Essay by Eric Worrall
A global green campaign is in progress to reduce farm acreage and eliminate food waste, to prevent climate change and over-exploitation of natural resources.
We’ve overexploited the planet, now we need to change if we’re to survive
Patrick Vallance
Fri 8 Jul 2022 21.30 AESTAddressing the twin challenges of carbon emissions and biodiversity loss requires political will and leadership. Ambitious commitments must be made
The relationship between humans and nature is under intense and increasing strain. The report released today by Ipbes, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (akin to the IPCC reports on climate change), provides compelling evidence that humans are overexploiting wild species and habitats. Harmful activities, including habitat destruction, poor farming practices and pollution, have altered ecosystems significantly, driving many species past the point of recovery. In Great Britain alone, of the 8,431 species assessed in the 2019 State of Nature report, 1,188 are threatened with extinction. Globally, there are an estimated one million at risk, with biodiversity declining at a faster rate than at any time in human history.
…
The climate crisis is exacerbating the issue. Many species simply cannot adapt to the scale and pace of changing temperatures. For example, warming seas and ocean acidification are devastating coral reefs around the world. This year, the Great Barrier Reef suffered its sixth mass bleaching event since 1998 with more than 90% of reefs affected. In many cases, when an ecosystem loses biodiversity, it becomes less able to store carbon, contributing to further climate change. We have a vicious cycle: climate change leads to biodiversity losses, which in turn leads to further climate change. As governments around the world develop plans to reduce carbon emissions and conserve biodiversity, the message is simple: we must solve both problems together.
…
There are also simple day-to-day things we can do to benefit our environment; for instance, reducing food waste. Currently about 30% of all food produced globally goes uneaten, meaning a significant proportion of the resources, and importantly the land used to grow, process, pack and transport it, is wasted and less able to support biodiversity.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/08/climate-crisis-biodiversity-decline-overexploited-planet-change-to-survive-aoe
Some greens have been pretty explicit about what they expect from us, with a proposal to genetically engineer gut flora, so people can metabolise and enjoy the taste of completely rotten food.
The UN spells out their expectations, in their food waste FAQ.
Key messages
- There is never room for food loss and waste!
- Reducing food loss and waste, provides a powerful means to strengthen the sustainability of our food systems and improve planetary health.
- Increasing the efficiency of our food systems and reducing food loss and waste, necessitates investment in innovation, technologies and infrastructure.
- Recovery and redistribution make good use of surplus food and contribute to improving access to food for the food insecure, preventing food waste and ensuring economic, environmental and social benefits.
- Diverting food waste to composting is better than sending it to a landfill, but preventing food from being wasted in the first place is an even better way to lessen the impact on the environment.
- Realising and maximising the positive impacts of reducing food loss and waste, requires good governance and human capital development, as well as collaboration and partnerships.
Read more: https://www.fao.org/international-day-awareness-food-loss-waste/en/
I believe it is no coincidence that the Dutch government is attempting to force a 30% reduction in lifestock. The Dutch are completely serious about implementing this green madness, they have no hesitation confronting farmers with lethal force when the farmers object to the deliberate financial destruction of their businesses. Maybe they figure that when food production is reduced, they won’t need so many farmers.
Once arable farmland and our food supply has been cut, my guess is politicians will explain its our fault if we go hungry. We should have listened when they told us to reduce our food waste to zero. Maybe they’ll help us out, and offer us some of those genetically engineered gut bacteria, so we can don’t have to discard the mouldy bits.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would like to have the authors of the piece defining “food waste” when all the greens and “environmentalists” push agricultural production to NOT USE fungicides and insecticides that would prevent food spoilage… Am I missing something of this story?
The only time when food is wasted is when it is burned.
No matter how scientifically elegant, technically-clever or well intentioned.
No matter how ‘wasted’ it is. as long as it’s taken back to the place (or somewhere similar) that it grew in the first place – it would actually do a genuine power of climatic good
Uno me, uno y
Eat rotten food, those art students are a bundle of joy aren’t they not.
There is no real reason why not, when the stuff gets into our stomachs that is pretty well what happens to it, viscously and variously dismantled by bacteria.
Digestion is = High Speed Rotting
Where wasted/rotten food goes wrong is when, as is always the case, fungi and yeasts are doing the rotting. Maybe even a few virus get in on the act.
And they use some truly insane, ugly and desperately toxic chemistry to do so.
If something tastes bad, it is bad. period
That is in fact why we have such senses in the first place.
PS How many centuries late is this muppet with his ‘inhaler’ thing to purify bad food.
It is in fact what the ‘Born with a silver spoon in your mouth‘ was all about
My understanding of that was, yes maybe you need to be rich and well-to-do to own any silver spoons but primarily it alluded to the fact/observation that you had unusually good health
Silver being an extremely potent bactericide, just on cantact, so that if you as a baby were being fed with anything ‘a bit off’ – the silver spoon/cutlery sterilised it for you.
