Alekhine

Yea, that's a very interesting argument that has been kicking around for something like 40 years now (maybe more). This is all well and good, and I have always appreciated the intentions (both Robbins, and before him FM Lappe, have pointed out this very thing), but my asceticism for the environment stretches just a little above the point of how I think pre-industrialized man might behave. I'm a BoyScout environmentalist, I guess. I follow their old handbook pretty faithfully and feel pretty good about myself for it.

I don't eat mammals, but if I did, I don't see a problem with eating a cow that grazed naturally. My ethics on this point are simply that I won't eat anything I wouldn't personally slaughter under non-life-threatening circumstances, and has nothing to do with environmental concerns.

I do eat fish and a small portion of chicken, but way out of proportion to what most of the industrialized western world does per capita - in other words, a lot less. I do not feel environmentally guilty or even like I should be surrendering "points" for that, but I did for pedanticism and honesty's sake. That test made me put down a few things that I ordinarily would figure I'm pretty good about. To wit:

1. Airline/overseas travel within the last year. I took a flight out here to CA in June when I was scouting out apartments to move into. Otherwise, I have been on airplanes exactly 6 times in my life of 35 years.

2. Dairy products. Under the rules about cattle consuming more feed than it takes to produce an equivalent food offering, I have taken in milk and yogurt only from grass-eating livestock for the past 13 years. There is no feedgrain that I'm stealing from poor children in Africa by doing so. I am, however, indirectly contributing to the methane expulsion of cows, and concede that. Nevertheless, in a "green" test where I scored 16 points, more than a third of my offense was for something that I don't think is very environmentally destructive - organic milk and dairy. (caveat: I have eaten cheeses that were non-organic and evil. My bad.)

3. "White" appliances. I have both a washer and a dryer, but do all my clothes-washing in the tub with a 1940's clothes plunger.

I guess the bottom line is that it's good to be conscious of what you're doing, but tests like these can be very misleading and guilt-ridden in areas that don't exactly line up with our daily choices in life.

tacomee

Cows don't hurt the enviroment any more than elk or deer-- and if there weren't so many domestic cows, I'm sure wild animals would be around in greater numbers.

What is damaging to the enviroment is industrial farming of any type-- cows, hogs, wheat, rice, ect. It's all the chemicals and drugs to increase yields that are harmful.

I'd give anybody who grows their own food a bonus as well-- that saves on transport. In fact any locally made products are easier on the enviroment.

My score at the worst is 26-- 19 best case. I'd say it's a flawed test but it's still pretty good. These things are tough to measure.

Roody

As far as I know, totally range-raised beef cannot be obtained. Grass-fed beef are fattened in feed lots before they are slaughtered. Besides, range feeding uses more land per pound of beef, not less. Granted, fewer fertilizers would be used. But that's a moot point, since range-raised beef doesn't even exist. There has been some research, as many would like to produce "natural" beef. But so far, it has not happened on any but the most modest scales.

Free range chickens don't go outdoors any more than caged birds. They have a door, the law requires that, they could go out, but they don't.

Most of our pork is raised in huge buildings that house thousands of animals. They stink for miles, if you've ever been in the midwest. They produce enormous amounts of sewage, as you would expect. One modern hog operation has the environmental impact of a small city, since that's pretty much what it is, a city where thousands of pigs live from birth 'til their untimely demises.

Almost all of the food raised in the US (and almost every other country) is "industrial agriculture." Most of us go out of our way to procure locally grown organic produce, but it is virtually impossible to eliminate "industrial" food from your diet. By any economic standard, food is far, far cheaper now than it ever has been in the history of the world. Wars used to be fought for food, now they are fought for oil. But in many ways, this abundance of cheap food has been a blessing for the people of the world. Starvation has not ended, but it's a whole different problem than it always used to be. Cheap food is a major factor in our increased lifespans, despite all the fears (mostly exxagerated) that our food is killing us. But I think we might as well be honest with ourselves and admit, no matter how we grow or raise it, food production will always result in some damage to the environment.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on this topic. You probably aren't either. We're just freely expressing our opinions in a public internet forum.

