ABSURD!!!! Homegrown food has 5x carbon footprint of Conventional AG?

Marjory Wildcraft
Marjory Wildcraft Posts: 1,613 admin
edited January 29 in Other News

There are so many ways this is completely absurd - I can't imagine how anyone in thier right mind would call this science....

We have reached past the point of IDIOCRACY. LOL, total collapse must be imminent.

This theme is being pumped out on the mainstream narrative channels.

Looks like they are planning on attacking your ability to grow food.

Buckle up!

Here are several of the pieces coming out:



Comments

  • LaurieLovesLearning
    LaurieLovesLearning Posts: 7,519 admin

    I just read a similar article today, citing this same study, from Modern Farmer. The title looked ominous just like these titles (and mabe this is all people will read.) But, some of the content actually surprised me. There was all the usual woke talk about carbon & carbon capture & so on, and it said that urban farming had the same "footprint" as conventional farming.

    Okay, I thought, I'd grudgingly bite & read further to see what they had to say. I don't read Modern Farmer articles often anymore since they are pushing a generally not so great agenda lately more often than not.

    Anyway, further in the in the article, it stated that real, honest to goodness old-style gardening in the ground (and not necessarily with the new, chemical-laden technologies of large industrial greenhouses, pvc hydroponics, and the like) was best to move forward with. It did state that you should choose more "carbon-capturing veggies" to grow, like tomatoes (as these articles above stated.) It also stated long term gardens are best. They said reusing & repairing existing infrastructure was wise.

    So, it's not all crazy. I think what they said is best practices is already the norm for most gardeners since... well, forever.

    But I do agree that independent gardening will get targeted just like everything else that gives people autonomy.

  • kbmbillups1
    kbmbillups1 Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I think it's just another way to scare & try to control everyone.

  • VermontCathy
    VermontCathy Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 29

    To quote Sir Eric Ashley, chairman of the British Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, "If you feed doom-laden assumptions into computers, it is not surprising that they predict doom." (around 1972)

    I would challenge some of the details of the study. In particular, I think they underestimated the impact of conventional large-scale farming/market gardening, but it's impossible to say for certain without much more detail showing what assumptions were made and how the calculations were done.

    The problem here is not actually with the study, but with the headlines. The writers pulled a sound bite out of the study that is out of context.

    Some of the study recommendations would make sense to many TGN members. For example, "Extend the lifetime of...materials and structures such as raised beds, composting infrastructure and sheds...use urban wastes as inputs...conserve carbon by...giving a second life to used materials, such as construction debris and demolition waste, that are unsuitable for new construction...composting....using rainwater and recycled grey water for irrigation."

    Seen as a guideline for making your garden have less impact as well as more cost-effective, the study is not a bad thing. The attempts to politicize it, on the other hand, are a very bad thing.

  • LaurieLovesLearning
    LaurieLovesLearning Posts: 7,519 admin

    @VermontCathy That's what I took from it as well. The sensational headline doesn't really fit the conclusions of the study. I guess that's all I really needed to post. 😆

    That quote is pretty common sense and so true, but the majority of people (or rather, the loudest, most pushy ones) will proclaim anything that claims what they've come to believe as true is true, without question or solid evidence. For those folks, they neglect to examine what they see & hear in order to clearly see the whole picture.

    @kbmbillups1 Headlines are an easy way to do as you stated and have been used extensively over the past few years to sneakily promote a specific ideology. Most people today are either too busy to read or are too used to "sound bites" to bother to read the whole article.

  • kbmbillups1
    kbmbillups1 Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @LaurieLovesLearning I've actually seen a few headlines that weren't just misleading but didn't have much to do with the article. So, I'm sure most people don't read past them, or they wouldn't be able to get away with that.

  • Marjory Wildcraft
    Marjory Wildcraft Posts: 1,613 admin

    A few years back when theis carbon thing was getting more ramped up... I did some research on the impacts of homegrown food. It's increadbale, we use like 90% less water, our use of fossil fuels is miniscule because we don't use synthentic fertiliers nor have any packaging or delivery costs, well, the list goes on.

    John HJeavons in I think the 7th edition of his fine book "How to grow more vegetables than you ever thought possible in less space than you can imagine" did a completel comparison of the two styles of growing food and it was very impressive the savings and benefit to the Earth.

    We are living in some bizarre times my friends. Very bizarre.

  • LaurieLovesLearning
    LaurieLovesLearning Posts: 7,519 admin
    edited February 5

    Well, the skewed headlines are certainly getting attention from home food growers. I was sent this today.

    This guy doesn't generally beat around the bush.


  • Marjory Wildcraft
    Marjory Wildcraft Posts: 1,613 admin

    Loved that!

    I think this year is going to be absolutley insane. It certianly is starting that way.