Skip to main content

Eating Green

Some time ago I began to eat more fruits and vegetables, this drifted over into an exclusively vegetarian diet after a while.

My motivation for this change was twofold.

First there was my own health, I am convinced that a diet made up primarily of fruits, grains and vegetables is the one our bodies are designed to use. Small amounts of meats are probably not that bad but I really don't care much for meat, or should I say the very idea of eating the burned corpse of some murdered animal simply makes me feel a bit queasy. ;-)

My second motive was that producing meats uses more resources, land and fuel, than producing an equivalent food value for a vegetarian diet. My thinking was that to feed all of the people on the planet we needed to move toward this sort of eating, we just can't feed 6 billion people beef!

Now there is a study out that demonstrates just how important this idea really is, this time with an eye toward reducing our carbon footprint, reducing greenhouse emissions and thus doing something personal about the severe problem of global warming. Eating vegetarian is the same as driving 8,000 miles less in a car, about what I drive in a year anyway.

Already I do such things as insisting on living close to public transit so I don't need to use a car to go to work, I ride my bike to the train and walk as much as possible. The location of our new house thrilled me, and decided me on going for it, because it's 2.1 miles from the train station and only about 6 blocks from a Lucky's Supermarket so we will be able to walk to get our groceries, it's also 7 blocks from a great park so we won't need to drive to a park for Serenity to play they way we usually do now.

All that being said here is the story from my favorite source for science news, Science Daily:

Web address:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/
080421161338.htm

Want To Reduce Your Food-related Carbon Footprint? What You Eat Is More Important Than Where It Came From

enlarge

The foods you choose, not the distance it traveled to reach your table, is the most important determinant of your food-related climate impact. (Credit: iStockphoto/Willie B. Thomas)

ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2008) — The old adage, "We are what we eat,'' may be the latest recipe for success when it comes to curbing the perils of global climate warming. Despite the recent popular attention to the distance that food travels from farm to plate, aka "food miles," Carnegie Mellon researchers Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews argue in an upcoming article in Environmental Science & Technology journal that it is dietary choice, not food miles, which most determines a household's food-related climate impacts.

"Our analysis shows that despite all the attention given to food miles, the distance that food travels is only around 11% of the average American household's food-related greenhouse gas emissions,'' said Weber, a research professor in Carnegie Mellon's department of civil and environmental engineering and engineering and public policy.

The researchers report that fruit, vegetables, meat and milk produced closer to home rack up fewer petroleum-based transport miles than foods trucked cross country to your table. Yet despite the large distances involved--the average distance traveled for food in the U.S. is estimated at 4,000-5,000 miles --the large non-energy based greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing food make food production matter much more than distance traveled.

The authors suggest that eating less red meat and/or dairy products may be a more effective way for concerned citizens to lower their food-related climate impacts. They estimate that shifting to an entirely local diet would reduce the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions as driving 1,000 miles, while changing only one day per week's meat and dairy-based calories to chicken, fish, or vegetables would have about the same impact. Shifting entirely from an average American diet to a vegetable-based one would reduce the same emissions as 8,000 miles driven per year.

"Where you get your food from is a relevant factor in family food decisions, but what you are eating - and the processes needed to make it - is much more important from a climate change perspective,'' said Matthews, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon.

Adapted from materials provided by Carnegie Mellon University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

APA

MLA
Carnegie Mellon University (2008, April 22). Want To Reduce Your Food-related Carbon Footprint? What You Eat Is More Important Than Where It Came From. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/04/080421161338.htm

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NBC anti-life?

I would boycott NBC, if I ever watched it that is. I actually never watch anything on the old line networks, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX. Everything I watch is on the cable only stations... do they still broadcast over the air? Ah well, this story is about the fact that it seems NBC refused to air an ad put together by some Catholic outfit that features an embryo and all of the hardships it faced in early life ending up with the revelation that they were talking about Obama. Here is the ad , check it out and see how unoffensive it is. Like I said, if I watched them I'd quit now. :-/

Viva California! USA out of California Now!

Gene Veith points to a Russian who predicts the breakup the American Empire. Gene is somehow unaware of the dozens of secessionist movements in various states. Granted they are almost all small but still, they exist and this could be a good time for us. Those who know me already understand that I'm a California Nationalist who I doesn't think California should have joined those united States in the first place. Being a part of that empire just costs us money, we get nothing in return. These days we get to be hated by foreigners for being Americans and mocked by Americans for being Californians. Getting us out of the US yesterday would be a day too late as far as I'm concerned.

Government = Violence

What it comes down to is this, any law you propose states this, I will kill you if you do not agree to do "X." I say this because ALL laws say this. All . Jay walking is a "crime." So, what does that mean? It means if you jay walk you risk death at the hands of government enforcers. How so? You are accosted while jay walking by the local police. You say, "Buzz off bucko!" The cop says "you are under arrest!" You say "Not even." They attempt to restrain you and you resist, you are now "resisting arrest" and in the process of subduing you force will be used to make you to comply. The harder you resist the more likely "they" are to simply kill you. All laws imply deadly force. All laws = the death penalty. Of course they won't say you are being killed for the "crime" of jay walking, but for resisting arrest or attempting to escape or whatever, but really it's the original "crim