Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Fossil Fuel For Breakfast

By Chad Heeter, Tomdispatch.com. Posted March 29, 2006.


Thanks to the global industries that produce, package and ship our food, each meal you eat also feeds the nation's oil addiction.
032906_story
Advertisement

Please join me for breakfast. It's time to fuel up again.

On the table in my small Berkeley apartment this particular morning is a healthy looking little meal -- a bowl of imported McCann's Irish oatmeal topped with Cascadian Farms organic frozen raspberries, and a cup of Peet's Fair Trade Blend coffee. Like most of us, I prepare my breakfast at home and the ingredients for this one probably cost me about $1.25. (If I went to a cafe in downtown Berkeley, I'd likely have to add another $6, plus tip for the same.)

My breakfast fuels me up with about 400 calories, and it satisfies me. So, for just over a buck and half an hour spent reading the morning paper in my own kitchen, I'm energized for the next few hours. But before I put spoon to cereal, what if I consider this bowl of oatmeal porridge (to which I've just added a little butter, milk, and a shake of salt) from a different perspective. Say, a Saudi Arabian one.

Then, what you'd be likely to see -- what's really there, just hidden from our view (not to say our taste buds) -- is about four ounces of crude oil. Throw in those luscious red raspberries and that cup of java (another three ounces of crude), and don't forget those modest additions of butter, milk, and salt (another ounce), and you've got a tiny bit of the Middle East right here in my kitchen.

Now, let's drill a little deeper into this breakfast. Just where does this tiny gusher of oil actually come from? (We'll let this oil represent all fossil fuels in my breakfast, including natural gas and coal.)

Nearly 20% of this oil went into growing my raspberries on Chilean farms many thousands of miles away, those oats in the fields of County Kildare, Ireland, and that specially-raised coffee in Guatemala -- think tractors as well as petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides.

The next 40% of my breakfast fossil-fuel equation is burned up between the fields and the grocery store in processing, packaging, and shipping.

Take that box of McCann's oatmeal. On it is an inviting image of pure, healthy goodness -- a bowl of porridge, topped by two peach slices.

Scattered around the bowl are a handful of raw oats, what look to be four acorns, and three fresh raspberries. Those raw oats are actually a reminder that the flakes require a few steps twixt field and box. In fact, a visit to McCann's website illustrates each step in the cleaning, steaming, hulling, cutting, and rolling that turns the raw oats into edible flakes. Those five essential steps require significant energy costs.

Next, my oat flakes go into a plastic bag (made from oil), which is in turn inserted into an energy-intensive, pressed wood-pulp, printed paper box. Only then does my "breakfast" leave Ireland and travel over 5,000 fuel-gorging, CO2-emitting miles by ship and truck to my grocery store in California.

Coming from another hemisphere, my raspberries take an even longer fossil-fueled journey to my neighborhood. Though packaged in a plastic bag labeled Cascadian Farms (which perhaps hints at a birthplace in the good old Cascade mountains of northwest Washington), the small print on the back, stamped "Product of Chile" tells all -- and what it speaks of is a 5,800-mile journey to Northern California.

If you've been adding up percentages along the way, perhaps you've noticed that a few tablespoons of crude oil in my bowl have not been accounted for. That final 40% of the fossil fuel in my breakfast is used up by the simple acts of keeping food fresh and then preparing it. In home kitchens and restaurants, the chilling in refrigerators and the cooking on stoves using electricity or natural gas gobbles up more energy than you might imagine.

For decades, scientists have calculated how much fossil fuel goes into our food by measuring the amount of energy consumed in growing, packing, shipping, consuming, and finally disposing of it. The "caloric input" of fossil fuel is then compared to the energy available in the edible product, the "caloric output."

What they've discovered is astonishing. According to researchers at the University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Agriculture, an average of over seven calories of fossil fuel is burned up for every calorie of energy we get from our food. This means that in eating my 400 calorie breakfast, I will, in effect, have "consumed" 2,800 calories of fossil-fuel energy. (Some researchers claim the ratio to be as high as ten to one.)

