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.

Read more...

I think I got the most pertinent tags relevant to this issue.

Something I've been burning to discuss is don't you still need oil to use wind/solar/and other "green" sources of power? I mean, I understand that the ultimate output of energy comes from the sun, wind, etc.. but to make these systems, their parts, and technology, that all requires oil, right? You still need oil to transport the energy, right? Anyway. I hope someone has some answers for me. .. Why do we consider these to be the ultimate revolution when they are clearly not? Even here at Evergreen, they believe they can become carbon neutral in x amount of years, but how can they if they do not consider these uses of oil? Or do they and that there's some catch that I'm missing?

I just finished reading this article, Energy and Human Evolution by David Price. I think it contains extremely important information that everyone in Western culture should consider. It is a bit long, but personally I read it in several sittings, so don't be intimidated by its length. :)

Here is a very small sample from the article:

Visionaries support the potential of wind, waves, tides, ocean thermal energy conversion, and geothermal sources. All of these might be able to furnish a portion of the energy in certain localities, but none can supply 75% of the world's energy needs. Solar thermal collection devices are only feasible where it is hot and sunny, and photovoltaics are too inefficient to supplant the cheap energy available from fossil fuels.

While no single energy source is ready to take the place of fossil fuels, their diminishing availability may be offset by a regimen of conservation and a combination of alternative energy sources. This will not solve the problem, however. As long as population continues to grow, conservation is futile; at the present rate of growth (1.6% per year), even a 25% reduction in resource use would be obliterated in just over eighteen years. And the use of any combination of resources that permits continued population growth can only postpone the day of reckoning.
-http://www.dieoff.org/page137.htm

http://www.pickensplan.com/
Check out Pickensplan, look at the main video on the first page. It gives a good idea of the plan. It's actually pretty informative. Pickens is a business man, first and foremost, and his plan, it's actually brilliant. I will admit I think he has no problems with making money off human needs. He wouldn't give away a glass of water to you. . .not if he could sell it to your rich neighbor for cash. This guy means business. But it's also happens to be green that he is selling, and its probably good for us.

The only thing is that he doesn't go into the details of how the natural gas will be used for more vehicles. Natural gas vehicles (I have one, a honda civic CNG) are rare and not common. To really save oil, we would need a huge push from the government (in more incentives) to get people to buy these cars. How is that going to happen? Is Pickens saying that can NOT happen now with the Bush administration, because he is in bed with the oil companies, and has no leadership? I would say, uh "Yes!".

Think whatever you want of Pickens. . .but a strategy similiar to his ideas MUST be adopted SOON or America will suffer greatly. I beleive we will fail if we don't do this. It's simple, our government must push us towards other sources of power to become more efficient. Yes I think we can NOT wait for the market forces to guide us towards renewable energy. We will end up starving to death while we wait for the market to catch up. With the recent survey of 38% of Americans having problems buying food, I would say we are already starving. I really think the government needs to step in and push for renewable energy, one way or the other.

Copyright 2008 Rod Deluhery


Photo of Honda Civic GX, Natural gas car refueling in the home:



Pickens:

Sales of inefficient incandescent light bulbs will be outlawed in Ontario beginning in 2012, the provincial government announced Wednesday.

Australia has announced a similar ban on inefficient light bulbs beginning in 2010, inefficient incandescent will be switched off in Europe in 2009 and California is considering a bill to abolish the bulbs by 2012. In Canada, Nova Scotia is also considering a ban.

Ontario has a short term goal of achieving a five-per-cent or 1,350 megawatt reduction in peak demand this year compared to 2005. The long-term goal is to reduce projected electricity demand by 6,300 megawatts by 2025, a goal that translates into a 14 per cent per capita reduction in provincial electricity consumption.

If Ontario’s conservation goals aren’t attained, governments down the road will have to consider a host of politically unpalatable options that include keeping the province’s coal fired plants open for longer (they are currently slated for closure by 2014) or building more than the one or two new nuclear plants already envisioned.

In addition to announcing the bulb ban, Duncan announced five province-wide conservation programs. The $60 million worth of initiatives include the distribution of discount coupons for CFL bulbs, ceiling fans, timers and other energy-saving devices, rebates for the replacement or tuneup of central air conditioning units, the collection of old, inefficient fridges and financial rewards for consumers who cut their summer power bills. The provincewide “Peaksaver” program involves $25 payments to any consumer who allows local authorities to remotely turn down their air conditioners, water heaters and pool pumps when the electricity system is stretched.

Full article: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f3a946c4-ae23-4aa8-8bd5-2145cd34a064&k=95624

Woo, for Ontario. It'll be interesting to see how successful these planned bans, and turnovers, are. And if by 2012, it really will be banned.

Will the recent Energy Policy Act of 2005 adopted by USA, actually reduce energy consumption by extending Daylight Saving Times in a year?

FOR
"In an attempt to save energy, we sprang forward three weeks early this year, and we'll fall back a week later. A U.S. Department of Energy study predicts that extending daylight saving time will cut our electricity consumption by four-tenths of a percent per day."

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5421166

AGAINST
"Starting daylight saving a couple of months early doesn't seem to cut energy consumption, as many of its supporters claim."

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1872484.htm

What are your opinions on this?