Bicycling wastes gas ?
I found this interesting and thought I would pass it on. I never considered the fact that what and how I eat had this much of an impact on anything more than my own health and well being. Chalk one up for the Veggiemonster :)
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html
Views: 145
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on -
The figures in the originally linked piece are ridiculous (thus the link to the review of a book on the topic). Because the argument is based on bad figures, it comes to silly conclusions.
As I said, I don't eat meat myself. However, the impact of meat eating is more than bad enough without making absurd, demonstrably false claims about it.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on -
That totally depends what kind of fish you were talking about, because carnivorous fish eat A LOT OF OTHER FISH and fish products when being raised. (which is just one of the possible environmental impacts of aquaculture). Those other fish have been caught from the oceans in, almost certainly, very unsustainable ways (our Oceans are in absolutely horrible conditions for those who didn't know) plus you have to account for all the fuel used in catching/transporting/packaging/processing those fish have to be taken into account for.
This article is brilliant, and I think really points at the way people need to consider many factors when thinking as something as simple as fuel consumption. It really points to how complicated sustainability is and how it must be approached holistically.
Paul Gurns said:I would think fish would be considerably lower if they were farm raised. Catching though who knows with big ships using all that diesel fuel.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:And what about the fuel consumption for raising and transporting poultry and fish? Where's the data on that?
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on
-
This article is brilliant.
I think really points at the way something as simple and single factored as our fuel consumption quickly turns complicated many different factors we didn’t consider off the bat. This is done wonderfully here-
It could be assumed you are not using gas by biking if you didn’t think about it- but he has shown that your actions to bike are in fact in deed using gas- but it doesn’t stop there. .. (Where, let’s say a narrow minded anti-environmental argument would choose to stop)… he continues to point out that you are almost certainly consuming less gas per mile no matter your diet, but really highlights that you MUST consider you food eat as a source of fuel consumption, that the food you use as fuel traces back to the fossil fuels used to product your food. “Meat requires much more fossil fuel to produce than vegetables and grains” is the exact reason I choose to be a vegetarian. Not to say you should not consider what fuel it takes to produce all other fuel that meat, but it’s as simple here at energy transfer is inefficient, meat as a source of calories is an inefficient way of getting your calories from the world.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on
-
that is a very large and complicated issue.... and not exactly the point of this article to dive into ever subject... but it is a very very interesting one! I have studied sustainability as it realates to fish and seafood/ aquaculture quite a bit. A good place to START to think about sustainability of eating fish/ seafood is:
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/download.aspx
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx
although this does not dirrectly answer "how much fuel did it take to get me this fish," it starts to break down categories of fish in which USUALLY come from more or less sustainable practices.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:And what about the fuel consumption for raising and transporting poultry and fish? Where's the data on that?
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie 13.5185km on -
Organizations like PETA are as much a joke as the major meat producer trade organizations. PETA has yet to evolve beyond their simplistic message with actions designed more for their shock value than to inform the consumer about the real issues and solutions.
The meat producing industry on the other hand has, through their trade organizations and intensive lobbying, convinced the US government that their abominable standards of producing meat are to be considered safe, and humane.
The reality is that most food animals would not exist without humans raising them as food. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc have been raised for food for thousands of years and if we would stop raising them they would diminish as a species, because there simply is no need for them. From a darwinistic perspective humans raising animals for food has made these animals hugely successful.
Of course the quality of life of individual animals has decreased significantly over the last five decades or so. CAFOs, industrial chicken production, etc. are designed for the lowest cost, not with the animals welfare in mind.
So in my mind the solution lies in raising animals in humane conditions and then use them as food. Let the pigs express their "piggyness" while they live. It would lower the energy input required to produce the meat, support small farmers, keep rural communities alive, and be beneficial for the environment as compared to industrial farming. Yes, it raises the price of meat, but that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. It’s not like we are starving.
I do see signs that at least some consumers are shifting their behavior in that direction. The explosion of farmers markets in the last few years is one sign, the increasing numbers of farmers that deliver directly consumer another.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on
-
What are the "absurd, demonstrably false claims" made in this article?
Dr. Doom said:The figures in the originally linked piece are ridiculous (thus the link to the review of a book on the topic). Because the argument is based on bad figures, it comes to silly conclusions.
As I said, I don't eat meat myself. However, the impact of meat eating is more than bad enough without making absurd, demonstrably false claims about it.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on
-
In my mind PETA is like the Critical Mass approach to the humane treatment of animals- make a large visibale activist statement. This, to me, even if they are not doing everything in the correct ways, gets peoples attention, and having public awarness about an issue is HUGE and makes people think about it.
But I think this strays from the point of the article, the humane treatment of animals for meat that is. I think the point is really to think about what you eat in the terms of how much fuel it takes to make you that food, since bikers are all about not using gas :)
Duppie said:Organizations like PETA are as much a joke as the major meat producer trade organizations. PETA has yet to evolve beyond their simplistic message with actions designed more for their shock value than to inform the consumer about the real issues and solutions.
The meat producing industry on the other hand has, through their trade organizations and intensive lobbying, convinced the US government that their abominable standards of producing meat are to be considered safe, and humane.
The reality is that most food animals would not exist without humans raising them as food. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc have been raised for food for thousands of years and if we would stop raising them they would diminish as a species, because there simply is no need for them. From a darwinistic perspective humans raising animals for food has made these animals hugely successful.
