Dinner’s on me

The food we eat everyday forms a critical component of our carbon emissions. How we get this food and what we do with the waste form the integral part of this problem.While as consumers we have limited control over the agricultural practices, food wastage is entirely down to us. What makes this problem even more dramatic is the fact that food wastage is a completely unnecessary and avoidable in today’s modern world. Coming from an agricultural background and working part time in a local supermarket, I have experienced first-handthe huge wastage that exists among society today.

According to the Department of Agriculture’s websites, 29% of Irelands total national carbon emissions in 2009 came from the agricultural sector while food wastage accounted for approximately 15 million tons of CO₂emissions each year in the UK.  This area urgently needs to be addressed. Working part time in my local supermarket has given a prime insight into the food wastage that occurs there on a daily basis. Date checks have to be carried out on all products on a daily basis. When most products near their expiry date they are marked down in price, however meat and dairy products have to be removed a day before their ‘best-before’ or ‘use-by’ date, resulting in huge wastage. These products are simply thrown in the bin. Similarly, living on a farm has given me an insight into the wastage that occurs before products even reach the shops. Many perfectly healthy vegetables are deemed to be ‘unsellable’ due to their unusual shape or appearance. While food is wasted every day in first world countries such as Ireland, 239 million people in Africa go hungry every year.

Now that we are aware of the problem, what can be done in order to obtain our food in a more sustainable manner? Examples of sustainable initiatives at a nationwide level include:

·         In America, food collecting organizations have been established and collect food from restaurants, supermarkets and cafeterias that would otherwise be thrown out and distribute it to low income families and the homeless. If a similar plan was adopted in Ireland it would significantly reduce food wastage in supermarkets across Ireland.

·         Since the fall of the Celtic tiger in Ireland, there has been a growing trend towards allotment gardening where people can grow their own fruit and vegetables. I was interested to learn during the Living Sustainably course that anything grown in an allotment or garden in season is equal to 0g CO₂e kg^-1.If county councils across Ireland committed to supplying land for allotment gardening, carbon emissions would be significantly reduced.

·         In response to the emissions from agriculture, the Department of Agriculture has committed to a plan of planting new forests and maintaining good forest management in order to counteract CO₂ emissions.

However real change is needed at the basic human level and it is up to each and every one of us to change our consumer habits to ensure a sustainable planet for the future.  By committing to buying only the food we really need, to buy food that is locally produced and in season and by avoiding unnecessary food packaging we can make a big difference to the planet.

 Additional Information can be found on:

·         http://www.allotments.ie/

·         http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/

Paul

Internationalisation and long-distance relationships : the carbon impact of the ERASMUS generation’s air travels

 Since its creation in 1987, the Erasmus programme has developed into what is now considered a massive success and a considerable achievement in terms of connecting European Universities and people. From a few thousands students in 1987-1988 to about 180 000 in 2007-2009, more than 3 millions students overall benefited from this programme and grants and went abroad to study as Erasmus students. They were thus offered the unique chance to travel, discover new countries, learn about new cultures, mix with new people, in  the hope that, on top of often learning another language, they would create emotional bounds with other places and people which would make them truly internationalised European citizens.

However, as much as internationalising affections and relationships might have the capacity to bring European people closer, it certainly doesn’t shorten the actual distances which separates their countries. By allowing and encouraging young people to go abroad, and to become attached to places and people far from their home, the European Union has participated in creating an even more mobile category of people, whose nomadism is not primarily professional but sentimental. My point here is that such bounds have an ecological cost, particularly in regards to transportation use.

Erasmus students have to deal with two kinds of long-distance ties : those which precede their departure and that they wish to maintain when they’re abroad, and those they create in their host country, which they will attempt to conserve after leaving it. The first category typically includes family and childhood friends, and requires regular visit usually justified by specific circumstances (Christmas, important events, grave issues...). Romantic relationships are even more demanding, since visits are spontaneously expected to be as frequent as possible. They are also likely to receive visits from their friends and family during their time abroad. The second category may involve a girlfriend/boyfriend as well, and more generally friends, from the host country or elsewhere, but most likely not from the exact same place. Some of these people will remain dear enough to be visited later on, and they will perhaps visit too, which means that former Erasmus students will be tempted to travel around to see all their friends, those who stayed, and those who spread out as they went back to their home country.

