I think "carbon" is just shorthand for greenhouse gases. If I'm not mistaken, methane and other greenhouse gases are part of the C&T legislation.
Yep, you are right. Now I like C&T even less.
I think "carbon" is just shorthand for greenhouse gases. If I'm not mistaken, methane and other greenhouse gases are part of the C&T legislation.
Yep, you are right. Now I like C&T even less.
Great, now we can look forward to a "flatulence tax"..........
Kroeran
[FONT="]What percentage of oil that the [/FONT][FONT="]US[/FONT][FONT="] uses comes form over seas? I have been told that it was a low percentage but the media makes us think it’s more so they can fluctuate gas prices. [/FONT]
Like others... I would think a tax is a better option... less games... but we need to get all forms, including the cows etc... a tax on each head of cattle... (what about pigs they have a lot of pig waste that creates problems)...
I bet I need it more. I'm somewhere near these:I could use some global warming
Some farms, and landfills, are capturing methane for use...
... eating local will become a necessity as fossil fuel (and the fertilizers made from them) prices continue to rise in the future.
Carbon dioxide equivalents per kilogram of tomato were compared over a 20-year period for tomatoes grown in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden (with Sweden being the end consumption point), and other countries.86 Spanish tomatoes were shown to have lower CO equivalents than those produced in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, even though the transportation distances to Sweden were shorter than for the Spanish tomatoes. The reason is that the Spanish tomatoes were raised in open ground while the Swedish, Dutch, and Danish tomatoes were raised in heated greenhouses, which required more fossil fuel energy in crop production. Transportation energy savings for the systems with shorter transport distances were overshadowed by higher energy needs in crop production. The results of this Swedish study underscore the importance of examining fuel use and CO emissions across all sectors of the food system.
I don't have a link handy, but I recall reading a study that indicated that much of the non-local food growing/shipping is actually a good thing environmentally. Better to grow the food where it grows best and ship it than to invest the resources to try to grow the food locally. There are exceptions of course, and we ought to do whatever makes sense.
While your cold frame is working well for you, that is a tough thing to do on a commercial scale for salad priced items. Acres and acres of cold frame would be big undertaking and require a lot of materials. And they would need to be set up for heating for cold snaps (or risk losing a crop), for letting air out on hot days, and provide access for harvest and tending. How does losing a crop once in a while compare to the fuel used to transport those crops?
I think that if you look at the fuel used per ton of food, per mile transported, it won't add up to much. And growing locally probably means a lot of small trucks making rounds (often running empty on the return from the market?), which is going to be less efficient than rail, ship and big rigs.
-ERD50
All his figures and calculations are laid out in the book in detail, and he concludes,
"...the energy consumption per 12-ounce head of lettuce to transport a semi-tractor-trailer load 3,200 miles from California to the East Coast is 3,034 BTU.
Wow--that's an interesting figure. A gallon of diesel fuel contains 139,000 BTU, so moving that head of lettuce by truck used .022 gallons, or about 6 tablespoons of fuel. At today's fuel price, that's about 6 cents. Even if diesel did go to $15/gallon, that would cost about 30 cents/head for the fuel to move it across the country.
Now, if you put it on a train instead for the majority of the trip, you'd burn less than 1/2 of the fuel.
No wonder it makes sense to grow things where they grow best.
Yes, and it's interesting to see the numbers. The takeaway point (for me) is that, because fuel costs are apparently such a tiny part of the total price of produce, we'd need to have very high fuel taxes/carbon taxes/GHG C&T "prices" in order to cause a change in behavior that lowers the amount of fuel burned with regard to this commodity. I'm sure the situation would be different for products/services with higher embodied energy content (e.g. airplane tickets/car prices).Anyhoo, this whole thread started with a discussion of cap and trade, meaning the discussion should revolve around the GHG emissions of the shipped lettuce. With the figures at hand, the Maine head has fewer GHG emissions than the shipped California head.
Of course, there's also fuel for the tractors, and whatever powers those big irrigation rigs that you see roaming across the fields in California. Coleman's calculations just looked at the major element that would be necessary to produce lettuce in the spring and fall in Maine (a plastic covered greenhouse) vs. having it shipped in from California.
What powers the tractors in Maine? Or are we going to mules for plowing and "nightsoil" for fertilizer?
Lettuce, greens, and root crops are a fairly small part of the American diet. I think if we start looking at growing a realistic volume of grains in Maine (for direct consumption and animal feed) this whole thing falls apart fairly rapidly. Not that gardening isn't a good hobby--wholesome and rewarding. But if we're talking about actually providing enough calories, protein, and the food people want to eat for everyone in the US, I don't think local production on a large scale is going be very important.
What powers the tractors in Maine? Or are we going to mules for plowing and "nightsoil" for fertilizer?
But if we're talking about actually providing enough calories, protein, and the food people want to eat for everyone in the US, I don't think local production on a large scale is going be very important.
other than for us upper middle class yuppie type who want to eat "healthier" and feel morally superior, it isn't going to be a major source of food for most Americans.
Because they are 1/3 the price at Costco than the farmers market, and while the beefsteak tomatoes are much better locally grown there isn't much difference between cherry and grape tomatoes.
I think calories and protein are less problematic than "the food people want to eat". As long as most people want out of season, imported foods on a daily basis then you're probably right. Won't work.
Yes, and it's interesting to see the numbers. The takeaway point (for me) is that, because fuel costs are apparently such a tiny part of the total price of produce, we'd need to have very high fuel taxes/carbon taxes/GHG C&T "prices" in order to cause a change in behavior that lowers the amount of fuel burned with regard to this commodity.
Wow--that's an interesting figure. A gallon of diesel fuel contains 139,000 BTU, so moving that head of lettuce by truck used .022 gallons, or about 6 tablespoons of fuel. At today's fuel price, that's about 6 cents. Even if diesel did go to $15/gallon, that would cost about 30 cents/head for the fuel to move it across the country.
Now, if you put it on a train instead for the majority of the trip, you'd burn less than 1/2 of the fuel.
Wow - I've always figured that raising the price of fossil fuel through taxes would be the way drive more "correct" behavior (however we want to define that). But certainly, $15 diesel would be a real strain, and if that only increased lettuce by ~ 24 cents (less for rail travel), well heck, that isn't going to change people's behaviors much.
Buy local sounds attractive on the surface, but I always thought that if it made so much sense, it would already be happening. These numbers seem to back up why it isn't.
-ERD50