Having problems with message search?
http://www.environmentreport.org/transcript.php3?story_id=4158
EATING RIGHT FOR THE CLIMATE
Lester Graham
September 8, 2008
How far your food travels might be less important than the kind of food you buy. Lester Graham reports on a new study that looks at the connections between food and greenhouse gasses:
One of the reasons more people have been buying local food is because it doesn't travel as far, use more energy and create as much greenhouse gas emissions.
But a study from Carnegie Mellon (see further below) suggests the kind of food you buy is more important. The study indicates emissions from animals such as methane and nitrous oxides can be as much as twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide from transportation.
Christopher Weber is the lead author of the study.
"Because of smaller amounts of emissions, but more potent emissions of these gasses, it turns out that the CO2 associated with energy to move food around is not as important as these non-energy related greenhouse gasses."
Weber acknowledges there are more good reasons to buy local food than just greenhouse gas emissions. But cutting down on meat in your diet might reduce greenhouses gasses more.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
© 2008 Environment Report
* * *
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1053270/Everyone-meat-free-day-week-tackle-climate-change-says-UN.html
Everyone should have one meat-free day a week to tackle climate change, says UN
By Colin Fernandez
Last updated at 10:24 AM on 08th September 2008
Everyone should have one meat-free day a week to help save the planet, a leading expert on global warming has claimed.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said meat farming produces enormous amounts of greenhouse gases.
The environmental scientist, joint winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, said sticking to vegetables once a week would have more beneficial effects than reducing car journeys.
'Give up meat for one day (a week) initially,' the Indian economist recommended.
'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity.'
He said while the world looks for ways to reduce greenhouse gases, 'growing global meat production is going to severely compromise future efforts'.
Dr Pachauri said that 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases come from livestock.
Methane, a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, is produced by 'belching, flatulent livestock', according to environmental research organisation Worldwatch Institute.
World meat consumption is set to double in the next 20 years as developing countries such as China and India become more prosperous and eat more meat.
A U.S. study has shown an average household would reduce the impact of their greenhouse gas emissions by more if they halved their meat consumption than if they halved their car usage.
But Dr Pachauri's remarks were rejected by health minister Ben Bradshaw, who said in a TV interview: 'I suspect meat consumption is not the biggest contributor to climate change.
'There are very sensible reasons to have a healthy balanced diet, and I think some people eat too much meat, but I think there are other more useful things one can do to reduce one's carbon emissions.
'There are a lot of other human activities we can change first that will help with climate change.'
Critics argued that meat production in the UK is more environmentally friendly than many parts of the world, such as Brazil, where rainforests are bulldozed to rear cattle.
According to food writer Joanna Blythman, 'wet, green Britain' is highly suitable for livestock and 'otherwise useless land can be grazed by cattle, sheep, goats, deer and other game'.
EATING RIGHT FOR THE CLIMATE
Lester Graham
September 8, 2008
How far your food travels might be less important than the kind of food you buy. Lester Graham reports on a new study that looks at the connections between food and greenhouse gasses:
One of the reasons more people have been buying local food is because it doesn't travel as far, use more energy and create as much greenhouse gas emissions.
But a study from Carnegie Mellon (see further below) suggests the kind of food you buy is more important. The study indicates emissions from animals such as methane and nitrous oxides can be as much as twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide from transportation.
Christopher Weber is the lead author of the study.
"Because of smaller amounts of emissions, but more potent emissions of these gasses, it turns out that the CO2 associated with energy to move food around is not as important as these non-energy related greenhouse gasses."
Weber acknowledges there are more good reasons to buy local food than just greenhouse gas emissions. But cutting down on meat in your diet might reduce greenhouses gasses more.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
© 2008 Environment Report
* * *
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1053270/Everyone-meat-free-day-week-tackle-climate-change-says-UN.html
Everyone should have one meat-free day a week to tackle climate change, says UN
By Colin Fernandez
Last updated at 10:24 AM on 08th September 2008
Everyone should have one meat-free day a week to help save the planet, a leading expert on global warming has claimed.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said meat farming produces enormous amounts of greenhouse gases.
The environmental scientist, joint winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, said sticking to vegetables once a week would have more beneficial effects than reducing car journeys.
'Give up meat for one day (a week) initially,' the Indian economist recommended.
'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity.'
He said while the world looks for ways to reduce greenhouse gases, 'growing global meat production is going to severely compromise future efforts'.
Dr Pachauri said that 18 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases come from livestock.
Methane, a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, is produced by 'belching, flatulent livestock', according to environmental research organisation Worldwatch Institute.
World meat consumption is set to double in the next 20 years as developing countries such as China and India become more prosperous and eat more meat.
A U.S. study has shown an average household would reduce the impact of their greenhouse gas emissions by more if they halved their meat consumption than if they halved their car usage.
But Dr Pachauri's remarks were rejected by health minister Ben Bradshaw, who said in a TV interview: 'I suspect meat consumption is not the biggest contributor to climate change.
'There are very sensible reasons to have a healthy balanced diet, and I think some people eat too much meat, but I think there are other more useful things one can do to reduce one's carbon emissions.
'There are a lot of other human activities we can change first that will help with climate change.'