It is quite clear that such intense travelling would have a massive impact on personal carbon footprint, in which transportation habits play a big part: it is estimated that approximately 56% of CO₂ equivalent per year (CO₂e yr^-1) of the personal footprint derives from travel (1). Let’s take an example to verify and illustrate that. We choose Ireland as host country, which already implies that the vast majority of Erasmus travels (home country/host country) will be airline travels. Now, consider a German student from Koln, coming to Dublin as Erasmus student. If he stays 4 months, doesn’t get any visit and only takes a plane to come and go back at the end of his stay, the carbon cost of his Erasmus experience, in regards to air travels only, is 0.19 tonnes of CO₂e (2). Now, assume he stays in Dublin the entire academic year, and goes back for Christmas and in March to see his girlfriend. She visits him once; his parents come as well, and so does his brother, and two of his closest friends. Overall, his Erasmus adventure will have caused 18 air travels, (9 return trips), resulting in the emission of 1.71 tonnes of CO₂e (assuming all of his friends and family depart from Koln as well). To that, we should add the travels he does the following year to come back and visit his friends still living in Dublin (0.19 t CO₂e), and as he travels to Barcelona to see a friend he met in Dublin (0.22 t). One of his Irish acquaintances also grabs the opportunity to visit Koln during the festival (0.19 t). That will make a total emission of 2.31 tonnes of CO₂e caused by the air travels linked to one Erasmus student – and this doesn’t include embedded costs (construction and maintenance of airports and airplanes, extraction of fuels…). Considering that the Irish mean personal emission is 5.70 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year, it does represent a considerable amount of greenhouse gases – especially if it can be generalised to all Erasmus students.

Out of 15 Erasmus students studying in Trinity College for the academic year 2012-2013, and randomly picked among personal acquaintances 14 of them had had at least 4 visits from friends and family. They all made the trip home for Christmas, and the majority came back another time during the year. On average, being in a relationship with somebody from home cost 2 extra return trips. They all intended to come back to Dublin for holidays in the future. One of them, from France, had started a relationship with an Erasmus student from Latvia he had met in Ireland. They were looking up the flights and trying to find ways to meet regularly, anticipating for when they would be separated by about 2000 km. When asked what they meant by ‘regularly’, he answered ‘You have to spend some time together at least every two or three months, otherwise there’s no point, it can’t work, you know, you better give it up right away. Three months is already, like, a really long time.’

Of course, the impact on CO₂e emissions will vary greatly depending on the duration of the stay, the closeness of the relationships and individual financial resources. But as a whole, it appears to increase considerably the use of aviation, which is a major component of individual footprint. It can be argued that some of these travels would have occurred anyway, as people grow used to going on vacation abroad. Erasmus students would then draw travels to specific destinations, but not actually cause them. On the other hand, international, uprooted students typically don’t have a car, which diminishes their personal footprint. More generally, we can hope that Erasmus students grow more conscious of global stakes, and that their international contacts and knowledge give them tools to deal adequately with collective issues such as climate change. Yet again, only a fringe of the population is allowed to become internationalised – and is therefore responsible for high emissions of CO₂e due to air travels. Traditionally, internationalisation was reserved for the elite. Now, and thanks to the Erasmus programme so to say, it includes the educated middle-class. Fortunately, most of these ecologically costly international ties are likely to fade away with time, and the impact will thus reduce as years passes. The worst-case scenario in terms of greenhouse gases emissions is then international relationships resulting in lengthy commitments, as they create couples and families built between two countries and heavily relying on air travel. And we ought to hope that such intercultural successes remain scarce.

Marion Lieutaud 

References: 

(1) Kenny, T. and Gray, N.F. (2009), ‘A preliminary survey of household and personal carbon dioxide émissions in Ireland’,  Environment International, 35, 259-272

(2) Calculator Carbon Footprint : http://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=3

 

What the Horsemeat Scandal has Taught Us

 I have no problem eating horsemeat, however, what the recent horsemeat scandal has taught us, is that we can no longer take for granted what we are actually eating or where exactly it is coming from. Not only has this investigation raised questions into both the regulation and traceability of the meat industry in Europe, but it has also highlighted what a globalised and mechanised system the modern food industry is.

Following the discovery by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that Horse DNA was contained within a third of all tested frozen beefburgers and ready meals, a large-scale enquiry was carried out into the origin of these meat products. The enquiry quickly spread to the UK where products such as frozen spaghetti Bolognese sold in supermarkets including Aldi, Tesco and Findus were found to include 100% horsemeat. It was subsequently discovered that the meat supply chain could be traced back through 8 different companies, located in different countries of Europe including Cyprus, Romania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France.

