Why driving a Prius is really not enough

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Masnyd @ Jul 18 2007, 07:43 PM) [snapback]481293[/snapback]</div>

What about the fruits & veggies? Regardless of what we eat, something must die.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sthayashi @ Jul 18 2007, 09:53 PM) [snapback]481342[/snapback]</div>

Well, it's an estimate, and you can get at it a variety of ways.

The most basic is micro-costing studies of food production -- how much fertilizer, how much fuel to run the tractors, and so on. Much of the modern work there was done by an academic named Pimental at Cornell University. There is of course argument over the numbers, the estimates change over time, and what should go into the numbers can be debated, and so on, but the 10 calorie figure is the one that seems to get kicked around most often.

The best introduction to this I've found is here. You can find a bunch of others that do that as well, but this guy bothers to put in the references, but as cited in a footnote here, the Pimental's book "Food, Energy, and Society" is the usual source for the figure of ten fossil fuel calories per edible calorie, though I can't find an online summary of that.

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/beef.html

Wikipedia has a long article, but you're never sure about accuracy. I thought it hit a lot of the high points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism

I'm also attaching a spreadsheet I put together about a year ago. I has a page that lists a bunch of internet links. I'm not claiming its comprehensive or systematic, just that it gives you a few leads, organized, that you could follow if you wish.

The reason I'm comfortable with the 10 calorie figure is that you can also come at it from a macro level. I'm an economist, so I'm familiar with US Gross Domestic Product accounting. There is a set of reports that summarizes energy use by industry. I started from that, pro-rated portions of energy use in transport and retailing based on percent of revenues from food, added in some data on energy costs and average diet calories per person, and came up with an aggregate estimate of 14 (k)calories of fossil fuel for every edible (k) calorie consumed in the US. Which I thought was remarkably close to the 10 calorie figure, all things considered.

I don't mean to say that the "10" figure is set in stone, just that it appears reasonable based on several quite different calculations. I've seen figures as low as 7 and as high as 15. I think there's enough evidence to take 10 as a good working value for evaluating the impact of diet.

One large disconnect beteen the micro-level studies and the macro studies is that a large proportion of edible food is wasted in the US. Here's a cite from the USDA:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodr...1997/jan97a.pdf


More than a third of the food calories harvested in the US never get eaten, at least by the USDA's estimate. So that's a rather large "fudge factor" in the calculation. The energy cost of each calorie actually consumed is therefore higher than the cost of growing the food, due to the waste. You can't directly translate the USDA data into a numerical adjuster (at least I haven't), but it's a factor to consider.

Finally, there is absolute agreement that grain-fed beef is the worst culprit, for the obvious reason that it takes several pounds of grain to make a pound of beef, and then for secondary considerations (such as, for example, shipping around the manure off the feedlots, shipping the grain to the feedlots, etc.) The data on the impact of cattle really are kind of amazing. The Wikipedia article above says that 80% of US agricultural land and 70% of US grain harvest are for feeding animals. So, in round numbers, three-quarters of US agriculture is devoted to animal products.

Which again squares with the published energy data. Taking the published estimates, if animal products account for 25% of your dietary calories, they are accounting for 75% of the fossil fuel used to produce your food. So the averages based on diet x fossil fuel calorie data, and the averages based on land use, appear reasonably similar. So, the energy cost between animal and vegetable calorie sources really do appear to be that large. There are also large, well-established differentials between (e.g.) chicken and beef, corresponding to the well-known differentials in the amount of grain required to produce a pound of meat (far less for chicken).

I switched to local grass-fed beef, but it's never easy. I mean, the beef is great, but it turns out that methane produced in rumanants' stomachs is a large source of greenhouse gases, and the rougher the diet, the larger the fraction of it that is off-gassed as methane. So, a grass-fed cow will produce more methane per pound than a grain-fed cow. I did just enough work there to estimate that the net GHG impact of grass-fed over grain-fed beef been still appears to be positive, but because methane is a vastly more potent GHG, it really matters quite a bit if you include that in the calculation or not. The same logic applies to dairy. Right now, about 80 percent of US milk is from grain-fed cows (as opposed to those picturesque cows out in the fields that they print on the milk cartons.) Because of the methane issue, it is plausible (though not proven) that fewer, larger, hormone-stimulated grain-fed cows might actually produce less net GHG for a given amount of milk, than more, smaller, un-stimulated grass-fed cows. That doesn't change my mind about grain-fed milk (it's not as good for you or for the cow), but it means that there may not be a good argument for grassfed milk based on total GHG emissions.

