According to Nobel Prize winning chemist, Paul Crutzen, trying to find salvation from global climate change by converting precious aglands from food crops to biofuels will only exacerbate the problem. He says that the crops that are now being plants for biofuels--primarily soy and corn--require so much fertilizer that growing them actually produces MORE green house gases than what is combusted as fuel for transportation. He does say that if less nitrogen-demanding crops were used, biofuels might help reduce GHGs and our dependence on fossil fuels. You can read about it here.
Our current rush to find a 'quick fix' is turning out to be disastrous in many ways, including cutting down rainforests to plant soy crops in Brazil and converting aglands from food to biofuel crops in the US.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Ag and global warming
Well the glow from our Locally Grown 2 benefit concert is wearing off and reality hits again. Some ominous articles lately concering global warming and our food systems. This article maintains that in this century ag will collapse in some of the most populous and poverty stricken in the world--countries like India, Bangladesh in Asia, and Sudan in Africa--that can least afford decreased agricultural productivity. The article says that while ag in temperate countries like the US may not suffer as much, the massive numbers of refugees from these countries certainly will certainly have a huge impact.
Another topic under the umbrella of ag and climate change relates to our diets and what we chose to eat. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, eating meat contributes to climate change because the more cattle on the planet, the more methane from belching and farting cows, and the less land available for forests and food crops that are carbon sinks. Here's a short article from www.planetark.org environmental news website:
Less Meat, Less Heat -- Fewer Steaks May Save Planet
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version
UK: September 14, 2007
LONDON - Eating too much red meat is not only bad for your health -- it is also bad for the planet, according to scientists.
Worldwide, agricultural activity accounts for about a fifth of total greenhouse-gas emissions and livestock production has a particularly big impact because of the large amount of methane emitted from belching cattle.
Tony McMichael of the Australian National University in Canberra and John Powles of Britain's University of Cambridge, writing in the Lancet journal, said worldwide average meat consumption could be realistically reduced by 10 percent.
This would help in the battle against global warming and also reduce health risks associated with excessive consumption of red meat, they said.
Global average meat consumption is currently 100 grams per person a day but there is a tenfold variation between high-consuming and low-consuming populations.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
A ray of hope to end on...regionalizing our ag and food systems is perhaps one of the best things we can do to ensure our food systems sustain us into the future AND begin to minimize the contribution of our food system to the green house gases that cause climate change. A wonderful example (and joyous celebration) can be found at in the Capay Valley in California and the "Hoes Down" event.
Another topic under the umbrella of ag and climate change relates to our diets and what we chose to eat. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, eating meat contributes to climate change because the more cattle on the planet, the more methane from belching and farting cows, and the less land available for forests and food crops that are carbon sinks. Here's a short article from www.planetark.org environmental news website:
Less Meat, Less Heat -- Fewer Steaks May Save Planet
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version
UK: September 14, 2007
LONDON - Eating too much red meat is not only bad for your health -- it is also bad for the planet, according to scientists.
Worldwide, agricultural activity accounts for about a fifth of total greenhouse-gas emissions and livestock production has a particularly big impact because of the large amount of methane emitted from belching cattle.
Tony McMichael of the Australian National University in Canberra and John Powles of Britain's University of Cambridge, writing in the Lancet journal, said worldwide average meat consumption could be realistically reduced by 10 percent.
This would help in the battle against global warming and also reduce health risks associated with excessive consumption of red meat, they said.
Global average meat consumption is currently 100 grams per person a day but there is a tenfold variation between high-consuming and low-consuming populations.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
A ray of hope to end on...regionalizing our ag and food systems is perhaps one of the best things we can do to ensure our food systems sustain us into the future AND begin to minimize the contribution of our food system to the green house gases that cause climate change. A wonderful example (and joyous celebration) can be found at in the Capay Valley in California and the "Hoes Down" event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)