Carbon footprint is one thing. But wasted food biodegrades into compost and can be reused. Plastic will last lifetimes and will likely end up in our seafood. What we really need is to reduce food...
Carbon footprint is one thing. But wasted food biodegrades into compost and can be reused. Plastic will last lifetimes and will likely end up in our seafood. What we really need is to reduce food waste.
Growing more of our own food can be a big game-changer also if you have some space. You can use those leftovers as compost
I'd have to dig into the study itself, but maybe they accounted for that? E.g., perhaps there's more plastic waste that is created in producing more food, so even though you don't see it on your...
I'd have to dig into the study itself, but maybe they accounted for that? E.g., perhaps there's more plastic waste that is created in producing more food, so even though you don't see it on your end, it's actually worse overall.
If everyone spread out in order to have enough land to grow their own food, you'd wind up increasing everyone's carbon footprint by encouraging sprawl. Even if you have a yard in a dense city...
Growing more of our own food can be a big game-changer also if you have some space. You can use those leftovers as compost
If everyone spread out in order to have enough land to grow their own food, you'd wind up increasing everyone's carbon footprint by encouraging sprawl. Even if you have a yard in a dense city environment you can't grow that much food. The density brings vermin who will eat a lot of it and the soil conditions, pollution, and light exposure aren't ideal either. Community or backyard gardens can be a fun and satisfying hobby, and I think they have an important role to play culturally in terms of making us more sensitive to seasonality and where food comes from. But I don't think they can ever be a major plank of an environmentally sound food system.
A system focused on diversity (see: permaculture) would not have to worry about the typical vermins and diseases that modern agriculture has to. This is evidenced by how organic banana farmers...
A system focused on diversity (see: permaculture) would not have to worry about the typical vermins and diseases that modern agriculture has to. This is evidenced by how organic banana farmers seem to be relatively unaffected by the spread of the panama disease due to their use of intercropping. If we lived in larger communities rather than single houses for about 5 people, and we all had the space to get into agroforestry, we would be a much more efficient society. The field of agroecology is focused on solutions like this. Such systems could practically eliminate the need for tilling, plowing, pesticide use, and most of the intensive practices we do nowadays which means communities growing their own foods also have the potential to have more free time
Another example of how the economics of this is what's going on in the Amazon rainforest. Recent studies have examined the profits made from the acres of land being cut down to make room for crops and livestock (currently the #1 purpose). It turns out that if we had left the land as it was and simply picked the fruits and nuts that grow there naturally, we would be making nearly 20x more than we are by raising cattle or certain crops
The monocultural agriculture we practice today is a remnant of European practices due to politics. But the horticultural techniques of native americans and people around the world are starting to be seriously examined for the first time. Less intensive methods are better for the environment, give us more free time, and can be even more productive if done right
Carbon footprint is one thing. But wasted food biodegrades into compost and can be reused. Plastic will last lifetimes and will likely end up in our seafood. What we really need is to reduce food waste.
Growing more of our own food can be a big game-changer also if you have some space. You can use those leftovers as compost
I'd have to dig into the study itself, but maybe they accounted for that? E.g., perhaps there's more plastic waste that is created in producing more food, so even though you don't see it on your end, it's actually worse overall.
If everyone spread out in order to have enough land to grow their own food, you'd wind up increasing everyone's carbon footprint by encouraging sprawl. Even if you have a yard in a dense city environment you can't grow that much food. The density brings vermin who will eat a lot of it and the soil conditions, pollution, and light exposure aren't ideal either. Community or backyard gardens can be a fun and satisfying hobby, and I think they have an important role to play culturally in terms of making us more sensitive to seasonality and where food comes from. But I don't think they can ever be a major plank of an environmentally sound food system.
A system focused on diversity (see: permaculture) would not have to worry about the typical vermins and diseases that modern agriculture has to. This is evidenced by how organic banana farmers seem to be relatively unaffected by the spread of the panama disease due to their use of intercropping. If we lived in larger communities rather than single houses for about 5 people, and we all had the space to get into agroforestry, we would be a much more efficient society. The field of agroecology is focused on solutions like this. Such systems could practically eliminate the need for tilling, plowing, pesticide use, and most of the intensive practices we do nowadays which means communities growing their own foods also have the potential to have more free time
Another example of how the economics of this is what's going on in the Amazon rainforest. Recent studies have examined the profits made from the acres of land being cut down to make room for crops and livestock (currently the #1 purpose). It turns out that if we had left the land as it was and simply picked the fruits and nuts that grow there naturally, we would be making nearly 20x more than we are by raising cattle or certain crops
The monocultural agriculture we practice today is a remnant of European practices due to politics. But the horticultural techniques of native americans and people around the world are starting to be seriously examined for the first time. Less intensive methods are better for the environment, give us more free time, and can be even more productive if done right
It also costs more and gives you less choices.