Treehugger - Latest Comments in The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Syri — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:56:43 -0000

Who are we kidding, this planet has been around long before we were here and will be here long after we're all gone. If you're a vegan for environmental reasons, although a worthy cause you're completely delusional. Like most things in nature, we adapt to the changes in our environment and the planet will continue to do so.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Mike — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:53:23 -0000

One issue not raised in the meat versus vegetable discussion is the relative amounts of vegetables required to equal the nutrient content of the burger. This calculation, based on our current food system structure actually leads to much more carbon loss per calorie or unit of nutrients. A quick example is lettuce from California transported across the US. At 90% water, that is a very carbon expensive proposition.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Tetsuo — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:28:29 -0000

Jason clearly likes to shag cows and feels insulted.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Jane — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:23:14 -0000

"Pheonix and Las Vegas probably don't have 5 cows within 200 miles of either ones' city limits. It will be pretty hard to eat locally grown hamburgers, or any food for that matter."

You are woefully uniformed. Both Phoenix and LAs Vegas have pick-your-own farms just outside of city limits, and while Las Vegas might not have many cows we do have a pig farm that "recycles" the leftovers from the numerous buffets in town and provides local meat. Phoenix has many farms in the outlying areas that provide local meat and produce.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Steve Davis — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:01:10 -0000

The Climate Conservancy is conducting life cycle analyses of various consumer packaged goods (think energy bars, drinks, cereals, etc.). Info from our analyses will go onto a label that will tell you how "Climate Conscious" a product is relative to its monetary value (so-called greenhouse gas intensity). Stay tuned and watch your supermarket shelves.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Kate Jagger — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:49:51 -0000

Hate to be accused as wanking on but so what that a burger has a carbon footprint, of course it does, everything does. My 18 mnth old son has one. Do the best we can , try and make a difference and accept that some people eat animals some don't.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Mike — Wed, 30 May 2007 22:40:19 -0000

I live in New Zealand, we are good farmers and dont waste energy like americans and even worse europeans do when making food. at the moment the english are wanking on about food miles and carbon footprints, the transport of food from its source to the store contributes a minimal amount to its carbon footprint, virtually all NZ food has a smaller carbon footprint than equivalent english/european food even after transport from the exact opposite side of the world. More carbon is created by driving your car to the store to collect your groceries than by transporting an average weekly shop 12000 miles on a ship. I personally dont care about carbon footprints or food miles and will just buy the tastiest food

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Rory Williams — Sun, 20 May 2007 17:23:38 -0000

Carbon is certainly the broadest measure we have for identifying the environmental impact of producing and transporting food and other goods. But there are others. Embodied water is a key one.

Even though carbon labels are already on the shelves, it is going to take time to figure out how carbon footprints can be done fairly and in a way that consumers can understand. The whole point is to allow consumers to compare products using a standard measure, and right now there is no standard. And the standard must recognise that virtual water is traded between countries.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Devin — Fri, 04 May 2007 18:37:51 -0000

Soy and veggies need fertilizer to help them grow, right? So we need cows to make fertilizer. We might as well "re-use" the cows to feed our citizens when they are done making fertilizer.

Personally, I prefer an In&Out Double Double, animal style...

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

TSh — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:57:27 -0000

I must say I like my burger medium rare, so I am skeptical of the argument. I mean where the cowboys that killed all the buffalo eco warriors? Man is omnivorous which I am thankful while I enjoy a side of fries.

It is self evident that it cost more to raise meat than grain. But then again it taste so much better.

We should be thankful we live in a country where are farmers are so productive. Also were factors such as the reduction in carbon that a field of feed produces. Also manure is an excellent fertilizer that must not be produced and helps plants grow.

Also, Soy is not the solution! There is much information coming to light about the problems with Soy. See http://www.drlam.com/opinio...

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Matt — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:27:46 -0000

I have a question. How do you calculate carbon footprints of foods?

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Stephen — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:19:40 -0000

In Uk Carbon labelling is now live - major brands - Walkers Crisps, Innocent Smoothies and Boots Shampoos all have carbon footprint labels on them e.g. 35g of crisps have embodied carbon dioxide equiv of 75g printed on the packet with a commitment to reduce with the Carbon Trust - see www.carbon-label.co.uk for details

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Blogengeezer — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:03:05 -0000

I grew up in this 'so wasteful' society at just the right time and place. We wasted very little because we had very little. Cattle, Feed, Produce, Dairy, were all within a few miles. It allowed my grandparents and parents and of course my ancestors to survive. The 'Evil' Industrial Revolution changed the 'Utopia' of my youth to a sociiety of plenty in the USA and elsewhere, where even the 'poor' are overweight. Even the 'poor', as well as young children own cellphones. The Carbon footprint of which, has not been freely published by the way. Lets also study the rest of the 'things' in society which leave a carbon footprint. I like the previous listing above. My blog at

http://daflikkers.blogspot....

discusses a little of the problems with scientific studies, as a few of the previous commentors have brought to attention. I just have to face it, the world is never again going to be the perceived , 'Utopia' of my 'blessed' youth.

Blogengeezer

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Nathan - 4 eays ways to preven — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:57:36 -0000

It's amazing the power of individuals' collective daily decisions to impact the planet. It's sad though that so few people understand this collective power.

I hope people will start to become more aware of this collective impact.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Matt H — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:43:28 -0000

I personally think the average 3 burgers a week statement is wrong, the sample you did is probably flawed interviewing people inside a burger king i expect.

