[Food] Carbon negative products

[abc]

Because there are only so many trees you can plant before there is no land left to grow crops for food on.....

And once everyone else has sold you their 'carbon credits' - there will be none left to buy.

However - that's a cynical take on it. So good for them in general.

To be fair, there is good reason for cynicism generally. Carbon off setting is dubious at best. I recently learned that some airlines, who charge to offset your flight, are paying landowners not to cut down trees they had no intention of ever cutting down. The airlines are then claiming a carbon credit. Green washing at its worst!

 

[GT49er]

What do you think the livestock eat?

Hint - 80% of crops grown worldwide are used to feed livestock.

Greedy b*****s - time to make them find their own food instead of relying on humans to grow it for them!

 

[AstroSloth]

In that case, there's no need to cut back on meat production. Because 9% of crops are used for biofuels and industry, so that means only 11% are used for feeding people. Abolish biofuels, and we have almost doubled crop production for humans. Problem solved with no meat reduction.

Or as an alternative, stop quoting rubbish figures about crop production. The University of Minnesota (link attached) reckons 36% is used for animal feed. Have you a link for your 80%?

How much of the world's cropland is actually used to grow food?

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

Ah apologies mixed up my numbers as I was basing off memory.

80% of soybeans grown world wide are hard for livestock.

80% of agricultural land is used for livestock despite producing 20% of the calories.

Globally it's 36% for livestock and in the UK 40% of our crops are used for livestock feed.

Which is still a massive waste of resources.

 

[schmunk]

Carbon Negative? Does that mean the ice cream absorbs carbon as you eat it?

By the time you get to the last mouthful it has turned black!

Personally, I'd damn the planet and go for a Cheesy Vanilla...

 

[SUIYHP]

I’ve just eaten a Jude’s ice cream that says it is Carbon Negative.

Why doesn’t all governments just mass produce these and job done?

Swimming in ice cream.

They’d be a fool by making the world a little colder.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I’ve just eaten a Jude’s ice cream that says it is Carbon Negative.

Why doesn’t all governments just mass produce these and job done?

Swimming in ice cream.

Is it just the production that is claimed to be carbon negative? or do they account for the carbon produced during transportation (including manufacture of vehicles and infrastructure required to carry this out, even if the vehicle was electric) and the carbon production through maintaining temperature controlled storage through production, transportation, shop storage, and finally home storage until eaten? Easy to make claims like this which in truth can be pretty meaningless when examined closely

 

[abc]

Ah apologies mixed up my numbers as I was basing off memory.

80% of soybeans grown world wide are hard for livestock.

80% of agricultural land is used for livestock despite producing 20% of the calories.

Globally it's 36% for livestock and in the UK 40% of our crops are used for livestock feed.

Which is still a massive waste of resources.

Still very misleading as the vast majority of land globally used for livestock is pasture land and is not suitable for growing crops. Where grass is grown on croppable land, it tends to form a rotation that makes the growing of crops sustainable and possible.

Furthermore one of the biggest threat to global food production soil loss due to erosion - an incredible 75 billion tons annually and this is all from arable land. Grassland protects the soil, growing crops does not. However a balanced rotation of both grass and crops also works.

Finally, grassland is a massive carbon sink and trying to grow crops on it would be an unmitigated disaster for climate change.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ah apologies mixed up my numbers as I was basing off memory.

80% of soybeans grown world wide are hard for livestock.

80% of agricultural land is used for livestock despite producing 20% of the calories.

Globally it's 36% for livestock and in the UK 40% of our crops are used for livestock feed.

Which is still a massive waste of resources.

i thought thats what was likely. about the 80% land use, that counts vast tracts of land without any other use - its grasslands, hillsides etc. other numbers are dubious probably from similar misleading info that doesn't stand up to cross referencing. total world wide production of crops is about 9.6 billion tons, that used for livestock about 1 billion. so where does "globally 36% for livestock" come from? some subset of crops we'd have to dig in to data to find (probably cereals, which are about 30% total crops). effects of meat are not nearly as bad as made out.

positive thing about meat is its very good for providing protein, not so much calories - we eat cereals and sugar direct for that. if you want 30g of protein its much nicer as 100g of steak or chicken, than 400g of lentils and beans.