Gold

Gold
Buy at up to 20% discount from Amazon

Pages

Is a vegetarian diet environmentally friendly?

Is a vegetarian diet really more environmentally friendly than eating meat?


Image 20170123 8093 12yfz0g.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
It may be meat-free but you can still think more sustainably. Shutterstock
Wayne Martindale, Sheffield Hallam University
Beef from Brazil, avocados from Mexico, lamb from New Zealand, wines from South Africa and green beans from Kenya – food shopping lists have a distinctly international flavour. And with many questioning the sustainability of importing so much food from so far away, we are beginning to ask if switching to a vegetarian diet to cut emissions caused by meat production is as sustainable as one might think.
The influence of the global trade of food on local diets and cultural choices has exploded over recent years. Food supply chains operate globally and deliver rural produce to nearly 4 billion people now living in cities and towns. It was this principle that established the world’s first agricultural research station some 150 years ago when the founders of Rothamsted saw the potential of the agricultural land surrounding London to supply a growing urban population. In the 21st century, the whole world can be your bread basket.
Many are conscious of what they eat – both from a health and environmental perspective. But what is the impact of this? We’re increasingly encouraged to eat less meat to tackle climate change. And meat consumption, in the European Union at least, has reduced and stabilised at around 42m tonnes over the last 15 years. There are also now new labels for different types of meat eaters: flexitarians (only eat meat sometimes) or the reducetarian (aim to eat less meat) that reflect the ways different groups are trying to cut down.

Just one of the new labels for meat eaters. Shutterstock

But what about all those fruit, vegetable and staples crossing the globe – can we really label them as more sustainable than eating meat? The growth of ethical food purchases now make up close to 10% of grocery purchases in the UK, which is double that of tobacco. But in addition to the impact of air miles, global land and resource use determine the sustainability of the food we eat – food production can destroy or displace natural resources in order to supply growing demand. Changing land use to expand avocado production in Mexico, for example, is displacing the rainforest. Or the devastating impact of non-certificated palm oil, used in food but also a whole host of other products. And then there is the issue of food wastage.

Measuring the sustainability of food

However, the first thing we need to be able to do is measure the environmental impact of the food we eat. We can do this for different food supply chains using carbon footprinting methods. The difficulty is that consumers choose foods based on what they like – and this frequently changes but rarely considers the impact of climate change.
From this we can say that a vegetarian diet does deliver a decreased carbon footprint. But it also shows us that food miles and global distribution can be the least of our problems. This is because food wastage can be up to 20% of food purchases and food losses across the supply chain can be far greater than this. Food waste in turn increases the carbon footprint which counters the positive gains. And perishable fresh fruit and vegetables are more likely to be thrown away than fresh meat and fish.

So is vegetarian really best?

Ultimately, we cannot say that eating a vegan or vegetarian or meat diet is any better for the environment. This is because all can be appropriate if production systems are sustainable, there is no waste and positive health outcomes are achieved. There are clearly trade-offs in choosing foods. Air freighting of green beans from Kenya into the UK was seen as unsustainable because of air miles but it also supports up to 1.5m people and livelihoods in some of the poorest regions of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Not all about meat. Shutterstock

It’s not just meat that increase greenhouse gases. Rice – produced on 163m hectares, around 12% of the global arable area – has one of the greatest plant carbon footprints because it produces a lot of methane. But a fall in production of rice is not only unlikely, it could also disrupt greenhouse gases held in the soil. But there are different ways to do things – draining off paddies at particular times in the growing season, for example. Or using different fertilisers or rice varieties that are less susceptible to the heat.

The best way forward?

Consumers need to understand trade-offs and to keep up to date on information of what is best to buy. It is important to spot food trends, for example, and project any sustainability impacts. The number of gluten-free products available is doubling year-on-year in Europe and the US. This has resulted in an increase in the consumption of plant proteins from beans and lentils. These kinds of foods are arguably more eco-friendly than meat but – whatever your thoughts about gluten-free eating – it will change how protein crops are distributed globally and may divert pulses or increase the price of them for countries such as India that depend of non-livestock proteins.
Sustainability certifications have changed how we shop, giving us guidance on ethical purchases including sustainable fishing, rainforest produce and so on. This is one way to make sure that what you eat is less damaging and/or helps sustain livelihoods and good agricultural practices.
But it is day-to-day food waste – both at home and in supply chains – that can make any diet unsustainable whether you choose to be vegan, vegetarian, a meat eater or a combination of these. Different preservation formats can reduce food waste to zero. In the case of frozen food we know food waste can be halved compared with fresh foods – less of it is thrown away. Despite what you might think, frozen compares well to fresh and can be just as nutritious.
We all choose foods based on what we like, what we can access and what we can afford. But continued surveillance and interest in sustainable production will mean we can buy produce we know has a better supply chain. There isn’t currently a certification that shows food produced with less waste (there should be), but we can aim to cut down our own and keep up with suppliers who show better commitments.
We might have an avocado – but maybe not five in a week. And of course we can source more food locally and seasonally as well as considering preserved options if we want to cut down on air miles. Like eating less meat, there are ways to make your footprint better.The Conversation
Wayne Martindale, Senior Research Fellow, Corporate Social Responsibility, Sheffield Hallam University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Cryptocurrency entrepreneurs in Puerto Rico, but will it help the locals?

