It's too bad this author can not get his point across without grammar and spelling mistakes. It's even worse that he should fall prey to such media bias...

Reply

I agree with the post, but there is something you don't mention: the column for paper bags is higher than the plastic bags one. Do you mean it is more energetically detrimental to use paper bags than plastic bags? Where does that graph come from? Thanks!

Reply

I vote for the third alternative - reuseable bags. And in my diet, locally grown veggies (lots of them)and wild caught salmon (yes it does get shipped from Alaska to Washington State) and local chicken. Partly this is because of allergies to all grains, and difficulty digesting beans. I eat what my body will tolerate!

Reply

I don't know the reasoning behind the proposed law but Ireland has had this for a few years now and it has been very well received, not for it's embedded energy impact but for eliminating plastic bag litter. Most people use reusable shopping bags now (or no bag at all for single items).

Reply

In responce to the second comment:

Yes, paper bags do cost more in terms of money and energy usage to produce and supply to stores. The problem is (most) people do not recyle plastic bags which is why there is such a push to ban them out-right or charge for them. Plastic bags also do not biodegrade and are more harmful to the environment in their chemical content. The solution is found in the (re)use of reusable bags (which is still slow to catch on) as the third and fourth comments mention.

I really appreciate this article and look forward to a more in-depth follow up! Cheers!

Reply

Correct me if I am wrong but I think part of the reason for eliminating plastic bags is the terrible impact they are now having on our oceans... Specifically the plastic bags. "Oceans and oceans of plastic bags now cover our oceans"

Reply

Real environmentalist don't eat meat or animal products. Anyone who says different is just lying to you, themselves, or both. A vegan who drives a H1 hummer( I doubt that there are any that actually do) is doing more for the environment than 2 meat eating prius drivers. Check the facts before you knock this post.

Reply

A cashier once quipped at me when I hesitated over the "paper or plastic" question, "Kill a Fish, Kill a Tree".
And that's pretty much it for the paper versus plastic debate.
If you recycle plastic, I prefer it because of the lower embodied energy. Plastic is lighter and takes less energy to transport and less space to store. But the litter issue is important too.
The only real winner is reusable bags like many of use older folks grew up with. Onward into the past!

Reply

Sodas and tropical fruit are big wasters, and CAFO-produced corn-fed beef is a moral and environmental abomination that people are, thank heaven, slowly becoming aware of and turning against.

But I would *really* like to see some numbers comparing a diet that includes moderate consumption of locally-produced, ethically-raised, grass-fed beef vs. heavily processed, heavily packaged, refrigerated or frozen soy products shipped from across the country or around the world. I walk to the farmer's market for the meat consumed in our household; it is grown, on grass, within a county or two of my home. A great deal of energy and waste goes into preparing, packaging, shipping and storing products such as tofu, seitan, TVP, Gardenburgers, tofu pups, etc. Add to that the fact that most of these are very heavily processed foods, and I'm just not interested in eating them (and except for tofu--which is a great food, I'll be the first to admit--I wasn't very interested in "meat substitutes" for the ten years I spent as a vegetarian, either, though they were frequently pressed on me by well-meaning people.)

Contrary to what many vegetarians believe, the environmental issues in our food choices cannot be reduced to a simple meat vs. not meat binary. A diet based on local, sustainably-grown plant foods, along with moderate amounts of responsibly produced meat, is almost certain to have less environmental impact than a diet based on processed and packaged foods shipped from far away. Current evidence suggests the former is also healthier.

Reply

Landsnark,
You've hit the nail on the head. The issue that is ignored so often in the meat vs. veggie debate is the level of processing the food goes through. I won't believe one person who tells me the fish I caught or the deer or bird I shot, cleaned and cooked myself is worse than going to the store to buy heavily processed boca chicken nuggets. But as what usually happens in these types of debates, I'm automatically considered a horrible evil person for killing another living thing that can be considered "cute".

Reply

I agree with landsnark, and want to add that the ecosystems that are sustained by the very act of pasturing cattle need to be taken into account. Land that is not suitable for growing grains or other crops can often be used to raise livestock, and the relationship between the land and the animals it supports becomes symbiotic.

Reply

All comments above are food for thought (pun intended). However, as a advocate for green living and renewable energy, "we" must understand people and be realistic. Meat tastes good, people like eating meat, we have evolved as "meat eaters", hence the type of teeth we have in our mouths. Our evolution as meat eaters (thanks to protein) increased our brain capability. You are not going to change this. On a side note, people like SUV's too. They are luxurious, spacious and safe vehicles and suggesting (like some in other blogs) to buy bicycles or very small vehicles instead is extremely unrealistic and not feasible for many. The american dream has always been to have your cake and eat it too. It is my belief that it is better to engineer life around what the masses are willing to do, rather than insist on a practice your not going to convince them on. This can and will be accomplished. SUV's can be 100% green if we invest the money. Meat eating and food production can be modified to massively reduce its impact. Please don't misunderstand me. We need a catastrophic change on how we use, produce and provide energy and food. All I'm suggesting is that we do it in a manner than motivates the masses and not the fringe.

