"Chemicals" don't have a very meaningful impact. Plants require nitrogen, and manure is not green. There is crop rotation, co-planting, and green manure but few farms do this. If you're doing that, then your source of nitrogen may make the difference (not the 1,000 miles import distance).Forests wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:44 pm Hopefully you agree that by growing some fresh vegetables in your back garden or local allotment this is much better for the environment than importing exotic fruits or vegetables from half way around the world 1000s of miles away packaged in plastic and sprayed with chemicals.
Plastic is an issue locally as well, but you are correct that it may be avoided if you grow them yourself. The difference in a plastic film isn't likely to make up for substantial yield and efficiency differences, though.
If carrots grow well there, then for your vitamin A that's likely true. But perhaps protein rich plant foods do not grow as well there; in that case it's likely better to import them from another region where lentils or something grow well instead of trying to get your protein from carrots (which would take far too many carrots, thus not be environmentally friendly) or trying to grow them locally when yield is poor.
If you're being technical, you don't eat the outside of the avocado, but if you're talking animal products used in production then organic produce isn't vegan if it's grown with manure either. I would choose something not covered in shellac vs. something that is, but I'm much more concerned for higher animals than small insects, and since there's limited consumer information about coatings (many being based on plant waxes) it's hard to make buying decisions based on that -- much like with fertilizers, aside from avoiding organic.
Do you think it causes more air pollution per ton of goods moved per mile? Will you stand by that comparison once it's made meaningful like that?
And local air pollution doesn't equate to climate impact.
Noise pollution is kind of a joke, and Sulphur dioxide isn't the main culprit in global warming, it's not even a greenhouse gas. The effect of aerosols it can create is controversial, and may result in warming or cooling. The problem with sulfur is when it's concentrated enough over the land to result in acid rain which can damage crops etc.
Not only that, but the world's largest shipping company is working on going emissions free:Forests wrote: ↑Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:44 pmThe idea of sea shipping going "green" is something not many will take seriously. But there is now a sulphur cap on ships introduced last year https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotT ... -2020.aspx so things are improving I guess.
https://interestingengineering.com/worl ... al-by-2050
Not a credible one. Rice due to methane and potatoes due to storage are the only staples that have a significant impact.
What do you do during the off season? How do you keep them from sprouting or molding when you haven't harvested for months?
Water footprint is a local issue and not of global climate change relevance. It's a problem if you live somewhere drought prone.
I'm sure there are pest issues with potatoes, I doubt it kills no animals.
The issue is less the growing as the distilling.
As far as I understand, sugarcane is a much more efficient source for sugar to convert into biofuel. This should be done in places where that grows well with little to no input.
That's because they're richer sources of protein -- the nitrogen has to come from somewhere, and unlike legumes they don't fix their own.
As I said before co-cropping and rotation or green manure (made from things like clover that have been composted) is better but hardly anybody is doing that.
Vegan foods are almost all better than any animal food (with the possible exception of oysters which may beat some of the worst vegan options like palm oil -- something I avoid), but that doesn't mean we can't limit certain outliers like potatoes and rice when wheat or corn is a better source of carbohydrates.
No. None of that is remotely true.Grains are as natural as anything else. We've been eating them for many thousands of years, and that's within the time scale that evolution for dietary change occurs on. Look at our companions, dogs, who have been eating them along side us and have clearly evolved to do so, making a much more dramatic ancestral change than humans did from the fruit and leaf heavy omnivores of chimps:
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-dna-analy ... -dogs.html
Yes, particularly by sea. 0.03 kg is very small. Even if that's per avocado instead of per kilogram of avocado, per kg would only be 0.24.
Avocados provide some very healthy plant nutrients and monounsaturated fats, and they have good yield; oil yield is similar to that of coconut, but far healthier, and nearly twice the yield of olive which is its best comparison.
Now is is better for the environment to get your monounsaturated fats from olive oil, despite half the yield, because they come from closer?
Maybe. But it's unlikely.
Compare that to footprint per kilogram of food, and you'll realize that 0.24kg amounts to a rounding error when compared to nuts (which would be the most obvious comparison), and it's nothing compared to meat.
(I trust EWG not at all, but this chart seems to be based on third party data so I'll tentatively reference it since it was the quickest to find)
I don't think air transportation of foods is environmentally friendly, except maybe spices that are light and that you barely use any of.
It's unlikely that your avocados arrived by air, but you could look into this to be sure.
First let's ignore the positive moral value of giving impoverished people a cash crop?
What damage? How about quantifiable in terms of global warming? I'm not that worried about a forest being replaced by an avocado forest which is producing food for people while capturing more carbon than an old growth forest (which captures very little) and elevating locals out of poverty.
What effect is that? The quote doesn't quantify it.Disproportionately huge demand for the fruit is creating a climate change effect.
I'm wondering how common that actually is or if there's any evidence for it. This claim is false by way of exaggeration in the least. More primary sources cite these as allegations, and it seems to be a very limited number of hectares where this allegedly happened.Forest lands with diverse wildlife have been destroyed to produce avocado, and many more were intentionally burned to bypass a Mexican law allowing producers to change the land-use permit to commercial agriculture instead of forest land, if it was lost to burning.
https://themazatlanpost.com/2019/05/17/ ... ay-locals/
I already mentioned how water isn't a global environmental issue. Regions can manage their own water. I'm not here to be a "white savior" and tell Mexicans I'm not buying their Avocados because I think they're too stupid not to use up all of their water. That's a real pet peeve of mine.Around 9.5 billion litres of water are used daily to produce avocado – equivalent to 3,800 Olympic pools – requiring a massive extraction of water from Michoacán aquifers.
Mexicans are not stupid and their government is very sophisticated. We should trust them to manage their own water resources.
The only concerns I have is for externalities that industries aren't paying for or held accountable by like global greenhouse gas emissions, and for animal ethics which most people (and governments) do a poor job of accounting for if their cultures even regard them at all.
People know they need water, there's no reason to condemn them as incompetent managers of their own resources like that.
Oh, no. Small earthquakes they say? How many millions died?Excessive extraction of water from these aquifers is having unexpected consequences, such as causing small earthquakes.
The death of 3,247 people is very serious indeed... oh, wait. No, that was 3,247 "movements" recorded by sophisticated seismic monitoring equipment that probably literally nobody actually felt.From 5 January to 15 February, 3,247 seismic movements were recorded in Uruapan municipality and surroundings, the most important avocado-producing area in the world. According to local authorities, avocado-related water extraction has opened up subsoil caverns that could be causing these movements.
I hope you can see how this is very underwhelming for me when we're dealing with real issues. This all sounds like avocado fear mongering for no reason.
I'm unconvinced that this is a problem, and definitely not convinced enough to condemn an industry and a nation of being incapable of managing their own resources. Like I said, I'm only concerned for global externalities and animal ethics issues that they are not internally motivated to consider.
I hope you'll change your mind after you reflect on the lack of evidence and the moral irrelevance of some of those points -- and maybe consider trusting the people making the avocados a little more when it comes to managing their affairs.
I don't think you should concern yourself with avoiding even avocados, and those are the most exotic example. These are efficient and nutritious food products that help elevate marginalized people out of poverty and that even when transported 5,000 miles remain very good for the environment when compared to animal products and even likely to local comparables where yield isn't as good.