But this is only an average. My cup of coffee gives me only a few calories of energy, but to process just one pound of coffee requires over 8,000 calories of fossil-fuel energy -- the equivalent energy found in nearly a quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas, or around two and a half pounds of coal.


Digg!

Chad Heeter is a freelance writer, documentary filmmaker and former high school science teacher.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
less oil, more decent food
Posted by: rsaxto on Mar 29, 2006 3:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eat local foods to burn less oil. If you must have packaged stuff, eat Kashi instead of trashi.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

caedmon
Posted by: caedmon on Mar 29, 2006 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GADS! I am convinced!
...OK: so I am to eat strictly non-imported foods, the more local and less-packaged the better...

Which sounds fine--my eggs and (at least in season) veggies qualify...(and bunnies, too, if I confess to that speciallized taste!)...but what of that base of the old-fashioned food pyramid--grains and cereals?? even if you live in a part of the country where grains are grown, they are all megafarmed--are there any "cottage"-producers of wheat?! a diet of eggs and bunnies (and roadside-harvested chicory "coffee," ick) is not exactly balanced...
What to do?? Help!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: caedmon Posted by: AndyF
This article takes a very simple-minded approach to the fuel problem.
Posted by: backtalk on Mar 29, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A hundred yuppies in California quitting their organic raspberries is not going to stop the rising market in China and India for processed foods. If it has any impact at all, it will be to discourage other Americans who want to do the right thing by making the prospect too intimidating and harsh. Outside California, just try getting any variety of local fruit (where local = within 100 mi or less) during the winter! The other tiny impact the raspberry boycott might have would be to reduce the market for organically grown fruit in Chile, where they could surely use the encouragement to grow organically for some people who can afford to pay the higher price that entails. Chileans reap the benefit not only economically but also more subtly in their workers' increased health and their soil's lengthened life span & reduced erosion. Meanwhile, as the demand for processed food soars in developing nations, they are going to get them for as long as they can. If we were smart, we would not put our energy into pointless, self-back-patting exercises of asceticism but into R&D and implementation of fossil fuel conserving or excluding measures such as biofuel, mass transit solutions for goods and people, and the use of non-plastic packaging materials from plant to store. A final note: if working for actual useful change is too daunting, you can "live the change you want to see in the world" from a personal satisfaction standpoint, understanding it's mainly symbolic, by buying from SMALL, local farms, because those are the ones most able to sustain their own fertizilizer needs through their own livestock manure-compost, innovative use of green manures, and crop rotation (more than one crop? how novel!). The best way to trust a small local farm is to get produce from CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reminds me of the 100-Mile Diet
Posted by: sean000 on Mar 29, 2006 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember hearing a story on NPR about a couple in Vancouver, BC who decided (for the very reasons cited in this article) to see if they could live off of food and drink produced within a 100-mile radius of their home. Every ingredient had to be grown or raised within 100 miles. Here is a link to an article they wrote:
http://thetyee.ca/Life/2005/06/28/HundredMileDiet/

Fortunately for Alisa Smith and J.B. MacKinnon, they live in one of the world's richest areas in terms of fruits, vegetables, seafood, and free-range livestock. There are plenty of organic farms in Washington State and British Columbia. Yet even living where they do, there are challenges.

As someone who spent many years in the restaurant industry, I know that many chefs prefer (some even insist upon) produce that is in-season and grown locally. It looks better (and presentation is so important at a high-end restaurant) and tastes fresher. Of course even many organic-centric restaurants that rely heavily on local produce still serve meat, fish, and poultry from all over.

And it isn't just food. Look how much energy (and fossil fuel) goes into making the products we use. Everything from toys to tennis shoes take a lot of energy to produce and ship around the world. Then there is the king of energy and fossil fuel consumption: The automobile. Talk about something that takes a lot of energy to produce... and it just keeps sucking energy as it is used. A bicycle also takes energy to produce, but it consumes few fossil fuels in use (new tires or other parts every now and then). In use the rider supplies the energy to move it, but I guess that rider gets fueled by produce trucked in from all over. So even though I use a bicycle for transportation, I still have to burn oil and gasoline to get from A to B.

