HQ6
02-16-2009, 14:34
Apparently we can't just enjoy a burger and a beer any more... well we can for a price:
Burger (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e36a67d49c1127a8c17cc38ed4a4c27 e.211&show_article=1)
Hamburgers are the Hummers of food in global warming
Feb 16 02:55 AM US/Eastern
When it comes to global warming, hamburgers are the Hummers of food, scientists say. Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.
That's because beef is such an incredibly inefficient food to produce and cows release so much harmful methane into the atmosphere, said Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada.
Pelletier is one of a growing number of scientists studying the environmental costs of food from field to plate.
By looking at everything from how much grain a cow eats before it is ready for slaughter to the emissions released by manure, they are getting a clearer idea of the true costs of food.
The livestock sector is estimated to account for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and beef is the biggest culprit.
Even though beef only accounts for 30 percent of meat consumption in the developed world it's responsible for 78 percent of the emissions, Pelletier said Sunday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
That's because a single kilogram of beef produces 16 kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent emissions: four times higher than pork and more than ten times as much as a kilogram of poultry, Pelletier said.
If people were to simply switch from beef to chicken, emissions would be cut by 70 percent, Pelletier said.
Another part of the problem is people are eating far more meat than they need to.
"Meat once was a luxury in our diet," Pelletier said. "We used to eat it once a week. Now we eat it every day."
If meat consumption in the developed world was cut from the current level of about 90 kilograms a year to the recommended level of 53 kilograms a year, livestock related emissions would fall by 44 percent.
"Given the projected doubling of (global) meat production by 2050, we're going to have to cut our emissions by half just to maintain current levels," Pelletier said.
"Technical improvements are not going to get us there."
That's why changing the kinds of food people eat is so important, said Chris Weber, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania.
Food is the third largest contributor to the average US household's carbon footprint after driving and utilities, and in Europe - where people drive less and have smaller homes - it has an even greater impact.
"Food is of particular importance to a consumer's impact because it's a daily choice that is, at least in theory, easy to change," Weber said.
"You make your choice every day about what to eat, but once you have a house and a car you're locked into that for a while."
The average US household contributes about five tons of carbon dioxide a year by driving and about 3.5 tons of equivalent emissions with what they eat, he said.
"Switching to no red meat and no dairy products is the equivalent of (cutting out) 8,100 miles driven in a car ... that gets 25 miles to the gallon," Weber said in an interview following the symposium.
Buying local meat and produce will not have nearly the same effect, he cautioned.
That's because only five percent of the emissions related to food come from transporting food to market.
"You can have a much bigger impact by shifting just one day a week from meat and dairy to anything else than going local every day of the year," Weber said.
For more information on how to eat a low carbon diet, visit www.eatlowcarbon.org.
Beer (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_021309_news_oregon_beer_tax.126942e1.html?npc)
Outrage brewing over proposed 1,900% beer tax hike
Lawmakers say tax will help budget; brewers warn of lost jobs
08:32 AM PST on Monday, February 16, 2009
By ERIC ADAMS, kgw.com Staff
PORTLAND, Ore. -- Five Oregon state lawmakers want to impose a hefty tax on beer and have introduced a bill that brewers say would cripple them.
Four Portland legislators joined a Springfield senator to introduce Oregon House Bill 2461, which would impose a $49.61 tax on each barrel of beer produced by Oregon brewers.
The tax would raise revenue for the state at a time when budgets are running in the red. Specifically, the bill says it would fund prevention, treatment and recovery programs for those addicted to alcohol and other substances.
It also defends the tax by claiming alcoholism and “untreated substance abuse” costs the state $4.15 billion in “lost earnings” as well as more than $8 million for health care and nearly $1 billion in law enforcement-related expenditures.
HB 2461 claims Oregon ranks 49th among states in its malt beverage taxation rate, which has not been raised in 32 years.
Brewers say it’s that low tax that makes Oregon such an attractive business climate for crafting beers, though. The state’s brewery guild claims it would also amount to the single largest beer tax hike in the nation's history.
Laurelwood Public House & Brewing Co. owner Mike De Kalb said the tax may sound like a good idea in this economic climate, but that in reality it would cost more Oregonians their jobs and would only amount to about $140 million in new tax revenue for the state.
Meanwhile, it would cost beer drinkers about $315 million as breweries are forced to pass along the tax increase.
“We’re a family-owned, local Portland business. We don’t want to see something cost taxpayers more than the revenue it would bring in,” De Kalb said. “If that tax is passed it would mean consumers would pay $315 million more (in 2009) to buy the same amount of beer they bought in 2008. A pint of beer would go from $4.50 to $6.”
De Kalb said Oregon would potentially lose its prominence as a craft-brew destination and that some small breweries could potentially go out of business.
He said Laurelwood could possibly face job cuts as well.
Prior versions of the beer tax bill have exempted small breweries but this one does not, he added.
House Bill 2461 has been introduced by Portland Reps. Ben Cannon and Michael Dembrow, Portland Sens. Jackie Dingfelder and Diane Rosenbaum, and Springfield Sen. William Morrisette.