Well, golly, that has to be more than you ever wanted to know. See the spreadsheet for a few more random internet sources on this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 19 2007, 07:18 AM) [snapback]481535[/snapback]</div>

Not only that, but you have to know your genetics. Different population groups process different diets differently. Some populations don't process flaxseed "omega3s", mostly folks from the British Isles and the like. Dessert folks (the Pima Indians, for example) don't process the American Carb overload (the American diet is very high in carbs, I doubt it's high in protein) well at all. Hence the massive obesity and diabetes issues in those populations. In fact, that's a problem in the States overall. The population is getting fatter and unhealthier. Europe and China are catching up with us. In a few decades they'll be just as fat and unhealthy as we are.

Chogan, were do you get your data on lifespan? It seems to me that there's massive skewing from other lifestyle effects. People that are vegans or vegetarians are probably a lot healthier than omni/carno types. Especially the carno types. I'd be willing to bet that they smoke a lot less as a population. There are probably loads of other factors that have nothing to do with diet that affect those numbers.

The real problem is that there are too many people and bovine food units. Our planet is too small for so many large animals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ 2007 Jul 19 10:04 AM) [snapback]481649[/snapback]</div>

I'm a main course person myself...

Seriously - for a change - are you saying different diets have evolved because of physiological differences?

 

Oh, this is too damn funny. I'm reading through, trying to come up with some suitably snide comment ( you know, something like "I love cats, I just can't eat a whole one all by myself..."), when I reach the last post.

And there it is - sitting at the bottom of the page. Making me laugh with the perfect irony of the digital universe..

And the add at the bottom of the thread was:

[attachmentid=9929]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jul 19 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]481657[/snapback]</div>

Bloody typos.

Probably the other way around. Peoples' genetics changed as they adapted to the food sources around them.

Hatter, that is too funny! You might say it's delicious.

 

The way I figure it is I am helping the environment by eating a cow.

Cows produce Methane (toot) so by eating it I reduce the amount af methane production in this country, I also provide leather for my shoes, couch, wallet, wife's car seats....

Also when I eat too many veggies, I produce methane, so I remove a methane producer and prevent myself from producing more.

How can you argue with that logic

James

 

Hey, Tripp. I know it was a typo; it was just too good to pass up. I know several dessert people.

So, how are we to obtain sufficient protein in a sustainable manner? I'm not sure city bylaws will allow multitudes of chickens and rabbits.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 19 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]481649[/snapback]</div>

I take it back. I'd rembered reading that somewhere, but a quick lit search at the National Library of Medicine disproves that. The unadjusted difference in lifespan might be near that, but that's not the right comparision. I found several studies of cohorts of health-conscious individuals, and there is pretty good agreement that there's little or no difference in overall (all-causes) mortality among otherwise equally healthy vegetarian and non-vegetarian health-conscious persons. At least, not that is detectable within the limits of those studies. The only standout is a large longitudinal study of Seventh Day Adventists where vegans had longer average lifespan (by about 3 years) than vegetarians.

There is wide agreement among the studies that a vegetarian diet yields lower risk factors for heart disease and roughly 25% lower average mortality from ischemic heart disease (clogged heart arteries). But most of those predate widespread use of cheap statin (cholesterol-lowering) drugs. So nowadays, I wonder if even that advantage will hold up, as you dont' have to give up animal fat any more to lower your blood cholesterol -- just take a pill.

So, I take it back. Maybe the raw difference is that large, and there is a well-documented differential in deaths from clogged heart arteries, but that's about it. Little or no systematic evidence of lower all-causes mortality rates in modern (1990s or later) data. Guess I can barbeque tonight after all.