Satyr

While it is true that more wild animals would be around in the lieu of range animals, one must remember that in many cases range land is created from forest land. A large issue in the US is grazing lots on public National Forest lands. Range animals do make a significant impact on both trail and land, but I would take a land grazed by cows over one filled with pesticides any day.

I am reminded a bit of my hikes in Switzerland. The Alpenpassroute frequenly goes through private property, usually alp pastures. One can go from thick forest to terraced grassland almost immediately. What is most noticable is the effects after a rain. The trails become almost unwalkable, and are completely filled with cow feces. I wore sandals so did not mind thick mud but was concerned about walking through so much waste, so I tended to skirt the trail.

As to temperatures, I do not know what they do in Alaska, but double and triple pane windows are incredible. I also sleep with my window at least slightly open all year round. I feel this prepares me for the day ahead.

chipko

Although i am not an expert on this topic I do have a bit of experience in local organic agriculture. I have worked on several farms and it's one of my goals in life. It is in fact possible to buy 100% grassfed range-raised beef. In Northern Michigan two good sources are Greg Niemendorf(sp?) or the Wagbo Peace Center. There are small growers all over the country who do it though. It is really hard to find in stores because of USDA processing regulations. Most small growers can't afford their own slaughterhouse and they won't take their beef to a conventional house.

I am not sure that i would agree that pure grazing takes up more land than feed lot systems. Sure the actual footprint that the animals occupy is larger, but the total land needed to raise them is not larger, especially if you look into management intensive grazing systems, or rotational grazing. By moving the cows(or goats or sheep) daily between small pastures the cows manage the grass in such a way that it remains productive and nutritious well into the summer when most pastures turn to hay. Also, this constant moving spreads out wastes so that they don't accumulate and runoff into waterbodies, but instead fertilize the soil so no additional fertilizers are used.

As far as land use goes, animals certainly do use more land than vegetables, but this is not an intrinsically bad thing. first of all, having land in pasture allows for a more diverse agricultural ecosystem. Raising animals on a farm allow you to take a more integrative approach to agriculture. Chickens and ducks and guinea hens can be used to control insects. Pigs can be used to glean fields and then till them up as weed management. By feeding vegetable wastes to all your animals you increase your farms productivity and then the animal wastes can be used to fertilize your vegetables. If you are into goats you can use then as pasture improvers, and graze them on marginal lands that wouldnt sustain other things; lands that, in order to be productive from a vegetable persective, would need massive fertilizers etc.

However, simply because a package is labeled organic doesnt mean it is green. Especially in the USA since
the national organic standards were passed. they were really written as a tool of industrial organic agriculture. Organic vegetables are still trucked across the country. Do a search for Perchlorate contamination in organic greens. What Roody says about organic meats, and meats in general, is true. there are organic feedlots, and free range doesnt mean what you think it means. And that nice old hippy farmer that you just assume is clean and organic, even though you havent checked out her operation and she isnt certified, well you just might be suprised. CSAs(community Supported Agriculture) are a good way to get to know your farmer. Sorry about the long non-bike post. i was resisting for a while, but it seemed like the whole thread got derailed.

Alekhine

100% Grass-fed beef is available. My father is a big fan of this place: https://texasgrassfedbeef.com/

Here are some tips about buying it: https://chetday.com/grassfedbeefsuppliertips.htm

I don't know about the general local availability, but I've seen other 100% range-fed beef, and a google search reveals page after page of the stuff. And grass-fed dairy isn't hard to come by at all. I used to live in and around northern Amish country (Western NY), and rangefed beef, poultry, and bison was available at the local co-op and at certain farms. Now that I'm in NorCal, I ride down to Petaluma for my dairy, but it's worth it and is entirely from grass-fed dairy cows.

As for land usage, I don't think there's any shortage of rural land or grass in this country, but on this I may be wrong. It's certainly not the reason McD's is ripping up the Amazon though - that's pure economics. Mainly, I think people and local communities don't use their ordinary back yards enough for vegetative gardening, and rely too much on farms for this stuff. I don't think that there's a mass shortage of grain because of cows; a trip to Costco and seeing the $9.00 fifty-pound bags of flour is at least some empiric proof of that (this is not a Costco endorsement).

EDIT: Chipko handled the excrement argument better than I could, so I'll let his para do the talking.