- Sean

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fossil fuel interests have been evilly successful
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 29, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do we use so much fossil fuel in everything we do? Is it because there is 'no other way'? No - it is because fossil fuel interests have been on a hundred-year binge to capture markets across the world.

Take transportation of food by truck. Trains are far more efficient, can run on electric current from wind or solar power - but the fossil fuel industry used politics and money to devastate the countries rail transportation system - pushing diesel trucks and buses instead. Why? To guarantee a market for their abundant oil supplies in the 50's.

Take chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and the 'Green Revolution' (also of the 50's). These are all made from petroleum or natural gas. Now biotech companies are seving to boost the petrochemical divisions of Exxon-Mob by developing plant strains that can withstand high herbicide applications and which require high fertilizer inputs to be productive. Market stimulation; demand stimulation.

Take electric power generation (which we use for many reasons). Here is the conclusion of a recent Stanford wind power study: "Global wind power potential for the year 2000 was estimated to be ~72 TW (or ~54,000 Mtoe). As such, sufficient wind exists to supply all the world's energy needs (i.e., 6995-10177 Mtoe), although many practical barriers need to be overcome to realize this potential." Stanford wind study

This was all foreseen in the seventies, and intelligent people started moving away from fossil fuels in those years. However, the fossil fuel powers got behind Reagan and other political interests, slashed all the renewable energy research down to nothing, and instead we got the SUV. Solar power research? Not in the USA! Consider this: the number of universities with renewable energy research programs vs. the number of universities with Big Pharma research programs.

The fossil fuel mantra goes like this: control the supply! (Iraq/Iran/Nigeria etc.) control the markets! (fuels/chemicals/electricity) and then - you control the world! The banality of evil can be seen here - a corner on Hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

possibilities for bigger impact, beyond micropurchases?
Posted by: chomsky on Mar 29, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i agree with the comment above regarding how to make a bigger impact than simply rearranging our individual lifestyles. our individual consumer purchasing powers are naught compared to a collective effort. what are some possibilities?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great ideas old and new to reduce oil use.
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Mar 29, 2006 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Get all of the goods off the highway system going long distances by trucks, and put them on either railbeds or water transportation: on the railbeds – railroads – as long as you have long distance transportation, and long trains versus short trains, and short distances.

2. If you can get them on boats versus trains, it has an additional energy efficiency savings of another 2 to 5 times.

Note: getting trucks off our highway system we have a major impact on removing traffic congestion. And traffic congestion is public enemy number 1 on fuel efficiency and would result in an incredible amount of fuel consumption

3. Alter our distribution of food. The average thing we eat today comes from an average of 1500-2000 miles. Many of our food imports are from thousands of miles away such as Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, North and South Africa. When they’re onboard the vessel they’re refrigerated which is very energy intensive.

Grow food stuffs close to home by local farmers and ranchers. The food would be much higher in quality as well. I remember when milk coated the glass and egg yolks were almost orange, loaded with far more vitamins and minerals than today’s products. I doubt most people have even tasted what a tomato really tastes like.

4. Distributed work. There are many corporations that have thousands of people working together when there’s no need for them be working together. The fact is that we are using an industrial mentality in a post industrial society. We now have the technology that people can actually either work at home or work in their village saving several hundred man years of commuting. We will be far more relaxed working where we need to be rather than punching a clock and working where we are supposed to be.

5. End globalization which is flawed plan of breaking manufacturing components down into their smallest parts, and finding the cheapest place in the world to manufacture the parts, and then transporting them around the world to be assembled into bigger, and bigger units, until they finally arrive on the showroom as a piece. This is like driving 50 miles to save a penny a gallon on gas when filling up. Plan to make products closer to a central location. This would result in a major savings in fuel efficiency.

