Comments on: Ecology and Food

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:59:40 +0000

Good point Deb. Another issue: perhaps the single best thing that could be done about crashing grassland bird populations would be to convert all crop land to the production of grass-fed livestock. What constitutes environmental soundness is not a simple (or simplistic) matter.

By: Common environments, Diggers, and Climate Campers | Toban Black

Common environments, Diggers, and Climate Campers | Toban Black — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:01:07 +0000

[…] much attention to emissions from industrial agriculture, and other mainstream food systems. (Here is a post that addresses interconnected food systems and and greenhouse gas emissions — […]

By: nonfictions

nonfictions — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:42:27 +0000

One more quick comment:
I see that fruits/veggies emit about the same amt. of CO2 as white meat. So perhaps as a start, a person could eat less red meat (it’s not good for you anyway!)

And I’m reposting the link I posted so that it’s hopefully a hyperlink this time.

http://www.woodstockfas.org/downon.shtml#environment

By: nonfictions

nonfictions — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:38:16 +0000

I’ve read over and over that there is no such thing as a meat consuming environmentalist. Of course the ethics against eating meat are strong, but meat production pumps more CO2 into the air than ALL of transportation combined. I know that not everyone is going to become vegan, but perhaps they could have a meat free weekdays or even just a meat free Monday. Take small steps. Each one counts!

And there are plenty of non-meat/non-animal foods that are filling, delicious and nutritious. Grains, fruits and veggies – the possibilities are endless! It’s a myth that vegetarians and vegans are pale and weak and don’t get any protein.

For more infohttp://www.woodstockfas.org/downon.shtml#environment

By: Analiese’s Reading 6/13 | Quiche Moraine

Analiese’s Reading 6/13 | Quiche Moraine — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:20:37 +0000

[…] The food web is a scary place; Model sued after death for letting her looks go; Banks: Not so good for people. Ecology and Food Reminiscent of work by Anna Lappé and the Small Planet Institute’s “Take a Bite out of Climate Change” initiative, I stumbled across Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States by Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews in Environmental Science and Technology. Looking past the fancy equations you see data presented like this snippet of Figure 1, documenting the green house gas emissions associated with household food consumption, allowing for a comparison of impacts between food groups. Sociological Images […]

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:33:40 +0000

I saw this research a while back – I think it came out about a year ago. It’s interesting and thought-provoking. I agree with the above commenter who wants to see a comparison of different production methods (i.e. organic vs conventional, grass-fed vs. corn-fed, etc.).
Duran, in regard to your question about international transportation. I think what they found is that most international foods are shipped by boat, which is a fairly efficient form of transportation. As a result, the effect of the international delivery on greenhouse gas is minimal. The biggest contribution to greenhouse gas, in terms of delivery, comes from land transportation. So those of us who live inland generate more greenhouse gasses from our international foods than do those living on the coasts. However, even this is minimal when compared to the production side.
Like Umlud says, though, all of this has to be taken in context. There are other reasons to buy locally than climate change, and the narrow focus on climate change may do more harm than good in some ways. I say, buy locally when possible, and generally buy less red meat (your heart will thank you too!).

By: Food production, “Food miles” and greenhouse gas emissions « The Gender Blender Blog

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:16:18 +0000

[…] Food production, “Food miles” and greenhouse gas emissions 8 06 2009 Via Sociological Images: […]

By: Duran

Duran — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:46:15 +0000

Good point. My more general point is that it’s good when science examines a belief system that some take for granted.

I read The Omnivore’s Dilemma a while back, and I don’t recall much about energy costs of food. In fact as I recall, he was advocating local consumption, at least in part. I could be mistaken?

By: Umlud

Umlud — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:52:19 +0000

This (and other charts like it) are good encapsulations of messages that are held in books like The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food as well as films such as King Corn. On another note, though, the "buy local" movement isn't just about greenhouse gas in production, but what the movement of goods vast distances means for entrenching one's self into a mode of production and distribution that (currently at least) favors the continued use of roads and petroleum. However, I wonder if the values for transport shown in the graphs above are for the movement of the product to market (i.e., only showing the "end phase" of movement), or for the movement of all inputs necessary for that product.

By: Duran

Duran — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:23:51 +0000

Another thing I’d like to see – the same chart w/ domestic and international produced goods separated.

The international costs are slivered to almost nothing, but I do suspect that’s only because we consume so much domestic food. I’d like to know the true cost behind flying a tomato from Peru.

By: Duran

Duran — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:21:06 +0000

I’m glad to see hard science pointing its microscope at the assumptions underpinning the froofy “buy local” fad. Of course, those of us who have ever worked with cattle knew that all those bowely gases are just as overwhelming to the senses when they’re in the farm next door as in western Nebraska.

Another study I’d like to see is an examination of how organically produced food compares to non-organically in these same categories. I’m sure there would be some discussion-worthy data.

@DebG
It’s saying nothing of the thing. It’s saying that if you want to make a dent in the environmental impact of your food, you should first start with a consideration of the foods you eat, not where they come from.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:57:44 +0000

I don’t think the chart is trying to persuade us to eat cookies and ketchup, but to encourage mindfulness about what we do consume.

For example, if you are aware that your steak is responsible for an overwhelming amount of greenhouse gases, maybe you’ll order chicken instead? Or maybe even implement meatless Mondays?

By: DebG

DebG — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:30:10 +0000

Based on that chart, we should all eat cookies with ketchup…which would also have the positive environmental impact that the human population would begin dying off…