Food Miles etc (1 Viewer)

[mamandeno]

I would be really interested to gauge peoples interest/views on this topic.

Food miles is a concept currently being batted around to try and represent the amount of transport that goes into a food product to get it into. The idea is that this approximates the carbon burnt and therefore global warming etc etc.

I work in the food exporting industry in New Zealand, which is a long way from the UK and some of our customers there starting to discuss this issue with us.

The idea is that consumers will start avoiding food with hkigh food miles as they care about the planet. This would be bad for countries like NZ that export food long distances.

The counter argument to food miles is that it does not capture the total carbon footprint and transport may be only a small part of the total carbon used to make .

How do people feed about the concept of something like food miles?

Would it change you shopping behaviour?

Would you accept lower quality or pay more for something with less food miles (or less carbon burn)?

Interested to read peoples thoughts.

 

[Rich]

The idea is that consumers will start avoiding food with hkigh food miles as they care about the planet. This would be bad for countries like NZ that export food long distances.

.

Until they realise how much it costs their pocket
For all of Saint Bliar's and European's posturing the UK's contribution to global warming is just 2%. The US which under Bush frankly doesn't give a damn's contribution is 25%. The dream that Bliar and his cronies are following is just that. Take the latest directive from the EU, it's going to ban the sale of ordinary light bulbs to save the planet

 

[FoFa]

Oh Rich, there you go AGAIN. Comparing a fly speck (UK) to a table (US).
Actually if you check the carbon emissions per GDP (which could be construed as a measurement of efficiency then the US was 39th in the list and UK was 13, behind a whole lot of European countries.
So the US must being doing better as it's carbon emissions for the amount produced it better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions

 

[mamandeno]

So Rich, you reckon people won't spend extra to buy environmentally freindly food?

I read about the light bulb thing. Madness, lighting is typically only a few % of householed energy consumption. I got all enthusiastic and put compact flourescents in at home.

They are OK and do save power, but the light they put out is, 'cold' if that is the right word, kind of industrial.

One good thing I have noticed is that those energy efficient lights don't produce much heat (i guess that's the whole point) which is good in our summer.

Scary players in global warmng are India and China, who (china esp) are burning massive quantities of fossil fuel.

 

[Rich]

So Rich, you reckon people won't spend extra to buy environmentally freindly food?

Not if they realise the cost in pounds sterling they won't
And energy efficient light bulbs aren't allowed in emergency lighting systems here, I guess they haven't thought about that problem

 

[FoFa]

Not if they realise the cost in pounds sterling they won't
And energy efficient light bulbs aren't allowed in emergency lighting systems here, I guess they haven't thought about that problem

I find that interesting, because LED lighting is considered much more reliable than conventional lighting. How ever florescent is still the most energy efficient.

 

[Rich]

Oh Rich, there you go AGAIN. Comparing a fly speck (UK) to a table (US).
Actually if you check the carbon emissions per GDP (which could be construed as a measurement of efficiency then the US was 39th in the list and UK was 13, behind a whole lot of European countries.
So the US must being doing better as it's carbon emissions for the amount produced it better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Now compare the carbon emissions per person

http://www.nef.org.uk/energyadvice/co2emissionsctry.htm

 

[mamandeno]

That's interesting. I work in an industrial building and all our emergency lights are floruresecnt tube fittings which are the same system as the compact floruesecent energy effiecient bulbs. Filament style bulbs are not preferred for emergency lighting system here because we have a high risk of earthquakes, and a bad quake will blow filament light bulbs because when they are hot the filaments are soft and easily distorted.

 

[Rich]

Well we get the odd tremor now and then
but the problem I think with the energy efficient lights is the warm up time before they give out enough light

 

[GaryPanic]

guys this has been looked at by various industies
if you check on the internet for stainability

I work in the events industry (Conferences Exhibitions etc)
and this is becoming high profile

THe Americans held a very good sustainable event 18 months ago

where the food was from local growers/farmers (Low miles)
and the vent had to recycle a larger % of its waste

papers was recycled as were paper cups etc

this was for a larger trade event and from all acounts was the event that set the benchmark


in the land of Oz they were the first (I think) to float the idea of banning standard light bulbs for eco friendly ones, Europe hopefully will follow
re emergy light - a small bit of legistration will sort that out


while we are on the eco tread mill - if all of the current wind farms in the UK get the Go ahead that will produce enough power for and extra 6 million homes.

This is a great start as wind has the potential to produce between 15 and 20 percent of UK power (more can be produced but at present unrealistic )
Now we are getting into Wave machines - we have the development site in Scotland (off one of the Isles) and now Cornwall is getting in on the idea with the Wave hub which will if given the go ahead be the next statge in mass production of power (basically it is goingto be a underwater power station that waves machines plug into)

With Wave power the potential is again around 15-20% (more is achiveable but costly)

these 2 hippy powers can produce around 30-40 percent still leaves us with a shortage
we need to reduce power - light bulbs is a start , as is microgenerators ( generating power at home ) again this is in its early stages - wind turbines has been suggested on roof tops (Although this sin't a good option does quite work)
but next generation solar panels working upto 40% efficency are just around the corner for mass production

what could we do- well for a start every Goverment building should have some for of eco measure hether it be solar panels on the roof or wind turbines - every school,libary etc this may only be a publicity stunt - but would show that the UK is willing

the US may be one of the biggest producer of pollution - but it needs to be done on a per person basis (which it is) but it should also be brokern down by state as some states do take this seriously and this shold be recognised

its easy to point the finger and say - Ahh...

