Another Cannot Make This Up: Urban Gardens Worse for the Environment

664 Views | 14 Replies | Last: 12 days ago by historian
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/22/carbon-footprint-homegrown-food-allotment-increase/

Growing your own food in an allotment may not be as good for the environment as expected, a study suggests.

The carbon footprint of homegrown foods is five times greater than produce from conventional agricultural practices, such as rural farms, data show.

A study from the University of Michigan looked at how much CO2 was produced when growing food in different types of urban farms and found that, on average, a serving of food made from traditional farms creates 0.07kg of CO2.

The impact on the environment is almost five times higher at 0.34kg per portion for individual gardens, such as vegetable patches or allotments.
The majority of the emissions do not come from the growing of the food themselves, the scientists say, but from the infrastructure needed to allow the food to be grown.

Researchers grouped urban agriculture sites into three categories: individual or family gardens, including allotments; collective gardens, such as community gardens; and larger, commercial-orientated urban farms.

Jake Hawes, a PhD candidate at Michigan and first author of the study, said: "The most significant contributor to carbon emissions on the urban agriculture sites we studied was the infrastructure used to grow the food from raised beds to garden sheds to pathways, these constructions had a lot of carbon invested in their construction.

"Poorly managed compost and other synthetic inputs can also be important contributors, though they were not the majority on most of our sites."
Married A Horn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/22/carbon-footprint-homegrown-food-allotment-increase/

Growing your own food in an allotment may not be as good for the environment as expected, a study suggests.

The carbon footprint of homegrown foods is five times greater than produce from conventional agricultural practices, such as rural farms, data show.

A study from the University of Michigan looked at how much CO2 was produced when growing food in different types of urban farms and found that, on average, a serving of food made from traditional farms creates 0.07kg of CO2.

The impact on the environment is almost five times higher at 0.34kg per portion for individual gardens, such as vegetable patches or allotments.
The majority of the emissions do not come from the growing of the food themselves, the scientists say, but from the infrastructure needed to allow the food to be grown.

Researchers grouped urban agriculture sites into three categories: individual or family gardens, including allotments; collective gardens, such as community gardens; and larger, commercial-orientated urban farms.

Jake Hawes, a PhD candidate at Michigan and first author of the study, said: "The most significant contributor to carbon emissions on the urban agriculture sites we studied was the infrastructure used to grow the food from raised beds to garden sheds to pathways, these constructions had a lot of carbon invested in their construction.

"Poorly managed compost and other synthetic inputs can also be important contributors, though they were not the majority on most of our sites."


I rate his research a big F. Screw that garbage.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Urban parks and Trees are what they should be doing in cities and suburban areas

Not trying to farm

If it's not good the environment it's at least a waste of money, land, and fertilizer
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Hey don't grow your own food because massive corporate produce companies will lose money"
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
American urban liberals would do better to try and make their large cities beautiful…instead of wasting their time trying to farm


KaiBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Living is bad for the environment.

Dying is bad for the environment.

The environment is bad for the environment.

Spending 4 years as an undergraduate, 2 years working on a Masters, and 3 years searching for one's PhD dissertation with the end goal of working for the federal government…….

is wonderful for the environment.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Married A Horn said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/22/carbon-footprint-homegrown-food-allotment-increase/

Growing your own food in an allotment may not be as good for the environment as expected, a study suggests.

The carbon footprint of homegrown foods is five times greater than produce from conventional agricultural practices, such as rural farms, data show.

A study from the University of Michigan looked at how much CO2 was produced when growing food in different types of urban farms and found that, on average, a serving of food made from traditional farms creates 0.07kg of CO2.

The impact on the environment is almost five times higher at 0.34kg per portion for individual gardens, such as vegetable patches or allotments.
The majority of the emissions do not come from the growing of the food themselves, the scientists say, but from the infrastructure needed to allow the food to be grown.

Researchers grouped urban agriculture sites into three categories: individual or family gardens, including allotments; collective gardens, such as community gardens; and larger, commercial-orientated urban farms.

Jake Hawes, a PhD candidate at Michigan and first author of the study, said: "The most significant contributor to carbon emissions on the urban agriculture sites we studied was the infrastructure used to grow the food from raised beds to garden sheds to pathways, these constructions had a lot of carbon invested in their construction.

"Poorly managed compost and other synthetic inputs can also be important contributors, though they were not the majority on most of our sites."


I rate his research a big F. Screw that garbage.
I'm always a skeptical of these kinds of studies ... but it's funny that another example of stupid **** regressives do to "save the planet" that make it worse ... like coal-powered cars.
geewago
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've been trying to tell y'all you need to buy a ranch in Greenland. Get it now before it gets hot. It's the next frontier. Within a hundred years Florida will have penguins standing on the coastlines diving into the frigid waters. Meanwhile back on the ranch in Greenland corn will be 15 feet tall.
OsoCoreyell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Meanwhile, a single coal-fired plant that is being built in Burma will produce more carbon emissions in one month than all of the home gardening in all of the United States produces in a year. The modern environmental movement as preached by world academics and European technocrats is not focused on practical solutions; It is researched and applied as a moral proposition, i.e. the reduction of carbon emissions is its own good and need not be justified by costs or overall impacts since it is to be evaluated on its morality rather than its impact.

This is how you get the de-industrialization of Western Europe in exchange for meaningless reductions in carbon emissions.
Married A Horn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Right. Just another attempt to defeat and bring down the United States of America.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
People without morality boasting about their supposed moral superiority!

Arrogance is always destructive.
And it's immoral.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In all seriousness, the theme through all of this is that what the experts tell you to do is only making things worse.

First of all, climate change is barely impacted by humanity: a single volcanic eruption will undo anything the U.S. can do. Second, nothing we do in the short-term will have an impact. If U.S. carbon went to zero tomorrow, it would reduce global temperatures by maybe one degree in 100 years.

Second, nothing we do in the West will overcome the massive carbon growth of India, China, and other developing nations. So all of this is either at best virtue signaling and at worst absolute grift for special interest groups.

Third, we need to stop with the global climate change bull**** and focus on local things: clean air, clean water, clean soil, etc. Those have exponentially more impact on global warming / cooling than all this other bull*****

Finally, everything they tell you do do are net worse for the environment. Electric Vehicles are far worse for the environment than gasoline or Diesel engines. If we really were serious, we would focus on plant-based Diesel Bio-Willie style. This "urban farm" is just another example of how "experts" are lying to us.

Last but not least, the globalist authoritarians absolutely will use global warming / cooling to enforce social control over what you drive, what you eat, how many kids you have, where you can travel, etc. It is pure social control like all authoritarian states: the rich in the Capital will live on steak and champagne while the normies in the provinces will eat bugs and water.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Married A Horn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:



You're taking it a little too far. It wasn't 100% fake: The Kickbacks were real.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's the only real part!
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.