dmaraz wrote:
> I cannot believe how many people are buying into this manmade global warming
> nonsense. The rise and fall of the Earth's temperature is part of its
> natural cycle. Al Gore's movie was full of crap and outright lies.
I've not seen the movie; I tend to to take many views on board and take
a balanced judgment. From what I've read, I don't think man-made global
warming is 'nonsense'.
>
> I hope people will come to their senses before we waste any more time and
> energy on this issue. Do a little fact checking and research on both sides
> instead of just drinking the liberal kool-aid.
As above, I have done some 'fact checking'. From your response I think
it's you that have the blinkers on. - What is factually inaccurate about
the cited report (evidence required).
>
> I am, believe it or not, a strict vegan {I really miss those circus peanut
> marshmallows} and I really dislike that all vegans seem to be such liberals.
> If you are worried about animal suffering and peace on the planet, then work
> to end abortion and human suffering. I refuse to eat animals or be the
> cause of animal suffering, but aren't people more important?
I'm not a vegan or liberal. - I avoid meat and dairy for several reasons.
I agree that to reduce animal suffering you have to start with an aim to
reduce human suffering. (Reminded me of the following clip.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaL8I8_iZz8
I would guess that you do cause animal and human suffering; most of us
do, some of us acknowledge that and take steps to reduce it.
What do you think causes more (human and animal) harm; eating a
marshmallow or for example, importing vegan food / goods from China?
>
> Reduce, reuse, recycle, don't pollute and the planet will be fine. Don't
> drive everybody crazy with "carbon" or we just might get taxed everytime we
> fart or exhale.
Won't scientific reports regarding the impact of meat versus local
produce help people make more informed choices?
>
> Be more conservative and eat more tofu.
Depends what you mean by conservative. I don't like tofu.
>
> Thanks for reading,
> David
>
>
> "SystemX" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://environment.newscientist.com/...meat-does.html
>>
>> Quote:-
>>
>> That locally-produced, free-range, organic hamburger might not be as green
>> as you think.
>>
>> An analysis of the environmental toll of food production concludes that
>> transportation is a mere drop in the carbon bucket. Foods such as beef and
>> dairy make a far deeper impression on a consumer's carbon footprint.
>>
>> "If you have a certain type of diet that’s indicative of the American
>> average, you're not going to do that much for climate while eating
>> locally," says Christopher Weber, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon
>> University in Pittsburgh who led a comprehensive audit of the greenhouse
>> gas emissions of our meals.
>> Gassy foods
>>
>> His analysis included emissions such as transporting and producing
>> fertiliser for crops, methane gas emitted by livestock, and food's journey
>> to market. All told, that final step added up to just 4% of a food's
>> greenhouse emissions, on average.
>>
>> But some items, particularly red meat, spewed out far more greenhouse
>> gases than other foods, Weber and his colleague Scott Matthews found.
>>
>> Environmentally savvy shoppers may want to take note.
>>
>> "It seems much easier to shift one day of my beef consumption a week to
>> chicken or vegetables, than going through and eating only Jerusalem
>> artichokes for three months in the winter," says Weber, a "vegetarian
>> bordering on vegan."
>> Every last molecule
>>
>> Other researchers have quantified the greenhouse gas budget of foods, but
>> most studies looked at a single food item, such as an apple, or ignored
>> greenhouse gases more potent than CO2, such as methane and nitrous oxide.
>>
>> Weber's team combined statistics on greenhouse gas emissions for different
>> foods with estimated greenhouse footprints for transport for each step in
>> a food's production and final delivery.
>>
>> Food travelled an average of 1640 km in its final trip to the grocery
>> store, out of total of 6760 km on the road for the raw ingredients. But
>> some foods log more kilometres than others. Red meat averaged 20,400 km –
>> just 1800 of those from final delivery.
>>
>> Accounting for greenhouse gas emissions made those contrasts even starker.
>> Final delivery "food-miles" make up just 1% of the greenhouse emissions of
>> red meat, and 11% for fruits and vegetables.
>>
>> To drive his point home, Weber calculated that a completely local diet
>> would reduce a household's greenhouse emissions by an amount equivalent to
>> driving a car 1600 km fewer per year. He assumed the car travels 10.6 km
>> per litre of petrol (25 mpg). Switching from red meat to veggies just one
>> day per week would spare 1860 km of driving.
>>
>> "The differences between eating habits are very, very striking," Weber
>> says.
>>
>> Edgar Hertwich, a researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and
>> Technology in Trondheim, agrees that the obsession with food miles can
>> obscure more significant environmental impacts of our food.
>>
>> "Why not focus on what actually happens on the field and how much
>> fertiliser we use," he says.
>>
>> Whatever the source of greenhouse gas emissions from food, many are now
>> calling for labelling that lets shoppers know how much carbon went into
>> their goods. In the UK, the government-supported Carbon Trust offers a
>> voluntary carbon label, and a proposed California law aims to regulate
>> such labelling, much like organic food standards.
>>
>> "Our goal is to get the most accurate information that’s available in the
>> hands of consumer so they can make informed purchasing decisions," says
>> Matthew Perry, head of Carbon Label California.
>>
>> But based on Weber's study, consumers will face decisions tougher than
>> buying local well water over bottles shipped from Fiji.
>>
>> "If you're interested in the hamburger you're not going to switch to tofu,
>> but you might switch to a chicken burger," Perry says.
>>
>> Journal reference: Environmental Science and Technology (DOI:
>> 10.1021/es702969f)
>
>