PDA

View Full Version : Your food you eat is giving the Earth a fever



DarrinS
10-23-2009, 11:00 AM
WTF? The next thing you know, the enviro-fucktards will monitor what kind of food is given to starving people because of its carbon footprint.

To Cut Global Warming, Swedes Study Their Plates (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/world/europe/23degrees.html?_r=1)




STOCKHOLM — Shopping for oatmeal, Helena Bergstrom, 37, admitted that she was flummoxed by the label on the blue box reading, “Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product.”

“Right now, I don’t know what this means,” said Ms. Bergstrom, a pharmaceutical company employee.

But if a new experiment here succeeds, she and millions of other Swedes will soon find out. New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, from whole wheat pasta to fast food burgers, are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.

People who live to eat might dismiss this as silly. But changing one’s diet can be as effective in reducing emissions of climate-changing gases as changing the car one drives or doing away with the clothes dryer, scientific experts say.

“We’re the first to do it, and it’s a new way of thinking for us,” said Ulf Bohman, head of the Nutrition Department at the Swedish National Food Administration, which was given the task last year of creating new food guidelines giving equal weight to climate and health. “We’re used to thinking about safety and nutrition as one thing and environmental as another.”

Some of the proposed new dietary guidelines, released over the summer, may seem startling to the uninitiated. They recommend that Swedes favor carrots over cucumbers and tomatoes, for example. (Unlike carrots, the latter two must be grown in heated greenhouses here, consuming energy.)

They are not counseled to eat more fish, despite the health benefits, because Europe’s stocks are depleted.

And somewhat less surprisingly, they are advised to substitute beans or chicken for red meat, in view of the heavy greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising cattle.

“For consumers, it’s hard,” Mr. Bohman acknowledged. “You are getting environmental advice that you have to coordinate with, ‘How can I eat healthier?’ ”

Many Swedish diners say it is just too much to ask. “I wish I could say that the information has made me change what I eat, but it hasn’t,” said Richard Lalander, 27, who was eating a Max hamburger (1.7 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions) in the shadow of a menu board revealing that a chicken sandwich (0.4 kilograms) would have been better for the planet.

Yet if the new food guidelines were religiously heeded, some experts say, Sweden could cut its emissions from food production by 20 to 50 percent. An estimated 25 percent of the emissions produced by people in industrialized nations can be traced to the food they eat, according to recent research here. And foods vary enormously in the emissions released in their production.

While today’s American or European shoppers may be well versed in checking for nutrients, calories or fat content, they often have little idea of whether eating tomatoes, chicken or rice is good or bad for the climate.

Complicating matters, the emissions impact of, say, a carrot, can vary by a factor of 10, depending how and where it is grown.

Earlier studies of food emissions focused on the high environmental costs of transporting food and raising cattle. But more nuanced research shows that the emissions depend on many factors, including the type of soil used to grow the food and whether a dairy farmer uses local rapeseed or imported soy for cattle feed.

Business groups, farming cooperatives and organic labeling programs as well as the government have gamely come up with coordinated ways to identify food choices.

Max, Sweden’s largest homegrown chain of burger restaurants, now puts emissions calculations next to each item on its menu boards. Lantmannen, Sweden’s largest farming group, has begun placing precise labels on some categories of foods in grocery stores, including chicken, oatmeal, barley and pasta.

Consumers who pay attention may learn that emissions generated by growing the nation’s most popular grain, rice, are two to three times those of little-used barley, for example.

Some producers argue that the new programs are overly complex and threaten profits. The dietary recommendations, which are being circulated for comment not just in Sweden but across the European Union, have been attacked by the Continent’s meat industry, Norwegian salmon farmers and Malaysian palm oil growers, to name a few.

“This is trial and error; we’re still trying to see what works,” Mr. Bohman said.

Next year, KRAV, Scandinavia’s main organic certification program, will start requiring farmers to convert to low-emissions techniques if they want to display its coveted seal on products, meaning that most greenhouse tomatoes can no longer be called organic.

Those standards have stirred some protests. “There are farmers who are happy and farmers who say they are being ruined,” said Johan Cejie, manager of climate issues for KRAV.

For example, he said, farmers with high concentrations of peat soil on their property may no longer be able to grow carrots, since plowing peat releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide; to get the organic label, they may have to switch to feed crops that require no plowing.

Next year KRAV will require hothouses to use biofuels for heating. Dairy farms will have to obtain at least 70 percent of the food for their herds locally; many previously imported cheap soy from Brazil, generating transport emissions and damaging the rain forest as trees were cleared to make way for farmland.

The Swedish effort grew out of a 2005 study by Sweden’s national environmental agency on how personal consumption generates emissions. Researchers found that 25 percent of national per capita emissions — two metric tons per year — was attributable to eating.

The government realized that encouraging a diet that tilted more toward chicken or vegetables and educating farmers on lowering emissions generally could have an enormous impact.

