[MoreEndotte]

Offal. The word is enough to turn stomachs. But only a generation ago, it was a staple on many Australian dinner tables.

More...

[sniskelsowwef]

I'm thinking that whole article could usefully be copied into here ... to make discussion ön topic"easier.
Here's a taste ...

"According to environmental group Do Something, "Paddock to plate" calculations by the UK's Waste and Resources Action Program calculated that one ton of edible waste produces 3.8 tons of equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Australians throw out 4.45 million tons of food each year. They say this is equivalent to 16.9 million tons of CO2.

Another study (pdf) conducted for the South Australian EPA found that 315 tonnes of chicken waste is thrown out each week. This converts to roughly 80 tonnes of CO2 per week — just from chickens, just in SA."

[OGOGOogoloshennya]

I'm thinking that whole article could usefully be copied into here ... to make discussion ön topic"easier.
Here's a taste ...

"According to environmental group Do Something, "Paddock to plate" calculations by the UK's Waste and Resources Action Program calculated that one ton of edible waste produces 3.8 tons of equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Hmm. Looks like rubbery figures going on. So what happens if all that so called waste is eaten? The resulting methane from the humans still goes into the atmosphere surely. The whole thing is a cycle. Ruminants eat grass we eat the ruminants. The carbon cycles from atmosphere to grass to ruminant to consumer to atmosphere and round we go. This obsession with CO2 equivalents from waste food ignores this cyclic nature. So whether the food is eaten or composts is almost irrelevant from a CO2 point of view.

Now digging up ancient sequestered carbon and blowing that into the atmosphere is another matter.

If the only justification for eating offal is AGW then the argument is lost. Thankfully the article does deal with actual facts like vitamins but the obsession with low fat isn't helping to convince me either.

[sniskelsowwef]

Hmm. Looks like rubbery figures going on. So what happens if all that so called waste is eaten? The resulting methane from the humans still goes into the atmosphere surely. The whole thing is a cycle. Ruminants eat grass we eat the ruminants. The carbon cycles from atmosphere to grass to ruminant to consumer to atmosphere and round we go. This obsession with CO2 equivalents from waste food ignores this cyclic nature. So whether the food is eaten or composts is almost irrelevant from a CO2 point of view.

Now digging up ancient sequestered carbon and blowing that into the atmosphere is another matter.

If the only justification for eating offal is AGW then the argument is lost. Thankfully the article does deal with actual facts like vitamins but the obsession with low fat isn't helping to convince me either.

Damn! I so wanted it to be "correct"!

otoh, if that which is thrown away could have been food (and economical food?) then more production is needed to replace what we have chosen not to eat.
How does that figure in your case?

[OGOGOogoloshennya]

Damn! I so wanted it to be "correct"!

otoh, if that which is thrown away could have been food (and economical food?) then more production is needed to replace what we have chosen not to eat.
How does that figure in your case?

I don't know if it makes any significant difference. The extra fossil fuels used to grow the extra food is possibly offset by the less fuel used to take waste to the tip or compost on site compared to delivery of the food to city markets and on to the consumer. I suspect it is insignificant- certainly not the figures quoted which just focus on part of the cycle.

To me the difference is about fossil fuel use not the fairly closed cycle of carbon through the food chain. I do endorse the idea of not wasting for other reasons, just not this particular argument.

[sniskelsowwef]

*sigh*

You are making too much sense for me this morning .. I'll come back later when my brain is addled and see if I can twist it to what I want.