6. Rather than plan for WWIII, jumpstart the largest energy R&D program ever envisioned. Make the sacrafice, like we did in WW II developing radar and nuclear power in an incredibly short time so that we could win World War II but on the technological scale greater than the Apollo project.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Population Equation
Posted by: mincemeat on Mar 29, 2006 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This, along with most other problems will only get worse without drastic population reductions. We are breeding ourselves to death. People will not voluntarily stop eating certain foods, other than a few concerned activists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Population Equation Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Population Equation Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
» RE: Population Equation Posted by: wolfcry
» RE: Population Equation Posted by: the poet
» RE: Population Equation Posted by: wolfcry
» RE: Population Equation Posted by: hip_e6
Local Markets
Posted by: jgr4 on Mar 29, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Louisiana and we're lucky enough to have a local produce market here - one that's open year-round. And the prices are amazing - cheaper than the Walmart for everything, and much cheaper for a few items. It is possible to produce and sell locally for competitive prices! More of us need to seek out and buy local products, whether it's the farmer's market or the guy selling shrimp or fruit on the side of the road. Supply = Demand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did you know the sky is blue?
Posted by: Boomerang on Mar 29, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doesn't everyone already know this? Why is this waste of space a front-page article?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Did you know the sky is blue? Posted by: blingnet88
Yes ... and herein lies our dilemma/challenge
Posted by: ccbite on Mar 29, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for expanding the scope of discussion on this issue. The media and politicians and consumers put so much focus on gas guzzling cars (not that we shouldn't) but the real depth of the problem goes so far beyond that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bone to pick
Posted by: acidrain69 on Mar 29, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This may be nit-picking, but then again, the whole article is basically about nits, or at least the author's analysis of a very small part of a larger machine.

We will never "run out" of oil, as noted in the last sentence of the article. We will, however, come to a point where it is scarce enough and expensive enough that wars will be had over it (and arguably already are). We will not wake up one day and say "Oh crap, no more oil, we are REALLY screwed now". No, what will happen is that we will continue along the path we are already on, energy prices will continue to rise and affect the cost of everything, and eventually no one but the super-rich will have any sort of energy that isn't kinetically produced (human, animal, maybe some river dams).

Welcome to the end of civilization. It won't come in a day, but if you look closely and along a long enough time line, you can watch it in action now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bone to pick Posted by: ocho
» RE: Bone to pick Posted by: UncleTom
» RE: Bone to pick Posted by: FreeThinker33
justgreenleaf
Posted by: justgreenleaf on Mar 29, 2006 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all see the same thing. Either science will solve our energy problems--or it won't. If we fail to develop new means of powering our technology, then the civilization we live in will collapse. The population of the earth could drop from the current 8 billion to perhaps 2 or 3 billion.
It won't be pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» more like 6.5 billion Posted by: aaronfetty
MONEY VS THE Earth
Posted by: WitchyNy on Mar 29, 2006 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Capitalism is the problem...what is the question?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article rather misses the point
Posted by: Jesse on Mar 29, 2006 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is, if you live in any urban area surrounded by a temperate climate, it is almost impossible to get the food you need within a 100-mile radius.

What? You say? Let's take a look at the goiter belt. Why did that exist? No fish in central Iowa. When people iodized the salt, -- a necessarily industrial process, by the way-- that ended. Oh yeah -- scurvy. Quite common in many populations until they got citrus fruits, which don't grow anywhere near New York, or Boston, or a lot of other places. Are there other Vitamin C sources? Yes, but they aren't in season for a good portion of the year.

Transporting crops some distance is necessary if you want any fruits and vegetables at all in January. It's just that simple. And what of all those people that live in Sweden, Norway, Iceland? England? Ontario?

Before people started moving food, their diets weren't exactly bursting with variety.

No spices either, by the way. Curry doesn't come from anywhere near the northeastern US. No tea. No berries of any kind after October. No fruits.

This is one of those environmentalists' tracts that offers no real solutions at all, and condemns us to, as an earlier poster put it, back-patting excercises in asceticism.

What about the organic farmers in other countries who have to sell their stuff someplace to make a living?

There are lots of ways to reduce the impact of food production. But one should also recognize that the old pastoralist ideal of producing food in little farms serving people close to home is probably not going to work in many cases. Large farms weren't just the creation of evil capitalists. They appeared because they worked. When most people worked on a farm the situation was different. But that isn't the case anymore--and that fact allows for large urban populations to be supported by smaller rural ones, rather than the other way around.

