General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHigh carbon footprint families identified by sweets and restaurant food, not higher meat consumption
Study by experts in Sheffield and Kyoto, Japan, found meat consumption explained less than 10 per cent of difference in carbon footprints
Researchers recommend carbon taxes on sweets and alcohol
Families with higher carbon footprints are likely to consume more confectionary, alcohol and restaurant food, according to a new study published in One Earth.
Considering the spectrum of traditional to urban lifestyles across Japan, researchers at the University of Sheffield and the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature in Kyoto, Japan, analysed the carbon footprints of the diets of 60,000 households across Japan's 47 regions. Using a life-cycle approach which details food supply chains around the country, they found that meat consumption was relatively constant per household - but carbon footprints were not.
The study shows that meat consumption could explain less than 10 per cent of the difference seen in carbon footprints between Japanese families. Instead, households with higher carbon footprints tended to consume more food from restaurants, as well as more vegetables and fish. However, it was the level of consumption of sweets and alcohol - two to three times higher than families with low carbon footprints - that really stood out.
Meat has earned a reputation as an environmentally damaging food, with beef production emitting 20 times more greenhouse gases than bean production for the same amount of protein.
However, the researchers caution against a one-size-fits-all policy after finding that the consumption of sweets, alcohol and restaurant food adds to families' footprints in a larger capacity than other items. Eating out was found to contribute on average 770 kg of greenhouse gases per year for those households with a higher footprint, whereas meat contributed just 280kg.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-12/uos-hcf121819.php
This is it in a nutshell. We all need to be cautious of our impact and stop looking for simple solutions. Our carbon footprint is each of our own responsibility.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,744 posts)are probably more affluent than people who do not; eating in restaurants and buying candy and booze involves the spending of discretionary funds that less well-off people don't have. But affluent people aren't necessarily excessive meat-eaters. If they have a greater carbon footprint it's probably because they drive more, travel more, and buy and use more stuff.
Throck
(2,520 posts)She says if you want to get a read on society, look at the content of the recycle bins and garbage at the curb. She's of the opinion that processed food and carbon production are related. Her theory is that processed food for the most part is cooked twice. Ironically we both like our raw vegetables.
I told her to leave my Reese's Cups and beer alone
braddy
(3,585 posts)giant air conditioned/heated lobbies, laundries, suites, individual refrigerators, saunas, pools, gyms, and carbon consuming ways to please every indulgence and comfort of the rich and celebrity.
stillcool
(32,626 posts)I used to love the ocean as a kid, and freaked out when a trawler hauled in their net where I had just been swimming. Hate to think of what that net would be full of today.
braddy
(3,585 posts)service their mansions and vacant mansions and estates, all over the country and the world.