Author |
Message |
Frankfast
| Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 04:32 pm: |
|
According to a book by Michael Pollan, "Omnivore's Dilemma", the food industry burns nearly a fifth of all petroleum consumed in the U.S. (as much as automobiles). A fifth of that is consumed on the farm while the rest is used in processing and distribution. In other words it takes between seven to ten calories of fossil fuel energy to deliver one calorie of food to your plate. We need to go on a diet. |
Mortarmanmike120
| Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 04:53 pm: |
|
Is that why I have gas??? |
Frankfast
| Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 05:48 pm: |
|
Maybe you need to recycle it. |
Rainman
| Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 06:47 pm: |
|
I was in the grocery store today and saw a package of "recycled toilet paper". I kid you not. Something like 60 percent "post consumer content." Now that's disturbing. |
Mortarmanmike120
| Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 12:33 am: |
|
If I could figure out a way to recycle it, I'd be rich!! Free energy for everybody!! |
Ryker77
| Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 05:05 pm: |
|
One word "wal-mart" .. Not just wal-mart but most grocery chain stores do not care to purchase "food" grown locally. Instead they are just a logistic type operation. Also "America" has become more global and less local. So that people in the South can eat crab and lobster instead of whitetail deer and chickem. |
Rainman
| Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 05:08 pm: |
|
Crab and lobster? Shrimp? Man, if I saw those things crawling across my carpet I'd have Orkin on speed-dial. The last damn thing I would think of would be grabbing them, putting them in a pot of boiling water and eating them with ketchup and horseradish. They're freaking sea bugs! I wear a full-face helmet so I have to eat no bugs. Eewwwwww! |
Aesquire
| Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 06:23 pm: |
|
The price of strawberries out of season is transport costs. Part of that cost is burning oil. Part of the cost of a free society is having to put up with communist plots to subvert western civilization. Like the ongoing guilt tripping over our wealth. Some of which IS deserved. Don't worry, the new thing is from the vegetable people, ( I don't think I have that right? ) who are blaming global warming on cow flatulence, and wish us to give up meat. For our own good of course. I have not heard if they wish to slaughter ALL the cows, pigs, sheep, etc. and bury them in a undersea subduction zone to sequester the carbon. I wonder if the terrorists at PETA have a plan to adopt, then kill and eat all the steaks? ( as they adopt, then kill the cats' & dogs they take from animal shelters ) Inquiring minds want to know. |
Frankfast
| Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 07:30 pm: |
|
I didn't think that pointing out how inefficient our industrialization of food production is would end up involving politics, but I guess there is a commie hiding behind every stalk of corn. I guess some just need to fear something. Anyway, you are right about eating fresh produce in January. As long as we demand that and can afford it, inefficiency be damned. Even the organic growers must burn fuel to distribute their products although besides not using chemical fertilizer or giving growth hormones to their livestock, I hear they use bio-fuel in their tractors. Ryker is right that the big chains only buy from the big food processors. It would be too much of a bother dealing with hundreds of small farmers rather than one big one, not to mention the cost. So we continue to burn enormous amounts of fuel to feed ourselves. When the well dries up, not only will we not have gas in our cars to get to the supermarket, there won't be anything on the shelves when we get there. I guess wealth and waste go hand in hand. Right? (Message edited by frankfast on February 26, 2007) (Message edited by frankfast on February 26, 2007) |
Road_thing
| Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 08:09 pm: |
|
Does this somehow bear on the subject of motorcycles or motorcycling? ...just curious... rt |
Frankfast
| Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 09:18 pm: |
|
It's a stretch. Something about gas. Maybe the thread on Brittany Spears would be more entertaining to you. (Message edited by frankfast on February 27, 2007) |
Road_thing
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 09:52 am: |
|
Doubtful. |
Kdan
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 10:38 am: |
|
Frankfast, posted We need to go on a diet. Isn't it one horsepower gained for every ten pounds lost? There's your correlation! |
Midknyte
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 11:52 am: |
|
7 pounds as I heard it |
Frankfast
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 11:56 am: |
|
Unfortunately, horsepower is the same whether your 100lbs. or 300lbs.. You will just consume more gas the heavier the load. The effect may be the same. |
Ceejay
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 12:09 pm: |
|
wrong... |
Frankfast
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Prove it. |
Hammeroid
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 01:58 pm: |
|
REBURGER |
Rainman
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 02:08 pm: |
|
I think I'll ride over to Chikk-Fil-A. |
Reepicheep
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 04:19 pm: |
|
Not to go inserting facts in the middle of a good argument... but... Horsepower is constant when... errr... horsepower is constant. The effect of said horsepower in the form of maximum possible acceleration is directly proportional to the weight being accelerated. Therefore, if you loose X number of non rotating pounds, you have the same effect on maximum acceleration as you would have by adding one horsepower. Not sure what "X" is, and the value of X will be a lot different if the weight you loose is rotational. |
Buellshyter
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 04:20 pm: |
|
Save a cow - eat a chicken |
Frankfast
| Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 05:32 pm: |
|
Thanks Reep - I think that's what I said. |
|