ידיעות/חדשות ייצור והספקה

"במכון התקנים, אינטרס התעשייה גובר על האינטרס הציבורי ב-99% מהמקרים"

נשלח 28 ביולי 2016, 12:00 על ידי Sustainability Org   [ עודכן 28 ביולי 2016, 12:01 ]


"במכון התקנים, אינטרס התעשייה גובר על האינטרס הציבורי ב-99% מהמקרים". זו היתה כותרת הידיעה שפורסמה באתר 'דהמרקר' בתאריך 27.07.2016. מתוך הידיעה אנו למדים שבמסגרת הצעת חוק ההסדרים מוצעים שינויים שנועדו להחליש את האחיזה המוחלטת שיש לתעשיינים במכון התקנים. 

הידיעה המלאה:
http://www.themarker.com/news/macro/1.3019339

טיוטת חוק ההסדרים מציעה לצמצם את המונופול של מכון התקנים על בדיקות היבוא ולהגביר את הייצוג של הממשלה והצרכנים בו, על חשבון המגזר העסקי ■ נציגי התעשיינים והיבואנים פנו לנתניהו בדרישה לעצור את הצעת החוק: "מלאימים את מכון התקנים"

מאת אורה קורן, 27.07.2016

הטיפול במכון התקנים עולה מדרגה בטיוטת חוק ההסדרים. התוכניות המפורטות בטיוטת החוק מבטאות את תפישת הממשלה כי המכון הוא גוף שחוסם יבוא לטובת הגנה על התעשייה הישראלית, תוך פגיעה בצרכנים.


טיוטת החוק מציעה לתקוף את הבעיה משלושה כיוונים - לערוך שינויים בניסוח תקנים חדשים, לבצע שינויים בתקנים קיימים ולשנות את אופן עריכת הבדיקות למוצרים מיובאים.


הטיוטה עוררה תגובה חריפה במגזר העסקי. נשיא התאחדות התעשיינים, שרגא ברוש, ונשיא איגוד לשכות המסחר, אוריאל לין, פנו - בשיתוף פעולה נדיר - לראש הממשלה, בנימין נתניהו, המכהן גם כשר הכלכלה, וביקשו את התערבותו לעצירת הצעת החוק.


ברוש ולין מתייחסים בנימוקיהם רק להצעה לשנות את האיוש של מוסדות המכון והוועדות שלו, שלדבריהם יוצרת חוסר איזון הפוגע במגזר העסקי, ומבקשים להגדיל את מספר נציגיהם למחצית מהחברים. "בהצעה מגובשת תפישה ברורה המלאימה ומעבירה את מכון התקנים כמעט לחלוטין לרשות הממשלה", ציינו.


מקלים אימוץ 
תקינה בינלאומית

מכון התקנים מנסח, בין השאר, תקנים ישראלים מחייבים. כשהתקנים האלה אינם מתאימים לתקנים הבינלאומיים, הם יכולים למנוע יבוא של מוצרים זולים מחו"ל. המכון התחיל באחרונה לאמץ תקינה בינלאומית, אבל נהג להוסיף סעיף קטן שאינו נמצא בתקנים הבינלאומיים. הסעיף הקשה על יבוא המוצר וייקר אותו.


על רקע זה דורשת הצעת החוק ממנכ"ל משרד הכלכלה, עמית לנג, להציג לממשלה תוכנית חדשה לרפורמה בתקינה, שלפיה בתוך שלוש שנים יותאמו כל התקנים הישראליים הקיימים לתקנים בינלאומיים. חריגים (קיום של סעיף ייחודי לישראל בתקן קיים) יאושרו רק על ידי שרי האוצר והכלכלה — במקום שר הכלכלה בלבד, כמקובל כיום. בתקינה חדשה, חריג ישראלי ידרוש אישור של שני השרים וראש הממשלה. נוסף על כך, שר הכלכלה גם יוכל לאמץ תקינה בינלאומית כלשונה, גם אם לא אושרה במכון.


עוד קובעת טיוטת החוק כי הרכב הוועד הפועל של המכון ישונה, ומספר נציגי הממשלה בו יגדל על חשבון חלקו של המגזר העסקי. משרד האוצר יצטרף למשרד הכלכלה כגוף אחראי על המכון, ושרי האוצר והכלכלה ימנו את ראש המכון. תקציב המכון יאושר על ידי שר האוצר, ותוכניות העבודה שלו יאושרו על ידי שר הכלכלה.