For the record, no one mention MCD because i struggle to find meat at all in there burgers.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Deborah — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:53:24 -0000

Ok, well, I live in a farming community where medium sized farms raise dairy and beef. Here's what we do, we use the tractor to plow the soil, then we use it again to put on fertilizer and then again for lime (we have acid soil). We then use the tractor to plant corn or oats. Once the corn is up, we use the tractor to spray for insects. We repeat that halfway through the growing season. The corn dries on the stalk (partly), then we use the combine to harvest the corn and a truck to drive it to the mill where it is dried the rest of the way. Then we drive the corn home or wherever. Then it finally gets to the cows. They eat it (usually mixed with other stuff as our own feed mix) and they digest it and make manure. Manure is smelly because of the methane it makes. There is one place here in this county where they had a grant and they built a big concrete tank with a stirrer and a heater. The tank is covered and the gas it makes is then used to make the electricity to power the milkers, cool the bulk tank, and run the barn lights. It's not that we farmers are against reducing our fuel costs. A lot of our profit is eaten up in the cost of fuel and expensive farm machinery. It's just that how do you change this whole system when your living depends on it? We have tried some no till with borrowed machinery but it costs a lot to convert to no till. Hey, we're open to suggestions. We have also tried to do some grass fed cattle but it takes a pretty good pasture to produce the cattle that way. And grass fed dairy? We'd never keep up with the milk company's demand with just grass fed dairy. Anyway, I don't eat a McD's, we eat our own meat and deer. McD's doesn't taste good to me.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

aldar fortim — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 11:36:18 -0000

carbon footprint of your computer

your ipod

fair trade

wto

soy homogenization of vegitation

subsidy of farms

soy within fast food chain food

footprint of synthetic (ie vegan) clothing materials

footprint of the fur industry

cascadia

sustainability is the new grunge

local, organic

the tyranny of whole foods vs local markets

starbucks syndrome

how good cheeseburgers taste

picking battles

priority of problems

food politics change

footprint of importing anything

macrobiotic

"urban macro"

footprint of agricultural growth in the amazon

the long battle towards a "sustainable" human food/consumption/waist cycle

is it possible?

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Kaydee — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:08:25 -0000

Doug, many, MANY farmed animals are transported long distances throughout their lives, not just for slaughter.

From an HSUS report on transport (http://www.hsus.org/farm/re...

"In the United States alone, more than 50 million live cattle, sheep, and pigs(1) and an untold number of the more than 9 billion chickens, turkeys, and other birds raised for food(2) are traded across state lines in a single year. Before they are slaughtered, livestock travel an average of 1,000 miles,(3) but some journeys are much longer.(4) Long-distance transport not only increases the opportunities for animals to come into contact with—and to spread—diseases, but also increases their susceptibility to infection.(5)"

See also: Driving Pain: The Long-Distance Transport of Farmed Animals (http://www.api4animals.org/...

So this is a problem of some magnitude. Food systems are largely not local these days.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

MoonPeeker — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:52:32 -0000

I eat low on the food chain and I am a healthy vegan, not an amoeba. :)

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Doug — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:24:22 -0000

Where exactly is all this traveling going on? The meat slaughtering facilities are in the same state, so are the cows that are raised. Our family kills deer we raise on our land of our walnut farm and slaughter it at a local butcher. If this is such a harmful practice as the article would suggest then there's not that much that can be done to improve.

BTW, our neighbor raises cattle, so it's not like it's going much more of a distance than the deer. So the results would be the same.

The study assumes a lot doesn't it? There was no mention of average except for in consumption. It also assumed all cattle are fed with feed (not the case, they are grass fed here, and the deer feeds mainly on clover or whatever else is growing around). Was the data taken during the winter or was it done during the summer? What's the distance in transport? The article doesn't mention a lot of information so it's safe to say a lot of unsupported assumptions were made. Sounds like a sloppy study.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Terry — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:02:04 -0000

how much carbon is released after the burgers are consumed?

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Milton — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:02:41 -0000

"The lower you eat on the foot chain, the less land/energy/water you use.."

So, by your standard, then, we should all aspire to become amoeba cells.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

EvilMoose — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:36:57 -0000

I think we can cut down on the cost of transporting of cheeseburgers if we allow our average citizens to grow cheeseburgers in their backyard and slaughter them.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:19:38 -0000

Of course other items have a footprint too, but meat is an order of magnitude above on average.

For a piece of vegetable, all you need is the land it uses + the water it needs to grow + amount of time it takes to grow + energy needed to get it and ship it.

For meat you need the land used by the animals + the land use by the crops eaten by the animal & energy to harvest & ship * the number of years the animal lives + the water used by the animal * years + the water used by the crops it eats * years.

And if it's not organic, add fossil-fuel based fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics and hormones to the mix...

The lower you eat on the foot chain, the less land/energy/water you use..

And with a lot fast food using meat from south America where they slash & burn the amazon forest, that's even worse.

With an acre, you can feed a lot more people eating vegetables than you can feed people eating cows who eat what grows on that acre.

See this.

Re: The Carbon Footprint of a Burger

Paul — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:04:13 -0000

If I cannot eat a cheeseburger, then I could care less if the Earth dies. Give me free cheeseburgers for life and I'll join a scientific team to buikd a machine to transform carbon into vegitables........wait, natures already handling that.....so ill take my burger with lettuce and tomatoes also :-)