Burger (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e36a67d49c1127a8c17cc38ed4a4c27 e.211&show_article=1)
Hamburgers are the Hummers of food in global warming
Feb 16 02:55 AM US/Eastern
When it comes to global warming, hamburgers are the Hummers of food, scientists say. Simply switching from steak to salad could cut as much carbon as leaving the car at home a couple days a week.
That's because beef is such an incredibly inefficient food to produce and cows release so much harmful methane into the atmosphere, said Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada.
Pelletier is one of a growing number of scientists studying the environmental costs of food from field to plate.
By looking at everything from how much grain a cow eats before it is ready for slaughter to the emissions released by manure, they are getting a clearer idea of the true costs of food.
The livestock sector is estimated to account for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and beef is the biggest culprit.
Even though beef only accounts for 30 percent of meat consumption in the developed world it's responsible for 78 percent of the emissions, Pelletier said Sunday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
That's because a single kilogram of beef produces 16 kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent emissions: four times higher than pork and more than ten times as much as a kilogram of poultry, Pelletier said.
If people were to simply switch from beef to chicken, emissions would be cut by 70 percent, Pelletier said.
Another part of the problem is people are eating far more meat than they need to.
"Meat once was a luxury in our diet," Pelletier said. "We used to eat it once a week. Now we eat it every day."
If meat consumption in the developed world was cut from the current level of about 90 kilograms a year to the recommended level of 53 kilograms a year, livestock related emissions would fall by 44 percent.
"Given the projected doubling of (global) meat production by 2050, we're going to have to cut our emissions by half just to maintain current levels," Pelletier said.
"Technical improvements are not going to get us there."
That's why changing the kinds of food people eat is so important, said Chris Weber, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania.
Food is the third largest contributor to the average US household's carbon footprint after driving and utilities, and in Europe - where people drive less and have smaller homes - it has an even greater impact.
"Food is of particular importance to a consumer's impact because it's a daily choice that is, at least in theory, easy to change," Weber said.
"You make your choice every day about what to eat, but once you have a house and a car you're locked into that for a while."
The average US household contributes about five tons of carbon dioxide a year by driving and about 3.5 tons of equivalent emissions with what they eat, he said.
"Switching to no red meat and no dairy products is the equivalent of (cutting out) 8,100 miles driven in a car ... that gets 25 miles to the gallon," Weber said in an interview following the symposium.
Buying local meat and produce will not have nearly the same effect, he cautioned.
That's because only five percent of the emissions related to food come from transporting food to market.
"You can have a much bigger impact by shifting just one day a week from meat and dairy to anything else than going local every day of the year," Weber said.
For more information on how to eat a low carbon diet, visit www.eatlowcarbon.org.
Beer (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_021309_news_oregon_beer_tax.126942e1.html?npc)
Outrage brewing over proposed 1,900% beer tax hike
Lawmakers say tax will help budget; brewers warn of lost jobs
08:32 AM PST on Monday, February 16, 2009
By ERIC ADAMS, kgw.com Staff
PORTLAND, Ore. -- Five Oregon state lawmakers want to impose a hefty tax on beer and have introduced a bill that brewers say would cripple them.
Four Portland legislators joined a Springfield senator to introduce Oregon House Bill 2461, which would impose a $49.61 tax on each barrel of beer produced by Oregon brewers.
The tax would raise revenue for the state at a time when budgets are running in the red. Specifically, the bill says it would fund prevention, treatment and recovery programs for those addicted to alcohol and other substances.
It also defends the tax by claiming alcoholism and “untreated substance abuse” costs the state $4.15 billion in “lost earnings” as well as more than $8 million for health care and nearly $1 billion in law enforcement-related expenditures.
HB 2461 claims Oregon ranks 49th among states in its malt beverage taxation rate, which has not been raised in 32 years.
Brewers say it’s that low tax that makes Oregon such an attractive business climate for crafting beers, though. The state’s brewery guild claims it would also amount to the single largest beer tax hike in the nation's history.
Laurelwood Public House & Brewing Co. owner Mike De Kalb said the tax may sound like a good idea in this economic climate, but that in reality it would cost more Oregonians their jobs and would only amount to about $140 million in new tax revenue for the state.
Meanwhile, it would cost beer drinkers about $315 million as breweries are forced to pass along the tax increase.
“We’re a family-owned, local Portland business. We don’t want to see something cost taxpayers more than the revenue it would bring in,” De Kalb said. “If that tax is passed it would mean consumers would pay $315 million more (in 2009) to buy the same amount of beer they bought in 2008. A pint of beer would go from $4.50 to $6.”
De Kalb said Oregon would potentially lose its prominence as a craft-brew destination and that some small breweries could potentially go out of business.
He said Laurelwood could possibly face job cuts as well.
Prior versions of the beer tax bill have exempted small breweries but this one does not, he added.
House Bill 2461 has been introduced by Portland Reps. Ben Cannon and Michael Dembrow, Portland Sens. Jackie Dingfelder and Diane Rosenbaum, and Springfield Sen. William Morrisette.