I have no moral issues with free-range chickens and their living conditions either. They are bred for eating, not for lives of luxury. I'm okay with that.

If you feel guilty about your meat-eating/dairy consumption, by all means quit and consider yourself happy and congrats. I don't (and won't be made to) feel guilty about my minimalist habits, and I've read enough literature on it from both PoVs that I'm okay with my choices and still consider myself 'green'. Not all agro is evil, and there are farmers out there who have a fine sense of consciousness about what they're doing. Unfortunately, their niche markets make the prices higher, but... The bigger problem in America is one of consumption. People eat too much and buy too much and don't consider where it comes from at all.

Again, my point was about moderation in a consumerist world rather than austerely quitting everything like a Buddhist ascetic in order to feel ethically viable. Eliminating things 100% from your life is fine and all, but it's not necessary for the world to heal. I feel the same way about people in this forum who go "car lite." Even though I went fully car-free because I enjoy it more, I say to them, "Good on ya!"

noisebeam

32.
But I am puzzled as I could loose points by moving my washer/dryer (the dryer I only use rarely as I line hang mostly) to the alley and going to the drycleaner instead.
I could loose points by removing my garden where I grow lots of veggies in the winter/spring (and I don't have any grass or ornamental garden)
With my current work I need to domestically travel by air often. I could quit work and loose some points.

Al

AlanK

Exactly. One of the issue with consuming animal products is resources. When done conscientiously, farming isn't detrimental to the environment, esp considering many animals are raised on natural grasslands. In terms of resources, it's more efficient to just eat plant products yourself, rather than feed them to animals, then kill and eat them. So if you only meat a moderate amount of animal products that are produced responsibly, it's pretty green friendly.

noisebeam

This is not true, at least in the desert southwest. Far more cows are concentrated on land that can barely support them and there are no predators to keep populations in check. Water is provided from windmill and other powered ground pumping. Cows concentrate around water sources, natural and otherwise and without predators dig up riparian areas.





Al

shishi

12, but I live in a 2 room apartment and am a veg.

karmical

12 - damn if i could only not eat meat it'd been 7, think i'll have to work on that...

matt_savvy

somehow I only racked up an 8.

pakole

17

cosmo starr

16

college budget/ efficiency apartment/no car but id like a garden

mike

Why is it you rarely see reports of what kind of impact certain fruits and vegetables have on the environment? Many so-called environmentalists are quick to jump on the bandwagon that meat is a resource intensive food. That is easy. However, you rarely hear about how much impact producing a pound of say, fruit is.

If you have a steer ranging about, eating grass and drinking from a stream or well, I am willing to say that it has less environmental impact than the intensive irrigation, spraying of pestisides/herbisides/fertilizer used to grow fruits.

What a lot of the anti-meat people cackle about is that cattle eat corn and soy that could go to feed people. What few of them know is that most beef cattle are only fed corn and soy for about 60 to 120 days of their lives. Niether pesticides or herbisides or fetilizer are sprayed on the grasses, hay, and other vegetation that cattle eat most of their lives. I think that eating beef could be a lot better for the environment than most people realize.

cosmo starr

from what i understand it takes 2600 gallons of water to produce a single serving of steak, where it only takes 6 to produce a head of lettuce. Livestock is an introduced species, not that fruits and veggies aren't, but livestock has many more adverse affects on local plant and animal populations, feedlots, logistics/transportation, fencing, erosion caused by cow trails in addition to all the affects from the grains and supplementary foods raised for the livestock.....

K6-III

15

treehugger

16, which I suspect isn't too inaccurate. Could definately do better. I do not think having a garden should reduce points though, even if it is not rainwater fed. It is not as if the food I buy at the store, even my local natural food coop, is grown with rainwater or graywater, (live in California, which relies heavily on irrigation). While I would have happilly grabbed the points in another test if it asked if I grew any of my own food thereby reducing transportation and other ecological costs associated with industrial monocultures, I resisted losing points for some food plants (kale, strawberries, basil, et al) being grown out of pots in and in front of front of my apartment. I have tried moving them out from under the balcony of my upstaris neighbors where they can get rain and sun. The lawn mowing guy always moves them back, (understandably)n and I sort of try to keep a low profile so the landlady doesn't decide I should not have a bunch of plants outside at all. I do not use gray or rainwater per se, although I have been known to use the water from the dehumidifier my mother sent me when I told her about the mushrooms growing out of my bedroom wall. ( And the dehumidifier probably counts as a white box, it is white, and box shaped, and uses more energy than it should).