Reply

Here's a question I've not seen answered anywhere yet. We use plastic for our garbage pail, and paper to bundle newspapers and cardboard for recycling. We use cloth bags when we have enough plastic bags stored up to handle the garbage needs. But what do you put your garbage in in the pail? Do you make an additional purchase of plastic bags? Do you throw the garbage into the pail bagless, leaving it to blow down the street when the garbage guys do a sloppy job as they usually do in my neighborhood? We never just throw away plastic bags into the garbage. We recycle every bit of plastic, metal, tinfoil. We compost every bit of vegetable matter, dryer lint, cut up cereal boxes, tissue boxes. The little bit of garbage we generate I don't want all over the street. What is the answer here.

Reply

What is wrong with paper bags? They are biodegradable. A lot of it comes from tree farms, where trees will grow back, and in the process remove carbon from the atmosphere. Even cutting the occasional forest tree is fine as long as you are not destroying whole forests. Most forests run at carrying capacity and removing a tree on average leaves room for a tree to replace it.

As for meat, if you buy local with animals that graze, I don't see any problem with it.

Reply

Landsnark and Joel, you're both right...although most americans do not eat the way either of you advocate. i agree that the binary "meat is bad, veggie is good" is an extraordinarily simplistic paradigm, but look around the other shopping carts next time you're at the grocery store or worse, a price club. not only are most people (completely unaware and happily so) eating CAFO meat, but their purchasing also heavily skews toward highly processed foods and beverages. few are the carts filled with locally grown vegetables and meats. hell, most people don't even know that their supermarket fruits and vegetables aren't grown locally (nor do they care!). people feel they are "entitled" to peaches in december...never mind that they're dreadful compared to locally-grown, in season produce.

side note to joel, your argument would have more heavy-lifting power if you didn't reduce vegan/vegetarian philosophy into what is "cute" vs. what is not. i doubt anyone is advocating that you go kill a rhino or bearded dragon rather than a cow or pig.

side note to landsnark: if there are studies showing that eating grass-fed, "sustainable" meat is healthier than a plant-based diet, even one heavily reliant on packaged food products, i'm interested in reading them, can you pls source your comments?

Reply

Oh and side note, engineers are producing cattle feeds that reduce methane emissions...

Reply

It is clear that eating locally will save copious amounts of energy. I too would like to see the energy comparison of local, free range meat added in (despite the fact that I'm a veggie).

However, all ruminants (cows, pigs, sheep) release methane gas when then burp and fart! A potent greenhouse gas. Don't laugh this off so easily, it all adds up, when you consider that 30% of available land is devoted to raising livestock. I don't imagine there is a noticeable difference between a local, organic cow fart and a factor farmed one. Hey stop laughing!

All told livestock accounts for 9% of human-induced carbon dioxide emissions, most of it due to expansion of pastures and arable land for feed crops (read deforestation of our rainforest!). It also accounts for as much as 37% of human-induced methane, mostly from gassy cows and sheep, and 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide, mostly from manure pools.

A UN Report, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) is a serious wake up call about the impacts of livestock on the planet.

Even reducing one or two meat based meals per week will make a noticeable impact. It will make up for the newly affluent Asians who are adding a meal or two a week of meat to their grain and veggie diets.

Reply

The perception that we evolved eating meat is not true. We may have the remnants of canine teeth, but our ancestors survived on a gorilla-like vegetable foraging diet. According to leading nutritionists, humans don't need to eat meat more than 1 to 2 times a week. Eating meat that our bodies can't process is one of the reasons Americans are obese. Lowering one's consumption of meat is good for the environment, the body, and the conscience.

Reply

Not all plastic can be recycled (can be reused). Not sure of the exact figure but I do know that most is not (not just because people don't try) because of the different grades of plastic. Combine this with the fact that, as far as we know, plastic never biodegrades. In other words, plastic could last forever. Perhaps that should be considered in all the discussion of environmental impact. Most of our throw away packaging is chemically designed to be around forever! Please check this link out: http://www.bestlifeonline.com/cms/publish/travel-leisure/Our_oceans_are_turning_into_plastic_are_we.shtml

Reply

It's time that we readdressed over packaging. In my single person household, I prefer to buy small portions, but I find I am recycling so much packaging. Composting for me is not an answer.

I buy my produce in a nearby supermarket (local farmers markets are gallons of gas away and for small quantities it's just not worth it) where most of the veggies and fruits come in styrofoam trays, wrapped in plastic. Many years ago supermarket management discovered there was less waste when food was prepackaged, but we need to reconsider how we are doing this. Would recycled cardboard trays be better? And then there are the trays and plastic used for meat, poultry,fish and eggs.

Frozen food is another packaging nightmare. (Please don't tell us not to buy it. It makes a great deal of sense and is far less wasteful for me and others in small and or busy households.)

Even large quatities come over packed. When I bought energy saving light bulbs, they came wrapped in a heavy plastic bubble pack. The bulbs may be environmentally friendly, but the package is a nightmare.

One solution I did find. I eat out frequently, and frequently take some unfinished portion home. I found I was recycling many restaurant take home styrofoam, plastic and aluminum containers. Now I take my own containers with me, and pack up the leftovers myself.

