While going organic is a good first step, buying local, seasonal produce has even less impact on the environment.
Image:
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Can we save the earth one stir-fry at a time? I was certainly dubious when I first saw the book, Cool Cuisine: Taking the Bite Out of Global Warming. Still, the lush cover photography of a verdant table setting and a bowl of farm-fresh eggs drew me in. As I flipped through the pages, I was a bit surprised to see they were packed with clean, colorful graphics and sidebars explaining everything from the atmospheric carbon cycle to the role of bees in agriculture and step-by-step instructions for successful composting. Each chapter concluded with a set of tasty-sounding recipes, and the copious endnotes had detailed references.
Was this a cookbook or a climate change guide? Or both? Intrigued, I started reading.
Food for a Healthy Planet
Laura Stec, a San Francisco Bay Area chef and the main authorial voice, opens with an explanation of what she calls “the global warming diet”: our modern dependence on mass-produced food from industrial farms that consume enormous amounts of fossil fuels and spew tons of waste. As a professional foodie, she is as dismayed by the environmental degradation as she is by the fact that what comes out at the end of that pipeline is “machine cuisine”—food that she says lacks freshness and flavor, with little connection to the sun and soil that produced it. Such food has no “vibe,” she writes. And she is determined to do something about it.
What follows is Stec’s own story of setting out to learn everything she could about the American food production enterprise. In a lively style, she describes encounters with dozens of scientists and armies of farmers in her quest to understand both the origins of machine cuisine and what makes good food good. Along the way, Stec met her co-author Eugene Cordero, a climate researcher at San Jose State University who co-wrote a global assessment of ozone for the United Nations in 2006 and is currently working on modeling projects for the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Cordero acted as the book’s overall science adviser and wrote most of the sidebars.
When I spoke with the authors, Cordero explained that he joined forces with Stec because his fellow climate scientists are well aware that worldwide food production could account for as much as 35 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. But the role of food in global warming hasn’t trickled down into popular discussions about solutions. Only in the past year has IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri started to say that people must reduce meat consumption for the good of the planet, Cordero noted, “and he’s the first famous climate scientist with any authority to be saying this, so I think it’s still a new concept, even for the climate science community.”
Other aspects of the book’s message are not so new, of course. The dysfunction of the modern food industry has been documented by journalist Michael Pollan and others. And the virtues of local and seasonal foods are also territory well trodden by chef-writers such as Alice Waters. But the way that Stec and Cordero combine their perspectives on food is entirely novel and highly effective. Together they connect the dots between overwhelmingly large-scale problems, such as nitrogen fertilizer runoff, and individual choices about what dishes we put on the dinner table every day.
One chapter, for example, called “Why All the Oil in My Soil?” explains how healthy soil is alive with microbes and nutrients, details the destructive effects of oil-based fertilizers, erosion and deforestation, and touts the merits of earthworms and shade-grown coffee and chocolate. Stec also explains how beans and legumes work with soil microbes to fix nitrogen, reducing the need for fertilizers, so by the time I reached the end of the chapter the recipes, including jalapeño rum beans and dark chocolate chili, not only sounded delicious, they made sense. “Of course, this is how we should be eating,” I thought, and I resolved to buy a slow cooker.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentYou mention 'one stir fry at a time' at the beginning and end of your article. I think it is wise to inform that fumes from stir-frying - and not smoking - have been identified as the major cause of lung cancer among women in Hong Kong and the mainland, according to a new study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearchers (Xiaorong Wang) say only 30 percent of cancer cases in the mainland and the SAR were caused by smoking, compared to 85 percent for Caucasian women in the United States.
arch1design
This sounds like an entertaining read. Here's something to keep in mind when you buy a $4 locally grown cucumber vs. a $2 cucumber from Chile. The $2 cucumber from Chile is actually less taxing on the environment even though it was flown in. Sound ridiculous? Consider that your $4 for the local cucumber is so high because the local farmer expects a higher standard of living than his colleague in Chile. What does he do with his profits? Fuel his car, buy a flat screen, go out to dinner, whatever. He *spends* the money. Same for everyone else who takes a cut of the $4. The super market where you bought the veggie makes more profit, the workers on the farm make more than their peers in Chile etc. Doesn't make a difference if you buy it at a farm stand. As long as that cucumber is more expensive you end up putting money in someone's pocket who will turn around and spend it, causing energy consumption and ultimately emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI realize this isn't a very popular way to look at this and maybe someone can poke a well thought out hole in the reasoning but it's worth considering. At the core of the problem is that the only way to reduce our collective consumption is to reduce our wealth. When you have less money to spend you cause less pollution. Sobering.
That said we're all free to decide where to buy our food and what choices we make. Eating more chicken and less beef seems like a win/win. You get similar quality protein with less emissions. But it might still make sense to ship it in from a location where conditions (weather, labor cost, etc.) make it cheaper to produce. The total picture has to be considered. The local farm can't possibly produce chickens cost effectively compared to doing that somewhere where farm land and help is cheaper. A truck full of processed chicken isn't *that* expensive to move a 1000 miles or so.