You would also ingest some tiny amount of silver with each meal and it would work inside you as a bactericide.
Contemporary health freaks and nuts now rave endlessly about Colloidal Silver
(Ask NASA about Silver, it’s how the keep Space Stations clean)
Modern people are much more intelligent – they eat Glyphosate to do their sterilising.
Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Well, nothing much like autism, dementia and covid.
Apart from them, everything’s hunky dory.
The US FDA says over-the-counter drugs and supplements containing colloidal silver or silver salts aren’t safe and effective. Silver has no known benefits when swallowed and isn’t essential to the human body. Eating silver will turn your skin to blue/grey, and the color change is permanent. It’s a condition called argyria.
If Peta recommends something it’s probably bad. Don’t do anything he recommends without doing some sane research first.
Are you highly concerned about the fate of the earth because of what humans are doing to it?
Then I suggest you eliminate yourself quickly in order to be true to your beliefs.
I’d also suggest that any effort to keep humans alive as long as possible is misguided and should not be supported. Avoid immunization, smoke, drink, do illegal drugs and engage in risky behavior as much as possible. The bane of the Earth is humans and we need less of them, so stop prolonging your existence here. Stop being hypocritical and do something fatal that actually will be a benefit to the earth.
My alma mater has a food science program. They recently sent an email blast proclaiming the following:
Yikes. They don’t provide a source for these figures, but I guess the idea is to get people to click on the link they provide to check out their program.
The authors have never gone hungry. I would like to see them explain to poor people in Pakistan or India why they should starve.
What food waste? The pictured punnet of peaches perfectly depicts the carbon cycle in action. Bacteria are breaking the peaches down into CO2 and water ready for the next generation of plants to feed on. The planet doesn’t care whether this happens in your stomach or in the open air. What have you got against bacteria?
#BacteriaLivesMatter
Eric,
What exactly is wrong with a “global green campaign … to reduce farm acreage and eliminate food waste, to prevent climate change and over-exploitation of natural resources”?
Currently about 1/3 of the food wasted is because people buy food that they don’t eat. While a significant fraction of the rest is because supermarkets will not buy “ugly” fruit and vegetables meaning that farmers have to leave their crops to rot. Stopping this would not only save money for consumers since they would not leave food to rot in their fridges but also provide more money for farmers since more of their crops would be sold. In addition reducing the amount of food wasted could enable less land to be farmed leaving more land for wildlife. There does not appear to be any significant downside to reducing food waste.
Food is not distributed evenly. People in some parts of the world have too little to eat, while others have more than enough. The countries with more than enough tend to export food, which helps those with less. Forcibly reducing food production, even in countries with more than enough, will do most harm to those who already don’t have enough. This “global green campaign” is misdirected. Instead of trying to cut the production of food, it would be better to try to improve farm productivity in impoverished areas – including the supply of equipment and the fuel to run it and of fertilisers and of improved seed varieties – and to try to improve the distribution of food.
You make some valid points Izaak.
Nevertheless, my main concern is calling it a –
“global GREEN campaign … to reduce farm acreage and eliminate food waste, TO PREVENT CLIMATE CHANGE and over-exploitation of natural resources”
Firstly, the “GREEN” word should be dropped.
Everyone by now knows that anything touted as “Green” never works properly.
Secondly, the “PREVENT CLIMATE CHANGE” reference should also be dropped.
Survey after survey, poll after poll reveals that the vast majority of ordinary people won’t pay or do anything that impacts their daily living options in the hope of goldilocks weather conditions for ever more.
The problem with eliminating surplus is the risk of undershooting the target. Zero surplus is zero margin for contingency or error. Wasted food is better than people going hungry.
Look how well “just in time supply” has been going lately
Yes but at the moment there is wasted food and people going hungry. Worst of all possible worlds.
A good part of the reason for that is that food is too expensive, not that it is impossible to obtain. I suggest increasing food production is a better way to address food unaffordability, than further tightening supply.
Remind me of when in history some people haven’t been starving?
Also, do you have anything showing change over time of what percentage of the population has been starving? Although the number seems to increase, I’m pretty sure as a percentage, the numbers have been going down.
“ There does not appear to be any significant downside to reducing food waste.”
You are almost as dumb as Simon…geez.
“Our food systems….”)
What’s this “our” business?
Time for torches and pitchforks, the leftists need to be dragged thru the streets.
Yikes! More stupid stuff from the climate religious cultists. Getting really tired of hearing about it. And seeing the really dumb politicians pulling strings to follow the dictates of the cult ideology.
Time for revolts, yet?
Famines are caused by bad government policy. The governments of the developed world are now working to create famines. Insane.
More mindless gibberish from evil green fools and their political, administrative and bureaucrat accomplices.
There is no ‘climate crisis’.
There wasn’t one but there is now; caused by the attempts to fix what ain’t broke.