But there have to be some other answers, no?

Reply

It's time that we readdressed over packaging. In my single person household, I prefer to buy small portions, but I find I am recycling so much packaging. Composting for me is not an answer.

I buy my produce in a nearby supermarket (local farmers markets are gallons of gas away and for small quantities it's just not worth it) where most of the veggies and fruits come in styrofoam trays, wrapped in plastic. Many years ago supermarket management discovered there was less waste when food was prepackaged, but we need to reconsider how we are doing this. Would recycled cardboard trays be better? And then there are the trays and plastic used for meat, poultry,fish and eggs.

Frozen food is another packaging nightmare. (Please don't tell us not to buy it. It makes a great deal of sense and is far less wasteful for me and others in small and or busy households.)

Even large quatities come over packed. When I bought energy saving light bulbs, they came wrapped in a heavy plastic bubble pack. The bulbs may be environmentally friendly, but the package is a nightmare.

One solution I did find. I eat out frequently, and frequently take some unfinished portion home. I found I was recycling many restaurant take home styrofoam, plastic and aluminum containers. Now I take my own containers with me, and pack up the leftovers myself.

But there have to be some other answers, no?

Reply

Like anything, by keeping it local and organic you can limit your impact. I highly disagree with the thought that to be a true environmentalist and earth friendly that you must vegan, this is not how our bodies were built to run. We have just gotten too far away from our natural diet and way of eating with such processed and high carbon consuming foods...I know quite a few vegans and I they have the worst health of anyone I know, there must be a balance!

Reply

Like anything, by keeping it local and organic you can limit your impact. I highly disagree with the thought that to be a true environmentalist and earth friendly that you must be vegan, this is not how our bodies were built to run. We have just gotten too far away from our natural intended diet and way of eating with such processed and high carbon consuming foods...I know quite a few vegans and they have the worst health of anyone I know, there must be a balance!

Reply

"Real environmentalist don’t eat meat or animal products. Anyone who says different is just lying to you, themselves, or both."

"I won’t believe one person who tells me the fish I caught or the deer or bird I shot, cleaned and cooked myself is worse than going to the store to buy heavily processed boca chicken nuggets."

At least from the analyses I have seen, the environmental impact of some meats is very similar to the impact of typical vegetarian protein sources such as nuts and soy. Obviously, cows are bad and pigs not much better, but poultry and fish can be raised with similar protein/acre as soy. And of course, some amount of wild game and fish can be harvested sustainably with little or even positive impact on the environment. Pure vegetarianism is not the answer...it is a religion.

Reply

I have a question about eating locally in the winter. Here in the northeast, i cant get local vegetables regularly until late May or June. Then I am good till early November or so, when they run out again. There are a few places selling indoor-grown vegetables - i bought fresh spinach from the Providence, RI winter farmers market a few weeks ago! But in general - winter and spring bring very few locally produced items to this area. So - my question is - does anyone have any idea/ways/tips to keep local when out of season?

Reply

Wow, what a badly written and badly researched article, i'm a little surprised as I usually like the Terrapass articles. I've been out for a couple of months though, maybe this is going downhill? A few problems and queries with the article -

- How can you measure a diet against a bag? A 'diet' suggests food over a persons lifetime - so if you counted the number of bags used over a lifetime, you might find bags somewhat higher than 'diets'. Is this supposed to be a 'meal'? Or food that fits into a bag?

- Meat vs Vegetarian - how has this particular graph been calculated - i've seen other stats banded around that only take into account the "meat" and assume that people eat meat three times a day.....I don't know about you but I like cornflakes for breakfast as opposed to a side of cow. If you going to compare, you need a same calorie intake graph, with a realistic diet - for the vegetarian too (not many vegetarians only eat home grown vegetables and nothing else - another thing i've seen a commercial meat eaters diet compared too)
- Commercially grown vegetables and crops use much more water and pesticides than commercially grown animals, period, so use alot of energy for that to happen. I've seen stats that say the opposite, but when you look at the numbers they are similar to what i have written above - not well thought out, extremely biased and seem to only be there to push the vegetarian cause (and are often funded by such organisations) - and no i don't oppose a vegetarian diet - but how about a healthy omnivores diet, and how about comparing correctly, accurately and unbiasedly so we can all look. Why not focus on using less water and pesticides on commercial crops - animal and vegetable - and going for the greater good, rather than trying to change the fundamentals of what people eat by biasing statistics?

- Paper is higher than plastic (as pointed out there) - not a problem with the graph (i've heard that stat before) - but how about addressing that in the article and so writing a real article on your title?

This is a really awful article - Terrapass what is going on? I'm thinking about canceling my emails on this - and I haven't read any of the other articles on here yet - please tell me they are not as bad as this one?

Reply

Wait.... bearded dragons aren't cute?

Reply

A lot going on here, but it looks like much of it is another attempt by people who choose a vegetarian lifestyle (as I did for over 10 years)to hijack the energy and climate crisis to further their own points of view.