לצד זאת מוצע כי הרכבן של הוועדות העוסקות בתקינה ישונה, ויגדל בהן הייצוג לממשלה. יו"ר ועדה לא יוכל עוד להיות נציג של התעשיינים או היבואנים. צעד זה נועד לצמצם את ניגוד העניינים ולהגביר את המשקל הניתן לשיקולים צרכניים בהחלטות. דיוני הוועדות יהיו פומביים, ויתפרסם פרוטוקול מפורט שלהן באינטרנט בתוך שבוע. שמות חברי הוועדות יצוינו, לרבות מקום עבודתם, כדי שיהיה ברור את מי הם מייצגים. עד כה הסתפק המכון בציון שמם של חברי הוועדות ושיוכם המגזרי.


אורי מאיר צ'יזיק, לשעבר נציג המועצה לצרכנות בוועדה לתקנון מזון ומוצריו ובוועדה לתקנון קמח ומוצריו, אמר: "לא היתה שום משמעות לישיבה שלי שם, כי האינטרס של התעשייה גובר ב-99% מהמקרים על האינטרס הציבורי. זה קורה מכיוון שנציגי הציבור הם מתנדבים, ורובם פנסיונרים, והם מתקשים להציג טיעוני נגד לנציגי התעשייה, שהם בעלי מקצוע ומקבלים שכר תמורת עבודתם בוועדות. בנוסף, מי שאמור לאזן אותם הם נציגי הממשלה, שתפקידם לייצג את הציבור. אבל מההתרשמות שלי, ההשפעה שלהם נמוכה. לא פעם ראיתי את נציג משרד הבריאות מצביע נגד תקן של עצמו, כשהתעשיינים התנגדו להצעתו. בנוסף, גם אחרי שמאושר תקן במכון, הוא דורש חתימה של שרי הבריאות והכלכלה. הם יכולים לעכב תקן שנים. הפתרון הוא חיזוק הייצוג הציבורי, לרבות התגמול".


עוד מוצע בטיוטת חוק ההסדרים כי מכון התקנים לא יהיה בודק ומאשר יחיד של תקני יבוא רשמיים - מעבדות פרטיות מוסמכות ומכונים בינלאומיים יוכלו להתחרות בו. סעיף זה עורר התנגדות במכון התקנים ובהסתדרות מחשש לפגיעה בתעסוקה ובהכנסות המכון, ונמצא בדיונים בינם לבין משרד האוצר.



כתבות קשורות:
המשרד להגנת הסביבה מגבש תקן פשוט לבנייה ירוקה
תקן הבניה הירוקה: הקבלנים נגד פורום ה-15
אימוץ התקן הישראלי לבנייה ירוקה בעיריות פורום ה-15
ת"י 5281 - התקן הישראלי לבנייה ירוקה - תחבורה
רביזיה לתקן ישראלי לבנייה ירוקה - ת"י 5281

אופניים חשמליים: בלי מצערת ובלי רישיון
מעבדה לבדיקת אופניים במכון התקנים
דיון בועדת הכלכלה בכנסת: מניעת היפגעות של רוכבי אופניים, קורקינטים ואופניים חשמליים

There’s a new global climate deal that you probably haven’t heard of yet

נשלח 28 ביולי 2016, 11:46 על ידי Sustainability Org   [ עודכן 28 ביולי 2016, 11:47 ]

By on Jul 25, 2016

The nations of the world are on the verge of reaching a new deal to fight climate change — while also protecting the ozone layer.

Talks in Vienna, Austria, have been leading toward a worldwide agreement to phase out the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). They were widely adopted to replace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in air conditioners and refrigerators after it was discovered that CFCs were creating a hole in the ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol, a landmark treaty, phased CFCs out. But while HFCs don’t damage the ozone layer, it turns out they are potent greenhouses gases, trapping thousands of times more heat than carbon dioxide, so now they need to go too. Researchers think that by cutting HFCs globally, we could prevent up to 0.5 degrees C of global warming by 2100.

Negotiators are currently working on adding an HFC-cutting amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which would be the single largest measure to fight climate change since the Paris Agreement was reached last December. Under the current draft of the amendment, developed nations like the United States would eliminate HFCs by the 2030s, while developing nations would have until the 2040s. Developed nations would also help pay for the transition. The deal could be finalized in Rwanda in October.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who’s been playing a key role in the negotiations, says, “an HFC phase-down amendment is a critical piece of the climate puzzle.”

Source: grist.org

PALEO, MEAT, AND THE ENVIRONMENT‏

נשלח 4 ביולי 2016, 12:03 על ידי Sustainability Org   [ עודכן 4 ביולי 2016, 12:16 ]


Chicken drumsticks

“Sure, it might be healthy – but it’s unsustainable.”

“Well, you might be losing weight, but you’re wrecking the planet.”

“Paleo is selfish – it’s not sustainable to eat that much meat.”

