Food waste in general shouldn't be adding extra CO2 in the environment, unless they are extrinsically adding tons of CO2 to the system from e.g. synthetic chemicals derived from oil.
What are you talking about? Food waste means excessive food production. Which means CO2 (from cow's farts, to oil burned transporting, to plastics and energy packaging and waste disposal). We should at least manage restaurant and supermarket food waste better, not just to reduce CO2, but to help people in need. At least in developed countries nobody should be dumpster diving.
I agree with you on principle but I believe there's real legal and health issues involved with giving the needy unfinished food that someone else touched. You mentioned restaurants specifically, they usually only cook what's directly given to someone so other than that their only waste would be barely edible (and uncooked) cuttings or spoiled stock. They might be more useful for biofuel than the homeless.
You mentioned restaurants specifically, they usually only cook what's directly given to someone so other than that their only waste would be barely edible (and uncooked) cuttings or spoiled stock. They might be more useful for biofuel than the homeless.
I said restaurants and supermarkets. From what I know, many restaurants have several dishes that are not cooked to order, friends working in various restaurants do normally take leftovers home. It may not be true if we are talking about a specific type or restaurant, e.g. a Chinese take-away where most dishes are done in reasonable time in a wok (with some pre-cooking for some ingredients), but various types of dishes that take hours to cook are prepared once per day (or two days). Since I mentioned Chinese
What are you talking about? Food waste means excessive food production.
Uh, not quite that simple.
The main complaint here seems to center around the production and transport of food that spoils.
You assuming that spoilage isn't calculated into the demand, is exactly that; an assumption. "Excessive" food production is defined as food that was never needed anyway. From mass producers to small grocery stores, anyone and everyone who manages produce products knows you have to calculate for waste; you don't order exactly what you need. You order what you need, plus XX% more to ac
The main complaint here seems to center around the production and transport of food that spoils.
You assuming that spoilage isn't calculated into the demand, is exactly that; an assumption. "Excessive" food production is defined as food that was never needed anyway. From mass producers to small grocery stores, anyone and everyone who manages produce products knows you have to calculate for waste; you don't order exactly what you need. You order what you need, plus XX% more to account for expected losses.
Not sure why you are discussing the semantics of the word "excess". You are saying pretty much the same thing. Significant "food waste" means we could have produced, packaged, transported, disposed of etc less food, while managing to feed the same people. In fact, I recognise that it is much harder to estimate/manage better and produce less waste in the first place, hence why I was focusing on putting some of that waste to good use.
And in America, you can thank the greedy legal system for that. A restaurant providing food is essentially liable for that, in every manner that they serve it.
Well, yeah, depending on the country it might be easier or harder to do thin
The main complaint here seems to center around the production and transport of food that spoils.
You assuming that spoilage isn't calculated into the demand, is exactly that; an assumption. "Excessive" food production is defined as food that was never needed anyway. From mass producers to small grocery stores, anyone and everyone who manages produce products knows you have to calculate for waste; you don't order exactly what you need. You order what you need, plus XX% more to account for expected losses.
Not sure why you are discussing the semantics of the word "excess". You are saying pretty much the same thing.
Well, actually I'm not because your initial point completely overlooked the fact that "excess" (and I use those quotes accurately) is NOT excess when it's simply a cost of doing business. Dealing in fresh produce, you will have a calculated loss for spoilage at every step, from transport to in the store. Not sure why many completely overlooked that when raising this new "climate" concern. Don't want to cause greenhouse gases from spoilage? Fine. Don't grow food that spoils. See how easy that is? Also
What are you talking about? Food waste means excessive food production. Which means CO2 (from cow's farts, to oil burned transporting, to plastics and energy packaging and waste disposal).
Any excess CO2 in food production comes from re-release of one time sequestered CO2 or methane.
So unless we're munching on coal chips covered with petro oil, it's pretty much null, because we're just releasing carbon that the food took up.
There is no transmutation of elements - we do not create nor destroy the Carbon. We simply eat - or waste carbon that has been temporarily incorporated into the vegetable matter.
Same with cows - that whole thing is a vegan excuse. Cows fart, humans fart. But the who
There is no transmutation of elements, nobody said that, it is chemical reactions at issue.
The popular idea that that Carbon somehow suddenly appears out of nowhere - we might as well call it transmutation.
PCarbon is fine when it stays in soil, in grass, in petroleum. It, however, becomes a greenhouse gas when cows eat grass (not CO2 in that case, but CH4 which is worse), or when trucks burn petroleum. Yes, there is a natural process too, we are just adding to it (and excess food production is a part). You seem to be the one misunderstanding how the carbon cycle works.
Carbon must be sequestered if it isn't to get into the atmosphere. And just Carbon in dirt isn't going to do that - Oxygen will oxidize any carbon it gets areound that is not buried in places too deep for the oxygen to get to, and it is in the layers of soil that plants grow from.
Because that's what you call it when you change one element to another; this requires neutron flux or something else nuclear.
Carbon must be sequestered if it isn't to get into the atmosphere
This is sort of correct. You are missing that carbon will leave the atmosphere with a 20 year half-live into outer space. The real amount to look at is the extra carbon coming from under the ground. All other sources are pretty much moot. Which is why focusing on anything other than energy is foolish and a distraction by people who don't understand science (but they often work in
carbon will leave the atmosphere with a 20 year half-live into outer space
Wow, where are you getting this stuff? Mars? Because that's a planet that did lose its atmosphere to outer space. But the half-life is um, rather more than 20 years.
Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1, Insightful)
Food waste in general shouldn't be adding extra CO2 in the environment, unless they are extrinsically adding tons of CO2 to the system from e.g. synthetic chemicals derived from oil.
