17 December 2015, GRIST, No, lettuce is not worse for the climate than bacon. Is bacon back? The recent news that your favorite breakfast meat can cause cancer sent self-righteous vegans cackling, but they were shushed this week after the publication of a study alleging that meat actually has a lower carbon footprint than vegetables. At least, that’s what you might think if you’d read this article fromScientific American or this one from The Telegraph or this one from The Christian Science Monitor or a multitude of others proclaiming that bacon is better for the climate than salads. Carnegie Mellon University News reports: According to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie. Published in Environment Systems and Decisions, the study measured the changes in energy use, blue water footprint and GHG emissions associated with U.S. food consumption patterns. “Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.” So romaine is worse for the planet than pork belly? Really? Does this mean we can all take the lettuce out of our BLTs, add another layer of bacon, and feel just great about it? Actually, no. Researchers compared the foods calorie-for-calorie, which can be misleading. “It is absurd to compare the environmental impacts between bacon and lettuce when you’re using calories as the denominator,” Brent Kim of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future’s Food Production and Public Health Program told ThinkProgress. “A serving of lettuce has fewer calories than a stick of gum.” In other words, you’d have to eat a huge number of salads to equal the same number of calories you get from a few pieces of bacon. Just how many salads? We made this handy chart to illustrate. Read more here
Category Archives: Carrying Capacity
17 December 2015, Stockholm Reslilience Centre, Social-ecological traps – Damned if they do, damned if they don’t – Adaptation to environmental change is not straightforward, struggling fishing communities in Vietnam show why. Responding to climate change is good but not all responses are great. The term “adaptation”, understood as adjustments in behaviour to either mitigate harm or exploit opportunities emerging from climate change, features prominently in scientific analyses and policy papers. But it comes with a variety of challenges. One important one is the assumption that adaptation by default leads to something better. The reality can be much different. Keep doing what they have always done In a study published in Environment, Development and Sustainability, centre researcher Wijnand Boonstra together with Tong Thi Hai Hanh from Uppsala University have looked at how fishing communities in the Tam Giang Lagoon in central Vietnam have dealt with a variety of challenges. Climate change, floods, population growth and urbanization are some of them. Boonstra and Hanh focused on two villages in the Quang Phuoc commune, Phuoc Lap and Mai Duong. The first village depends significantly on fishing and low-input aquaculture and the second on rice production and aquaculture. Common for both villages is the exposure to ever more frequent storms and floods. Through a mixed-method approach consisting of questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and focus groups, Boonstra and Hanh found that despite attempts at diversifying their fishing methods, the end result is that they keep doing what they have always done. This in turn leads to declining fish stocks and frequent harvest failures in aquaculture. Read More here
14 December 2015, Science Daily, Vegetarian and ‘healthy’ diets could be more harmful to the environment, researchers say eating lettuce is ‘over three times worse’ in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon. Contrary to recent headlines — and a talk by actor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference — eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change. In fact, according to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie. Published in Environment Systems and Decisions, the study measured the changes in energy use, blue water footprint and GHG emissions associated with U.S. food consumption patterns. “Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.” Fischbeck, Michelle Tom, a Ph.D. student in civil and environmental engineering, and Chris Hendrickson, the Hamerschlag University Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, studied the food supply chain to determine how the obesity epidemic in the U.S. is affecting the environment. Specifically, they examined how growing, processing and transporting food, food sales and service, and household storage and use take a toll on resources in the form of energy use, water use and GHG emissions. On one hand, the results showed that getting our weight under control and eating fewer calories, has a positive effect on the environment and reduces energy use, water use and GHG emissions from the food supply chain by approximately 9 percent. However, eating the recommended “healthier” foods — a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood — increased the environmental impact in all three categories: Energy use went up by 38 percent, water use by 10 percent and GHG emissions by 6 percent. Read More here
30 November 2015 The Conversation, We can achieve sustainability – but not without limiting growth. Can Australians be sustainable and enjoy endless economic growth? It’s not likely. In a recent article on The Conversation, Steve Hatfield-Dodds argued that sustainability was possible in Australia without sacrificing economic growth. He also argued the necessary policy changes would not require fundamental changes to Australians’ values. This research was based on a detailed paper in Nature and modelling undertaken for CSIRO’s recent National Outlook Report. Contrary to this pro-growth outlook, I will argue that sustainability would be almost impossible to achieve in practice without ending growth in population and consumption per person. I’ll also argue that the claim that we don’t need to change our values cannot be proven (or disproven) by the method used by Hatfield-Dodds and colleagues. Recent experience suggests we may need to change our values. This debate is important, because the argument that sustainability is compatible with growth is likely to be misused by those who have vested interests in endless economic growth. Growth and sustainability are rarely compatible. Read More here