Sweden has been a world leader in finding new ways to reduce emissions. It has vowed to eliminate the use of fossil fuel for electricity by 2020 and cars that run on gasoline by 2030.

To arrive at numbers for their company’s first carbon dioxide labels, scientists at Lantmannen analyzed life cycles of 20 products. These take into account emissions generated by fertilizer, fuel for harvesting machinery, packaging and transport.

They decided to examine one representative product in each category — say, pasta — rather than performing analyses for fusilli versus penne, or one brand versus another. “Every climate declaration is hugely time-intensive,” said Claes Johansson, Lantmannen’s director of sustainability.

A new generation of Swedish business leaders is stepping up to the climate challenge. Richard Bergfors, president of Max, his family’s burger chain, voluntarily hired a consultant to calculate its carbon footprint; 75 percent was created by its meat.

“We decided to be honest and put it all out there and say we’ll do everything we can to reduce,” said Mr. Bergfors, 40. In addition to putting emissions data on the menu, Max eliminated boxes from its children’s meals, installed low-energy LED lights and pays for wind-generated electricity.

Since the emissions counts started appearing on the menu, sales of climate-friendly items have risen 20 percent. Still, plenty of people head to a burger restaurant lusting only for a burger.

Kristian Eriksson, 26, an information technology specialist, looked embarrassed when asked about the burger he was eating at an outdoor table.

“You feel guilty picking red meat,” he said.

DarrinS
10-23-2009, 11:04 AM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/sustainable-living-now-includes-edible-pets-to-curb-global-warming/




The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.

The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said.
“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact … is comparable.”

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.

They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle’s eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog’s.

They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.

Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.

“The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone’s pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment.”

Professor Vale took her message to Wellington City Council last year, but councillors said banning traditional pets or letting people keep food animals in their homes were not acceptable options.

[Gee, ya think?]

Kelly Jeffery, a Paraparaumu german shepherd breeder who once owned a large SUV, said eliminating traditional pets was “over the top”.

“I think we need animals because they are a positive in our society. We can all make little changes to reduce carbon footprints but without pointing the finger at pets, which are part of family networks.”

Owning rabbits is legal anywhere. Local bodies allow chickens, with some restrictions.

SnakeBoy
10-23-2009, 11:07 AM
The only way to save the planet is to get rid of the things living on it. Makes sense to me.

Wild Cobra
10-23-2009, 11:34 AM
WTF? The next thing you know, the enviro-fucktards will monitor what kind of food is given to starving people because of its carbon footprint.

To Cut Global Warming, Swedes Study Their Plates (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/world/europe/23degrees.html?_r=1)
I already heard a news report this morning on the radio that someone in Australia is saying to eat your dogs, because as pets, they do nothing but create greenhouse gasses.

Wild Cobra
10-23-2009, 11:36 AM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/21/sustainable-living-now-includes-edible-pets-to-curb-global-warming/
Oh... I see you're already on top of that one.

symple19
10-23-2009, 11:40 AM
that's ridiculous. All this enviro-fascism is getting really old, really fast

Goliadnative
10-23-2009, 12:36 PM
And somewhat less surprisingly, they are advised to substitute beans or chicken for red meat, in view of the heavy greenhouse gas emissions associated with raising cattle.

Wouldn't this increase their greenhouse gas emissions?

balli
10-23-2009, 12:40 PM
Ladies and Gents, Ladies and Gents- Step right up. Come one come all!!! It's another conservative circle jerk. This time they suck each other off over swedes and other meaningless bullshit. They'll be here all week if they don't run out of body fluids first. :jack

fyatuk
10-23-2009, 12:54 PM
Wouldn't this increase their greenhouse gas emissions?

No, because enviro-alarmists say Carbon Dioxide is the only greenhouse gas to worry about, even though it's one of the weakest.

Who cares that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas, growing beans creates a lot less CO2!

DarrinS
10-23-2009, 12:56 PM
Ladies and Gents, Ladies and Gents- Step right up. Come one come all!!! It's another conservative circle jerk. This time they suck each other off over swedes and other meaningless bullshit. They'll be here all week if they don't run out of body fluids first. :jack



Oh, the trials and tribulations of balli, whose biggest worries in life are running out of Fruit Loops, low batteries on his Nintendo DS, scoring the next dime bag from his Vanilla Ice wabbabe neighbor, or his precious Utah Jazz actuallly becoming racially diverse.

xellos88330
10-23-2009, 01:24 PM
Heh, maybe the people who are telling me to not eat beef should kill themselves for spewing this garbage out of their mouth. It will make the environment better.

boutons_deux
10-23-2009, 02:37 PM
deny it:

Arctic sediments show that 20th century warming is unlike natural variation

PNAS paper indicates that changes since the middle of the 20th century are unprecedented

Buffalo, N.Y. – The possibility that climate change might simply be a natural variation like others that have occurred throughout geologic time is dimming, according to evidence in a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper published today.

In the paper, titled "Recent Changes in a Remote Arctic Lake are Unique Within the Past 200,000 Years," sediments retrieved by University at Buffalo geologists from a remote Arctic lake show that recent variations are unlike those that have been seen during previous warming episodes.

