3 ms·
While the separation can be helpful, it also minimizes the actual carbon footprint of our food system. Petrochemical production, for instance, is a different ca
by gdubs 6y ago
While the separation can be helpful, it also minimizes the actual carbon footprint of our food system. Petrochemical production, for instance, is a different category according to the epa. But one of the biggest uses of petrochemicals is fertilizer production. Trucking and shipping is its own category. Guess what relies on a lot of trucking and shipping? And so on.
Typically what counts as agricultural emissions are literally tilling, tractor fuel, cow emissions, etc. we really need to look at the whole system, together, for a clear picture. When we do that it obvious that our industrial food production is deeply tied to every aspect of fossil fuel use, land use, and atmospheric c02 in general.
- Robotbeat 6y agoBut I think this is worth considering from this perspective as it focuses us on the most broadest solutions. If we decarbonize all uses of fossil fuels, we’re 73% of the way to utterly decarbonizing. Petrochemical production, nitrogen fertilizer production in particular, is simply energy. And, in fact, nitrogen fertilizer just needs hydrogen, not hydrocarbons (which is a sort of misconception... many think hydrocarbons as a fundamental component of fertilizers when the actual Haber Process uses straight hydrogen), so should be much easier than hydrogen cars. And transport is relatively easy to decarbonize. Road and rail transport, in particular.