Homegrown food has 5 times higher carbon footprint (Survival Lilly)

[C C]

PREVIOUS INSTALLMENT: Warning about natural spring water

---

SURVIVAL LILLY
https://youtu.be/2AgJtUB3u94

VIDEO EXCERPT: Today I want to show you an article that is really making my blood boil. About how homegrown food has a higher carbon footprint than conventionally grown food. The study found individual garden infrastructure responsible for increased levels of CO2. Come on, really? Is this a joke or something? So I'm not sure how they conducted the study and got these outrageous figures. [...] Reading through the article, they make one outrageous statement after another...

This makes my blood boil

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/2AgJtUB3u94

[confused2]

I'm afraid I'm probably one letting the homegrowing food side down. I've not had much success with it and Mrs C2 has asked me not to try again. We have a resident pear tree that produces about 40 ripe pears on pear day. We don't like pears. We moved in at the same time as Covid so the neighbours see us as plague carriers and we can't even give the pears away.

[Zinjanthropos]

they make one outrageous statement after another

Whoa! SL nice gal but I think she, like most of us, isn’t immune from the above.

Lumberjack shirt…She out cutting down trees or planting them. Wearing that shirt could be construed as in favour the timber industry. This may make her blood boil also…..

From wiki: logging our public forests to make wood products resulted in approximately 13 times more carbon emissions than carbon storage. For every ton of carbon in wood products, there are 13 tons emitted to the atmosphere.

[geordief]

Not looked at the vid but it may make sense.

Homegrown veg growers are known to be much more prolific in over using pesticides on their crops.



Similarly those living in the country are more likely to have a high carbon footprint than city dwellers (possibly counter intuitive to those hoping to "get away from all that pollution"

Turns out the city dwellers are the saints when it comes to preserving the planet in some kind of livable order.

I do live in the country and grow my own veg.

A semi guilty feeling and not a bit smug-but I hate cities and always have.

[confused2]

From wiki: logging our public forests to make wood products resulted in approximately 13 times more carbon emissions than carbon storage. For every ton of carbon in wood products, there are 13 tons emitted to the atmosphere.

Plants and trees only get carbon from the atmosphere - even if you burn them you can only put back as much carbon as what they took from the atmosphere to make the plant and or wood material. The only way plants and trees can actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere is if they are buried in something like the way coal seams were created.
Wood and stone are the only 'carbon neutral' building materials. Conveniently ignoring all the pick-up trucks and packed lunches that inevitably accompany any form of construction.

[Zinjanthropos]

From wiki: logging our public forests to make wood products resulted in approximately 13 times more carbon emissions than carbon storage. For every ton of carbon in wood products, there are 13 tons emitted to the atmosphere.

Plants and trees only get carbon from the atmosphere - even if you burn them you can only put back as much carbon as what they took from the atmosphere to make the plant and or wood material. The only way plants and trees can actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere is if they are buried in something like the way coal seams were created.
Wood and stone are the only 'carbon neutral' building materials. Conveniently ignoring all the pick-up trucks and packed lunches that inevitably accompany any form of construction.

I didn’t write this:

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-s...%20Nature.

Just a footprint which I think includes everything associated with whatever you’re singling out.

[confused2]

Here's an AI (Pi) take on what modern forests are up to.. the only carbon stored is in the trees themselves .. it isn't permanently removed the way it was 300 million years ago,

Modern forests, including those like the Amazon, are not laying down carbon-rich deposits in the same way that the ancient forests did.
As you correctly pointed out, the modern forests, like the Amazon, have a very thin soil layer. This is because the rate at which the plants in these forests absorb carbon dioxide is roughly equal to the rate at which carbon is released back into the atmosphere through plant and animal respiration and decomposition.
In contrast, during the Carboniferous period (around 300-360 million years ago), the conditions were just right for forests to form vast deposits of coal. This was due to a combination of factors, including:
Abundant plant life: During the Carboniferous period, there was a huge diversity of tree-like plants, which spread rapidly over the Earth's surface.
Limited decomposers: Back then, there were few organisms that could break down lignin, a key component of woody plants. This meant that the carbon-rich remains of these plants were more likely to become buried and compressed into coal.

So modern trees only store carbon for the life of the tree .. cutting a tree down and using it to build a house .. the carbon is stored in the house and you grow a new tree. Unfortunately most (maybe 95%) of the timber cut down gets burned so you need more and more forest to increase the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. OR grow the type of plant that can lay down carbon permanently like peat bogs do even now.