 

So, vegetarians don't outlast carnivores? I've heard married people don't live longer, either, it just feels like it. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Jul 19 2007, 12:49 PM) [snapback]481696[/snapback]</div>

I know that animals (ruminant only?) produce the vitamin in their gut, from a bacteria (I think?). One still needs to either ingest meat or be sure to take a vitamin b 12 supplement if they opt to follow a vegetarian diet.

Contrary to what you're saying about proteins, I've heard that the amino acids must be combined in the same day in order to ensure adequate protein intake. And though vegetables do have protein, they supply rather inadequate quantities of same. That's what I've read anyway and it was some time ago that I read up on this. From what source are you getting your info stating that amino acids can be combined weekly. I'm talking about essential amino acids, not the one's our body produces. Rather the ones we need to ingest.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jul 19 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]481707[/snapback]</div>

Well yeah, but you may want to consider avoiding the black carcinogenic char marks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Jul 19 2007, 08:22 AM) [snapback]481539[/snapback]</div>

[insert rude comment about Californians here]


I suppose that we shouldn't drive, either, since bugs splat against the windshield...?

I may be wrong, but I'm not totally convinced that fruits and veggies are sentient beings.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jul 19 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]481707[/snapback]</div>

Take a look at the side effects of that cholesterol-lowering pill, in which you place such faith...I don't think that relying on medication to treat the symptoms, is the same as addressing the cause.

In fact, I'd venture to say that this whole idea is at the crux of some of the problems we're experiencing today, as American citizens.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 19 2007, 11:22 AM) [snapback]481716[/snapback]</div>

I can't find the studies immediately but I know that if you combine the essential amino acids within a few days to a week you're fine. They circulate around in your blood for quite a while.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jul 19 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]481701[/snapback]</div>

Become C.H.U.D and live in the sewers of NY city. Seems the only sensible solution.

Here's an article I googled using "Vegetarian Protein Diet". It mainly deals with "The Zone" a diet proposed by Barry Sears. It's an interesting read.

My wife tried the Zone for a while. The vegetable servings were massive. The piles of broccoli were impressive. Frankly, I have no interest. I would have a helluva time shoving that much scoff down my neck in one go. It would take me ages to get through one meal.

I find vegetarian dishes bland. I think it's the lack of fat. It could also be the chefs. Perhaps I've just not had the right recipes. I do enjoy fruit. I have a homemade smoothie every morning. 2 cups of mixed berries, 2 scopes of protein powder, 1 cup of milk, 2 tsp of olive oil, 2 tsp of concentated and refined fish oil (yuck, but it's got loads of omega 3s). Fortunately, the fish oil taste is completely overwhelmed by the fruit. There's nothing I despise more than fish. I tried taking it straight up but just the thought of it made me dry heave. Not a pleasant way to start one's day!

I think that I'd have a very hard time cutting meat out of my diet. I love dairy products (we drink loads of milk at our house, 1% from a local dairy. Man is it good stuff). Vegan would be very tough. So it's all about striking some kind of balance between horrid industrial meat farms and wishing I was dead at every meal. We don't eat a lot of steak at home. Mostly poultry, which isn't quite so wildly inefficient.

 

I might also point out that it is not necessary for us to completely give up eating meat any more than Prius drivers have given up using gasoline. If we all consumed proportionately less (say half what we do now), it would still have a large beneficial effect on the environment. I would rather frame the problem as excessive meat eating (and, yes, I'm guilty too!) than meat eating versus vegetarianism.

Of course, if you believe that animals have souls, you might want to rethink eating any of them.

Mike

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Jul 19 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]481765[/snapback]</div>

As I've indicated in other posts, I'm a vegetarian and as such, like to know of any possible ramifications that may be associated with my diet. Just wanted to know if what I'd read a couple decades ago is now debunked and irrelevant. I'm all too familiar with how often nutritional information is amended. I eat very healthy and pay special attention to protein intake as I'm very active and work out a lot. I'll check out the link.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Jul 19 2007, 03:04 PM) [snapback]481766[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, fibb222.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Jul 19 2007, 05:06 PM) [snapback]481848[/snapback]</div>

I agree. I read somewhere that Americans get double the amount of protein required. Since meat sources comprise the typical excess, it probably would be a healthy amendment anyway as fat intake would be decreased as well. Too much protein has it's own implications too.