Food waste and biodiversity loss are real major problems. Man-made climate change, not so much!
Biodiversity loss is a real major problem? Really?
Provide a link to ANYTHING scientific that shows the level of “biodiversity loss” is a “major” problem.
And food waste is only a major problem for those starving and MOST of those who are starving are NOT starving due to food waste but due to government incompetence and/or obstruction of the operation of the free market/free enterprise. See Sri Lanka as an example of THAT.
In the socialist utopia of Venezuela, people regularly eat of garbage cans just to avoid starvation. That is the goal, after all. Prime steak for them twice daily, half-eaten rotten leftovers for everyone else. They told us that we will own nothing, they never said that they would own nothing.
In the old days our lords and betters ate on a platter of bread. The bread soaked in meat juices was then distributed to the peasants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trencher_(tableware)
As a child I always loved blood bread when we ate rare roasts or steaks.
Diabetic now, so I have cut back on the bread, not the steaks.
This is part of a sinister form of economics that Marxist hide behind called Ecological Economics. I was interested in Steady State Economics at Uni, as it seemed to offer the nirvania economy. It’s not until you get into it you realise it’s not only utterly implausible but straight out Marxism.
Source Wikipedia. Since the 1970s, the concept of a steady-state economy has been associated mainly with the work of leading ecological economist Herman Daly. As Daly’s concept of a steady-state includes the ecological analysis of natural resource flows through the economy, his concept differs from the original classical concept of a stationary state. One other difference is that Daly recommends immediate political action to establish the steady-state economy by imposing permanent government restrictions on all resource use
What a freak. Some people just can’t get their heads around the concept of a self organised system which does not require the expertise of people like Herman to function.
Yeah I think Herman would be better off in Russia or China. Problem is he is a emeritus professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, College Park in the United States. And we worry about gender studies, this is way worse.
Yep, when the weather is good, till in the excess production, when the weather is bad, people starve because there is no excess from the good years.
Steady-state economy? How does that work with psychotic government responses like China Virus lockdowns?
I guess if you go with 5 year plans and average outputs, everything will average out, but our betters will get the “average” every year, the peons will get whatever is left over.
Farming directives from people that have probably never seen a farm in their entire life. Abject stupidity.🙄🤦♂️
Don’t forget this aspect
Baxter Black’s “AARP” poem about recycling roadkill – I can’t find the words on line but it ends –
“So make it a habit to pick up your rabbit
It’s tacky to just hit and run”
But doesn’t go this far –
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/79206/latest-internet-trend-is-to-eat-raw-decomposed-rotten-high-meat/index.html
In the UK it is illegal to pick up roadkill from someone elses property – on public roads it’s illegal to pick up any animal that you have run over yourself but you can pick it up if someone else has run it over.
“I believe it is no coincidence that the Dutch government is attempting to force a 30% reduction in lifestock. The Dutch are completely serious about implementing this green madness”
It is rather stupid what the Dutch government is doing. The number of people on this planet is growing. They all need food. The Dutch farmers (livestock and crops) have managed to get the highest output per hectare. While increasing this output, they have also decreased the impact on their surroundings (emissions, runoff, smell, noise, …) . E.g. Dutch cattle farms have reduced their NH3 emission (THE compound that the Dutch government is so keen on controlling) from 330 kton in the early 90’s to 120 kton in the last few years. They are the ‘cleanest’ farms in the world. The Dutch government (and others) should embrace this and tell others how to run this effectively.
Once they do this the rest of the world needs to close their borders to import of foodstuffs, let them live with their election choices.
I am sure the pols and the FDA will b e more than happy to instruct us on how to propogate edible bugs and other fine morsels.
This person is absolutely bonkers. Why do these people get their ideas published? Everyone beware, No farmers, no food. It’s that simple.
Some years back there was a cartoon saying
“Don’t criticise farmers with your mouth full”
Nonsense!
Spun into wholesale specious claims without evidence. Counting upon people feeling guilty for things they do not understand.
“A global green campaign’s in progress to reduce farm acreage & eliminate food waste to prevent climate change & over-exploitation of natural resources” TRANSLATION: WE own all resources in the world & you “useless eaters” can’t have any of it. Euthanasia, anyone? If not, we’ve got genocide for you. So don’t worry, be happy. We’re always here to make “equity” & “diversity” our priority. Just remember, YOU must share what you have because we’re the shareholders, not you!
So it’s ok to genetically engineer “gut flora” but not to genetically engineer the plants we eat?
If a walnut falls in the woods and no one ate it, was it wasted?
Why does this remind me that clip of AOC where doesn’t know what a garbage disposal is? As I recall she made a comment wondering if it was ecologically sound or something like that.
Hey! AOC! Whether you eat then flush it or skip the eating part, it goes to the same place where it is broken down via “natural” processes. (Whether you have GMO gut flora or not.)