First- look at your mouth in the mirror. You have canine teeth that took a long time to evolve and aren't an accident. Referring to them as "remnants" might make one feel better, but is not an anthropologically correct fact. We as a species are omnivores. To refer to a particularly self-righteous comment that was made, "Anyone who says different is just lying to you, themselves, or both." to speak to evolution, there were originally two subspecies of humans in Africa. It has been scientifically established that the ones who succeeded and became us did so because of a critical adaptation in adding fish to their diets. Please stop the apologia everyone.

Great points made about how many meatless choices can actually be just as negative on the climate. Overall point is that polluting industries and individuals just love these ridiculous and misdirected debates where we start pointing at each other and damning food choices as even a top 10 factor in the energy and climate crisis. This article really struck me wrong, because we should have a graph that compares food choice to the real causes of our problems. Exxon is right! Climate change is my fault because I eat meat and fish sometimes and I drink two cups of Indonesian or African (free trade/no pesticide) coffee every day.

Everyone should also remember that Terrapass wants to sell us all more carbon offsets. Finding new reasons past travel and home electricity use is critical to their health and growth as a business. This article was a smart move to that end and the proof point is us bantering about core choices not easy or likely to change. How many people will feel guilty for eating meat and buy additional offsets to assuage that guilt? My guess is that they hope the answer is "lots".

[Ed. -- Drew is right! And we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!]

Reply

One more important note on the climate implications of Soy. Look into the recently increased rates of rain forest destruction primarily in Brazil. One of the chief causes cited by the Brazilian government for people illegally clearing forest is to grow soybeans because it is a very profitable crop.

Reply

I'll be waiting my commission check on the new "Dietpass" product Adam ;^)

Reply

I think every little thing we do adds up. I read a quote by Pete Seeger recently (in Yes! Magazine), where he said:

"If there's a world here in a hundred years, it's going to be saved by tens of millions of little things. The powers-that-be can break up any big thing they want. They can corrupt it or co-opt it from the inside, or they can attack it from the outside. But what are they going to do about 10 million little things? They break up two of them, and three more like them spring up!"

I thought this was great - and my point is, it's not worthwhile arguing about some small effort not being enough, or how much more people should do. Validate all the things people do, encourage them to do more, and keep adding to those million little things that are going to change the world!

I use cloth bags - I had to train myself - I would leave my cart and go back out to my car to get them if I forgot and not let myself off the hook, and now I just always have them.

But what we eat and how we drive are definitely two bigger issues... I'm not a vegan, but I do try to eat local and organic as much as possible, and when I get meat, I buy organic as well. I don't drive a Prius, but of course buy TerraPasses and don't drive much, if I don't have to. We live close to where we work. We have solar panels that power household lights and fans. I like to think those little things add up, and I keep adding to them when I can (I hope our next car IS a Prius or the like, and I'm slowly weaning my husband off meat - don't think he's going to go totally veg, but reducing the amount/buying organic is another "little" thing that adds up.)

So, keep doing all those little things that add up to big things, folks, and add more to them when you can, and once in a while do something big, too. It all adds up.

Reply

I forgot to mention litter - since they are light and easily carried by the wind, I see more plastic bags that have escaped someone's trash stuck in trees, bushes and fences than other types of trash - I've found bear scat with plastic bags in it - this is a smaller and more local issue than energy costs, but still important. It gets windy where I live, and plastic bags ride the wind like parasails landing where they can't be easily picked up and may get eaten by wildlife who smell food on them.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Rot (compost!), Rethink, Renew!! As much as you can, as often as you can, adding to it when you can, in as many areas of your life as you can, and we can collectively reduce our impacts.

No use being "greener than thou" and telling people they are not doing enough. NONE of us is doing enough, really, but ALL of us together, doing something, may be enough to shift the balance. I hope. Maybe add Remain hopeful" to the "Re" list! This is important because if people feel as if nothing is ever good enough, if they don't feel hope that they can actually have an impact through their choices, they give up. It is empowering to think that we actually can have an impact, individually and collectively, for the better.

Reply

First I want to agree with many before me that the paper v. plastic debate is resolved in favor of reusable cloth bags. It does take some getting used to, but like many other habits is easier with time.

Second, I think most people are aware that producing meat (especially red meat) results in a greater net impact on the environment compared to vegetables. However, I do not think that many people realize just how much is needed to produce that steak so many of us love. Although I remain conscious about these types of issues, I have to agree with the posting earlier that the shopping carts of other individuals do not reflect my concerns...

Does this mean that peppers shipped by boat from Holland are better for the environment than the steelhead I bought which was line caught in the Colombia river less than 100 miles from my house? I cannot believe that on a per-serving basis, let alone a per-calorie basis. I do not think that I am "lying to myself" in this analysis.

By the way, I don't think that the original "lying to yourself" comment fits very well with the dinner conversation atmosphere. Maybe it is just me, but I think that truly insightful comments rarely need such additions.

Reply

Interesting discussion, it's so much easier when things are binary, no? For myself, I eat primarily locally (and organically) grown beef, chicken and pork, not to mention wild salmon. It truly would be interesting to see some work done comparing this to the big supermarket sources.