For me, two main aspects have arisen from this scandal. Firstly, in an article written in ‘the Guardian’, it was highlighted that economy beefburgers (cheap, industrialised burgers) are legally allowed to consist of only 47% beef, the remainder made up of protein additives, fat and water (A fact that surely makes the idea of a 100% horsemeat burger suddenly sound a lot more appealing). Secondly, the distance that food is now travelling before it even gets to our plates, a figure that is certainly not decreasing.

In terms of sustainable living, the farm to fork distance is perhaps the most significant aspect that needs to be tackled. In the UK alone, one in four heavy goods vehicles are in fact carrying food. Considering how many tonnes of CO₂ emissions could be saved each year if less food was transported such long distances, it is clear to see the potential this area has for drastically reducing our carbon footprints. In the USA this problem has actually worsened. In 1997, the average distance travelled by food stood at 6760 km. However, by 2004 this figure had increased to 8240 km.

By making a greater effort to source local goods as well as promoting seasonal diets, we can not only radically cut down the distance which our food is travelling, but also ensure that a higher level of traceability and quality is delivered for all food products. This will also help in both augmenting the local economy as well as decreasing our carbon footprint. The problem with this ideal however, is ultimately cost related. Although it is much cheaper for us to consume food products bought in supermarkets, the true environmental cost of this practise is often overlooked. The sad reality is, that when faced with a decision of spending a little extra on a locally sourced, 100% Irish beefburger, we will usually choose the cheaper, lower quality option sourced from far afield, attached with a substantial carbon footprint.

As it is simply not economically viable for many people to source the generally more expensive local or even national goods, the government needs to take a more active role in creating incentives for people to buy local. Unfortunately, the irony is that the government itself lacks the money to fund such programmes. Unless the general population recognises the importance of buying local, it looks likely that our future consuming habits will continue to seek out the cheapest option.

Patrick Moss

Reference: 

Lawrence, F. (2013) Horsemeat scandal: the essential guide. The Guardian. 15^th February. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/15/horsemeat-scandal-the-essential-guide [accessed 02/04/2013]

Next Generation Video Conferencing



Halo Conference Room (image)



Multi-national companies (MNC) account for a large share of anthropogenic carbon emissions. One of the biggest costs associated with these companies both in terms of monetary and carbon costs is due to air travel. Many companies such as Hewlett Packard (HP) have begun “offsetting” their carbon emissions from air travel by donating money to offsetting companies which in turn plant trees and fund sustainability projects. This offsetting strategy is not a long-term solution. Whilst the number of flights is increasing exponentially and with it the carbon emissions, the amount of space available for forestry development and other offsetting measures is decreasing. There are also business related problems with this strategy. MNC’s are primarily interested in making money and any voluntary solution which costs companies money is not going to be widely adopted and successful.

It is out of this desire to save money and time that “telepresence” projects such as Halo which is developed by HP have arisen. Telepresence projects are business-speak for next generation video conferencing technology. The aim of this technology is to re-create a conference board room as accurately as possible. Business people have often claimed the delay and unrealistic nature of normal video conferencing requires that any meeting requiring more than one to one communication be conducted in person. This can mean lengthy flights. Thousands of people travel thousands of miles every day for business meetings be it from New York to Singapore or London to Tokyo. It is with this problem in mind that HP and Dreamwork’s have developed and started installing Halo rooms in their branches around the world including in their buildings in Leixlip here in Ireland. The benefits of the technology include an identical room in both locations to simulate both parties being in one larger room and more importantly a dedicated connection which ensures no time delay exists. Users of the facilities including heads of major companies have said they quickly forgot the people they were speaking with were on the other side of the world.

It is this new immersive experience which gives Halo and other telepresence projects the potential to make a large dent in the 30% of air travel which is accounted for by business trips. It will of course be impossible to remove all business related air travel but with aviation expected to account for between 5-15% of carbon emissions by 2050, new technologies and a different mentality towards air travel in general is desperately required.

Niall Mortimer

Plastic makes the world go round...But can we do without it, when we are buying food?

 Once, I was at the airport at a time too early to be mentioned here. So, there was plenty of time to pass before the buses ran again. I decided to sit down at one of those airport restaurants, which already served breakfast, and I bought an on-site prepared smoothie, which was filled into a tiny, resealable plastic bottle. Of course, an unnecessary wrapping for me, because I finished the smoothie there, and a drinking glass would have done an even better job. Then I thought of how much unnecessary plastic wrapping there is, and how many things I just buy to throw them away again.

