
​Organic food worse for the climate - huntermeyer
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/chalmers/pressreleases/organic-food-worse-for-the-climate-2813280
======
symlock
This headline is incorrect for how little is actually measured in this study.
It's like staying that rammed earth houses are bad for the environment because
they use more dirt that otherwise might be growing plants - so everyone should
build with lumber instead.

They invented a new metric called "Carbon Opportunity Cost" and only looked at
one thing: some types of organic farming require more land area which _might_
be otherwise left for forest.

There are so many things that go into farming and a true evaluation of
"climate" impact. Synthetic chemical production, environmental contamination,
soil depletion, shipping, chemical runoff, farming equipment production and
emissions, etc...

Even the researcher understands this: "The type of food is often much more
important. For example, eating organic beans or organic chicken is much better
for the climate than to eat conventionally produced beef"

~~~
techbio
> "The type of food is often much more important. For example, eating organic
> beans or organic chicken is much better for the climate than to eat
> conventionally produced beef"

There's something strange about that quote, maybe a PR sound? I imagine
_conventionally_ produced beans and chicken would have less impact than
_organic_ beef as well.

------
jefflombardjr
Well yeah, factory farmed monoculture anything is worse for the environment -
organic or not... time to plug permaculture once again:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture)

Anyone interested in learning more - this is a great free introduction:
[https://open.oregonstate.edu/courses/permaculture/](https://open.oregonstate.edu/courses/permaculture/)

~~~
toasterlovin
It’s worse for the environment except the part where it feeds the same amount
of people using less resources.

~~~
FlyMoreRockets
It seems you have not researched permaculture. It uses very little resources
compared to common industrial agriculture.

Edit: the article makes the argument that organic farming leads to increased
deforestation. Permaculture incorporates trees into the production cycle.

~~~
toasterlovin
Look, no offense, but I'm going to trust the ruthless profit seeking motive of
industrial-scale farmers, _who are not pursuing permaculture_ , over the
postings of internet denizens who've read some blog posts.

~~~
FlyMoreRockets
Look, no offense, but I'm growing most of my family's food using permaculture
techniques and selling the surplus at the local farmer's market. Just like my
parents did before me and my grandparents did before them. I'm not just some
internet denizen who has read some blog posts. Just because it wasn't called
permaculture until Bill Mollison published his "Permaculture Manual" in 1988
doesn't mean farmers haven't used many of these principles for a very long
time. In fact, this is how stable, complex natural ecosystems actually work.

~~~
FlyMoreRockets
As for my effective hourly rate, I haven't bothered. The peace of mind and
food security alone is priceless, not to mention the health benefits of
getting out and playing in the dirt.

I spend on average, around an hour in the garden a day. The property was badly
eroded range land when I began. The soil was basically sand. Through careful
management, I have built a significant amount of humus through carbon
sequestration, composting, mulching and no-till techniques.

------
mark_l_watson
Sure, the article makes a good point on land use, but two things bother me
here: 1) I think that people who favor organic food tend to eat less meat or
are vegetarians or vegans. Don;t forget that a predominantly meat diet uses an
order of magnitude more energy and water compared to vegetarian. 2) I think
people should have the personal freedom to decide on organic vs. non-organic
and on whether they eat meat. However, I dislike the huge US government
subsidies for meat production: people should pay the real production costs for
meat (I eat meat sometimes, full disclosure).

~~~
dagw
_Don 't forget that a predominantly meat diet uses an order of magnitude more
energy and water compared to vegetarian._

The articles does cover that as aspect well

“The type of food is often much more important. For example, eating organic
beans or organic chicken is much better for the climate than to eat
conventionally produced beef,”

------
FlyMoreRockets
The article states "...organic food is so much worse for the climate is that
the yields per hectare are much lower, primarily because fertilisers are not
used." It uses this metric to assume organic agriculture increases
deforestation and is thus worse for the environment.

The flaw in this reasoning? Fertilizer manufacture is responsible for the
majority of our current atmospheric CO2 emissions.

------
rini17
Completely ignores unsustainable soil depletion, groundwater depletion and
pollution, carbon emissions to run machines and manufacture chemicals,
etc.etc.

