How fossil fuel intensive is beef farming compared to say fruit/vegetables per 1000 calories yielded taking into account production, transportation and refridgeration?
Global warming
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
How fossil fuel intensive is beef farming compared to say fruit/vegetables per 1000 calories yielded taking into account production, transportation and refridgeration?
Well, it takes roughly 10x as much plant matter to make meat as it does to just eat the plants straight. So that gives you a rough ballpark figure right there. I'm just not so sure that if you don't count methane, that agriculture actually makes a significant impact on CO2 emissions. And furthermore, the way to reduce those emissions is the same path as reducing the emissions for the rest of transportation anyway.
I've seen a lot of different numbers for beef, it really depends on how you measure. Most of the higher numbers count just the cut weight but just because humans don't consume the whole animal doesn't mean that those parts are wasted. Cattle typically gain ~1 lb of weight per ~6lbs of feed.
http://www.ted.com/talks/marcel_dicke_why_not_eat_insects.html
that 10x of plant = 1x beef is about right. Also, you only need around 2x the plant matter to get 1x of "meat" from bugs, ~5x increase of efficiency over cattle.
Last edited by a moderator:
Even without counting methane you still have to count things like agricultural polution, higher transportation costs, energy costs in slaughtering/preparation and afterwards energy used to transport refridgerated meat and keep it that way in the home or in those open topped fridges in supermarkets. You also have to count things like the fact that roughly a third of the air pollution in LA is from agriculture.
Just randomly I had a thought. I have a vegetarian person I know who keeps telling me that the steak I eat rots inside my stomach, but I just realised something, once it gets cooked the actual meat is steralised anyway!
WhiningKhan
Regular
Just randomly I had a thought. I have a vegetarian person I know who keeps telling me that the steak I eat rots inside my stomach, but I just realised something, once it gets cooked the actual meat is steralised anyway!
If you are interested in providing some food for thought to your vegetarian friend, look up the book The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice and Sustainability.
Well, animal matter breaks down far more rapidly than plant matter, so if anything is going to "rot", it's going to be the plant matter. But it does that in your gut, not your stomach, and is an essential component of the digestive process.Just randomly I had a thought. I have a vegetarian person I know who keeps telling me that the steak I eat rots inside my stomach, but I just realised something, once it gets cooked the actual meat is steralised anyway!
In any event, there is no question that going vegetarian/vegan is more environmentally conscious, or even just eating less meat, and is probably much more healthy for most people. But it doesn't look like global warming is a significant concern for this particular issue, because as near as I can tell the high numbers for the global warming impact depend critically upon the methane emissions, which aren't important on the time scales of interest for global warming.
Some rather definitive benefits, however, are those from land use changes (animals require a hell of a lot more land to raise than plants), pollution, and potentially health.
corduroygt
Banned
Bullshit. You can have control groups on smoking studies which makes the science a lot more valid and indisputable compared to taking pot shots at dark and seeing what sticks, which is climate science. Besides smoke physically makes other people around you uncomfortable, and that's very easy to see.
I'm far from a right wing nutjob, but sometimes violence is the only language people understand.
You or people thinking like you will not have the authority to tax plant food anytime soon in my country.
corduroygt
Banned
Full impact of their purchases where? If I'm in the US, I'm not paying for the full impact of my purchases to people in Asia or Africa, especially when the science that determines those impacts it is far more shaky and disreputable than most other branches of science. Also, I'm better off than most of them, and I'll do anything to keep it that way.
And with that, you have proven yet again that you don't have a fucking clue.
There is no requirement for any sort of "control group" in science. If there was, we'd have to throw out huge swaths of evidence. We would never, for instance, be able to know the age of the Earth, or whether or not other galaxies existed, if we accepted your ridiculous definition of "good science".
And you know what's even more laughable? The only significant groups of people pushing against the science on climate change are conservative think tanks, the exact same groups that have put out misinformation on smoking for decades!
Um, food tends to get strong, and rather unfair, subsidies no matter where you go.
corduroygt
Banned
If you want to prove causation, yes there is. None of the examples that you give try to predict what's going to happen in the future and make life more expensive for me. None of the examples you've given have any controversy like climate "science."
CO2=plant food.
And you're just showing once again that you're a heartless ass. Good job there. Who cares if a bunch of poor people lose their livelihood if the prices on your socks don't increase two percent?
But in any event, climate change is very likely to cause rather sharp increases in food prices.
