This is the most non-issue I have ever heard of. TIL, growing plants indoors using electricity from a dirty grid and burning natural gas for heat releases GHGs. Did you know that your meager...
This is the most non-issue I have ever heard of. TIL, growing plants indoors using electricity from a dirty grid and burning natural gas for heat releases GHGs.
Did you know that your meager existence also produces around 700g of CO2 each day, or ~40Kg of GHGs per year? Average American household releases 15Kg of GHGs per year. That's 55kg of GHGs per year from an American who lives in a house.
Let's assume I use weed often, I would purchase 1oz a month (which is a LOT), that is 340g / year. Or as from the article a annual contribution of 4.4Kg of GHGs. That would be 8% of what you and your house added in terms of GHGs.
Btw... I didn't even touch gas cars / or shipping of other consumer products. The average car adds 4600kgs of GHGs per year. At this point your grass is so insignificant in terms of GHG emissions.
Given that 12% of adults in the USA smoke weed according to a Gallup poll, that "insignificant" level of emissions just got a lot larger. We need to be improving almost universally in how we...
Given that 12% of adults in the USA smoke weed according to a Gallup poll, that "insignificant" level of emissions just got a lot larger. We need to be improving almost universally in how we produce and consume in order to limit emissions. Claiming one area as insignificant as compared to another is fruitless and only serves to delay change. The legal marijuana industry is still relatively young and in the perfect spot to address this.
That 12% could collectively and individually smoke any amount of pot. Nothing in that polling revealed quantities to compare to anything else in this conversation.
That 12% could collectively and individually smoke any amount of pot. Nothing in that polling revealed quantities to compare to anything else in this conversation.
If you're looking for something more concrete in terms of volume: Canadians bought nearly 100 tonnes of pot in first year of legalization: Health Canada. And knowing all that, we can take the...
Health Canada said 88,676 kilograms of dried flower cannabis was sold in Canada in the first year of legalization, according to its monthly Cannabis Tracking System. Overall sales of legal dried cannabis by weight have nearly tripled since October of 2018.
Meanwhile, the total amount of finished and unfinished dried cannabis inventory held by cultivators, processors, distributors and retailers stood at 380,666 kilograms at the end of September, Health Canada said. That figure is approximately 32.5 times the amount of total inventory sold in that month. The total amount of finished dried cannabis products held in inventory at the end of September was 64,151 kilograms, up five per cent month-over-month, suggesting a significant glut of legal pot is stuck with wholesalers and hasn’t yet reached retailers.
A total of 46,056 litres of cannabis oil was sold in the recreational market, or the equivalent of 9,211 kilograms of dried flower. Adding that to the total of dried flower sold, roughly 97,887 kilograms of pot were sold to the legal market.
And knowing all that, we can take the figure mentioned in the Ars article to get a rough total for the emissions:
For each kilogram of product, it has roughly 2,500 kilograms of emissions
So, 97,887 * 2,500 = ~244,717,500kg of CO₂ emissions just from the amount purchased.
And 380,666 * 2,500 = ~951,665,000kg of CO₂ from the remaining unprocessed/unsold stock.
Which means a total of ~1,196,382,500kg of CO₂ was produced by the marijuana industry in Canada in 2019.
(please feel free to correct my math, esp since I suck at it)
Although it should be noted that Canada's grid (65.0% power from renewables) is significantly greener than the American one (14.7% from renewables), so the emissions per kilogram of marijuana produced here was probably far less than what was estimated by the study Ars cited, which focused solely on the US.
Thank you, that's a great basis for discussing it. So Canadians bought (very) roughly 100,000 kilos of pot in one year. 32.7% of Canadians smoke pot, though that was from 2016 so the percentage...
Thank you, that's a great basis for discussing it. So Canadians bought (very) roughly 100,000 kilos of pot in one year. 32.7% of Canadians smoke pot, though that was from 2016 so the percentage may be higher now. With 37 million people, that makes (very) roughly 12 million pot smokers, which makes for an average of 20kg of CO₂ emissions per person for what they bought. Is that right? That seems huge, assuming the average of 40kg a year mentioned by Magneto above is accurate.
Your numbers seem to check out. 244,717,500 / 12,000,000 = 20.39kg of CO₂ per Canadian legal pot smoker in 2019. And yeah that does seem like a pretty significant addition to the CO₂ output of...
Your numbers seem to check out. 244,717,500 / 12,000,000 = 20.39kg of CO₂ per Canadian legal pot smoker in 2019. And yeah that does seem like a pretty significant addition to the CO₂ output of those of us that do smoke up (if everything else is reasonably accurate).