On another note, my partner is First Nation, or aboriginal, and her diet is traditionally very high in wild meats, not to mention wild fruits and vegetables. True, the modern aboriginal diet is not necessarily so different from the mainstream, but native Canadians have always had more than just a smattering of meat in their diet. Much like the latest iterations of the Atkins diet!

Reply

This article brings up the important issue of meat vs. veggie diets. The graph fails to account for reusable bags as well as taking locally grown foods. It brings up important points but also has its flaws...

Reply

Drew said:
Everyone should also remember that Terrapass wants to sell us all more carbon offsets. Finding new reasons past travel and home electricity use is critical to their health and growth as a business.

Yes, and? Frito-Lay is upgrading their factory in Arizona so that it generates less waste and takes more of its energy from renewable sources. The environmental benefits are clear, but they also stand to save money and get lots of positive press for making the switch.

Does a profit motive somehow negate the environmental benefits? Of course not. In fact, we can't expect large-scale change to occur until millions of businesses and individuals around the world decide that the benefits outweigh the costs. The tipping point is different for everybody, but if there are costs to be saved or revenues to be earned, the change will happen eventually.

How many people will feel guilty for eating meat and buy additional offsets to assuage that guilt?

Why do you assume that offset buyers buy out of guilt? Is it that far-fetched that those buyers might want to support a cause (renewable energy, clean air, security through energy independence, take your pick) simply because it's something they believe in?

-- A.

Reply

Re-use is always, always more environmentally friendly than disposability.

In the case of grocery bags, canvas and mesh sacks with sturdy sewn handles are so much easier to use. They don't rip, spilling groceries everywhere. They are easy to carry, particularly for heavy items. For just a few items you don't have to find a cart; just use the bag you brought with you. They can be used for toting other things as well when not being used for the grocery shopping.

Reply

Beside the actual meat production and transport impacts, there are all those cow farts to account for-methane city, man.

Reply

Thanks for this article. Re-usable bags are the only way and maybe it's time we were more "retro." Eat locally as well, whether you're vegetarian or omnivores. It's the processing of the meat, especially beef, that's causing so much difficulty with farmers, oil production, etc. When our grandparents ate from the farms (meat included), things were much better for our environment. I choose to be vegetarian and I don't critize others except for the meat production costs in our country.

Reply

Aaron makes good points and I in no way intended to suggest that profit motives are bad. In fact I am big advocate of the free market system as a change agent. I buy Terrapasses and other offsets as I think many of us do because I support the cause. I also don't assume generally that asset buyers buy out of guilt, but I do believe it is one motivation.

For instance, rather than guilt, my motivation is "responsibility" to help with my remaining carbon foot print after concessions and reductions. However, yes. I do believe that many people buy offsets because they feel guilty. they know that driving the minivan 1/2 mile to the store is not good, but they do it because they are in a hurry or it is raining or whatever. Maybe guilt is not as good as "consciousness" of the fact that they have good sized carbon footprint that they could reduce, but really aren't going to because it is not convenient. An offset can be kind of a "sin tax". I think it is better to do that than nothing at all. While not my choice for living I pass no judgement because I have caught myself standing in front of the open refrigerator waiting for something tasty to appear magically while I refrigerate several square feet of the kitchen unnecessarily. I am not perfect and have to constantly train and retrain myself to do what I will to lessen my impact. I will not be sanctimonious and claim that is the same thing as doing everything I possibly can. I too "sin" sometimes and hope that my tax unto Adam and his lot at TP can help with that. Okay wait- so there is an element of guilt there... Is there a therapist in the house?

Reply

Reusable bags are the best option. But if you need to use a disposable bag, there are corn-based biodegradable ones available, such as BioBags: www.biobagusa.com.

Eat a local diet and reduce your over consumption. Save the world!

Reply

The real issue here is the AMOUNT of "stuff" we consume. There is no balance. We are trying to shift the loads/quatities to other sources....but in the end the load is still the same. We need to stop buying so much. What difference does it really make if we use reusable bags when we are still going to the mall/grocery store several times a week and gorging ourselves ?

Reply

Hannah wrote: I know quite a few vegans and I they have the worst health of anyone I know, there must be a balance!
Huh? My son is 36 and runs ultra-marathons all the time. He is a vegan and has been for many years. He's also healthy, mainly because he knows how to balance the correct nutrients from various sources. Not sure about the vegans you know ... perhaps they need a nutrition lesson. I am vegetarian, for spiritual reasons: we are what we eat and I don't really like moo-ing at my friends.
Paper or plastic? Wrong question - bring your own reusable bags! That's a no-brainer. Even Dillons gives a nickel discount if you BYOB.
Locally grown anything is a great idea; just be sure it isn't loaded with chemicals.
Cattle - yes indeed they produce methane. And wolves and buffalo are being murdered by the ranchers.
I believe the bottom line is to walk softly upon our fair mother earth, think before we act, and educate ourselves and others about what 'green' really means: living with the seventh-generation to come in our thoughts.

Reply

Another question: Is it really better to buy local?