Bitcoin rich kids in Puerto Rico: crypto utopia or crypto-colonialism?



File 20180214 174997 1p7pcv0.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Shutterstock
Larisa Yarovaya, Anglia Ruskin University and Brian Lucey, Trinity College Dublin
Cryptocurrency entrepreneurs have moved to Puerto Rico to build a crypto utopia – initially dubbed Puertopia but now named Sol – where they plan to pay little in taxes.
The crypto expats also hope to demonstrate how the city of the future will look with blockchain methods used for most transactions alongside the development of a new digital cryptocurrency.
But it’s less clear about whose future – the few or the many – will be the driving force for change on the US territory.
Puerto Rico was devastated by last year’s Hurricane Maria and, with inadequate aid from the US, it desperately needs investment to rebuild the island’s infrastructure. Puerto Rico was already facing severe financial difficulty before the calamity. It goes some way to explaining why local authorities are cautiously welcoming the arrival of cryptocurrency entrepreneurs on the island. But at what cost?
The term crypto-colonialism isn’t new. It was coined 18 years ago by Michael Herzfeld, but had nothing to do with cryptocurrencies – the bitcoin network didn’t come into existence until 2009.
Crypto-colonialism originally referred to countries, such as Greece and Thailand, seeking to acquire political independence at the expense of massive economic dependence. And it used the original meaning of the word “crypto” – concealed, hidden or secret. Such countries are nominally independent, but their national culture is refashioned to suit foreign models. The term colonialism in this sense is not overt at the point of a gun, but covert through the subversion of norms and cultures.
Notably, this definition of crypto-colonialism remains applicable to the socioeconomic consequences of crypto utopia.

Crypto land

There is a deep link between libertarianism and the cryptocurrency movement. Cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin rely on a decentralised, extralegal and unregulated approach. But while the crypto billionaires will enjoy their Caribbean playground, poorer locals with little knowledge of the technology will be excluded.
The mostly male entrepreneurs, who moved to Puerto Rico last year and plan to do more than create a cryptocurrency bank, will perhaps bring crypto libertarian ideas to the island. Their vision is similar to another would-be crypto utopia, the Free Republic of Liberland, which claims to be a “micronation” camped on the western bank of the Danube river. It uses bitcoin as its “national” currency.
Back on Sol, the wealthy crypto expats want to use the blockchain system for decentralised elections and even to issue citizenship ID. But we doubt that locals who are fighting poverty will be enthused by these ideas.
This behaviour reeks of disaster capitalism – the use of a natural or economic crisis to reshape and mould a society into one which entrenches a libertarian, hypercapitalistic worldview. When you are without power for months and feel ignored, any offer of help can seem a good lifeline with little thought for the consequences.

Fight the power

Crypto utopias can also cause severe environmental damage. Puerto Rico remains in a deep power crisis after Hurricane Maria, making the idea of Sol simply impractical. One bitcoin transaction consumes 215 kilowatt-hours (KWh), enough power to supply dozens of households on the island when the grid was at full capacity.
The annual electricity consumption for mining bitcoin increased from 9.5 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year to 48 TWh in the last 12 months – 2.5 times higher than Puerto Rico’s total consumption of 19 TWh. Resources and infrastructure, post-Hurricane Maria, are too stretched to support cryptocurrency mining on the island.
Crypto rich kids made their fortune on the rapid growth of cryptocurrency markets – which are problematic due to their idiosyncratic risks. It’s a game for wealthy people who can cash out early and lock in gains, having been the developers of the bubbly product. This is characteristic of any bubble – those who get in early do well, those who cash in late do poorly.


Five months after Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico, 400,000 people are still living without power. Shutterstock

Our recent research shows that cryptocurrency prices are relatively isolated from the shocks transmitted from other assets, such as gold and equities. But cryptocurrency prices are deeply interlinked with each other, so a fall in the price of bitcoin affects other virtual currencies.
If bitcoin can ride out its latest price fall, then it’s likely that crypto-colonialism will slowly spread around the globe. Crypto libertarians – if they follow the Sol model – could focus on those parts of the world that have been ravaged by earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and economic crises.
But cryptocurrency has also become a panacea for economic recovery. In December, Venezuela announced a creation of a new cryptocurrency – dubbed “petro” – backed up by Venezuelan reserves of precious metals, oil and diamonds. It hopes to use this cryptocurrency to fight US sanctions, high inflation and low oil prices.
However, bitcoin solutions for developing countries – previously known as neo-colonialism – shouldn’t be seen as the ultimate solution for disaster and crisis management. In the transition period, when the potential of cryptocurrencies and applications of blockchain are unexplored, we have to be sceptical of such initiatives as Sol.The Conversation
Larisa Yarovaya, Lecturer in Accounting and Finance, Anglia Ruskin University and Brian Lucey, Professor of International Finance and Commodities, Trinity College Dublin
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.