| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Organic farming 'no better for the environment' |
| 2007-02-19 |
| Organic food may be no better for the environment than conventional produce and in some cases is contributing more to global warming than intensive agriculture, according to a government report. The first comprehensive study of the environmental impact of food production found there was "insufficient evidence" to say organic produce has fewer ecological side-effects than other farming methods. . . . academics at the Manchester Business School (MBS), who conducted the study, said that was counterbalanced by other organic foods - such as milk, tomatoes and chicken - which are significantly less energy efficient and can be more polluting than intensively-farmed equivalents. Ken Green, professor of environmental management at MBS, who co-wrote the report, said: "You cannot say that all organic food is better for the environment than all food grown conventionally. If you look carefully at the amount of energy required to produce these foods you get a complicated picture. In some cases, the carbon footprint for organics is larger." For the hip urban leftist pseudo-hippie, this finding presents an intractible dilemma: shop at Organic Joe's (or whatever they call it) and contribute to global warming, or at Kroger's with the breeder fundo peasants? |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #4 It's good for 'em Grom, keeps them busy, productive and tired. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-02-19 17:03 |
| #3 And that isn't even counting the manual labour Left wingers (from Plato to Khmer Rouge) like manual labor for the masses. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-02-19 15:32 |
| #2 It can be very amusing to follow these calculations to the end. It turns out, f'r instance, that cloth nappies and disposable diapers have just about the same environmental load... until one realizes that the disposables can be so easily composted except for the thin plastic outer layer, and then the disposables win. Or the bottle recycling required in Germany -- those recycled through the shops are good for an average of 1.5 cycles before they chip or break. And that isn't even counting the manual labour to sort out the one in three that can't be refilled in each batch. Or planting trees on sealed rubbish tips -- does the planet win because of the increased carbon dioxide absorbtion, or lose because of the heavy metals and other pollutants pulled up through the tree roots and released with the dead leaves in the autumn? Anguper Hupomosing9418 nailed the real belief. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-19 12:38 |
| #1 The evil "carbon footprint" of food production can only be eliminated by the liquidation of consumers of food. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-02-19 08:48 |