It is almost impossible to remove the impact of fossil fuels from everything we eat. It is possible to reduce it. But one must also recognize that the world is an intertwined place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I get the point, but
Posted by: ocho on Mar 29, 2006 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The connection between our food sources and the fossil fuel it takes to bring such edibles to our kitchen table is not new or original. People are wise enough to realize that oil, gas, and coal are used to produce thousands of products and transport them to the far reaches of the world. What surprises me is the end of the article seems to suggest that when India and China consume more and more fossil fuel, we will all be in trouble. Let's not point fingers. The developed countries with the United States at the top of the heap have consumed obscene amounts of energy in the form of oil, gas, and coal to keep our consumer-driven economy humming along since 1941. We chose our future and this is it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh Cripes - Another Specious Indictment
Posted by: UncleTom on Mar 29, 2006 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's run with this, shall we....

My humble breakfast supports the global oil cartel. I imagine it therefore also supports the shipping industries, the commodities markets, labor unions, farm equipment manufacturers, chemical companies, construction firms, illegal immigration, the treasury department, credit card companies, bond traders, foreign governments both just and corrupt, illicit drug production, and of course...terrorism.

The logic of this article's indictment taken to it's natural conclusion is that participation in the economy is tantamount to personally propping up all of its unfortunate aspects. Alas, if only life were really so simple.

Particularly amusing is the labeling of an oil-centric perspective as Saudi Arabian, as if a Saudi sees something other than breakfast on the table. Do you suppose they believe that we see blood where they see falafel?

Remember - your breakfast first and foremost supports those who produced it. More to the point, it supports the breakfasts they ate before producing it. So while you may have taken every precaution with your breakfast, the same cannot necessarily be said of your "partners." How many of you are unwitting pawns of the pork industry after all?

Uncle Tom

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Oil We Eat
Posted by: Deidzoeb on Mar 29, 2006 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a longer article that will blow your mind, read "The Oil We Eat" by Richard Manning. Then check out his book "Against the Grain: How Agriculture Has Hijacked Civilization."

For further reasons to freak out, read the recent issue of New Scientist that explains how 20,000 liters of water are used to grow each kilo of coffee, and a lot of other scary stats for common foods. Some scientists at U of Chicago said that switching from a regular car to a hybrid car does not reduce fossil fuels as much as switching to a vegan diet. Yikes!

If that's too difficult for you to think about or to organize your life around, then by all means, cross your arms and pout and hope that your kids and grandkids will be able to deal with the used-up world we're leaving for them. These things are not going to go away just because they inconvenience you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jacking off.
Posted by: kittynboi on Mar 29, 2006 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm starting to think the left ejaculates oil more than the right does.

But we have to let the left keep its peak oil apocalypse fantasies so they can dream of all the fags like me dying at the hands ATHEENTIC KOOLTOOR ISLAM UND AFRECA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jacking off. Posted by: the poet
superb essay
Posted by: techno on Mar 29, 2006 5:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reliance on fossil fuels to feed us is an enormous and growing problem. I wrote a series on energy that was made by the local CBS station in 1993. The target demo was 14-year-olds. So it was pretty simple.

You can still download the segment we did on food and fuels. (QuickTime 7 required--right click [Mac control click] to download file)

Because this video series was being made in Minnesota, finding situations that demonstrated energy use in food production was astonishingly easy. Lots of food processing (Hormel, Green Giant, Pillsbury, General Mills, Land o Lakes) because there is plenty of food grown near by.