The logic behind this seems to be that shipping requires energy, therefore minimizing shipping distance minimizes energy use. But this ignores the fact that shipping efficiency scales...it requires much less energy per unit to ship a boatload than a bushel.

Round trip, it is about three miles out of the way to my local farmer's market. Let's assume the farmer drives his truck 30 miles (2 gallons) to come to the market, and sells ten bushels of food. Assume I buy half a bushel. Well, just in this local system, there is about 6/10 of a gallon of fuel embedded in my half bushel. Honestly, this could be WORSE than an efficient, large-scale, long-distance system.

It is definitely not clear that local is better in terms of energy use. The same is true for the "smaller is better" logic in most cases.

Reply

I think the general "green" advice for the masses is not to become a vegetarian, but to simply eat less meat (once or twice a week max) and to eat meat that has been carefully selected for its sustainability.

A better and clearer and scientifically sound source that is in agreement with the main ideas of this article is The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices - Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists by Michael Brower, PH. D and Warren Leon. PH.D.

Reply

While I try to use my re-usuable bags as often as I can remember to take them out of the trunk, there's a lot more waste in product packaging than in the bags. I bought a large plastic bag of beef jerky that was perhaps 1/4 filled! Personally, I think the government should mandate limits on slack-filling in packaging. It would be less deceptive to the consumer, and friendlier to the environment. Marketers won't do it though unless the government mandates a level playing field for all.

Reply

There is so much great information in the "Comments" section. I'm sure this reflects many area of the country. I personally try to buy organic, local produce, meats and dairy. The closest organic grocery store is over 50 miles from my home. Thats 4 gallons of gas just to shop, but I try to combine all my stops during that trip. I use reusable bags or none at all. We recycle egg cartons and paper bags/boxes back to the Dairy and local growers. I have noticed some organic type markets are using the new corn base plastic or recycled paper boxes. Wraping my fish in recycled paper instead of plastic. I reuse those plastic bags for produce until they are worn out. I try not to buy "packaged" food, but when I do I recycle as much as I can. I do order some organic meats and cold water fish from out of state and it arrive at my door via UPS (and I recycle the packaging it comes in). I'm not sure if this is energy efficent or not. I also carry my own bags in the Malls. I love the bags with real handles, I use them all the time. It is the best I can do right now for myself and the environment. I would love to see all plastics in the form of corn based biodegradable, but really reusing what you already have saves far more energy than producing new, even if it is biodegradable. Keep the info coming this is really good for all of us.

Reply

On the other hand, I've never heard of an animal drowning or being otherwise harmed by a paper bag, but I have heard reports of the deleterious effects of plastic bags with respect to birds, sea life...

Reply

Will someone pls answer the question posed by Kim? What do people use for their kitchen garbage bags? I line my pail with plastic bags from the grocery. Are others purchasing separate bags? I'd love to hear what other people are doing. Thanks.

Reply

I have a thought. I am very concious of the the needs of the environment and very open minded to all the behaviors I need to change. However I find that when I read a blog such as this I get enthusiastic but this seems to wane. If there was a way to sustain enthusiasm then I think I would be making more efforts to get all my plastic bags together and take them to the local recycle spot, take my reusable bags everytime I shop, seperate my recyclables better.... I cannot be the only one that has this problem. Eventually it will take a mandate or incentive to get us slackers in line with the program whether it be the government or industry supported. We are like little children that have to be led to do certain things because we have become creature of habit. But I appreciate everything everyone says. Thanks.

Reply

I have a thought. I am very concious of the the needs of the environment and very open minded to all the behaviors I need to change. However I find that when I read a blog such as this I get enthusiastic but this seems to wane. If there was a way to sustain enthusiasm then I think I would be making more efforts to get all my plastic bags together and take them to the local recycle spot, take my reusable bags everytime I shop, seperate my recyclables better.... I cannot be the only one that has this problem. Eventually it will take a mandate or incentive to get us slackers in line with the program whether it be the government or industry supported. We are like little children that have to be led to do certain things because we have become creature of habit. But I appreciate everything everyone says. Thanks.

Reply

I read a very interesting book recently, called "Food Revolution" by John Robbins. It addresses most issues linked with a meat-based diet - its effets on our health, on our environment, world poverty, malnutrition and hunger, and vis-a-vis animal welfare/rights. It also has a chapter devoted to genetic engineering.

There are way too many comments on here that have got their facts wrong. Especially about how highly processed vegetarian food (tofu etc) is nearly as bad for the environment and meat (even the so-called humane or free ranch meat). Someone even mentioned that the rain forests in Latin America are being cleared to grow soy and that this constitutes an argument for meat-eating. Truth is that all the soy being grown on the deforested land goes to feed livestock in American factory farms.

Some posts mention about our anthropological similarities to carnivores (in certain respects atleast).This couldnt be farther from the truth. Its a too large topic to broach and discuss with purpose in a Comments section. I recommend the book Food Revolution if anyone is interested.

Reply

The awful truth that no one seems to want to face is that among all of the other dysfunctions of our society, too numerous to mention here, there are simply too damn many people. Paul Erlich was laughed off the scene in the late seventies when he wrote the book "The Population Bomb." It was dogma that technology, hydrocarbon based technology, would take care of everything. It turned out to be a devil's bargain as we now know.

