> Driving something around on a truck does not necessarily translate into a
> big relative expenditure of energy, particularily if the payload will
> result in a considerable increase in yield...
Carbon footprints, global warming, globalization, peak oil, energy
efficiency; these matters are not at all simple, but often subjected to
gross oversimplification.
Value judgements -- both personal and group -- are central to positions
taken in each argument but, however, many of the underlying facts are
unproven and probably improvable. Therefore any conclusions are necessarily
tentative and justly suspected of being highly subjective. Often they
appear to be blatantly political.
It seems to me that, while attempts to reconcile these matters are
necessarily inconclusive, the process of considering them can yield some
insights and strategies. To that end, let me point out that the energy
value of food is primarily of importance at a subsistence level, but in
developed countries, high energy content of foods is often considered
undesirable. Other qualities -- non-energy nutrient content, or the nature
of these other nutrients is of more interest.
If looking at the energy conversion from fossil fuel calories to food energy
proves somewhat irrelevant, then other approaches can be taken, such as an
economic evaluation. The problem there is the same, however. There are no
absolutes, guesses must be made, and the future cannot be seen.
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|