Every person I have talked to recently in the big food biz is scared to death by the implications of oil addiction. With good reason! That box of Cheerios is about 10 cents worth of oats and $2 worth of energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in 1970s
Posted by: john henry on Mar 29, 2006 5:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
now mr.paul harvey talk about this what is a barrel of good water is going to cost an now a barrel of good water cost more that a barrel of oil just look at the price of a 20 oz. of water cost an now farming industry was on the way down an the corp farms was on the way up not here but in other countrys because they could make more money of now like he sayed when the american farmers are sick which they where an still is this tell you how your country health is we can not feed ourselfs or put cloths on our backs put fuel in our cars an in the 60s a forward thinking man told me that i would take a 100 dollars tp the groecy store an walk out with two small sacks of food so we as people of this country have let this happen so we need to kick our money hunger people but for killing us as a self supporting peolpe they is feeding ourselfs an putting cloths on our backs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Taste Of Oil
Posted by: mincemeat on Mar 29, 2006 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading the article I began to wonder why we are consuming so much oil. As I sat down at the kitchen table I opened up a bottle of 10w 30 motor oil and started guzzling it down. After I finished that off I realized that we are all fools for drinking so much of it. It left a bad taste in my mouth for hours. I got more zits and oily skin as a result of this consumption. Maybe we should cut down on the drinking of all of this oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's worse than that
Posted by: axolotl_helix on Mar 30, 2006 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The tone of this article is more a light-spirited 'gotcha' to the smugly self-righteous 'green consumers' out there. (You know who you are, driving your Prius to shop at Whole Foods...)
It's good to conserve, it's good to recycle, it's good to shop at farmer's markets. But you can't get green enough within this society for it to really matter, and the problem with the more radical "back-to-the-land" ideas is that there is almost literally no land for us to go back to anymore.

Here is a far more pessimistic (but also far more in-depth and well-supported) article from 3 years ago on the same subject.

This one really explains how much trouble we are in as a species.

The latest Discover has an "Everything into oil" article talking about recycling turkey slaughterhouse waste into useable oil. The problem is that the factory-farming system that raised those turkeys in the first place is a petroleum-intensive, unsustainable process. Make biodiesel from left over fast-food grease? Well, that's assuming you can keep making fast food. Ethanol from corn? Mono-cropped, heavily fertilized, irrigated corn, growing on soil that is no longer healthy enough to grow organic food crops.

People seem to have moved past the 'denial' stage in facing the catastrophe of our era in to the 'bargaining' stage. "Ok, we can't keep _________ so we will just replace it with _______" For any one small thing, you can probably do that- but it's like pushing down the bulge in the carpet.

It's the personal component to the key mental game of our civilization: 'hide-the-horror'. Make a system so convoluted that you can only comprehend a small piece of it at a time, and any small piece you look at doesn't look so bad. But the more you connect the dots and do the math, the closer you get to that unthinkable dark void in the center.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Economics
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 30, 2006 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The entire matrix of our economy has been shaped by an economy predicated upon cheap fossil fuel. Everything.

Now, as we face the inevitable decline in the availability of cheap oil, we have to face the consequences. This is but one little facet of the problem, but illustrates it very well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You must be eating McCann's instant oats
Posted by: rollo on Mar 30, 2006 7:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The original kind comes in a metal can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Essay
Posted by: jackburns on Mar 31, 2006 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think most of the main points have already been discussed, but I would add that living bioregionally and the idea of local production for local consumption was the norm for human societies for much longer than our current system.

It's the only type of society that's sustainable. The current system, propped up by fossil fuels, is a brash, completely unsustainable upstart.

About all we can do is control the decisions we make in our individual, daily lives and hopefully see the change spread. I can't control world trade, affect markets and feed poor farmers in foreign countries. All I can do is my small part.

Concerning the comment about helping poor farmers. That's a nobel cause, but farmers attempting to make their living off selling goods that require fossil fuels for shipment to foreign lands are in a hopeless situtation. Unless they can get their goods here by wind powered shipping. And there's plenty of "poor" folks right here on this continent that might not be so poor if they could get some help and start their own organic productions.

Peak Oil changes all of this. It will force us to live locally whether we want to or not. My advice is to start now and avoid the rush and focus on [i]living sufficiently.[/i] What is sufficient to provide a full and satisfying life without being a resource hog?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perspective
Posted by: solarman1 on Apr 2, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Makes you look at eating in a whole new light. I've always believed rampant cosumerism to be part of the problem of energy conservation. Another reason to go on a diet...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]