I have also been known to use the water from leaky faucets. I complained about these to my landlady, and she was surprisingly prompt with getting a plumber out here. The plumber was verbally abusive to his assistant/partner, and then they left to get a part with my faucet removed. The city had turned off the water beforehand for its own inscrutable and nefarious purposes, so the plumber did not think he had to do so also. The city turned the water back on, no plumber people in site, my bathroom gets completely flooded. After all that, the faucets still leak.

Hmm, a dehudifier, leaky faucets, a pattern emerges. It is possible that 16 is too low. And that I should move out of this slummy apartment.

RiotBoi

4.
I dont buy new clothes(dumpster) I am Vegan. I dont do cars. I wash my clothes in the shower and hang dry (effecient shower head) My veggies are rain fed. I dont use the microwave. No AC/heat. And I'm not counting moving to hawaii.

SteveFox

i feel bad...34...but its because i live with my family in a big house, as we run a bed and breakfast our of it. If i was on my own, which i will be in 105 days, i will be sitting around 10 because i will be travelling on my bike:
1 no car
2 meat will be relativly far apart as ill be living off organic foods for the most part, high energy foods, oatmeal, rice, lots of carbs kinda thing...whatever is cheap and good for me (kind of an oxymoron there...)
3 same as above
4 dairy will be few and far between
5 not much in the form of new clothes, when something wears out ill fix it until its beyond repair, then buy something else as cheaply as possible.
6 hopefullyi wont have any white goods on my bike that could get heavy pretty quick
7 1 room in my tent, unless 2 vestibules count?
8 no bathroom fittings...i poop in the bush like a real canadian bushman
9 no garden on the way
10 no rooms to heat in the winter, just body heat
11 no ac either
12 3 points cause ill be gone a few years travelling
13 ditto for above
14 and i dont use their energy

but really, self contained on a bike, putting out the word for sustainable development and greenness overall, i dont htink im using all that much energy

https://www.earthhomes.com/ heres a link for a company that makes rammed earth homes as well...i agree thats my dream, to have a rammed earth hoime and live completely self contained.

steve

donrhummy

I don't think the test properly captured the impact on the enviroment of people's lives. Which has more negative impact: me eating organic chicken 7 times a week and riding a bike everywhere, or a vegetarian eating non-organic food and driving a car everywhere (and likely smoking)?

And why does a garden make your score worse?! Which is better for the environment: I grow my own food and use water from the faucet, or I buy food that was shipped on a diesel truck (that probably also wasn't rainwater grown)?!

misteralz

I gave up counting when I got over 30...

schiavonec

The questions are at such a high level, not much can be deduced other than those that scored well are likely vegan, and perhaps without a large family

Having a 800 ft2 3 room house/apt with 1970 appliances and older windows is less efficient than a currently outfitted 1600 ft2 6 room home with low e windows, extra seals, and insulated hot water pipes, and new appliances.

while not perfect, organics/free range are far better than non org, etc. but no points for any of that in the survey

not driving and riding a bike or walking is much better than taking a diesel bus, the bus is better than single commute car, etc.

Many power companies offer the possibility of buying some alt sourced power, i.e generated from wind and transmitted to dist networks. Buying some is better than not buying at all.

All things to think about though.

Satyr

In the past I only washed my clothes in shower if I was backpacking/cycle touring. I can barely tolerate washing clothes as it is unless I happen to fall in mud. I shall have to try the shower trick. Never considered that.

It always amazes me how many things people WON'T try because of their sense of so-called independence. It really is taken for granted, at least in Western society, that we can live however we choose. Rarely do we have to think about our consequences or the community.

The ironic part is that burden and responsibility increase after independence reaches a certain point. Take a car. With the ability to go far distances comes the responsibility of mantinence. Minor at times, but still a light burden. Or take money. The ability to make as much money as a person chooses comes with a lot of time and effort.

The more I have simplified my life, in all areas, the more freedom I have found. I don't have to do something else first in order to do something I enjoy.

Blue Order

8.