"High-impact beef producers create 105kg of CO2 equivalents and use 370m2 of land per 100 grams of protein, a huge 12 and 50 times greater than low-impact beef producers. Low-impact beans, peas, and other plant-based proteins can create just 0.3kg of CO2 equivalents (including all processing, packaging, and transport), and use just 1m2 of land per 100 grams of protein. ... The researchers show that we can take advantage of variable environmental impacts to access a second scenario. Reducing consumption of animal products by 50% by avoiding the highest-impact producers achieves 73% of the plant-based diet's GHG emission reduction for example. Further, lowering consumption of discretionary products (oils, alcohol, sugar, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding high-impact producers reduces the greenhouse gas emissions of these products by 43%. This creates a multiplier effect, where small behavioural changes have large consequences for the environment. However, this scenario requires communicating producer (not just product) environmental impacts to consumers. This could be through environmental labels in combination with taxes and subsidies. 'We need to find ways to slightly change the conditions so it's better for producers and consumers to act in favour of the environment,' says Joseph Poore. 'Environmental labels and financial incentives would support more sustainable consumption, while creating a positive loop: Farmers would need to monitor their impacts, encouraging better decision making; and communicate their impacts to suppliers, encouraging better sourcing.'" http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environmental-cost-food
The researchers are basically concluding that product labelling will allow customers to vote with their wallets and government incentives or taxes discourage bad producers.
See the graphs in the article.
Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers
J. Poore1,2,*, T. Nemecek3
Science 01 Jun 2018:
Vol. 360, Issue 6392, pp. 987-992
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaq0216
Abstract
Food's environmental impacts are created by millions of diverse producers. To identify solutions that are effective under this heterogeneity, we consolidated data covering five environmental indicators; 38,700 farms; and 1600 processors, packaging types, and retailers. Impact can vary 50-fold among producers of the same product, creating substantial mitigation opportunities. However, mitigation is complicated by trade-offs, multiple ways for producers to achieve low impacts, and interactions throughout the supply chain. Producers have limits on how far they can reduce impacts. Most strikingly, impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change. Cumulatively, our findings support an approach where producers monitor their own impacts, flexibly meet environmental targets by choosing from multiple practices, and communicate their impacts to consumers.
--
## Jonathan Cline
## jcline@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 11:48:57 AM UTC-7, Tito wrote:Hi everybody,Anyone here interested in direct air capture for carbon removal? https://www.fastcompany.com/40510680/can-we-suck-enough- co2-from-the-air-to-save-the- climate The current generation of tech is chemical engineering. I'm curious what solutions biology might offer. Figured some people on this list might be thinking about it already.Thoughts?Cheers,TitoClimate change is a policy problem, an anti-stance in government, more than a technology problem.The most important act which biologists and scientists could do for climate change is to go directly into politics. Run for an office and get elected and introduce science into evidence-based policy and funding decisions.The meat and dairy industry is probably more a factor than burning fossil fuels. If everyone went vegan the climate balance could be restored. That is the biology solution which most refuse to accept.--## Jonathan Cline## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223########################
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/a6c58edd-9c97-4bc8-978c-f39348ad8c47%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
0 comments:
Post a Comment