>I don't think c02 emissions represent the sum total of "evironmental impact" as was implied multiple times above. I completely agree. I'm also very reluctant

>I don't think c02 emissions represent the sum total of "evironmental impact" as was implied multiple times above. I completely agree. I'm also very reluctant to believe any report that estimates GHG emissions from industry, because I believe industry has a very real reason to misrepresent themselves in such reports. Whether that industry is growing and delivering tomatoes or LiPo Batteries. >Conagra doesn't exist for efficiency, they exist to make money. efficiency = money, i thought that was obvious. I'm a pretty strong believer in the power of markets. >"Meat that is discarded in retail, industry and the home accounts for 20 percent of the total GHG emissions of meat production" Not sure the relevance of that bit, how anyone can care about the environment and not be vegetarian is completely beyond me. I cringe everytime I go out to eat seeing how much meat gets tossed. >Is that what you meant by "considering how impacted agriculture is by locality"? Yes. >I'm imagining some change in purchasing behavior I'd call that fantasy. If we can't get people to drive fuel-efficient cars even with tax incentives, how are we going to get people to give up blueberries and pineapple in fruit salad? Especially considering how bad meat is, and how few are willing to give it up or even let those around them give it up--as being vegetarian for the last decade has taught me (/grandstand) The best thing we could do would be to create GMO versions of crops that need long distance transportation that either don't have the same environmental requirements to grow or are able to be transported without refrigeration, because the market isn't going to change. Regardless, we've got tens of millions living in the Desert South West, I don't foresee them all living on prickly pears.