Of course the quality of life of individual animals has decreased significantly over the last five decades or so. CAFOs, industrial chicken production, etc. are designed for the lowest cost, not with the animals welfare in mind.
So in my mind the solution lies in raising animals in humane conditions and then use them as food. Let the pigs express their piggyness while they live. It would lower the energy input required to produce the meat, support small farmers, keep rural communities alive, and be beneficial for the environment as compared to industrial farming. Yes, it raises the price of meat, but that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. It’s not like we are starving.
I do see signs that at least some consumers are shifting their behavior in that direction. The explosion of farmers markets in the last few years is one sign, the increasing numbers of farmers that deliver directly consumer another.
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie 13.5185km on
-
Humane treatment of animals is exactly the point. Almost by definition it requires animals to be kept at lower density, thereby less food (mainly corn these days) has to be grown somewhere else as feed for the animal. So that can be significant energy reduction.
And that is my main beef (pun intended) with the article as well as organizations like PETA. They focus on the worst symptoms of the industry (CAFOs, etc.) and use that as an argument to go vegetarian, and in doing so they completely bypass the alternatives.
Andrea Bolks said:But I think this strays from the point of the article, the humane treatment of animals for meat that is. I think the point is really to think about what you eat in the terms of how much fuel it takes to make you that food, since bikers are all about not using gas :)
Duppie said:Organizations like PETA are as much a joke as the major meat producer trade organizations. PETA has yet to evolve beyond their simplistic message with actions designed more for their shock value than to inform the consumer about the real issues and solutions.
The meat producing industry on the other hand has, through their trade organizations and intensive lobbying, convinced the US government that their abominable standards of producing meat are to be considered safe, and humane.
The reality is that most food animals would not exist without humans raising them as food. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc have been raised for food for thousands of years and if we would stop raising them they would diminish as a species, because there simply is no need for them. From a darwinistic perspective humans raising animals for food has made these animals hugely successful.
Of course the quality of life of individual animals has decreased significantly over the last five decades or so. CAFOs, industrial chicken production, etc. are designed for the lowest cost, not with the animals welfare in mind.
So in my mind the solution lies in raising animals in humane conditions and then use them as food. Let the pigs express their piggyness while they live. It would lower the energy input required to produce the meat, support small farmers, keep rural communities alive, and be beneficial for the environment as compared to industrial farming. Yes, it raises the price of meat, but that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. It’s not like we are starving.
I do see signs that at least some consumers are shifting their behavior in that direction. The explosion of farmers markets in the last few years is one sign, the increasing numbers of farmers that deliver directly consumer another.
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie 13.5185km on
-
Very apt comparison. Now go and ask the average Chicagoan (ie. not your bicycling friends) what their opinion about Critical Mass is. I think you'll find that it does absolutely nothing to convince the average Chicagoan to ditch their car and start biking to work. On the contrary...
Same with PETA. The average American likely thinks that they are an bunch of out-of-control activists who should get a life
Andrea Bolks said:In my mind PETA is like the Critical Mass approach to the humane treatment of animals- make a large visibale activist statement. This, to me, even if they are not doing everything in the correct ways, gets peoples attention, and having public awarness about an issue is HUGE and makes people think about it.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on
-
What are the "absurd, demonstrably false claims" made in this article?
He seems to think the amount of energy required to raise a pound of meat relative to that required to raise a pound of potatoes is about ten times higher than it is, and his dodgy claims follow on that.
Junk science isn't okay just because it's done in the name of something you (and I!) agree with.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrea Bolks on
-
I mean, I am totally for "raising animals in humane conditions," and if I ate meat I would definitely like it to come from somewhere that it wasn't, what I would consider in a factory farm, tortured for its life's entirety, but raising animals in humane conditions does not mean they will be more environmentally friendly to consume. For example, a free range cow (as I believe was mentioned in the article, I would consider much happier than a factory farmed cow. But, this cow takes up much more space and its waste might not be as easily controlled and if exposed to stream beds/ slopes this could mean horrific water quality issues. If you take all the cows being raised in a feed lot and put them out in a “free range” situation this seems much more environmentally degrading and takes much more space. So for me, less meat is the answer. And if a little meat- sustainable and humanly raised.
Duppie said:Organizations like PETA are as much a joke as the major meat producer trade organizations. PETA has yet to evolve beyond their simplistic message with actions designed more for their shock value than to inform the consumer about the real issues and solutions.
The meat producing industry on the other hand has, through their trade organizations and intensive lobbying, convinced the US government that their abominable standards of producing meat are to be considered safe, and humane.
The reality is that most food animals would not exist without humans raising them as food. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc have been raised for food for thousands of years and if we would stop raising them they would diminish as a species, because there simply is no need for them. From a darwinistic perspective humans raising animals for food has made these animals hugely successful.
Of course the quality of life of individual animals has decreased significantly over the last five decades or so. CAFOs, industrial chicken production, etc. are designed for the lowest cost, not with the animals welfare in mind.
So in my mind the solution lies in raising animals in humane conditions and then use them as food. Let the pigs express their piggyness while they live. It would lower the energy input required to produce the meat, support small farmers, keep rural communities alive, and be beneficial for the environment as compared to industrial farming. Yes, it raises the price of meat, but that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. It’s not like we are starving.
I do see signs that at least some consumers are shifting their behavior in that direction. The explosion of farmers markets in the last few years is one sign, the increasing numbers of farmers that deliver directly consumer another.
© 2008-2013 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C. Julie Hochstadter, Director
Powered by
