The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
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
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback
Radio Show & Podcast Feedback
Feedback: Food Security, eating less meat
« previous
next »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Down
Feedback: Food Security, eating less meat
0 Replies
1690 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
thedoc
(OP)
Forum Admin
Moderator
Hero Member
510
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 21 times
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...