The UB researchers and their international colleagues were able to pinpoint that dramatic changes began occurring in unprecedented ways after the midpoint of the twentieth century.

"The sediments from the mid-20th century were not all that different from previous warming intervals," said Jason P. Briner, PhD, assistant professor of geology in the UB College of Arts and Sciences. "But after that things really changed. And the change is unprecedented."

The sediments are considered unique because they contain rare paleoclimate information about the past 200,000 years, providing a far longer record than most other sediments in the glaciated portion of the Arctic, which only reveals clues to the past 10,000 years.

"Since much of the Arctic was covered by big ice sheets during the Ice Age, with the most recent glaciations ending around 10,000 years ago, the lake sediment cores people get there only cover the past 10,000 years," said Briner.

"What is unique about these sediment cores is that even though glaciers covered this lake, for various reasons they did not erode it," said Briner, who discovered the lake in the Canadian Arctic while working on his doctoral dissertation. "The result is that we have a really long sequence or archive of sediment that has survived arctic glaciations, and the data it contains is exceptional."

Working with Briner and colleagues at UB who retrieved and analyzed the sediments, the paper's co-authors at the University of Colorado and Queens University, experts in analyzing fossils of bugs and algae, have pooled their expertise to develop the most comprehensive picture to date of how warming variations throughout the past 200,000 years have altered the lake's ecology.

"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."

Yarrow Axford, a research associate at the University of Colorado, and the paper's lead author, noted: "The 20th century is the only period during the past 200 millennia in which aquatic indicators reflect increased warming, despite the declining effect of slow changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis which, under natural conditions, would lead to climatic cooling."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/uab-ass102309.php

there isn't enough land and water to grow enough corn to feed the planet's growing demand for beef.

Wild Cobra
10-24-2009, 09:40 AM
deny it:

In the paper, titled "Recent Changes in a Remote Arctic Lake are Unique Within the Past 200,000 Years," sediments retrieved by University at Buffalo geologists from a remote Arctic lake show that recent variations are unlike those that have been seen during previous warming episodes.

-----

The sediments are considered unique because they contain rare paleoclimate information about the past 200,000 years, providing a far longer record than most other sediments in the glaciated portion of the Arctic, which only reveals clues to the past 10,000 years.

That's so easy.

They talk about the past 200,000 years. We are in a celestial cycle of events that occur every 400,000 years! We will continue to have long term global warming for 26,000 years, no matter what we do.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/eccentricity.jpg

hope4dopes
10-24-2009, 11:27 AM
This shit is getting like 1984, with the Ministry of Truth, The europeans are stupid enough to believe anything.

hope4dopes
10-24-2009, 11:28 AM
:lma
Oh, the trials and tribulations of balli, whose biggest worries in life are running out of Fruit Loops, low batteries on his Nintendo DS, scoring the next dime bag from his Vanilla Ice wabbabe neighbor, or his precious Utah Jazz actuallly becoming racially diverse.:lmao:lmao:lmao what about his che gueverra paint ball cadre.

Thompson
10-24-2009, 02:21 PM
That's so easy.
They talk about the past 200,000 years. We are in a celestial cycle of events that occur every 400,000 years! We will continue to have long term global warming for 26,000 years, no matter what we do.


That's the first time I've heard this, but it might explain why the temperature on Mars is also on the rise. Unless we're also somehow responsible for that. Wait for it...

AussieFanKurt
10-24-2009, 04:47 PM
that's ridiculous. All this enviro-fascism is getting really old, really fast

yeah i agree
all the environmental groups while attempting to do the right thing just end up getting annoying

Def Rowe
10-24-2009, 04:58 PM
yeah i agree
all the environmental groups while attempting to do the right thing just end up getting annoying

I know. We should all be outraged and make threads about them on message boards every other day.

AussieFanKurt
10-24-2009, 05:22 PM
I know. We should all be outraged and make threads about them on message boards every other day.

Can't say I see a new thread on them every other day but okay

boutons_deux
10-24-2009, 05:33 PM
The current trajectory of US lifestyle, cheap energy, cheap food, mindless, robotic consumerism of junk, polluted land and water, water shortages, is simply not sustainable.

But Think Positive, everything's gonna self-correct, like the Magic Hand self-correcting unregulated capitalism.

balli
10-24-2009, 05:43 PM
I know. We should all be outraged and make threads about them on message boards every other day.

Like I said earlier, Darrins and micca love to virtually suck each other off. A normal person might see a news story about Swedish food labels and barely think about it... or just let it go entirely. These dudes see an article like that and do everything short of perform cunnilingus on one other's cloven assholes.

We're really lucky this isn't the real world, because every time one them smiled we'd have to look at the other one's fluid covered pubic hairs.

EmptyMan
10-24-2009, 08:34 PM
A fever you say?

http://www.methodshop.com/video/reviews/cowbell/fever.jpg