The SUV in the Pantry

[nosmokes]

original

The SUV in the Pantry

 


by Thomas Starrs

I spend a fair amount of time thinking about how to reduce my family's dependence on energy, particularly energy derived from fossil fuels. I commute to work by bicycle or bus, install compact fluorescents when light bulbs burn out, replace major appliances with the most efficient ones I can afford, and cast jealous glances at my friends who drive hybrids or alternative-fueled vehicles. But until recently, I didn't think of myself as an energy glutton because of the food I eat.
Then I read an astonishing statistic: It takes about 10 fossil fuel calories to produce each food calorie in the average American diet. So if your daily food intake is 2,000 calories, then it took 20,000 calories to grow that food and get it to you. In more familiar units, this means that 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.
Overall, about 15% OF U.S. energy goes to supplying Americans with food, split roughly equally between the production of crops and livestock, and food processing and packaging. David Pimentel, a professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, has estimated that if all humanity ate the way Americans eat, we would exhaust all known fossil fuel reserves in just seven years.
The implications of agricultural energy use for the environment are disturbing. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agriculture contributes over 20% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, including more than 20% CO2, 55% of methane and 65% of nitrous oxide. In addition, our energy-intensive agriculture industry contributes substantially to soil erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, degradation of water quality from chemical runoff and causes other adverse environmental impacts.
~snip~
.
.
.
--###--
complete articlehere

[Wilms]

1. I just have to add these snips.

Thanks for posting this article.

snip

Interestingly, the path to reducing the energy intensity of the food system dovetails nicely with the path to a healthy and nutritious diet. It can be summarized in three simple suggestions.

First, eat lower on the food chain. That means more fruits and vegetables, and fewer meats and fish. Meats, poultry and fish contain necessary proteins, but most American diets contain too much protein - about twice the recommended amount. Since 80% of the grains go to feeding livestock, the amount of energy used indirectly to support our diet of double bacon cheeseburgers is staggering. And, if you do eat meat, then try to avoid animals grown in feedlots or factory pens. They take far more energy calories to raise than free-range, grassfed critters, which have only about a third of the embedded energy.

Second, eat more fresh foods and fewer processed foods. Fruits and vegetables again, but also whole grains, legumes and other less-processed foods, have much less embedded energy. In general, the more packaging, the more processing - and the more energy associated with its production.

Third, buy local. Incredibly, the food items on U.S. grocery store shelves have traveled an average of 1,500 miles. And some foods are much worse. Table grapes grown in Chile, transported by ship to California and shipped by truck to Iowa have traveled over 4,200 miles. In response, some agricultural scientists have proposed ecolabeling programs based on CO2 rankings or broader lifecycle assessments.

snip

[noamnety]

3. Fourth, grow your own

I wish that were in the article. Why plant an ornamental flowering pear tree when you can plant an actual pear tree that produces fruit for the same price? Why plant non-native flowers when you can plant strawberries in the same place instead? I don't know why more people don't do edible landscaping.

[Wilms]

4. Agreed.

Here in LA, it would seem a no brainer.

During WWII, people planted "Victory Gardens".

Are the consequences dire enough, yet? :shrug:

[mainegreen]

5. In some places the soil is so contaminated with lead and other poisons

thats just not an option.

[Gormy Cuss]

6. Raised beds or containers with imported topsoil.

That's how it's done in many urban gardens. The bigger problem I see is that as long as the produce is dirt cheap and plentiful at the supermarket there's not much incentive to make the investment necessary to start a raised bed or container garden.

[mainegreen]

7. Still not viable in cities unless goverment were to require landlords...

to provide access to the roof in large multi-unit buildings. Where I live thats the ONLY space! And we can't get to it. Otherwise I'd love to garden up there.

[Gormy Cuss]

8. Well, darn it. Sneak up there and start planting!

Just kidding. Not everyone has available space in urban areas, but around Boston vacant lots were 'claimed' and people from the buildings like yours could get a plot. In Portland I think the notion of 'claiming' the lots wouldn't go over too well. Mainiacs do have limits!;-)

[EuroObserver]

9. People in places that dirt cheap food is produced

get paid a pittance (if anything) also. It's a negative-sum all round game (except, the intermediaries (parasites) get rich).

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. I give up

it's hopeless

I raise my own chickens, even. But their little breaths are warm and then I have to drive to get their feed.