SanderP, what an interesting way to look at it. I would like to point out, however, that by promoting the consumption of locally grown/raised food undoubtedly does much for the local economy. By investing in local business/farmers who are making a living by providing a valuable resource to their community, one is supporting the notion that individuals can thereby increase self sufficiency in society, which then increases sustainability. I understand your point of view and it makes a lot of sense. On a bigger scale, one can compare investing in local economies by consuming locally grown/raised food to a one-time investment in a garden. If I were to grow my own tomatoes, eggplant, squash, raise my own hens & provide for myself, I'd experience an outrageous amount of savings in the long term by being self sufficient with my diet, however, the average American would [probably] spend that extra cash on consumptive activities vs. saving it for the future, or again investing in sustainable activities. The fact of the matter is, those $4 being spent on locally grown food takes the such externalities into account moreso than does the $2 being spent at a big time grocer. Mass producing veggies & fruit in a monoculture setting, extracting the materials necessary for its shipment & the shipment itself far outweighs the damages done by local farmers without even taking all those damages into consideration in its pricing!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly, some farmers would use their hard earned cash to go on a cruise or fly half way around the world when the opportunity arose, but they are also providing not just for their own but for a community as well. Those of us who opt to save $2 by going to the grocer would most likely spend the other 2 consuming more. The change that must be seen if a more sustainable society is to emerge is just as much behavioral as it is technological, economical & societal.
*one time monetary investment in a garden.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@daniiikaaa, thanks for taking the time to comment. I've grown quite a few tomatoes and other vegetables and fruits in my backyard back when I still lived in San Jose, CA. The enjoyment of ripening my Jalapenos to the exact shade of red that I like made cost savings (if any) secondary. Having a lemon tree with year around fruit was wonderful as was the bounty of grapes that appeared every fall. So while I certainly don't qualify as a 'green thumb' I do have a little bit of experience with these matters :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know the sentiment is to support your local business but why is that so much better than supporting far away business? Is a strawberry picker in Watsonville not worthy of my dollars while the local farm is? Emotionally I see the benefit of supporting people close by but economically it makes no difference. In my business (software development) I count on people from all over the world buying our products. Buying vegetables isn't so different.
I think we all have an obligation to optimize our enjoyment of our money. For some that means spending extra to buy locally grown vegetables. Nothing wrong with that. For others it means saving money by buying vegetables grown more economically (far away) and spending the savings on other items that give them more pleasure.
The idea of locally grown food is appealing but there is a reason why it went out of style. You can't have locally grown food everywhere. Land prices are simply too high in urban areas to allow affordable food to be grown for everyone, not just the rich elite or people willing to sacrifice other purchases. Economies of scale are important if we want to feed everyone. You don't grow corn in Silicon Valley or close to NY, NY. You grow corn in the heart land. You don't start a software company in Tornado Alley, you start one in Silicon Valley. I'm generalizing but I think you get the point. Where people live and work is not always suitable for growing food at the scale required to feed everyone. And vice versa. Just because the scale of our community is larger than it was say 150 years ago doesn't mean it's not a community.
When you have 20 (arbitrary number, pick your own estimate) trucks in various states of disrepair come to the farmers market is that really so much better than having a single, typically well maintained, truck ship a variety of foods to a super market? How big would a farmers market need to be to feed everyone in town? Wouldn't it need a parking lot of similar size as the super market? Farmers markets are quaint (I like them) but no panacea.
You're right, you can't have locally grown food everywhere. However, the difference in buying locally & its benefits in contrast to supporting a farmer who mass produces their food is pretty simple. Mass production of produce requires mass amounts of pesticides (even organically grown food isn't 'organic' in the way many are accustomed to believing), acreage, water & the clearing of vast areas of land. When we're talking carbon, this has huge implications with climate on a macro level. Individual farmers typically work for themselves & don't specialize as precisely as industrial farmers. The problem with these industrial produce farms is that most of the time they are American run, but outsourced in another country (or in a distant state). Chilean farmers make great labor targets for big industrial farms because they work for next to nothing & the costs of shipping don't even dent the savings from such outsourcing. American companies don't find as much resilience from poorer countries as they do on American soil when it comes to land development, making the necessary resources to grow huge amounts of produce on huge amounts of land in a monoculture method fairly easy, a practice which not only emits terrible amounts of greenhouse gases in the process but does nothing to reinforce or promote self sufficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're absolutely right, land prices are simply to high in urban areas to allow affordable food to be grown sustainably for everyone. For this reason, individuals should try to adapt to or stick to food that can be sustainably grown in their regions. I used to live in northern California & when I moved to the desert (for job related reasons) my love for avocados moved with me. It was selfishly difficult to stick solely to buying sustainably grown avocados from local farmers after years of having my own tree (I also had lemon trees, man how I miss the climate!). But I've learned to adapt to food that is more viable in my region. By promoting the sale of foods easily accessible to the region, we can combat the industrial sized desire to always have foods we can't grow around for selfish reasons. Yea, it's great having them readily available at the grocery store, but is it not perhaps a bit perverse at the same time knowing you could perhaps be better off financially & health-wise by growing as much food as you can & supporting farmers who are trying to do the same?