You seriously think a tax on CO2 would be a tax on plants? Once again, you're so utterly wrong it isn't funny. Climate change will cause far more disruption to existing plant life (including the stuff we farm) than the increase in CO2 will help.
corduroygt
Banned
Correction: people who'd profit from AGW alarmism are the ones saying that a bunch of poor people will lose their livelihood. Guess what, poor people need food, shelter, etc. far more than they need some bullshit CO2 reduction. If we're going to pay money, I'd much rather give it to directly help the poor to feed, clothe themselves, than to Al Gore, James Hansen, and their cronies.
Unwarranted alarmism at its finest.
No, it wouldn't be a tax on plants. It'd be giving in to the fringe hippie lunatics like Greenpeace. If CO2 is taxed, terrorists win.
SO we should just chuck astronomy and geology from the hall of science, right?
You don't need control groups to prove causation. You just need to make the right predictions.
They do. You don't know about them because it's kinda hard to hear things when your head is stuck up your ass.
So we are going to believe only that bit of science that bring good news, are we?
You know, you should go work for the Church or the tobacco lobby. They need people like you.
Can you even tell me what is the meaning of absorption spectrum without looking it up, you science hating moron? Do you even know what "spectrum" is you retard?
Before you insinuate science, read what science is. The character of Physical Law by Feynman should be a good start. But then, we are not going to read it if it suggests that AGW might have sound science behind it, and logical consistency might demand that we support action against it. Expensive life, OMFG.
Being an ignorant git, refusing to come out of your intellectual shell and crying "some people will only listen to violence" is so much better, isn't it?
That's just fucking idiotic. There isn't any significant profit to be had by pointing out the real dangers of our continued disregard for the future of our planet.
You are aware, I hope, that most academic professors could make much better money in the private sector?
Um, the whole point is that climate change is going to significantly reduce the global supply of food (it already has in many areas).
Unwarranted? Once again you assume that I, like you, am just pulling things out of my ass. The difference between the two of us is that I am being rather careful about sticking to things that can be demonstrated. So here:
http://www.ifpri.org/event/food-security-farming-and-climate-change-2050
A news article that covers the basic points:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/01/climage-change-food-prices
The basic issue here is that right now the specifics are rather uncertain, but there's a very good chance of some pretty severe changes in food prices in a few decades.
What the fuck?
corduroygt
Banned
Everything is pretty uncertain with anything that deals with climate science. I already showed some predictions made by climate scientists 15-20 years ago about temperature rise, and how inaccurate they were. Therefore it's my belief that 15-20 years from now, we'll look at today's predictions and see how inaccurate they were again.
Also, reading that article, even if their predictions were certain and accurate (which they are not), I live in the US, why do I care if food production in Africa or Asia goes down? It doesn't affect me and I can handle paying double for my food. In fact it'd do the US good to increase food prices so there are less fat people, so the reduced healthcare costs would make up for the increased food prices. We are simply thinking animals as humans, and food shortages are just nature's method of population control. Who are we to fight against nature, it's far more powerful than us.
You didn't read the link, right? _xxx_ knew about cars.
Strangely enough, electric model helicopters have revolutionized flying model helicopters and airplanes after the introduction of Li-Ion cells, and stormed it after the introduction of Li-Poly cells (even as expensive as they are).
Simply because you've got lots of electricity to do all kinds of neat stuff, like running piezoelectric compasses and/or gyros , and micro-controllers that automate level flight and autopilots. So you can simply have it hover or fly level by taking your hands from the sticks, instead of needing a very lengthy schooling to do the same.
And, they're much more powerful in the short run, when you need it. Electric motors outrank ICE's so much when it comes to peak performance, that it isn't even funny.
The downtime isn't much different, either, if you have multiple battery packs. It's just very different from filling it up by pouring gasoline in.
Isn't the operative word here, MODEL helicopters?
I'm very intrigued to hear such heady advances are being made in the field of model helicoptry (I truly had no clue there are autopiloting helicopters these days), but I seriously doubt this tech can be scaled up to a full-size version even in the next couple decades. Unfortunately, nothing currently beats a tank full of kerosene for energy density (unless we're talking rocket fuels here
), and as impressive as the power output of an electric motor is, you can't beat the torque and raw power from a turbine-driven shaft engine in anything resembling a similar size/weight... A superconducting electric motor could perhaps solve that issue, but the complexities are currently prohibitive there too.Anyhow, I'm sure you are well aware of all this already, so I shan't go on any further.
Where can I read about some of this interesting electric model helicopter stuff, do you have any good weblinkz?
- Status
Similar threads