Sound familiar? It’s not something anyone likes to hear, but it’s an important issue to take on, because if Paleo really is wrecking the planet, we need to do something about it. But as usual, it’s a little bit more nuanced than “meat is unsustainable.” As it turns out, it really depends on what you mean by “meat,” and specifically where you’re getting it from. When it comes to factory farming, the PETA people got it right: it’s a disaster. But PETA activists like to ignore the inconvenient fact that industrial crop production is almost as bad: if we’re looking at environmental villains, tofu should be getting the side-eye just as much as steak.

When you look at grass-fed and pasture-raised animals, the major reasons that meat is “unsustainable” disappear. If we want to stop destroying the planet, we don’t need to all go vegan; we need to ditch industrial ag from the ground up and find a different way of producing enough food.

Meat and Sustainability

Let’s tackle this one right off the bat. Factory-farmed meat is absolutely unsustainable – it is destroying the planet, and we’re fast approaching the day when we won’t be able to ignore it any more. But truly pasture-raised meat is not like factory-farmed meat.

Since beef is regularly at the top of the “meat is unsustainable” hit list, here’s a table comparing factory-farmed and grass-fed beef (most of it is applicable to other animals, too):

  Factory-farmed meat is unsustainable because… Grass-fed meat is different because…
Food for the animals The corn and soy for the animals come from industrial grain farms that destroy local ecosystems, leak pesticides into the air and water, and require mass quantities of ecologically dangerous fertilizers. Grass on a pasture doesn’t require anything like the environmental destruction needed for a corn field.
Land that grows the food The resources put into food for factory-farmed cows could have been used to grow food for humans. Instead, they’re being used very inefficiently to grow food for cows – the animals are a kind of middleman. Most pasture land isn’t arable in the first place, so you couldn’t grow crops on it anyway. Pasturing cows on this land is adding to the net food supply, because it’s using land that otherwise couldn’t be used to produce food.
Effects on soil Industrial agriculture strips land of nutrients and degrades the soil. Since 1960, the US has lost half of its topsoil, and 90% of our agricultural land is losing topsoil at an unsustainable rate. Grazing cows on pasture improves soil quality and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Water use 85% of water use in the United States goes to agriculture. Animal protein requires 100 times more water, per calorie, than plant protein. This is mostly used to grow feed for the animals; only a very tiny percentage is water for the animals to drink. With no water used to grow corn and soy to feed the animals, pasture-raised meat takes a much smaller toll on fresh water supplies.
Transportation and fossil fuel use Factory farming uses a lot of fossil fuels just in transportation. After being grown, corn or soy destined for feed has to be trucked out to a feed manufacturer. Then it’s processed and put on a truck again to the feedlots. Rather obviously, this is not exactly the best thing we could be doing for the planet. Pastured cows do eat some forage, but for the most part, the grass is already in the pasture and doesn’t need to be trucked anywhere. This dramatically cuts down on fossil fuel use.
Feedlots and biohazardous waste Feedlots produce massive amounts of manure and other waste, which often carries dangerous pathogens thanks to the crowded and unsanitary conditions that the cows live in. If there’s a flood or a storm, this can leak out into nearby rivers (killing all the fish and potentially making humans sick as well). There’s currently a huge “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico thanks to pollution from toxic manure from factory farms. The manure from the cows fertilizes the grass that they eat, eliminating (a) the need for dangerous industrial fertilizers, and (b) the risk of a flood of feces-borne E. Coli suddenly being dumped into the environment.
Antibiotic resistance Use of low-dose antibiotics as growth promoters provides perfect conditions for antibiotic-resistant bacteria to grow (and then make humans sick). Antibiotic resistance is a much smaller issue, as antibiotics are used only if an animal gets sick, not as growth promoters.

 The Methane Questionbeef cuts

One more issue deserves a special mention: the question of methane.

Methane is a greenhouse gas, so environmentally-friendly food should produce as little methane as possible. It’s true that grass-fed cows produce more methane – it’s a by-product of fermenting the fiber in their diet, so the more fibrous plant material they eat, the more methane they’ll produce. If you just stop there, it looks almost like grass-fed meat is worse for the planet. But consider that…

  • Grazing also sequesters carbon in the soil, reducing the net climate impact of grass-fed cows.
  • Growing industrial feed and trucking it across the country produces much more greenhouse gas than the cows themselves. If we want to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of cattle farming, we can start by looking at cornfields and semi trucks, not the cows themselves.

Raising beef on pasture isn’t totally perfect, but overall, grass-fed cows still come out on top.

Meat is Not Unsustainable. Grains are Unsustainable.