That's why it's so hard to try to come to a sustainable solution which will support the whole country, but hopefully we can come to a viable one sometime soon!
http://www.fa-rm.org/blog/2009/03/thoughts-on-environmental-effects-of.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Mass production of produce requires mass amounts of pesticides,... acreage, water & the clearing of vast areas of land. When we're talking carbon, this has huge implications with climate on a macro level."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmm, this doesn't make much sense. How does growing locally use less pesticides and land? Mass production on a large scale allows for efficiency. The only way for locals to do this is to produce a smaller amount of food. But everybody has to eat. Industrialization has allowed us to make a large enough amount of food to feed the huge population that we have today.
I've done the math and managed to figure out that if every household in the US had 3 acres of land, that would only take up a small fraction of the available land in the US. If, besides the home, this land was used for low/no maintenance food forest and bio-intensive garden with appropriate companion planting, then every home could produce all of the food needed to support a family. All of this without pesticides or fertilizers. The only work involved would be the initial setup of the system, then perhaps half an hour a day and an additional two hours every month working in the garden and food forest. That's only 16 hours a month total working for the food that feeds an entire family. Get more family members involved and you're spending even less time working for your food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf everyone produced their own food then no one would need industrial agriculture and we could all eat healthy. Because the food is produced locally, no fossil fuels are burned to get it to your table. Because the system takes advantages of nature instead of fighting with it, it doesn't require pesticides or fertilizer so our soil and water will be more clean. Because the food produced is mostly vegetables, some eggs, chicken, and fish, the diet would be very healthy and perhaps we wouldn't be such an overweight country. The benefits are overwhelming.
My sons have returned from duty in the Middle East and assure me that Iraq has pretty much the same weather as east Texas. Previously, I had assumed that the Fertile Crescent became a desert due to climate change. Instead, farming practices we would classify as "organic" or "sustainable" per this article and the referenced book are responsible for the loss of organic matter in the soil and the resulting desertification.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd all that damage was done before the Industrial Revolution, The Green Revolution or 'industrial farms". Small plot Iraqi farmers are still pullin g out vineyards and turning rich black soil into hard red clay that requires irrigation for a tomatoe or cucumber crop in just in a few growing seasons.
Time for a reality check.
In the last few decades there has been significant research into soil biology. Current evidence that carbon sequestration in farm ground requires minimum disruption of the soil. Conservation or No till farming practices, which generally require the use of herbicides, are the best way to meet that requirement.
Rex Peterson
I'm all for a diet that uses animal products sparingly but her beef information is one of those internet urban legeds. I built a spread sheet to compare the amount of grain required to produce equivalent calories of eggs, chicken, beef, and dairy. An "American" vegetarian diet that contains eggs and dairy will have roughly the same carbon footprint as one that contains the same calories in beef and chicken. Her data is based on a study that looks at global production of beef, which creates much more GHG than American production. This chart explains why:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img0.gif
It takes 50 kilos of cereals to produce 1 kilo of beef, not to mention soy beans and thousands of litres of water. If we ate less meat, we could feed the 970,000,000 people living on starvation diets in this 'free world'. No doubt the Amish know best how to farm and could teach us a trick or two about green living. Vegetarians get less bowel cancers, so there is also a health benefit. When tractor fuel and oil-based fertilisers run out, the only solution is to get people back working on farms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't confuse the terms "beef" and "meat." Chicken, fish, pork, are also meat. Also don't confuse the term vegan and vegetarian. A vegan eats no animal products. A vegetarian eats eggs and dairy, which use roughly the same resources as meat per pound as livestock meat, with beef being somewhat worse than other meats. If a vegetarian eats more animal pounds of products (egg, milk, and cheese) than a non-vegetarian (egg, milk, cheese, and meat) then the vegetarian diet will be worse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike I said, eating less meat is good but we should replace the term "meat" with "animal products" to be more accurate.
Where do you get your figures from? Chickens and pigs convert cereals into flesh much more efficiently than cattle...and the most efficient of them all are ostriches. Dairy products also use up cereals in a very wasteful way. Beef production also requires thousands of litres of water per kilo. And cattle and sheep emit 20% of the World's methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGranted, a diet heavy in eggs and dairy is just a carbon-intensive as a meaty one. I have a vegetarian plan with a full set of recipes to help people eat simply and cheaply. It's definitely lower in CO2 than the average carnivore and a step in the right direction. People are not responding well to the self-righteous rants of animal-rights vegans. Back in the seventies when Diet for a Small Planet was our bible, we were encouraged to spike a lot of the recipes with milk powder and to use lots of eggs and cheese. After reading The China Study, I feel no need to rely on eggs or dairy for protein. My plan gets most of its protein from pulses and whole grains. Eggs are used in baking – treats are pretty essential when you're asking folks to drastically change deeply embedded habits. A bit of grated cheddar on your frijoles refritos once a week is not the same as eating pizza.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything in moderation, including moderation.
Lynn Shwadchuck
http://www.10in10Diet.com/