One can talk about these approaches to environmentally friendly gestures, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that they are useless, even if they only serve to raise consciousness, but this situation is of a magnitude that is still relatively unappreciated. The impacts to our environment, which is what water is to fish, of six billion human beings are monumental. This number of Homo Sapiens is only possible as a result of hydrocarbon technology. That there is a "natural" non-industrial (non-hydrocarbon), earth friendly way to feed this many people and the projected population increases over the next twenty years is fantasy without a massive, wholescale re-structuring of the societies in the advanced world and (harder still) the "advancing" nations (i.e., China, India, Indonesia/Malaysia, Brazil).

Frankly, I am not optimistic.

Reply

Interesting comments. A couple of reminders:

* Eating "local" will result in those of us who live in temperate climates having no vegetables several months out of the year. There is a reason that, until very recently, most northern Europeans were constantly dying of plagues, were on average about 5 and 1/2 feet tall, and generally living miserable lives. There was a scarcity of good food, and the aristocrats took it. It's impossible to grow vegetables in January in New York or England, unless you use lots of energy. Oops, there's climate change again.

* Oh, did I mention the millions of US residents in places like Colorado (i.e. me), Las Vegas, and other arid or semi-arid zones? People are worried that the fossil fuel activities in the West are unsustainable, but millions of people building cities without water is really unsustainable.

Human beings evolved to subsist on foraging for food from diverse sources in tropical or semi-tropical climates. It was the invention of agriculture that allowed us to spread across the globe, living miserably on restricted diets. Humans cannot live outside of their original habitat in a manner that provides a broad diet without using energy to transport food from that original habitat. At least, not in the numbers we have now. There just aren't enough berry bushes and salmon runs.

Note, obtaining tropical or out-of-season foods (e.g. bananas) has been the source of almost as many human rights violations as oil extraction. Maybe more (see Guatemala). Market-based schemes (fair-trade this, offset that) will not solve these problems. Ignoring the catastrophes around you in the haze of philosophies ripped from the roots of other cultures (yoga, anyone?) will not solve these problems, either.

If you're reading this, you are almost certainly a Westerner, a resident of the global North, whose wealth (such as the possession of a computer on which to read blogs) is built on the bones of hundreds of millions of human beings from the majority South. It's nice that contemplating this fact makes you sad. I'm sure the residents of Darfur, El Salvador, and Burma are comforted by your tears.

Again, if you have access to a computer to read this, YOU ARE WEALTHY. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Don't pretend that your feeble excuses for your lifestyle "offset" the people that die, the species that are extinguished, or the land that is despoiled.

Reply

Diva: my last comment was limited to local/minimally processed/minimally packaged vs. exotic/processed/packaged, not specifically meat vs. veg. I know some (not all!) vegans and vegetarians who eat a very unhealthy diet, hardly any unprocessed plant foods. I'd also love to see a well-designed study to address the health effects of a diet that includes meat (not meat-based, but with moderate amounts) vs veg, with other variables--overall balance, freshness, etc--held the same. It's probably going to be pretty similar--read Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food and Omnivore's Dilemma for more background and some references.

Michael (and a couple of others too)--Again according to Pollan, methane is mostly a problem with grain-, corn- or soy-fed cattle in CAFOs. Grazing cattle produce very little methane, and the CO2 they produce is a zero-sum situation in a well-managed operation, since they're eating grass (the CO2 they produce can only be as much as was taken up by the grass to begin with.) Again, Pollan does a great job explaining how well-managed grazing can actually improve an ecosystem and lead to a net storage of carbon. There is little question that feeding grain, corn, and soy to cattle (and other mammals) is bad all the way around--it's vastly inefficient, it's bad for the land, it's bad for the health of the animals, and it takes food away from the poorest people in the world. (Same arguments, of course, apply to using these things for biodiesel.)

Roland--absolutely there are too many people, and too many of them are in ridiculously unsustainable cities. Populations are going to be reduced, either voluntarily by seeing the problem and beginning to deal with it, or catastrophically when petroleum, water, and then food begin to run out. Do you have a solution for this?

Reply

Landsnark--I wish I did. There are solutions of sorts (if it's not already too late) but they are so painful it is unlikely that they will be undertaken until it's too late.

For hundreds of years cities were compact, large population centers ringed by agricultural belts which supplied food for those populations. It was very local and fairly sustainable. Old style cities are pretty efficient places for housing large populations. Much of the real estate is vertical. Transportation is relatively efficient in the urban areas of our older cities. Neighborhoods to some degree were self-sufficient in that many basic services, groceries, pharmacies, shoe-makers, barbers and salons, hardware stores, etc., were found in every neighborhood, most accessible on foot. In this country.

After WWII with the mass production of automobiles and a populace with the wherewithall to buy them, and the construction of the interstate system, this all changed. Newer cities like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, et al were built around accommodation of the automobile as the only means of mobility and an absolute necessity as well. These newer cities are often no more than a conglomeration of sprawling suburbs and, now, exurbs. This caused two distinct problems. It gobbled up farmland and it increased traveling distances exponentially. Of course, older cities also developed suburbs and some, exurbs, but they at least maintained some central downtown area and some semblance of public transportation.

