4 ms·
The numbers you link to completely fail to take into account the carbon footprint of producing energy in the form of food vs in the form of petrol.
by hanoz 4y ago
The numbers you link to completely fail to take into account the carbon footprint of producing energy in the form of food vs in the form of petrol.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoPart of the problem is that the former number is wildly variable depending on the type of food, the type of production and the amount of transportation to get it to where it is eaten. Whereas oil-derived fuels are ... well, they vary but not as much. Certainly some food production models (e.g. alfalfa-raised cattle eating for meet thousands of miles from where they are raised) are truly horrible, and may indeed be worse than using fossil fuels. That said, plant-centric, reasonably local food systems that don't use much in the way of synthetic fertilizer generate massively less carbon than any sort of oil production in terms of distance-travelled-per-unit-of-carbon.
- prmoustache 4y agoPart of the problem is that people consider that the driver are some aliens that do not eat anything, or stay fit by just following a strict diet and without doing any exercise. But the true reality is most people eat more, make reserves and a huge fraction of the population is either overweight or do physical activities in the purpose of burning those reserves and feel better. Mixing transportation with the later is quite efficient.