Critics argued that meat production in the UK is more environmentally friendly than many parts of the world, such as Brazil, where rainforests are bulldozed to rear cattle.
According to food writer Joanna Blythman, 'wet, green Britain' is highly suitable for livestock and 'otherwise useless land can be grazed by cattle, sheep, goats, deer and other game'.
Illustration Omitted:
She added: 'Try telling the Masai tribesmen who have reared livestock for millennia that they should plough up scrubby Kenyan savannah and plant millet.'
The National Farmers Union said 'simplistic measures' to reduce meat consumption will 'create more problems than they solve'.
Stuart Roberts, director of the British Meat Processors Association, said: 'The British meat industry already takes its environmental responsibilities very seriously and I believe methane levels on UK farms are actually falling already.'
* * *
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i10/abs/es702969f.html
Environ. Sci. Technol., 42 (10), 3508-3513, 2008. 10.1021/es702969f
Web Release Date: April 16, 2008
Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society
Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States
Christopher L. Weber* and H. Scott Matthews
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Received for review November 28, 2007
Revised manuscript received March 4, 2008
Accepted March 14, 2008
Abstract:
Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the environmental impacts of food, few studies in the United States have systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution, aka "food-miles." We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household's 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household's food-related climate footprint than "buying local." Shifting less than one day per week's worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.
Download the full text: PDF <http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i10/pdf/es702969f.pdf>
* * *
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2008/apr/science/ee_foodmiles.html
April 16, 2008
Do food miles matter?
The benefits of eating locally grown food may not extend to curbing global warming, according to a comprehensive study of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. food.
On a typical spring day, lunch for Seattle-based writer Sage Van Wing includes pasta with pork sausage from a small local farm. The peppers, cheese, and shallots on top come from the nearby farmers market. Van Wing is a locavore-she tries to eat only locally grown foods whenever possible. (To read a Q&A with Van Wing, click here.)
Illustration Omitted:
Van Wing, who coined the term locavore with a friend 3 years ago, says curbing global warming is one of many social and environmental reasons for eating locally. And for many people, "food miles", the distance food travels from farm to plate, are a simple way to gauge food's impact on climate change.
But it's how food is produced, not how far it is transported, that matters most for global warming, according to new research published in ES&T (DOI: 10.1021/es702969f). In fact, eating less red meat and dairy can be a more effective way to lower an average U.S. household's food-related climate footprint than buying local food, says lead author Christopher Weber of Carnegie Mellon University.
Weber and colleague Scott Matthews, also of Carnegie Mellon, conducted a life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gases emitted during all stages of growing and transporting food consumed in the U.S. They found that transportation creates only 11% of the 8.1 metric tons (t) of greenhouse gases (in CO2 equivalents) that an average U.S. household generates annually as a result of food consumption. The agricultural and industrial practices that go into growing and harvesting food are responsible for most (83%) of its greenhouse gas emissions.
For perspective, food accounts for 13% of every U.S. household's 60 t share of total U.S. emissions; this includes industrial and other emissions outside the home. By comparison, driving a car that gets 25 miles per gallon of gasoline for 12,000 miles per year (the U.S. average) produces about 4.4 t of CO2. Switching to a totally local diet is equivalent to driving about 1000 miles less per year, Weber says.
A relatively small dietary shift can accomplish about the same greenhouse gas reduction as eating locally, Weber adds. Replacing red meat and dairy with chicken, fish, or eggs for one day per week reduces emissions equal to 760 miles per year of driving. And switching to vegetables one day per week cuts the equivalent of driving 1160 miles per year.
Several other recent studies have analyzed particular foods and poked holes in the food mile concept. For example, it can be more energy efficient for a British household to buy tomatoes or lettuce from Spain than from heated greenhouses in the U.K.
The new work expands on those studies by providing a comprehensive look at the U.S. food supply. Weber used an input-output life-cycle assessment, which counts not only the CO2 produced when food is shipped but also all greenhouse gases, including methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), emitted from farm production. This means counting all the way back to the fossil fuels used to manufacture fertilizer and tractors.
"There is more [total] greenhouse gas impact from methane and nitrous oxide than from all the CO2 in the supply chain," Weber says. In large part, he adds, this is because N2O and CH4 emission in the production of red meat "blows away CO2". Cows burp CH4, and growing their feed uses large amounts of fertilizers that are converted to N2O by soil bacteria.
Edgar Hertwich, an expert on life-cycle analysis who is at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, calls the results "quite convincing" but notes that consumers should still keep an eye on food flown on airplanes, which have very high greenhouse gas emissions. "Food miles are a very good idea, but not for the faint of heart," adds Gidon Eshel, a Bard Center Fellow at Bard College. "Counting transport alone won't do the trick; you need a full life-cycle analysis."
"It's still useful to think about transport," says David Pimentel of Cornell University, an ecologist who has conducted life-cycle analyses of food's energy use. He recently calculated that if a typical American drives home with a 1 pound can of corn, 311 calories of fossil fuel energy are used to transport the 375-calorie corn in the can.
Van Wing read Weber's paper and found it a "holistic and helpful" look at food miles. But the research doesn't change her outlook on food, she says. She will continue to buy from local growers, whose production practices she can see firsthand. -ERIKA ENGELHAUPT
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only. ***
Offline 
Send Email