3 ms·

Our consumption isn’t about things like turning off lights in your house. In the developed countries every human consumes about 10kW. You can actually graph ene

Our consumption isn’t about things like turning off lights in your house. In the developed countries every human consumes about 10kW. You can actually graph energy consumption per capita and a quality of life index and they will correlate basically one to one. The bulk of that energy goes to power agricultural machinery that produces the food we eat and the transportation of that food from the mid west states to the coasts. There is little you can do to reduce that consumption because geography doesn’t allow for it. Local farms aren’t much better. They often times use old pickup trucks which are way less efficient than trains to deliver food. Even if you don’t use any power at all in your life, no heat, no lights, no transportation, you still would be in the 7-9kW range as long as you eat food.

ashtonbaker 7y ago
> Local farms aren’t much better. They often times use old pickup trucks which are way less efficient than trains to deliver food. This doesn't really make sense to me. Trains don't deliver from foreign farms to my door. You have to drive the food from those farms to the train, and drive the food from the train to its final destination. I don't see how that can possibly be less resource-intensive than getting food from local farms. And that's not even mentioning the difference between monoculture industrial agriculture and small-scale organic farming. In any case, if you're worried about your resource consumption, you can always make more of your diet plant-based, drive your car less, and avoid flying when possible. In every carbon impact calculator I've used [1], these things make a significant impact. And I agree with the above poster that these decisions can, far from being sacrifices, greatly improve your life. [1] https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/ https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  Large farms move their crops in larger, more efficient vehicles. The efficiency offsets, to some degree, the distance. You also are conflating organic and polyculture farming. Most organic farming is monoculture and much of it is industrial.
  - ashtonbaker 7y ago
    > Large farms move their crops in larger, more efficient vehicles. The efficiency offsets, to some degree, the distance. Yes I understand this. My point was that it's not as simple as comparing trains to old pickup trucks, which seemed like a strawman. But I've been doing some research and was surprised to learn that food-miles are a relatively small portion of the emissions associated with food, so point taken. > You also are conflating organic and polyculture farming. Most organic farming is monoculture and much of it is industrial. I didn't mean to conflate them, I meant that monoculture + industrial is more resource-intensive than organic + small-scale. But I guess I was using "organic" as a catch-all for sustainable farming practices, e.g. polyculture, rather than literally "USDA organic". Debate about "local produce" aside (which I probably should have let go), my more important point is that it's definitely possible to reduce your carbon footprint meaningfully.
iso1631 7y ago
Even if you don't eat, the energy uses to keep the society you benfit from going is high

ashtonbaker 7y ago

> Local farms aren’t much better. They often times use old pickup trucks which are way less efficient than trains to deliver food. This doesn't really make sense to me. Trains don't deliver from foreign farms to my door. You have to drive the food from those farms to the train, and drive the food from the train to its final destination. I don't see how that can possibly be less resource-intensive than getting food from local farms. And that's not even mentioning the difference between monoculture industrial agriculture and small-scale organic farming. In any case, if you're worried about your resource consumption, you can always make more of your diet plant-based, drive your car less, and avoid flying when possible. In every carbon impact calculator I've used [1], these things make a significant impact. And I agree with the above poster that these decisions can, far from being sacrifices, greatly improve your life. [1] https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/ https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/

i_am_proteus 7y ago
Large farms move their crops in larger, more efficient vehicles. The efficiency offsets, to some degree, the distance. You also are conflating organic and polyculture farming. Most organic farming is monoculture and much of it is industrial.
- ashtonbaker 7y ago
  > Large farms move their crops in larger, more efficient vehicles. The efficiency offsets, to some degree, the distance. Yes I understand this. My point was that it's not as simple as comparing trains to old pickup trucks, which seemed like a strawman. But I've been doing some research and was surprised to learn that food-miles are a relatively small portion of the emissions associated with food, so point taken. > You also are conflating organic and polyculture farming. Most organic farming is monoculture and much of it is industrial. I didn't mean to conflate them, I meant that monoculture + industrial is more resource-intensive than organic + small-scale. But I guess I was using "organic" as a catch-all for sustainable farming practices, e.g. polyculture, rather than literally "USDA organic". Debate about "local produce" aside (which I probably should have let go), my more important point is that it's definitely possible to reduce your carbon footprint meaningfully.

iso1631 7y ago

Even if you don't eat, the energy uses to keep the society you benfit from going is high