And anecdotally at least, I can confirm that those of us Canadians that do smoke up seem to smoke a hell of a lot. Hell... I am buzzed right now, have 2 different THC/CBD vapes sitting next to my computer at this very moment which I have been puffing on occasionally, and several boxes of 10x 1g pre-rolled joints sitting in my fridge. And at one point in my youth, back when I was total stoner, I would easily go through an ounce every few weeks for years on end. Some of my friends still do!! And once a year at our cottage gathering, we can all easily go through 4 ounces over the 4-5 days we're there. :P
So as much as I hate to admit it, this article actually is a bit concerning to me, since a large part of the reason I have been cutting down so much on my meat consumption (amongst other things) is because of my desire to personally contribute less towards global warming. But all that effort may pale in comparison to if I simply just stopped smoking pot. :/
p.s. All those figures don't even account for the illegal market here BTW... from that same Bloomberg article:
Statistics Canada said Tuesday that Canadian household spending on cannabis totalled $1.27 billion in the third quarter of the year, with the illicit market accounting for $860 million of that figure and the legal market estimated at $417 million.
So the illicit market was/is still more than double that of the legal one here. And I can also anecdotally confirm that too, since even though all the pot I have in my house right now was legally purchased, the several ounces we usually get for our cottage trip never is (since that would be stupid expensive if we bought it legally), and most of my friends who smoke up still don't get theirs entirely legally either due to how much they still smoke.
No judgment here and I'm sorry but this made me laugh out loud :)
Hell... I am buzzed right now, have 2 different THC/CBD vapes sitting next to my computer at this very moment which I have been puffing on occasionally, and several boxes of 10x 1g pre-rolled joints sitting in my fridge. And at one point in my youth, back when I was total stoner,
No judgment here and I'm sorry but this made me laugh out loud :)
I'm still kinda skeptical of whether this is such a big deal. I mean, I don't for a second believe that this holds. This source(german) lists average ethiopian emissions as 560kg CO2 per year....
I'm still kinda skeptical of whether this is such a big deal. I mean, I don't for a second believe that
That seems huge, assuming the average of 40kg a year mentioned by Magneto above is accurate.
this holds. This source(german) lists average ethiopian emissions as 560kg CO2 per year. 1500kg/year for every earthling would be sustainable for the next 30 years, at which point we would have to be net-zero.
This source lists 16 tons as the average US footprint, 4 tons as a worldwide average.
That is peanuts. Housing + food is peanuts, and I suspect the housing figure is somehow wrong. 40kg / year is just your body, your exhalation. Not the cost of your food. The 15kg/year household emissions is not plausible either, at least if you use any appreciable amount of power or heating. That's 5kg of oil if you're using oil for heat. That's nothing. A (car) tank of gas at ~50kg is going to result in about 150kg of emissions, and most people go through at least a tank a month.
If your weed needed that much energy, it would be more expensive.
Hmm. If that's true, that the avg household output is ~4-16 tons/yr, then the added 20kg/yr from my weed consumption is definitely small potatoes in comparison. However, I am still glad that I was...
Hmm. If that's true, that the avg household output is ~4-16 tons/yr, then the added 20kg/yr from my weed consumption is definitely small potatoes in comparison. However, I am still glad that I was made aware of the fact that my weed consumption may be adding a disproportionate amount to my personal emissions output compared to my other recreational activities.
And while on an individual level certain activities, like weed smoking, may not contribute much to emissions, on the macro scale they still do... as evidenced by the fact that the legal marijuana growing industry in Canada may have produced 1.2 Megatonnes of emissions in 2019 if the study's figures were accurate. Not only that, but while I can't stop heating my house, I can eat less meat, use less plastic, smoke less weed, etc. And if everyone made a similar effort to try reducing their environmental impact too, it would collectively make a huge difference.
But you see, "Cannabis requires a lot of energy to grow" doesn't make for a spicy headline. It's a pretty lame article and I agree with you. Something I see spreading more and more: Articles just...
But you see, "Cannabis requires a lot of energy to grow" doesn't make for a spicy headline.
It's a pretty lame article and I agree with you. Something I see spreading more and more: Articles just like this one, "denouncing" carbon emissions left and right of whatever thing the author dislikes (or worse, is paid to dislike); all of which can be summarized to "thing requires energy".
It's so easy to be dishonest with those things. Especially when you start being very abstract and taking into account things like "well thing also needs water and water needs purification and purification needs energy and energy is not always green" and just, slapping a whole water purification plant's energy usage into it because why the fuck not.
