firstly the difference is not that big if one considers the estimated % that would go to waste regardless. Disregarding all the things that aren't taken into a

firstly the difference is not that big if one considers the estimated % that would go to waste regardless. Disregarding all the things that aren't taken into account...their numbers at various points seem weird for me? The cost of the cucumbers themselves that they compare the plastic to is somehow huge? This has a huge impact on the result. In the study they're grown in Spain but you'd think they were grown only during winter in heated greenhouses with only artificial fertilisers given the amount of co2/kg per cucumber and that everything down to the farts of the pickers is accounted for. A different study looking at the co2 cost improvements from intercropping in Brasil comes up with numbers manyfold lower.. On the other hand the proportional amount of co2 released for plastic seems normal or even conservative And there's a lot of weird unexplained numbers. Why is landfill and incineration co2 results absent or higher when one doesn't use cucumbers? Is it assume that the cucumbers themselves all go to landfill at the same rate as the plastic? Should it be assumed if some 4% of cucumbers didn't go bad that stores would decrease their rackspace and cooling capacity or vice versa? Can we plainly translate this to a co2 cost increase like that down to the pallet? Because if the difference to reach for justification down the line is 1,1% then that can matter quite a lot especially given the lower amounts. If the difference in lorry co2 cost isn't fully realised and something else changes suddenly the difference falls apart for example. Given that a single truck legaly carries nearly 40-50 times the described amounts it isn't that hard to see that happen.