Stiamo parlando di ambiente? Di sostenibilità o di lobbismo e abuso del copyright per danneggiare la democrazia?
Vegetarian and “Healthy” Diets Could Be More Harmful to the Environment than Bacon
Carnegie Mellon Study Finds Eating Lettuce Is More Than Three Times Worse in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Eating Bacon
By Shilo Rea / 412-268-6094 / email@example.com
Contrary to recent headlines — and a talk by actor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference — eating a vegetarian diet could contribute to climate change. In fact, according to new research from Carnegie Mellon University, following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per calorie. Published in Environment Systems and Decisions, the study measured the changes in energy use, blue water footprint and GHG emissions associated with U.S. food consumption patterns.
“Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.” Fischbeck, Michelle Tom, a Ph.D. student in civil and environmental engineering, and Chris Hendrickson, the Hamerschlag University Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, studied the food supply chain to determine how the obesity epidemic in the U.S. is affecting the environment. Specifically, they examined how growing, processing and transporting food, food sales and service, and household storage and use take a toll on resources in the form of energy use, water use and GHG emissions. On one hand, the results showed that getting our weight under control and eating fewer calories, has a positive effect on the environment and reduces energy use, water use and GHG emissions from the food supply chain by approximately 9 percent. However, eating the recommended “healthier” foods — a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood — increased the environmental impact in all three categories: Energy use went up by 38 percent, water use by 10 percent and GHG emissions by 6 percent. “There’s a complex relationship between diet and the environment,” Tom said. “What is good for us health-wise isn’t always what’s best for the environment. That’s important for public officials to know and for them to be cognizant of these tradeoffs as they develop or continue to develop dietary guidelines in the future.” CMU’s Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education and Research and the Colcom Foundation funded this research.
Sento puzza che i dettagli della storia stanno nei metodi e parametri di misurazione. Chissà perchè però non sono accessibili, nascosti dietro alla paywall mafiosa di http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-015-9577-y. Qui l'assenza di una legislazione secondo Aaron Swartz potrebbe avere effettive conseguenze sulla politica derivata.
Se avessimo accesso ai dati la conclusione da trarne probabilmente sarebbe Mangiate la frutta e verdura in stagione e non spendete assurde energie a crescere la lattuga in Alaska d'inverno! – e non una ridicola critica a Schwarzenegger.
Mi domando anche se esiste alcun collegamento tra la Colcom Foundation e la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colcom_Foods che produce carne.
Noi Pirati crediamo in una politica fondata sui fatti e la scienza, ma se i fatti vengono tenuti al chiuso noi li consideriamo falsi fino a prova contraria. Springer si deve vergognare e tutta la classe politica che difende questo modello economico di lucrare sull'assenza di conoscenza.
Former bodybuilder, action star, and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is now advocating a part-time vegetarian diet to protect the planet from climate change. Speaking at the United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference this week, the Terminator star was asked by the BBC whether he would recommend reducing meat consumption to save the environment from greenhouse gases. The former Mr. Olympia, who is now a staunch environmentalist, told the outlet 28 percent of greenhouse gasses are caused by meat production and meat-eating and said people should be willing to cut back. Schwarzenegger said asking people to completely eliminate meat and dairy from their diet would be too drastic, and instead advocated one or two vegetarian or vegan days a week. “You have to start slowly, you can’t just convince people to stop eating meat altogether. It’s a very big challenge, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done and you shouldn’t be on that campaign, but it’s a very hard thing to overcome,” Schwarzenegger said. As for how prospective bodybuilders are supposed to build muscle without meat, the actor said, “I have seen many bodybuilders and weight lifters that are vegetarians.” “You can get your protein source many different ways,” he added. Addressing a message to climate change deniers, Schwarzenegger told The Guardian, “It drives me crazy when people talk about 30 years from now, rising sea levels and so on. What about right now? Thousands of people are dying from pollution. People are living with cancer [because of air pollution].” He also told the paper, “Global warming is an extremely important issue, the most important issue. You have to communicate it properly. You have to communicate to people that this is right now.” On his Facebook page Monday, Schwarzenegger penned a lengthy note for fans who disagree with his stance on climate change, which he referred to as a “crusade for a clean energy future.” “To use one of the four-letter words all of you commenters love, I don’t give a damn if you believe in climate change,” Schwarzenegger wrote. “I couldn’t care less if you’re concerned about temperatures rising or melting glaciers. It doesn’t matter to me which of us is right about the science.”
Trovo l'attacco frontale a Schwarzenegger molto interessante in quanto anche se gli studi fossero corretti significherebbe solamente che bisogna evitare di produrre certi ortaggi e certe carni. Qui qualcuno vuole dare l'impressione che l'opinione di Schwarzenegger sia criticabile in toto mentre al massimo, dovessero gli studi non essere una farsa, sono da raffinare nei dettagli – come del resto tutto quello che si dice.
Ci metto anche la "nota" che ha pubblicato su FB in quanto è indirizzata ai più manipolati e disinformati. Quelli che ancora hanno nulla di meglio da fare che di dubitare del imminente disastro ecologico.
I don’t give a **** if we agree about climate change.
Arnold Schwarzenegger·Monday, December 7, 2015
I see your questions. Each and every time I post on my Facebook page or tweet about my crusade for a clean energy future, I see them. There are always a few of you, asking why we should care about the temperature rising, or questioning the science of climate change. I want you to know that I hear you. Even those of you who say renewable energy is a conspiracy. Even those who say climate change is a hoax. Even those of you who use four letter words. I've heard all of your questions, and now I have three questions for you. Let's put climate change aside for a minute. In fact, let's assume you're right.
First - do you believe it is acceptable that 7 million people die every year from pollution? That's more than murders, suicides, and car accidents - combined. Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Do you accept those deaths? Do you accept that children all over the world have to grow up breathing with inhalers?
Now, my second question: do you believe coal and oil will be the fuels of the future? Besides the fact that fossil fuels destroy our lungs, everyone agrees that eventually they will run out. What's your plan then? I, personally, want a plan. I don't want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don't want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That's exactly what is going to happen to fossil fuels. A clean energy future is a wise investment, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either wrong, or lying. Either way, I wouldn't take their investment advice. Renewable energy is great for the economy, and you don't have to take my word for it. California has some of the most revolutionary environmental laws in the United States, we get 40% of our power from renewables, and we are 40% more energy efficient than the rest of the country. We were an early-adopter of a clean energy future. Our economy has not suffered. In fact, our economy in California is growing faster than the U.S. economy. We lead the nation in manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, entertainment, high tech, biotech, and, of course, green tech.
I have a final question, and it will take some imagination.There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask. I'm guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice - who would ever want to breathe those fumes? This is the choice the world is making right now. To use one of the four-letter words all of you commenters love, I don't give a damn if you believe in climate change. I couldn’t care less if you're concerned about temperatures rising or melting glaciers. It doesn't matter to me which of us is right about the science. I just hope that you'll join me in opening Door Number Two, to a smarter, cleaner, healthier, more profitable energy future.