Back home, what I did next was to check my fridge for the last grocery purchase, which turned out to contain more plastic than I would have dreamt of, and more than was required. A sinister amount of plastic gathered in my fridge, and suddenly it struck me, why our recycling boxes are always full: not because we are so good at recycling, but because we buy so much waste, because we think that it is convenient to get six plums nicely wrapped up in a plastic basket.

But plastic is more difficult to recycle due to impurity and the mixture of different types of plastic. Therefore it is more likely to be burnt in order to generate energy than it is used to create things. Even worse, it is scarcely reused.  Paper and glass seem to be better wrapping alternatives, because paper is easier and more often recycled than plastic and glass does not lose quality, no matter how often it is recycled.

 That’s why I went down the road to the store and tried to get food without wrapping, or at least with less wrapping which would be easily recyclable. And, oh yes, I was quite successful.

As pictures paint a thousand words, just have a look for yourself.

The difference is striking: The food with less wrapping looks much nicer, and is more appealing to my appetite

There is less unnecessary waste, which does not leave me with a “Big Mac feeling“ of having eaten bad food and having created a lot of waste. Instead, buying food more consciously makes me enjoy my meals much more.

 

Within this comparison, the icecream seemed to be the most controversial. The first coming in a robust plastic box that could be reused, which would have saved me a lot of money on food containers. The latter came in thin cardboard only, not even foil on the inside.

I could replace most of the plastic by paper and glass, although many products can not completely refrain from using plastic. And even if you can not completely refrain from buying things wrapped in plastic, because there are no alternative products, you can reuse some of the plastic boxes, not forgetting to recycle them in the end.

Jasmin Grossmann

Travelling Outside the Box

Ecolodge in Sweden

Image:

http://www.wildsweden.com/accommodation/kolarbyn-ecolodge/

Everyone enjoys getting away from the normality of their lifestyle and visiting somewhere new (and hot for us Irish). However a lot of us are also interested in trying not to have a large carbon footprint. So how do we balance both of these things, so that we can enjoy our summer holidays while not destroying our planet? Eco-tourism may be the answer. This means travelling in a sustainable way.  It is any form of tourism that does not reduce the availability of resources and does not inhibit future travellers from enjoying the same experience. However is this really possible to do, especially with us living on a small island and flying being the major transport option to get anywhere?

In the past 30 years the earth has lost nearly a third of its natural habitat. Aircraft emissions contribute to greenhouse gases and tourism development, in the shape of new hotels and resorts, continues rapidly in environmentally sensitive areas. However all is not lost; the number of travellers taking eco-tourism holidays is growing three times faster than those choosing mainstream trips and is predicted to make up 5 per cent of the global holiday market by 2024, according to the latest research by the tour operator Thomson.

With a bit of effort, we can all become more eco-friendly in our travels. One of the main methods for this is limiting the amount of air and car travel, due to their greenhouse-gas emissions. Although this is not always possible, perhaps we should be trying to travel by ferry, train and bus instead. Along with this, there are an increasing number of exciting companies promoting new eco-friendly ways to holiday.

Eco Tourism Ireland is one such company for those wanting to holiday right on our own soil. Their belief is to actively contribute to the conservation of local biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensure that steps have been taken to minimise impact on local nature and culture. Going further abroad, companies such as Responsible Travel can find you an eco holiday which could include staying in tree houses in the Isle of Wight to living in a tepee in Tasmania. If it interests you even more, perhaps a holiday dedicated to conservation would be right for you, such as working on an organic farm in South Africa or rescuing animals in Ecuador. The options are limitless.

So next time you’re thinking about what you’d like to do for your next holiday, think outside the box rather than going for the usual pool-side holiday in Spain. Do something different, make new, exciting memories and care for the earth.

Sinéad Barrett

Organic food : Is it the sustainable option?

The term organic is often used as an alternative for the concept of sustainable, but is this really true.  There is no doubt that organic food is grown by people who care about the environment and work their land to strict conservation principles , but is it really best for the planet overall?  Organic farming has made an enormous contribution to altering farm practices and raising public awareness, especially in relation to biodiversity and conservation issues. Indeed many of the underlying principles of organic farming are now seen as best practice. So why is organic farming having such a bad time?

