"Too often, environmentalists slip half-knowingly between human health and environmental health...Unfortunately, there's no natural law saying that planet health and human health are unitary. Consider the potato... It takes 466 kilocalories of energy to produce a pound of potatoes, according to research by David Pimentel of Cornell University... Other health foods like Brussels sprouts and snap beans also take significantly more fossil fuel energy to produce than the maligned potato. A heaping bowl of steamed greens might be good for you, but the planet would prefer that you ate a plateful of microwaved potatoes..."
Must Read: Good For You, Good For the Planet? | Slate
Apartment Therapy's Sofa Shopping Guide
Nikki’s Sweet and Cheery Print Studio
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Stanley Console by ...
5 Things Paris Taught Me About Travel
Summer Recipe: Brown Butter Peaches & Chantilly Cream
The journalist is cherry picking quotes to back up his arguments. You have the one-sided kilocalorie argument, and travel assuming many things such as that the food is or is not local. Then he completely disregards other factors such as land use and mixed species crops.
This quote made me laugh out loud. I'm afraid to actually go to Slate and read the full article, I just might laugh until I....cry.
This tid-bit is just what I would expect from Slate.com, and that's not a compliment.
Yes, I've seen enough of slate.com out of curiousity...all 2 minutes worth.
The problem presented does indeed exist, but I really don't like the example. I'd much rather have read about the environmental effects of growing rice for example..