Skip to main content

The Low-Hanging Fruit

Reducing one's own impact really does begin at home. By now, we've all heard the exhortations to turn out the lights, switch to efficient light bulbs, turn off the faucet, etc, etc. These are all important, and I encourage people to be taking those steps to reduce energy consumption. Walk or bike if that's feasible. But what if there was another way to reduce energy consumption? Don't waste food!

We all know that we do it; I'm no exception. But what if we can change that? We waste roughly one-third of all food we produce. Surely this is a terrible tragedy, an unconscionable waste. But this is the proverbial, and no pun intended, low-hanging fruit of the climate change debate. Forget windmills or solar power or electric cars (alright, well don't forget them, they are massively important for the overall solutions to the problem), this is something easy that can be done on a personal level by everyone in this country. If you really aren't going to eat it, don't buy it. If you buy it, eat it! When you eat out, get what you are going to eat, not more. If they serve you too much, see if you can take the rest home with you.

If we cut down on the waste, in the long run we'll be cutting down the emissions produced through agriculture, by cutting down the sheer volume of food that needs to be produced. And we will be more able to meet the food demands of an expanding population. This is something that shouldn't be contentious, something that should be common sense.  Cut down on food waste to the extent possible, and everyone wins.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...