To return to this older form is in the present quite impossible. However, if one were to read James Kuntsler, there is the possibility in his thinking that economics may do the job. His thesis is that transportation costs will become so high in time that many people will no longer be able to afford traveling forty or fifty miles a day to work in urban core. This will in turn have the effect of making suburban and exurban living undesirable for the middle class and ultimately the value of suburban housing will plummet.

This is not a solution. It is a disaster, but it may well happen and it is in some ways a correction of a very unnatural adaptation. Suburbs are highly inefficient and wasteful for the reasons stated above. In addition, the tens of thousands of lawns exert tremendous pressure on water supplies. The amounts of pollutants which reach groundwater are far greater in suburbs than in cities, from street run-off and flooding as well as fertilizer used on all those lawns. This vast treeless acerage does not produce food nor does it produce vegetation that would, if it were present, reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The way we live, the scale at which we live is a U.S. problem. According to Kuntsler and others of his mindset, the situation will fix itself. Whether that will happen before or after it is too late is at this point in time anybody's guess.

That's us. Part of the story. Then there is the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world does not live in suburbs. That said, however, much of what was formerly thougt of as the third or developing world is beginning to come on line, creating huge industrial operations which is going to put tremendous pressure, heretofore unknown or ever imagined on food and energy supplies as well impose very large pollutant and CO2 loads on the earth's atmosphere. Countries like Brazil in addition are rapidly removing major sources of CO2 sink, the Amazon rainforests, in order to grow food for export, cash crops intended to make money rather than to feed the local populations. Policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary fund have accelerated this trend.

Populations must be reduced, but this will be a very hard sell. And that will carry a stiff price as tax bases shrink and populations age with fewer younger people in the work force. The markets will also constrict. There will be a reluctance, if not outright refusal, to reduce populations in some places for cultural reasons or fear of aggression from neighboring countries. There is almost no way that I know of population reduction by mandate that would be acceptable enough to actually work. in nature, when food supplies decline, populations do. That is very likely the way it will happen if it happens.

In the meantime we are damaging, possibly irreparably, that thin layer of atmosphere without which the earth would be no different than many of the other very large rocks in our galaxy. We are poisoning the soil and water because the technology equipped human footprint is immense. Almost our entire human existence is unnatural. We are uncontrolled and out of control.

As I said before, I am not optimistic. The carbon based energy system has to be jettisoned. Soon. It pervades everything, which is why it creates such a monumental impact. Very little, in reality, has been done to search for real alternatives. And our way of life is going to have to change-dramatically.

Reply

Hmmmm...what about grow your own?? I know this is not an option for everyone obviously, but I find it interesting that in all those comments above, I found almost NO mention of this. I grew up on a small family farm -- we were intermittent vegetarians, but when we did eat meat, it was meat that we raised and my parents killed, skinned, cooked, etc. Veggies we canned or put in the root cellar for the winter -- they lasted our family of 5 most of the way through. We barely ate any processed food my whole childhood. Once a month we drove an hour into town to stock up on feed, seeds, bulk grain, (library books :-)) etc.

Oh, and by the way, this wasn't 50-60 years ago -- I'm only 31!

Obviously mine is an unusual case, and a bit extreme in some ways, but I find it astounding (and kind of sad) how few people even mentioned trying to be even partially self-sustaining....

Reply

InveteratePessimist (#55) said:
Eating "local" will result in those of us who live in temperate climates having no vegetables several months out of the year. It's impossible to grow vegetables in January in New York or England, unless you use lots of energy.

Here in Alaska, it's nigh-impossible to grow anything during the winter, but many of my neighbors get by just fine by canning, pickling, or freezing vegetables they grow or buy during the summer. Sure, there are certain staples like rice and oats that would have to come from elsewhere, but a resourceful diner could live reasonably well on in-state produce.

If you're in an isolated or arid region, I'll grant that it's hard to eat a balanced diet while staying within a strict radius. Just about anywhere in the country, though, you should be able to find Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs or farmers' markets (even in Las Vegas) who can provide fresh local produce most of the year. The real bounty, at least around here, arrives in September and October; I get more veggies from my CSA than I could possibly eat, so I have plenty to freeze, can, or give away. I haven't completely phased out the supermarket veggies, but I'm pretty close.

-- A.
Prices vary as you travel across the country, but in my neck of the woods, fresh usually-organic veggies from the farmer's market or CSA are cheaper than the mass-produced veggies at the grocery store. You-pick farms are cheaper still, but I personally don't have that kind of free time. I've heard of stay-at-home moms and college students who save a bundle that way, though.

Reply

I totally agree about going over to fabric bags - I made my own out of some scrap linen a while back.

As regards the 'bio-degradeable' plastic bags, I understand there are potential problems with the (none-too-pleasant) chemicals used in their manufacture leaching out into the environment as they degrade.... Life is SO darned complicated sometimes!

Reply