I Drink instant coffee once a week. (I’m a British 🇬🇧 tea drinker mostly)
Discussion
I also drink coffee but espresso and every morning 😁
Good morning! Tea or coffee, the same principle applies. We don’t live in climates where coffee/tea grows naturally. It has to be transported thousands of miles and requires special packaging and storage. That tea bag started as a tree that was harvested by a man with a gas powered chainsaw, moved with heavy equipment to a truck where it was shipped to a mill and processed using more heavy machinery, toxic chemicals and dozens of people that drove to work that day. That’s just to make the paper for the teabags. Now apply that thinking to everything you eat. Packaging is one of the biggest parts of everyone’s carbon footprint that is most often ignored.
Cut fuel use by 50%? Most of my food comes without packaging! More like cut fuel use by 1000%
Beef has such a high carbon footprint because it is imported, fed manufactured food and processed in a factory. Try buying a grass fed animal from a local farmer and having it processed by a local butcher. You will support your local economy, get healthier food and actually remove carbon from your footprint. Here in the states we had 30,000,000 buffalo roaming the plains before they were ignorantly slaughtered. Large, grass fed ruminants, when farmed on a savanna type landscape actually help remove carbon from the air and put it in the soil where it belongs. Cows don’t have a bad carbon footprint, how we raise them does.
Thanks for the kind words about the farm. It’s been a lifelong dream that took me 28 years to realize. The goal is to be as self sufficient as possible. I don’t “sell”anything from my farm. Selling invites regulations and government. We trade with other people in our community. For example, recently I traded eggs from my chickens for a bushel of blueberries, traded meat for butter. Last year I produced 1000lbs of food for me and my wife, all in a way that removes carbon from the air. Traded the surplus and returned the excess to the land.
That’s why I asked for a debate. Most people, just like the app you suggested, don’t take lifestyle into account. Sure, I drive an F150 a few thousand miles a year, but I’ll put that carbon up against the carbon emissions for the packaging required for a week’s worth of the average person’s groceries. I believe that on an annual basis my actions result in a net negative carbon footprint. My truck isn’t evil and I wouldn’t be able to lead the life I live without it.
Tea & Coffee.
Well, supply chains sound immense, but economies of scale reduce these to very little which I’m sure is factored in the APP.
While driving over to the neighbouring farm to swap goods in your #Ford #F150 may burn half a gallon of #gas.
Every gallon of fuel used makes ≈ 3 x its weight in CO₂
3.140 kgCO₂ / litre Gas / Petrol
3.310 kgCO₂ / litre #Diesel
Then there is getting the fuel to the vehicle (well to tank) this adds 30% . So now your Litre of gas is 4.082 kg
Like the Buffalo, grass fed is great because it’s a natural part of the carbon cycle. It doesn’t require fossil input unlike intense grain fed.
I get the whole American truck thing & it’s great you actually use it to full potential (instead of city folk grocery shopping), but I’m guessing the app has said about 5 tonnes CO₂ just for your vehicle alone ?
I would suggest an #electric #van preferably combined with #solar as an alternative. This would drop 5 tonnes CO₂ to <1 Tonne.
I have three rebuttals and two comments.
1. I understand economy of scale. However, since the app didn’t ask any questions about lifestyle or product use it probably treats all people the same or, most likely, ignores lifestyle as a factor. Which, IMHO, is one of the most important factors.
2. “Every gallon of fuel used makes ≈ 3 x its weight in CO₂ “ This is impossible. The output of a thing cannot be greater than the sum of its inputs. That’s not how math, physics or the universe works. Just think about it for a moment. Or did I misunderstand?
3. Current EV’s do not have the power/range/capacity to fulfill my needs. Additionally, they are just to heavy. An electric F150 Lightning weighs 35% more than the gas powered model. Making it impractical for off-road use.
Finally, have you ever seen a lithium mine? Talk about raping the earth! We are just trading one form of pollution for another. The pictures included are from a lithium mine in California. I’m not advocating for gas powered vehicles. I actually think Hydrogen is the future. But that cuts the mining industry (wether it’s oil or lithium) out of the picture, so it was never developed. After all, money talks louder than the environment.
Remember, we are not just trying to reduce our carbon emissions, but all pollution is bad. We all need clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. I hope my statements and facts educated you and that you think about the whole production cycle when making purchasing decisions. A “one size fits all” approach to pollution and climate change can not solve the problem. But rather educating individuals and leading them to a better lifestyle is our best hope. 
