Greenhouse gasses have long been fingered as the prime culprits in global warming – and overall climate change. Now a team of researchers at the American Chemical Society has done some major number crunching and discovered ways we can all help cut greenhouse gas emissions…
Raising conventional meat animals is the leading agriculture
sector contributor to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Sure
going vegetarian or vegan would help, but…
The first thing most folks think of when cogitating on ways to reduce their personal greenhouse gas emission levels (GHGe) is to go vegetarian. After all, meat raising – especially beef – has been identified as the leading agricultural contributor to GHGe’s. Growing plant proteins takes a lot less of everything out of the environment and is a lot ‘cleaner’.
But science has also shown that a vegetarian diet doesn’t appeal to the majority, and vegetarians (especially vegans) have special nutrition issues they must pay attention to, to maintain good health. Most folks who might consider going vegetarian don’t have the patience or the level of commitment to live like that.
What the world needs, now, it seems, is simple ways the average person can contribute to reducing GHGe’s.
What they did
According to an abstract of a new study report, researchers at the American Chemical Society, “analyzed detailed grocery purchase records of over 57,000 U.S. households in 2010, and for each home, summed the greenhouse gas emissions for growing and harvesting the food items. Data for packaging and transportation were not included because that information was unavailable. Then, they compared the emissions calculation to that which would be generated from buying foods for a benchmark healthy and sustainable diet.”
Sounds simple? It would have taken years for a team of dozens of people to do it before today’s computers were available!
What they found
The team discovered three main ways consumers can contribute to the war on GHGe’s:
- Small households of one or two people should buy less food in bulk quantities, which is often more than will be eaten, and manufacturers should offer cost-effective package sizes.
- Cutting out foods with high caloric content and low nutritional values would result in a 29% reduction of the total potential emissions, while also potentially improving health outcomes.
- People should buy less savory bakery products and ready-made foods. Though those foods are responsible for relatively low carbon emissions, the large amounts of these items that are purchased adds up to significant emissions.
The takeaway
All told, researchers calculated that 71 percent of U.S. households could decrease their GHGe’s significantly.
My take
To put such changes into practice would require some problematic actions.
First, a large number ‘small households’ are either DINKs (young, double-income, no kids) or Empty Nesters. The former tend to eat more restaurant and take-out meals, and more processed and convenience foods. The latter would gladly take advantage of smaller packages of foods. Those exist in some major brands already, and in fresh produce and meats at the supermarket level where the market will support it. But smaller packages usually have a higher unit cost than standard-sized or ‘family’ packages. Many older folks on fixed incomes can’t afford to pay a premium.
Second, cutting out foods with high Caloric content would be great – and we should be doing it anyway – but that’s hard. Humans are hard-wired to love sugar, fat and salt, and Fast Food, processed food and snack makers take full advantage of that fact. Asking those addicted to fast Food or sugary-fatty-salty snacks is like asking an opiate addict to ‘please cut down’. A crazy notion. The vast majority of people will give in to their food addictions and bow to convenience before they6 deign to wqo0rry about the environment.
Third, as long as prepared foods are available, people will buy them. Prepared, processed foods are chock full of sugar, fat and salt, and the younger generations today are addicted to convenience. Come to think of it, older folks are generally less predisposed to the effort of grocery shopping and cooking, and lean heavily toward prepared and Processed foods. too.
How may times have you heard people say, in reference to a drug, food or cosmetic product: “If it was harmful, the government wouldn’t let them sell it!” At a functional level, our experience clearly shows that’s nonsense.
Again, the researchers’ earnest, honourable recommendations appear doomed to founder on the shoals of human nature.
~ Maggie J.