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)

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 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.

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?

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.

Be more conservative and eat more 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)

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)
>
>

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.

Why is it that it must be one or the other? I think both arguments are true.

>
> 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.

'Liberal'? Another example of American arrogance. I guess the rest of
the world doesn't have an opinion that counts.


>
> 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?
>
> 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.

Bullshit. Overpopulation is the real issue, and nobody wants to touch it
with a barge pole.


> Be more conservative and eat more tofu.

More irrelevant 'divide-and conquer' mentality bullshit.