Sales of organic food has been falling in recent years and in 2011 it fell 3.7% in the UK alone with the number of producers also declining by a similar amount to just under 7,300.  This is in stark contrast to the ethical trading certification products such as Fairtrade whose have steadily risen over the same period with a 12% increase in 2011.   There are three reasons why people buy organic. The majority believe it is healthier (52% ), next come better animal welfare standards (34%) and a similar number buy organic because they believe it to be a more ethical way of farming (33%).

So what has changed? Quite simply consumers interested in sustainability are using different criteria in buying food such as is it in season, is it local, does it carry an ethical trading label such as fairtrade, and have welfare issues been addressed.  I must admit to being confused at some organic farmers markets where I have been confronted by out of seasonal vegetables, exotic fruit and vegetables that clearly all have large air mile tags attached.  Also authenticity is also another problem, especially with the price premium attached to many of these products sold in such markets.  A carrot looks very much like another, and with it now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that organically grown is not really better than conventionally grown fruit and veg in terms of health or  taste, then we have to reassess the role of organic farming in terms of sustainability and supply the growing demand for food. The oft quoted WHO  estimate that 3 million people are hospitalized annually due to pesticide poisoning has been shown not to be relevant , as the trace pesticide residues found in conventional food, according to the Food Standards Agency in the UK, poses no risk to health.

Welfare of animals is normally higher with certified organic farmers, however there is sometimes a conflict between using proven chemical intervention (e.g. antibiotics , anti-inflammatory drugs and anthelmintics) and maintaining organic status.  In the UK antibiotics are allowed to be used by organic farmers in certain circumstances but largely banned in the US.  Farmers may be in a cleft stick, where necessary chemical intervention on welfare grounds could lose them their organic status.

Is organic farming sustainable? Probably not in terms of being able to  feed an ever increasing global population. Professor John P. Reganold in a recent article in Nature demonstrated that in developed countries organic farmers are achieving up to 20% smaller yields compared to conventional farmers which offset financially by charging a premium for organic produce.  In developing countries most organic fruit and vegetables are exported which brings  severely needed overseas currency into the country, but creating food scarcity within often highly productive areas.

Organic certification standards are excellent in Ireland and the UK but do vary widely between countries and the certification body, some of which may cause significant confusion to the consumer. So very often the consumer is unaware of exactly what they are buying.

So in terms of sustaining and promoting  biodiversity as well as protecting landscapes then organic farming is clearly advantageous over conventional farming, but the majority of farmers are now aware of the importance of these issues are responding by using a broad range of conservation techniques.  In terms of greenhouse gas emissions going the organic route may not be all that it seems. Certainly soil fertility and quality improves under organic regimes, but research carried at Oxford University suggests that while pollution per unit area of land farmed is lower than for conventional farming, it is generally higher per unit of food produced

But the four tenants on which the Soil Association is based i.e.  health, ecology, fairness and care,  are now increasingly at the heart of conventional farming as well.   To this effect the Soil Association are now working with non-organic farmers which appears to be a sensible development for sides of the farming lobby.  So should we buy organic? If it locally sourced and seasonal then it is preferred by me, but cost will always be a factor as is the need to develop farming to meet the challenges of climate change and increased food demand.
Nick Gray

https://twitter.com/Nickgraytcd

Carbon Emissions and Food

The food that you eat and how it is produced is the single largest component in your dinner’s carbon footprint. Up to 30% of European GHG emissions come from the food and drink sector. Firstly I am looking into where I do my weekly shopping. I am writing a shopping list at the start of the week and deciding what I can buy locally, what fair trade items I will buy and what I can grow in my own allotment. All these alternative options will help lower my food miles and therefore GHG emissions.  Buying locally not only lowers emissions, it creates local employment and local economy. It is also important to buy fair trade products to help support the produce of farmers in third world countries. They supply us with out of season fruit, vegetables and flowers as well as coffee and tea. In order to lower my food footprint I also looked into food type, cooking, packaging, disposal and storage.

By eating less red meat and dairy products we can save up to 25%. By reducing red meat intake and replacing it with pork you can significantly reduce your GHG emissions. It is also healthier to reduce your intake of these foods. By planning out what you are going to eat, and either controlling how much you cook or keeping leftovers for the next day you can reduce the amount of waste. Put simply less waste means more food to go around and less demand means lower prices. Reducing the amount you buy, reducing meat and dairy and eating more seasonal foods and recycling waste packaging you will half you GHG emissions for food.

Katie Boyle