The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. General Discussion & Feedback
  3. Radio Show & Podcast Feedback
  4. Feedback: Food Security, eating less meat
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Feedback: Food Security, eating less meat

  • 0 Replies
  • 621 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline thedoc (OP)

  • Forum Admin
  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 510
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Feedback: Food Security, eating less meat
« on: 18/02/2016 06:50:01 »
Jeff Kirtland asked the Naked Scientists:
   Reducing meat consumption and green house gases.  The idea that if we simply ate less meat we'd lower total green house gas emissions is, to be frank, simple minded.  The problem's two fold.  First, you'd have to replace the calories obtained from marginal farmland--we call them range lands.  This new land would include a commensurate increase in diesel for equipment, methane for nitrogen fixing and irrigation pumps.  This would be very large because we'd be using marginal land. Second, this assumes that the animal feed now used, dominantly corn, would be either not grown or diverted to human food.  Farmers will sell their crops to those who will pay the most.  In-terms of corn, this will be to produce fuels--ethanol--not corn chips or other human food products.  This is a fundamental economic reality that less meat people always ignore.  Before you think that ethanol, as a bio-fuel, is green remember this: it takes a barrel of oil energy equivalent (i.e diesel, methane, petrol not to mention the NO2 emissions) to produce 1.1 to 1.5 barrels of oil energy equivalent as ethanol.  And remember, the product from corn, ethanol, can not be used as source of energy to produce more corn so your green house gas savings are almost non-existent. Tar sands are cleaner than ethanol because they yield 2 to 4 barrels of energy, which can be used to produce more oil from tar sands, for every barrel of input.

The real solution is, as your show noted, is to reduce waste or divert waste to a new product.  The idea of eating insects also misses how they will be used.  Insects are unlikely to be consumed directly but fed food waste and fed to live stock and fish.
What do you think?
« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 06:50:01 by _system »
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.091 seconds with 31 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.