Wish I were exaggerating.
The article is mildly interesting at best in that it talks about indoor growing, and comments point out that it's due to legislation etc. It would have been a lot better as an actual piece centered on that, and how the legislation is causing waste of energy, but once again: not spicy enough.
The article is mildly interesting at best in that it talks about indoor growing, and comments point out that it's due to legislation etc. It would have been a lot better as an actual piece centered on that, and how the legislation is causing waste of energy, but once again: not spicy enough.
Fully 1/3 of the article says exactly that
Why indoors, again?
Obviously, a kilogram of dried flowers provides enough material to supply a lot of people. But comparing the emissions for weed to those for corn, which one paper estimates at being less than half a kilogram for each kilogram of food, is still instructive. The big difference? Corn is grown outdoors, and most of its emissions come from the production and application of fertilizers and pesticides.
Obviously, cannabis could also be grown outdoors—the authors estimate that switching to outdoor production would drop greenhouse gas emissions by 96 percent and lower Colorado's total emissions by 1.3 percent. Even switching to a greenhouse, which would handle many of the security issues, would cut emissions nearly in half. Of course, Colorado would have to make changes to its legalization statutes in order to make off-site agriculture a reasonable option.
But really, the big problem is the gap between state legalization efforts and federal law, which severely limits our ability to transport cannabis across state lines. Most crops are grown outdoors where the climate and other conditions make growing them relatively easy. Because that's not possible with cannabis, we're left with each state optimizing its market individually. And, given the huge differences in climate among the states, that's necessarily going to lead to some solutions that are nowhere near a global optimum.
I'll take it that you mean your mere metabolism. The gist of climate change is that we, denizens of (post-) industrialised societies, can't help but agitate ourselves way beyond feeding, breathing...
your meager existence also produces around 700g of CO2 each day,
I'll take it that you mean your mere metabolism.
The gist of climate change is that we, denizens of (post-) industrialised societies, can't help but agitate ourselves way beyond feeding, breathing and breeding.
The urge to type this very comment isn't distinct from my own meager existence. Of course, I would still (briefly) exist if I were forcibly restrained from using and abusing all the toys that society has put withing my reach. Then again, without the technical, industrial, ecological, geological conditions that prevailed in the late 20^th century, I wouldn't have been born, or never have survived thus far, and my existence would be so meager as to be, in fact, non-existant.
I suppose that the big underlying philosophical question could be what exactly constitute one individual when considering social species such as ants or humans.
Anyway, the carbon footprint of an average American is 22 metric tonnes per year, of which, indeed, the indoor growing of some hemp is an insignificant fraction.
I don't think this is an issue that needs to be argued about too much. Humans are producing carbon emissions through all of our activities. This means we have to be thinking about adapting ALL of...
I don't think this is an issue that needs to be argued about too much.
Humans are producing carbon emissions through all of our activities. This means we have to be thinking about adapting ALL of our activities, with the goal of lower carbon emissions in mind. This might seem insignificant, but every insignificant step brings us closer to the goal of significant change.
Everything big is made up of many small things. If we want to go through the massive changes necassary to stop us from making earth uninhabitable, we need to demand incremental change along with radical change.
This is really interesting. I'd be curious to see how the production of alcohol compares. I worked at a small craft-brewery a few years back and we used to just dump waste chemicals straight down...
This is really interesting. I'd be curious to see how the production of alcohol compares. I worked at a small craft-brewery a few years back and we used to just dump waste chemicals straight down the drain. It was actually really gross that the owners didn't care to find a good way to dispose of it because it was just easier to dump it. I imagine this put a pretty big strain on local water treatment facilities. We used concentrated sodium hydroxide to clean our bright-tanks, fermenters, and kegs, which was happening multiple times per day. Not something to just shrug off really.
A well sourced article that is focused on beer, but discusses and has links to info on wine and spirits as well is here: https://oct.co/essays/beer-industry-climate-change
I'd be curious to see how the production of alcohol compares.
I think comparing household Drano which is supposed to be used measured by the spoonful, to an industrial warehouse setting where barrels of the stuff are poured out daily is a little...
I think comparing household Drano which is supposed to be used measured by the spoonful, to an industrial warehouse setting where barrels of the stuff are poured out daily is a little disingenuous. Oftentimes when you can source industrial chemicals from a pharmacy or grocer they are diluted concentrations. Industrial applications require the use of much stronger formulations.