First I showed you mine, now you show me yours (carbon footprint as independently judged by the @earthhero app)
1 “lifestyle” & “opinion” are not scientific terms. You are not green simply because you live in the country.
2 CO2 - Carbon + Oxygen + Oxygen is roughly 3 times heavier than just Carbon. Basic physics.
3 Hydrogen 🥴 Horribly inefficient. This is just the oil industry trying to stay relevant. Hydrogen derived from Methane (steam reformation) is more fossil fuel with even more inefficiency. The waste CO2 with be pumped into old oil wells to access more oil, and will then probably just leak out again because let’s face the oil industry has a terrible record of plugging methane leaking from wells.
Mining for #eletricvehicles has much less environmental destruction than oil and you only gotta mine it once.
The old cowboys managed with no vehicle, I’m sure they’d be overjoyed with an #F150Lightning. Range 255 - 320 miles , will tow anything and you can run your house off of it.
I’m sorry if I hurt you by demonstrating the errors in what you have been taught. The app is fundamentally flawed by not taking into account consumables and waste streams. You seem very proud of your calculated carbon footprint according to your app and I’m sure it’s a huge blow to learn that you produce more pollution by breakfast than someone that drives a big gas burning truck does in a lifetime.
It’s not an opinion that plants take in CO2 and expel oxygen. The chart you displayed showing how different meats affect the environment apply only to destructive farming practices. How does your app remove carbon from my calculated total for using regenerative practices?
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/20902500/DavidHuggins/CarbonSequestrationinNativePrairie.pdf
Interesting discussion so far. And thanks for sharing your knowledge as a farmer. It sounds like a great dream to persue! From what I have read so far I am skeptical about your point that the carbon footprint of your meat is so low. What do you think about the following article? It shows the large differences between producers: https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
According to the #earthhero app my emissions from food are 0.66t . If I slide all the sliders to ultra Vegan it drops to 0.33t , so only a saving of 0.33t . Is it worth all the bottom burps 😷😄 , I like my meat and 2 veg, not Steak & eggs 3 times a day like these constipated Maxis.
The biggest savings are not flying & ditch the humongous pickup truck for an #EV or even better - no car.
An area of pristine woodland is holding the maximum amount of Carbon.
Clearing / burning for livestock is the first carbon release. The second release is ruminating livestock that burp methane. Methane is 86x more potent greenhouse gas. Yes there used to be Bison but there’s 5 x as many cows in the US (that produce slightly more methane) as the original Bison herds.
https://www.treehugger.com/how-much-carbon-do-different-forests-store-4857854
https://www.quora.com/How-do-cattle-and-bison-methane-emissions-compare?share=1
There is a lot of misinformation with regards to climate change and those two articles are prime examples. More accurately, and like much of your arguments, incomplete information, lazy research and lots of assumptions.
For example, you just assumed that forest moves more carbon than grasslands. In their book Countdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming by Paul Hawken and Tom Steyer. They scientifically demonstrate that an acre of grassland, grazed by ruminants sequesters 8.5 tons of carbon per acre per year. Grazing is required as it stimulates root growth. Roots which grow as much as 14ft deep. While an individual tree sequesters 42lbs of carbon/year. In order to make a proper counterpoint to your statements I literally went into my woods and counted trees (62/acre) Real field science.
According to your little app I produce 8.5 tons of carbon per year. Now subtract their calculations for eating meat every day sinceI raise my own -2.5 ton, the 5 acres of regenerative farm I work -42.5 tons and the 5 acres of forest I leave in a natural state on purpose -1.25 ton. Leaving me with a carbon footprint of -37.75 ton per year.
Now, using the US Environmental Protection Agency numbers of 1.5 ton per year per person in waste (referred to as packaging or lifestyle in my earlier notes) I end up with a net carbon footprint of -39.25 ton per year where you end up with a +4 ton.
The point of my debate was not to swing our dicks around and see who has a smaller carbon footprint, nor was it to belittle you. My points are that until we all practice local sourcing and circular economy we are all the problem. It’s not the cow, it’s the way we farm them. How much methane do you produce a year? A natural lifestyle makes a person carbon negative. Think about that next time you drive some place and eat a meal at a restaurant. YOU are the carbon that needs to be reduced.
Computer generated babble from a professional #climate #denial bot / Ai