Re:Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Food waste means excessive food production. Which means CO2 (from cow's farts, to oil burned transporting, to plastics and energy packaging and waste disposal).
We should at least manage restaurant and supermarket food waste better, not just to reduce CO2, but to help people in need. At least in developed countries nobody should be dumpster diving.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on principle but I believe there's real legal and health issues involved with giving the needy unfinished food that someone else touched. You mentioned restaurants specifically, they usually only cook what's directly given to someone so other than that their only waste would be barely edible (and uncooked) cuttings or spoiled stock. They might be more useful for biofuel than the homeless.
Re: (Score:3)
You mentioned restaurants specifically, they usually only cook what's directly given to someone so other than that their only waste would be barely edible (and uncooked) cuttings or spoiled stock. They might be more useful for biofuel than the homeless.
I said restaurants and supermarkets. From what I know, many restaurants have several dishes that are not cooked to order, friends working in various restaurants do normally take leftovers home. It may not be true if we are talking about a specific type or restaurant, e.g. a Chinese take-away where most dishes are done in reasonable time in a wok (with some pre-cooking for some ingredients), but various types of dishes that take hours to cook are prepared once per day (or two days). Since I mentioned Chinese
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Food waste means excessive food production.
Uh, not quite that simple.
The main complaint here seems to center around the production and transport of food that spoils.
You assuming that spoilage isn't calculated into the demand, is exactly that; an assumption. "Excessive" food production is defined as food that was never needed anyway. From mass producers to small grocery stores, anyone and everyone who manages produce products knows you have to calculate for waste; you don't order exactly what you need. You order what you need, plus XX% more to ac
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, not quite that simple.
The main complaint here seems to center around the production and transport of food that spoils.
You assuming that spoilage isn't calculated into the demand, is exactly that; an assumption. "Excessive" food production is defined as food that was never needed anyway. From mass producers to small grocery stores, anyone and everyone who manages produce products knows you have to calculate for waste; you don't order exactly what you need. You order what you need, plus XX% more to account for expected losses.
Not sure why you are discussing the semantics of the word "excess". You are saying pretty much the same thing. Significant "food waste" means we could have produced, packaged, transported, disposed of etc less food, while managing to feed the same people. In fact, I recognise that it is much harder to estimate/manage better and produce less waste in the first place, hence why I was focusing on putting some of that waste to good use.
And in America, you can thank the greedy legal system for that. A restaurant providing food is essentially liable for that, in every manner that they serve it.
Well, yeah, depending on the country it might be easier or harder to do thin
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, not quite that simple.
The main complaint here seems to center around the production and transport of food that spoils.
You assuming that spoilage isn't calculated into the demand, is exactly that; an assumption. "Excessive" food production is defined as food that was never needed anyway. From mass producers to small grocery stores, anyone and everyone who manages produce products knows you have to calculate for waste; you don't order exactly what you need. You order what you need, plus XX% more to account for expected losses.
Not sure why you are discussing the semantics of the word "excess". You are saying pretty much the same thing.
Well, actually I'm not because your initial point completely overlooked the fact that "excess" (and I use those quotes accurately) is NOT excess when it's simply a cost of doing business. Dealing in fresh produce, you will have a calculated loss for spoilage at every step, from transport to in the store. Not sure why many completely overlooked that when raising this new "climate" concern. Don't want to cause greenhouse gases from spoilage? Fine. Don't grow food that spoils. See how easy that is? Also
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Food waste means excessive food production. Which means CO2 (from cow's farts, to oil burned transporting, to plastics and energy packaging and waste disposal).
Any excess CO2 in food production comes from re-release of one time sequestered CO2 or methane.
So unless we're munching on coal chips covered with petro oil, it's pretty much null, because we're just releasing carbon that the food took up.
There is no transmutation of elements - we do not create nor destroy the Carbon. We simply eat - or waste carbon that has been temporarily incorporated into the vegetable matter.
Same with cows - that whole thing is a vegan excuse. Cows fart, humans fart. But the who
Re: (Score:2)
There is no transmutation of elements, nobody said that, it is chemical reactions at issue.
The popular idea that that Carbon somehow suddenly appears out of nowhere - we might as well call it transmutation.
PCarbon is fine when it stays in soil, in grass, in petroleum. It, however, becomes a greenhouse gas when cows eat grass (not CO2 in that case, but CH4 which is worse), or when trucks burn petroleum. Yes, there is a natural process too, we are just adding to it (and excess food production is a part). You seem to be the one misunderstanding how the carbon cycle works.
Carbon must be sequestered if it isn't to get into the atmosphere. And just Carbon in dirt isn't going to do that - Oxygen will oxidize any carbon it gets areound that is not buried in places too deep for the oxygen to get to, and it is in the layers of soil that plants grow from.
https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.p... [scielo.cl]
But AC - I always enjoy when I'm taught - Tell me exactly what I am missing
Re: (Score:2)
we might as well call it transmutation.
Because that's what you call it when you change one element to another; this requires neutron flux or something else nuclear.
Carbon must be sequestered if it isn't to get into the atmosphere
This is sort of correct. You are missing that carbon will leave the atmosphere with a 20 year half-live into outer space. The real amount to look at is the extra carbon coming from under the ground. All other sources are pretty much moot. Which is why focusing on anything other than energy is foolish and a distraction by people who don't understand science (but they often work in
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, where are you getting this stuff? Mars? Because that's a planet that did lose its atmosphere to outer space. But the half-life is um, rather more than 20 years.
About 25% of all carbon will (naturally) remain in the atmosphere after 1000 years. [skepticalscience.com]
Preindustrial CO2 was about 280ppm, a