Do you have an SUV in your pantry?

Question

Are you an energy glutton because of the food you eat? Could a conscientious effort to change your diet help you to do your part in fighting global climate change?

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.feature/id/1275

Answer 1

I try to do what I can.  I eat less meat than I used to, and have started going to the local farmer's market every weekend.  It's definitely something I'm aware of and try to minimize.

Some of the reactions to your question surprise me.  It's really not that difficult to make a little effort to do things like buy locally grown food when possible.  Some people just won't tolerate any minor inconvenience, I suppose.  I wonder if they consider the nutritional content of their food, or if that's too much effort too.

One way to encourage people to reduce their food's carbon footprint would be to make them pay for it.  The way to do that would be to enact a carbon tax or carbon cap and trade system.  That should make products with a larger carbon footprint cost more.

All the 'skeptics' are completely freaking out about being forced to buy certain food, but nobody said anything remotely like that!  Amy just asked about our food carbon footprints, and I merely suggested making the financial cost of food reflect its true cost, including environmental impact.  Sounds to me like the 'skeptics' are the true alarmists.

Answer 2

As you surely know, I'm on your side on these issues.

But note that the food "system" makes it VERY difficult for an individual to do this.

It's inappropriate to criticize individuals over things where the main responsibility is down to others.  

There are many ways an individual can fight global warming that aren't this hard (better lighting, more insulation, driving a more economical car, etc.)  Things that are supported by society, rather than made difficult by society.  

By emphasizing the difficult things to do, you inhibit the majority of people, for whom environmental issues are not a passion, from even doing the simple things.  It just all seems too hard.

You can feel self righteous about the grief you're getting from the "skeptics" on this, but there really is a message in it.

Answer 3

How about this - I'll eat what I want to eat, and you eat what you want to eat?   Mmmmmkay?    That's called choice.  It's called freedom.    

I do not know you, I never met you, I like what I eat, and I am not changing it to make some useless symbolic gesture about the weather.

Honestly - telling people what they should eat - - who do you think you are?

And by the way, the "true" cost of something is determined by the market - - as long as the Fed maintains a stable monetary policy.    Right now it's providing too much liqujidity - so, if anything, the costs are OVER stated.

I guess this is something I will never understand.   The AGW proponents claim to be "just following the experts" - - but the experts - far more uniformly - in economics are in the Kudlow camp, while these self-proclaimed "expert followers" on the global warming issue are usually in the Krugman camp, based upon their Qs and As in the Politics section.

And raising "population" issues is kind if silly - Simon vs Ehrlich is as settled as the Scopes trial - and like the Scopes trial, the good guys won.

Curious.....

Answer 4

The only thing I'd change if I owned a house and could have a stand up freezer, like my parents have. Would be to buy a half a cow and pig once a year, so I could concentrate on buying produce, fish and chicken, during my weekly grocery shopping trip, which I go to on my way home from work on Friday.

Answer 5

This is getting ridiculous to the extreme.  

Eating?   Really!

Answer 6

This is a great demonstration of what you get with leftist are in power, people that want to control what you eat, what you drink, how many squares of toilet paper, etc.  Only fools would agree to be controlled by power hungry bureaucrats.  Why are there so many fools in the world?  Are they robots?  Global warming is just one tool for leftist to push their anti-American prosperity agenda.

Answer 7

wow this has to be the dumbest idea ever now you are attacking people because they need to eat food

Answer 8

It can certainly help save energy.  We have to put a lot of fossil fuel into our food, both because we eat high on the food chain, and because we transport our foods a long way.

Even if you don't believe in climate change, eating low on the food chain and locally will save a lot of energy - it can be the equivalent of a couple hundred gallons/year of gasoline for some people.

DK

Answer 9

No, but I think I have a SOB in my gas tank.

Answer 10

Let those who have never sup on a Big Mac, cast the first hamburger bun.

Answer 11

I've got several SUVs in my freezer then...I buy half a cow at a time!  mmmmmmmmmmoo.  I'm doing my part to fight the lunacy sweeping the world:  Global warming theory.  Cows, pigs, and processed foods have no effect upon solar activity (the driving force of climate change).

Answer 12

Interesting information...

"...growing, processing and delivering the food consumed by a family of four each year requires the equivalent of almost 34,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy, or more than 930 gallons of gasoline (for comparison, the average U.S. household annually consumes about 10,800 kWh of electricity, or about 1,070 gallons of gasoline).  In other words, we use about as much energy to grow our food as to power our homes or fuel our cars."

That really provides some interesting data points on the cost of population growth.  The 1 million immigrants added to the U.S. population each year add nearly a billion gallons per year to our gasoline defecit.  So much for our quest for energy independence and our desire to reduce our trade defecit.  The price of food will keep climbing as we try to use ethanol to keep up with the growing demand for fuel.

The statistics also illustrate the direct linkage between population and global warming.  We can distribute the numbers into abstract categories like "transportation" and "agriculture", but the really all boils down to too many people on the planet.  Unfortunately there is absolutely no end in sight while the third world refuses to address population growth or the resulting increases in black soot and greenhouse gas emissions.

So no, I don't have an SUV in my pantry, I have too many pantries on my block, continent, and planet.

---

The trolls on this site are hilarious, aren't they?

Answer 13

Yes, certainly a change in diet would in fact be one of the EASIEST ways individuals can contribute.  Understandably, most people can't quit driving to work or use very much less water and electricity.  But there is no reason why everyone can't make changes in the food they buy.

I can understand that most people don't agree with me about the ethical reasons for being vegetarian, but what argument is there when it comes to the environmental reasons?

All three of the suggestions listed there would be beneficial both environmentally and nutritionally.

You weren't proposing anything mandatory, merely suggesting that a dietary change is a contribution that almost anyone can make to mitigate AGW.  The reaction you got was uncalled for in my opinion.