Carbon Footprint of Homegrown Food 🍅 GARDEN
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2024
- A recent University of Michigan-led study claims that Urban Agriculture, including Home Gardens, have a carbon footprint SIX times that of conventional farming. I've uncovered exactly HOW they came up with these results.
FOLLOW ME:
Website: www.howdogarde...
Facebook: / howdogardener
Anyone with half a brain cell instinctively knows that these studies are total nonsense. Thanks for taking the time to dig into this. Great job.
Thank you. It's crazy the things they try to slip in many of these "studies"
Thank you. It's crazy the things many of these "studies" try to put past us.
Thanks for the research 😊
You bet. Guess they didn't think anyone would look.
Thanks for digging into this! I find it so troubling that researchers thought that the actual cost of living--e.g., living in your home--should be connected to your garden's carbon footprint. If you remove the garden itself, the biggest carbon emitters are still there--producing carbon. We'd still have the house/dwelling, so how is the garden responsible for those carbon emissions? I'm sure it's very rare that the home was constructed solely for the purpose of the garden itself. There is so much faulty reasoning in this study and the benchmarks created. Thank you again for taking the time to spell it out!
You're quite welcome. It's suprising what they try to put by us in these "studies" isn't it.
@@TheHowDoGardeneryou're right about this study, but they are right about the pet study. Pets kill billions of wild animals a year, use 29% of our food supply, and serve no function. They are pure cost for the sake of owning an animal. Making pets that aren't working animal, illegal, would dramatically help the global environmental situation. There's no valid argument that having pets is beneficial in any way unless they serve a working purpose. And that working purpose has to have economic value to counter their cost.
From a purely economic standpoint you may well be correct. But, according to the CDC, studies have shown that the bond between people and their pets is linked to several health benefits, including:
Decreased blood pressure, cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and symptoms of PTSD.
Increased opportunities for exercise and outdoor activities; better cognitive function in older adults; and more opportunities to socialize
Thank you for your thought provoking comments.
@@TheHowDoGardener I've had dogs, cats, horses, goats, birds, reptiles, fish... I have fairly uniform understanding of how those relationships benefit me or could benefit others.
The problem is, all life costs something else its life. We live in a closed ecosystem and there's no synthetic shortcut.
It's hard for me, even after a lifetime of having companion animals, to justify the life it cost to support them.
I think most the benefits we get from our relationships with animals we could also gain from a relationship with the ecosystems that we spend so much effort trying to separate us from.
I think that disconnection from other life, is why we get those benefits from having pets. And maybe we should cut out the middle man and put those resources to us repairing the ecosystems we destroyed along the way.
Do you remember when “they” said backyard chickens are dangerous? “They” do not want us to be self reliant at all.
Yes indeed. They did the whole chickens are bad thing right when egg prices and shortages started. They don't seem to care much for farmers either. Except cricket farmers that is. 🦗
I'm unsure why anyone would think that "infrastructure allocated to food production" includes a residential home, considering that is specifically repeated both in the paper and within the supplementary material. If they did include a house, no doubt the emissions intensity would cause a serving of food from UA to be millions of times more GHG intensive than conventional field farm production.
Odd indeed
This is NUTS! Driving to Walmart to buy Mexican veggies is more sustainable than growing them in my backyard straight into my table! Thanks for the information! @UMich: Shameless study and misguided publication!
Glad you found it enlightening. I didn't even mention in my video that in the study, they didn't factor in the end consumer transportation carbon costs to the store. Said they just called it even between Traditional Ag and UA. Gave the example of driving to the grocery store vs. to a farmers market. Conveniently ignored the 55 individual gardens. I don't use much gas walking out to my garden.
you've really gone into this, kudos! Including the house is rather ridiculous ...
with all the farmers protests happening around our world I do wonder if commercial farming can survive ... urban ag might soon be the only way to get fresh fruit and veg!
Thank you. Yes, I thought including the house was a little excessive. It seems like the powers that be want neither farmers nor urban ag. Crazy stuff. I suppose we should all just eat our daily ration of crickets and turn in our vegetable seeds to the government. Hope you're doing well down under. Cheers.
@@TheHowDoGardener lol or be defiant and keep growing ... share the excess and keep our world fed!
I'm with you on that one
Compost done wrong is carbon intensive, but if you instead process waste through animals, then worms and insects, you can then lay down the castings and frass in continuous layers over soil beds. And as long as you keep laying down this thin layers, and don't till back up the soil, that carbon stays in the soil, as living organisms. And those organisms remove the need for fertilizers, lower water use, lessen the need for greenhouses, etc... Doing agriculture wrong is the single largest contributor to atmospheric carbon. Doing it right, however, is the single most effective solution. Industrial agriculture, as described in this study, is the most carbon intensive human activity there is.
Life is carbon. More life alive, is less carbon in the atmosphere. It's simple math.
Agreed. Guess the University of Michigan folks missed class that day.
Were comparable land sizes maintained as lawns surveyed? Nope. They just proved that houses are the problem not the gardens. Think I'll go expand my garden by several sq. ft.
Right you are. Because apparently no one who goes to the grocery store lives in a house. I guess a cave or someting. I also seem to recall that carbon is necessary for photosynthesis in plants. Seems like "decarbonization" would be harmful to plants. Happy gardening!
Where in the study did you find the breakdown percentages for the top 10 GHG impact components? I can't find them. thanks. Awesome video!
1) Material Results Detailed.csv
2) Looked at Urban Individual Garden data only
3) Sorted by Farm Component
4) Summed the Impact column
5) Summed each individual Farm Component
6) Each Farm Impact Sum ÷ Total Impact
@@TheHowDoGardener Material results detailed.csv Looks like a spreadsheet, but how do I find this spreadsheet? I don't see it in the study. Thanks again!
It is a spreadsheet. I think all the raw data is under additional information maybe. You have to poke around some to find and download the .zip file.
@@TheHowDoGardener No worries. I thought since you made this video you would have the link handy. This information sounds very important and I would like to send people to your channel but not before I see the data for myself.
www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00023-3#MOESM1
So - a very small sample?
It sure looks that way. Especially when they factor in the house for the 55 individual gardens out of the 73 total UA sites.
How stupid do they think we are?
Yup. Everyone knows that people that shop at grocery stores don't live in houses. Caves I guess.
@@ModeSOLOgaming Very stupid, and very easily deceived. We're well trained vessels of corporate lies.
@cathyhaynes2903 Yes indeed.