The place I worked at was dinged with a $20,000 fine from the city because they were just dumping this stuff down the drain.
This is the most non-issue I have ever heard of. TIL, growing plants indoors using electricity from a dirty grid and burning natural gas for heat releases GHGs.
Did you know that your meager existence also produces around 700g of CO2 each day, or ~40Kg of GHGs per year? Average American household releases 15Kg of GHGs per year. That's 55kg of GHGs per year from an American who lives in a house.
Let's assume I use weed often, I would purchase 1oz a month (which is a LOT), that is 340g / year. Or as from the article a annual contribution of 4.4Kg of GHGs. That would be 8% of what you and your house added in terms of GHGs.
Btw... I didn't even touch gas cars / or shipping of other consumer products. The average car adds 4600kgs of GHGs per year. At this point your grass is so insignificant in terms of GHG emissions.
Or what about other agricultural goods, you eat food right? https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualising-the-greenhouse-gas-impact-of-each-food/
Given that 12% of adults in the USA smoke weed according to a Gallup poll, that "insignificant" level of emissions just got a lot larger. We need to be improving almost universally in how we produce and consume in order to limit emissions. Claiming one area as insignificant as compared to another is fruitless and only serves to delay change. The legal marijuana industry is still relatively young and in the perfect spot to address this.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smoke-marijuana.aspx
That 12% could collectively and individually smoke any amount of pot. Nothing in that polling revealed quantities to compare to anything else in this conversation.
If you're looking for something more concrete in terms of volume:
Canadians bought nearly 100 tonnes of pot in first year of legalization: Health Canada.
And knowing all that, we can take the figure mentioned in the Ars article to get a rough total for the emissions:
So, 97,887 * 2,500 = ~244,717,500kg of CO₂ emissions just from the amount purchased.
And 380,666 * 2,500 = ~951,665,000kg of CO₂ from the remaining unprocessed/unsold stock.
Which means a total of ~1,196,382,500kg of CO₂ was produced by the marijuana industry in Canada in 2019.
(please feel free to correct my math, esp since I suck at it)
Although it should be noted that Canada's grid (65.0% power from renewables) is significantly greener than the American one (14.7% from renewables), so the emissions per kilogram of marijuana produced here was probably far less than what was estimated by the study Ars cited, which focused solely on the US.
Source of renewables %
Edited to include oil production as well
Thank you, that's a great basis for discussing it. So Canadians bought (very) roughly 100,000 kilos of pot in one year. 32.7% of Canadians smoke pot, though that was from 2016 so the percentage may be higher now. With 37 million people, that makes (very) roughly 12 million pot smokers, which makes for an average of 20kg of CO₂ emissions per person for what they bought. Is that right? That seems huge, assuming the average of 40kg a year mentioned by Magneto above is accurate.
Your numbers seem to check out. 244,717,500 / 12,000,000 = 20.39kg of CO₂ per Canadian legal pot smoker in 2019. And yeah that does seem like a pretty significant addition to the CO₂ output of those of us that do smoke up (if everything else is reasonably accurate).
And anecdotally at least, I can confirm that those of us Canadians that do smoke up seem to smoke a hell of a lot. Hell... I am buzzed right now, have 2 different THC/CBD vapes sitting next to my computer at this very moment which I have been puffing on occasionally, and several boxes of 10x 1g pre-rolled joints sitting in my fridge. And at one point in my youth, back when I was total stoner, I would easily go through an ounce every few weeks for years on end. Some of my friends still do!! And once a year at our cottage gathering, we can all easily go through 4 ounces over the 4-5 days we're there. :P
So as much as I hate to admit it, this article actually is a bit concerning to me, since a large part of the reason I have been cutting down so much on my meat consumption (amongst other things) is because of my desire to personally contribute less towards global warming. But all that effort may pale in comparison to if I simply just stopped smoking pot. :/
p.s. All those figures don't even account for the illegal market here BTW... from that same Bloomberg article:
So the illicit market was/is still more than double that of the legal one here. And I can also anecdotally confirm that too, since even though all the pot I have in my house right now was legally purchased, the several ounces we usually get for our cottage trip never is (since that would be stupid expensive if we bought it legally), and most of my friends who smoke up still don't get theirs entirely legally either due to how much they still smoke.
No judgment here and I'm sorry but this made me laugh out loud :)
"I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too." -Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
I'm still kinda skeptical of whether this is such a big deal. I mean, I don't for a second believe that
this holds. This source(german) lists average ethiopian emissions as 560kg CO2 per year. 1500kg/year for every earthling would be sustainable for the next 30 years, at which point we would have to be net-zero.
