interests

Spreading the peaceful use of nuclear power brings important security benefits. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose signatories include every state in the world apart from India, Pakistan and Israel (plus North Korea and Iran whose membership fluctuates), is largely a provision for the sharing of nuclear power technology, which it promises to share among members who do not produce nuclear weapons (or, in the case of the 5 nuclear states, who commit to a gradual and continual reduction in weapons stockpiles). This has seen states including Brazil and Argentina abandon their nuclear weapons programmes, in order to gain access to nuclear power technology1. It is in our interest to promote peaceful use of nuclear technologies, encouraging scientists to find employment in an industry which is both peaceful and useful rather than selling their skills to the highest rogue bidder. The treaty also establishes and sets the remit of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which all members are bound to grant unlimited access to in order to facilitate inspection of nuclear facilities. This ensures that facilities cannot surreptitiously be used to facilitate the creation of nuclear weapons. 1'Nuclear weapons not appealing to all countries' by Renee Montagne, npr, 17th April 2006,
The supply of uranium needed for nuclear power is not actually unlimited, renewable or sustainable

The projected lifespan of uranium must be compared to that of oil, gas and coal which are irrefutably running out. Uranium supply is expected to last for over 200 years, which could be extended to 30,000 with modern technologies. There has not been sufficient research undertaken to explore new potential sites, new forms or ways of prolonging the life of that which we already have access to. For example, it has been claimed recently that there are potential alternatives to uranium which could be used in the nuclear process: "There is also almost always thorium, a lightly radioactive metal, in the same ores, and it has to be disposed of." This disposal would create the same amount of energy as nuclear fission. The USA and Australia have potentially very big mines for rare earths and they are going to be producing Thorium as a waste product anyway, what better way to dispose of it than by creating energy?1 1Tim Worstall, You Don't Bring a Praseodymium Knife to a Gunfight, Foreign Policy, 29/9/10, See also: http://www.economist.com/node/15865280?story_id=15865280
Nuclear power is potentially extremely unsafe

It is unfortunately the case that the nuclear industry has a bad reputation for safety. This is undeserved. The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors have functioned safely and effectively for their entire lifetimes. The four historic nuclear disasters (1957 Windscale Fire, 1979 Three Mile Island and 1986 Chernobyl, 2011 Fukushima, Japan) killed fewer people than the oil and coal industries have1. "The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year"2. Further, the two major nuclear accidents, at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, were both in old style reactors, made worse in the latter case by poor Soviet safety standards. The Chernobyl disaster took place at a time when our understanding of nuclear issues was much lesser than it is now, and was the result of poorly trained staff in the plant's control room. Power stations today are better staffed, better maintained and better understood, and because the effects of an attack upon them are acknowledged, they are better defended and monitored by the armed services. No system can be 100% safe, but solid design principles can minimize risk. Perhaps the best guarantee of safety standards in the nuclear industry is the increasing transparency with which the industry is presenting itself. Many of the problems in its early days were caused by excessive control due to the origin of nuclear energy from military applications. As the gap between the two separates so the nuclear industry becomes more accountable. The question is, is the slight risk of a nuclear accident a worse danger than the inevitable climate catastrophe that awaits us? 1 'Risks of Nuclear Power' by Bernard Cohen, University of Pittsburgh, 2Patrick Moore, a prominent environmentalist and founding member of Greenpeace, "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case", Washington Post, 4/16/06"
Alternative renewables are inefficient for the cost

Nuclear power is itself inefficient: For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge1. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough. Not enough has been done to make use of all the natural energy sources that do not create the kind of damage nuclear power generation causes. We need to develop more efficient ways to capture wind, water and solar power, to explore other options and to reduce the level of power required. This is not an argument for nuclear power but one for greater resources to be put to develop natural energy sources and help protect the planet for future generations. 1Got Water? Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Water Needs." Union of Concerned Scientists
Energy demands are increasing exponentially and nuclear power is the only renewable source capable of matching it

Nuclear power is no better placed to deliver the amount of energy required. There is an unrealistic focus on nuclear power as a magical solution to climate change. Despite increasing demand the amount of electricity being generated by nuclear is projected to fall not rise. The share of nuclear energy will decrease from 30% to 25% in electricity generation by 2020. According to current projections, the nuclear generation capacity in the EU would fall by as much as 33 GWe by 2020; this fall would mostly have to be met by dirty power plants using gas, or particularly coal [1]. The focus on nuclear power diverts attention from other renewables. In reality going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Business Patricia Hewitt said in a Commons debate on a 2003 Energy White Paper: 'It would have been foolish to announce …. that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables'[2]. [1] Update of the nuclear illustrative programme in the context of the second strategic energy review, 13th November 2008, Brussels. [2] The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008
Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources

Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built. 1The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns "devastating" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,  3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns "devastating" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,
Nuclear power gives countries energy security and self-sufficiency

There is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can exploit with sufficient investment; tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions. Any given country can in principle become self-sufficient in terms of renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. Kazakhstan became the world's number one supplier of uranium in 2009, and other major producers such as Russia, Namibia, Niger and Uzbekistan may not be reliable1. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on oil. 1'Kazakhstan plans to become global leader in uranium production by 2009', Silk Road Intelligencer, 23rd July 2008,
Promoting continued nuclear research is against our security interests

Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons1. Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism, in both the developed and developing world. If a 9/11-style bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple "dirty bomb" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people. Encouraging the spread of nuclear technology enables the spread of nuclear weapons. 1 'Reactor-grade and Weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear explosives', US Department of Energy Publication, January 1997,
The supply of uranium needed for nuclear power is not actually unlimited, renewable or sustainable

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1. This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on. 1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007,  2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,