This article from yesterday's New York Times corroborates the claim I made about paying more attention to what you eat, rather than how far it travels to get to you.
But I never guessed that oranges would show up on the most wanted list.
From the NYTimes:
But I never guessed that oranges would show up on the most wanted list.
From the NYTimes:
The biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions turned out to be simply growing oranges, not transportation or production.
credit: JoeBiafore/istockphoto
Thanks for pointing us to the NY Times piece on orange groves and global warming. Three observations:
1) Are the growers overusing fertilizer? We have a mature orange tree in the backyard here in the SF Bay Area, and it seems to do just fine without fertilizer. We had plenty of large, juicy oranges this year.
2)What about the trees' absorption of CO2? Was that subtracted from the emission total, or was it negligible? Put it another way: If I could plant our whole backyard in orange trees, wouldn't that be better than just bare dirt or lawn?
3) Seems like the most carbon neutral thing to do foodwise is to eat less, period. In other words, become a calorie restriction advocate. I was looking at those four Oreos I ate tonight, and was thinking, how much energy did Nabisco use to produce food I didn't need to eat in the first place?
Appreciation in favor of pointing us to the NY period part of a set on orange groves and total warming.
That's really inspiring to see notorious 'corperate demon' companies taking a step to address their carbon footprint, even before the government mandates it.