This source lists 16 tons as the average US footprint, 4 tons as a worldwide average.
That is peanuts. Housing + food is peanuts, and I suspect the housing figure is somehow wrong. 40kg / year is just your body, your exhalation. Not the cost of your food. The 15kg/year household emissions is not plausible either, at least if you use any appreciable amount of power or heating. That's 5kg of oil if you're using oil for heat. That's nothing. A (car) tank of gas at ~50kg is going to result in about 150kg of emissions, and most people go through at least a tank a month.
If your weed needed that much energy, it would be more expensive.
Hmm. If that's true, that the avg household output is ~4-16 tons/yr, then the added 20kg/yr from my weed consumption is definitely small potatoes in comparison. However, I am still glad that I was made aware of the fact that my weed consumption may be adding a disproportionate amount to my personal emissions output compared to my other recreational activities.
And while on an individual level certain activities, like weed smoking, may not contribute much to emissions, on the macro scale they still do... as evidenced by the fact that the legal marijuana growing industry in Canada may have produced 1.2 Megatonnes of emissions in 2019 if the study's figures were accurate. Not only that, but while I can't stop heating my house, I can eat less meat, use less plastic, smoke less weed, etc. And if everyone made a similar effort to try reducing their environmental impact too, it would collectively make a huge difference.
But you see, "Cannabis requires a lot of energy to grow" doesn't make for a spicy headline.
It's a pretty lame article and I agree with you. Something I see spreading more and more: Articles just like this one, "denouncing" carbon emissions left and right of whatever thing the author dislikes (or worse, is paid to dislike); all of which can be summarized to "thing requires energy".
It's so easy to be dishonest with those things. Especially when you start being very abstract and taking into account things like "well thing also needs water and water needs purification and purification needs energy and energy is not always green" and just, slapping a whole water purification plant's energy usage into it because why the fuck not.
Wish I were exaggerating.
The article is mildly interesting at best in that it talks about indoor growing, and comments point out that it's due to legislation etc. It would have been a lot better as an actual piece centered on that, and how the legislation is causing waste of energy, but once again: not spicy enough.
Fully 1/3 of the article says exactly that
I'll take it that you mean your mere metabolism.
The gist of climate change is that we, denizens of (post-) industrialised societies, can't help but agitate ourselves way beyond feeding, breathing and breeding.
The urge to type this very comment isn't distinct from my own meager existence. Of course, I would still (briefly) exist if I were forcibly restrained from using and abusing all the toys that society has put withing my reach. Then again, without the technical, industrial, ecological, geological conditions that prevailed in the late 20^th century, I wouldn't have been born, or never have survived thus far, and my existence would be so meager as to be, in fact, non-existant.
I suppose that the big underlying philosophical question could be what exactly constitute one individual when considering social species such as ants or humans.
Anyway, the carbon footprint of an average American is 22 metric tonnes per year, of which, indeed, the indoor growing of some hemp is an insignificant fraction.
I don't think this is an issue that needs to be argued about too much.
Humans are producing carbon emissions through all of our activities. This means we have to be thinking about adapting ALL of our activities, with the goal of lower carbon emissions in mind. This might seem insignificant, but every insignificant step brings us closer to the goal of significant change.
Everything big is made up of many small things. If we want to go through the massive changes necassary to stop us from making earth uninhabitable, we need to demand incremental change along with radical change.
So ironically, weed isn't green.
It is common knowledge that "green" doesn't mean a thing, anyway,
This is really interesting. I'd be curious to see how the production of alcohol compares. I worked at a small craft-brewery a few years back and we used to just dump waste chemicals straight down the drain. It was actually really gross that the owners didn't care to find a good way to dispose of it because it was just easier to dump it. I imagine this put a pretty big strain on local water treatment facilities. We used concentrated sodium hydroxide to clean our bright-tanks, fermenters, and kegs, which was happening multiple times per day. Not something to just shrug off really.
A well sourced article that is focused on beer, but discusses and has links to info on wine and spirits as well is here: https://oct.co/essays/beer-industry-climate-change
I think comparing household Drano which is supposed to be used measured by the spoonful, to an industrial warehouse setting where barrels of the stuff are poured out daily is a little disingenuous. Oftentimes when you can source industrial chemicals from a pharmacy or grocer they are diluted concentrations. Industrial applications require the use of much stronger formulations.
The place I worked at was dinged with a $20,000 fine from the city because they were just dumping this stuff down the drain.