but to take some action , well thats different

How many of us really recycle ... occassion trips with the tins cans and the bottles down to the bottle bank , We need to do more, we also need to educate the children with a better ethos (I need better education with my typo's)--

I ramble

 

[Rich]

If the UK were to close all its power stations today the Chinese would have replaced their emmissions within 18mnths. Like I said, our contribution to global warming is like trying to warm a swimming pool by taking a leak in the water.
As for wind power doesn't anyone realise that the wind is not a constant and that power stations have to be kept running to cover fluctuations

 

[Rich]

How many of us really recycle ... occassion trips with the tins cans and the bottles down to the bottle bank , We need to do more, we also need to educate the children with a better ethos (I need better education with my typo's)--

I ramble

What's the carbon output that's produced in driving to the recycle bank, that's after using water and heat to clean out the waste before recycling?

 

[GaryPanic]

recycle does offset the carbon used to transport the goods from home to bank

weight agains digging up the natural resources , carbon
making the product - carbo
transporting the raw material , carbon
transports the product - carbon
devliering the product - carbon
taking product home- carbon

by recycling the first option is removed
the second option is reduced

the others are pretty much the same
depending ont he product

 

[Pauldohert]

Oh Rich, there you go AGAIN. Comparing a fly speck (UK) to a table (US).
Actually if you check the carbon emissions per GDP (which could be construed as a measurement of efficiency then the US was 39th in the list and UK was 13, behind a whole lot of European countries.
So the US must being doing better as it's carbon emissions for the amount produced it better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions

I don't understand your post is it sarcasm, the US comes 39th and is twice as bad as the UK. Sure it produced a lot to offset it emissions on this calculation. So excessive production and consumption helps out the US's figures here.

If we didn't count over production and consumption as a good thing then The US would be even further down the table.

 

[Rich]

recycle does offset the carbon used to transport the goods from home to bank

weight agains digging up the natural resources , carbon
making the product - carbo
transporting the raw material , carbon
transports the product - carbon
devliering the product - carbon
taking product home- carbon

by recycling the first option is removed
the second option is reduced

the others are pretty much the same
depending ont he product

Washing out used product>>>> Carbon
Taking used product to recycling bins>>> Carbon
Collection of recycled bins>>> Carbon
Sorting of recycled objects by large machines >>>> Carbon
Transportation of objects to a factory >>>> Carbon
Re-Manufacture >>.>> Carbon
Re-distribution >>>> Carbon
What is the true cost of re-cycling?

 

[GaryPanic]

Speak to the Green Party - they will tell you

not all things work on a recycle basis
you can come up with this never ending list but taking tin cans as an example (straight from the web)



Below are some interesting facts about aluminum and aluminum can recycling.
Discovered in the 1820s, aluminum is the most abundant metal on earth.
Over 50% of the aluminum cans produced are recycled.
A used aluminum can is recycled and back on the grocery shelf as a new can, in as little as 60 days. That's closed loop recycling at its finest!
Aluminum is a durable and sustainable metal: 2/3 of the aluminum ever produced is in use today.
Every minute of everyday, an average of 113,204 aluminum cans are recycled.
Making new aluminum cans from used cans takes 95 percent less energy and 20 recycled cans can be made with the energy needed to produce one can using virgin ore.
Recycling one aluminum can saves enough energy to keep a 100-watt bulb burning for almost four hours or run your television for three hours.
Last year 54 billion cans were recycled saving energy equivalent to 15 million barrels of crude oil - America's entire gas consumption for one day.
Tossing away an aluminum can wastes as much energy as pouring out half of that can's volume of gasoline.
In 1972, 24,000 metric tons of aluminum used beverage containers (UBCs) were recycled. In 1998, the amount increased to over 879,000 metric tons.
In 1972, it took about 22 empty, aluminum cans to weigh one pound. Due to advanced technology to use less material and increase durability of aluminum cans, in 2002 it takes about 34 empty aluminum cans to weigh one pound.
The average employee consumes 2.5 beverages a day while at work.
The empty aluminum can is worth about 1 cent

 

[GaryPanic]

so the carbon footprint of recycling has to be smaller if the production of recycled is 5% of the production of virgin one -- simple maths
all the transports costs I agree are problems the same - its the production costs that are the benefit

if we look at paper excatly the same process - but paper process has a small benefit the water used in the process actually comes out clean than the water going in at the start - energy wise I doubt if there is much in it - but less cutting down of carbon eating trees - got to be good (I know about the life cycle of tree and yes they do imit carbon at nighttime - but on a slow basis - trees/forests are the lungs of the planet - so everyone not cut down is a benefit

 

[mamandeno]

Thanks eveyrone for their responses. Interesting to see the range of opinions

I would really value some more comments about whether or not people will change their shopping preferences for environmental reasons.

Rich thought most people wouldn't tolerate extra cost to be nicer to the environment.

Market research agrees with him and suggests that even die-hard enviornmentalists will only tolerate a 5% - 10% retail premium for 'green' products.

 

[Rich]

Speak to the Green Party - they will tell you

I take what any politician or political party says with a pinch of salt. They all have their own agenda and in anycase the "Green party lives in cloud cuckoo land.
The environment is just the latest buzz word at the minute as if the UK or even Europe is going to save the planet on their own, when a politician stands up and gives the true facts then............................

 

[Rich]

if the production of recycled is 5% of the production of virgin one -- simple maths

The key word is IF, where are the true figures?