If you look down all those reasons why factory-farmed meat is unsustainable, you’ll notice that a lot of them have at least something to do with:

  • The grains grown to feed the cows.
  • The living conditions in factory farms.

Neither one of these objections applies to meat raised on pasture.

Factory-farmed meat just magnifies the problems with industrially-grown grains. In the United States, livestock consumes about 7 times more grains than humans do. 1 pound of beef requires several pounds of grains to produce – and the pound of beef is ecological problem partly because those several pounds of grains are unsustainable. The root problem is the grains. Factory-farmed meat just magnifies all the problems of industrial grain and soy monoculture.

You could set up a slightly less unsustainable system by feeding those monoculture crops directly to humans – from the perspective of calorie production, it’s more efficient to eat grains directly than to feed them to cows and then eat the cows. But even without getting into the human health problems that would cause, from an environmental perspective it’s still only less-bad. To get anything close to “good,” we’d have to ditch the giant monoculture farms completely, and go for a radically different model of agriculture that looks a lot closer to the “grass-fed” side of the column.

That’s where the vegan argument breaks down. Sure, factory-farmed meat is environmentally indefensible. Nobody’s seriously arguing with that. But it’s indefensible partly because it requires growing mass quantities of corn and soy, not because there’s anything inherently unsustainable about raising animals for food.

Summing it Up

Meat isn’t unsustainable; factory farming is unsustainable.

The typical critiques of meat just don’t apply  if you’re eating truly grass-fed meat from farms that don’t use the industrial-agriculture blueprint. As long as “vegan” means “I eat primarily wheat and soy products from giant industrial farms,” going vegan is not going to save the planet. What we really need is to get out of the industrial model completely, and find ways to raise animals and plants together, the way animals and plants naturally live in real ecosystems. This would eliminate the problems of growing mass quantities of feed crops, and also the ecological damage of the factory farms themselves (the manure runoff, for example). The poster child for this is Polyface Farms, but there are plenty of other small farmers out there working on a similar model.

You can argue whether or not it’s politically possible to get rid of corn and soy subsidies and replace all those amber waves of grain with real food, but the point stands that the knee-jerk environmentalist critique of meat just doesn’t apply well to a model outside the industrial system – and that includes Paleo. So if we’re talking Paleo and sustainability, it’s time to let go of arguments that aren’t relevant, and start focusing on the more useful questions: what kind of changes would it take to feed the world pasture-raised meat? What can we actually do about it? Those are the questions we need to be thinking about, and we’ll never get there if we’re all just stuck in the “meat is bad” rut.

Can the Planet Sustain 7 Billion People Eating a Paleo Diet?

נשלח 4 ביולי 2016, 11:58 על ידי Sustainability Org   [ עודכן 8 ביולי 2016, 23:59 ]


After decades of obscurity, Paleo is now one of the fastest-growing diet trends. A 2013 survey found that one percent of Americans eat Paleo, which is based on the premise that our diets should be based on animals and plants, the way we ate when we were hunter-gatherers. Bestselling books like Grain Brain have redeemed meat’s nutritional profile and convinced many people that their high-carb diets promote unhealthy levels of brain and gut inflammation. I count myself among the throngs of Paleolistas who have benefited from adhering, more or less, to its principles.


Paleos obviously don’t want to bring about ecological collapse, but they ignore the unfolding catastrophe at their own peril. Photo credit: Shutterstock

But what happens when Paleo really starts catching on, and millions of ill and overweight people eliminate grains and start eating animal protein with every meal? This leads to questions the Paleo community has yet to address: How many inhabitants of our small planet can regularly eat meat without despoiling the environment? And how do we decide who gets to eat Paleo and who’s stuck with grains and tofu?

Many Paleo advocates and consumers are no doubt aware of the environmental issues associated with factory-farmed livestock and commercial fishing—the enormous quantities of water, fossil fuels and pesticides needed to grow cattle, pig and chicken feed, livestock’s fecal contamination of fresh water, aquatic dead zones caused by pesticide runoff, the depletion and collapse of fisheries, heat-trapping methane emissions from the front and back-ends of farm animals … I could go on.

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that global meat production uses one-third of the world’s fresh water and that more than 1.3 billion tons of grain are consumed by farm animals each year. In the Gulf of Mexico, aquatic dead zones from pesticide, fertilizer and manure runoff now total an area the size of Connecticut. Much of the runoff originates on heartland farms that produce corn for cattle feed.

Conventionally grown grains and vegetables are an ecological disaster too, but conventional meat production is substantially more resource-intensive, polluting and wasteful. The United Nations Environmental Programme cites meat production as one of the top three causes of ecological problems and one of the main drivers of climate change.

Many paleo advocates recommend eating organic, pastured, holistically grazed animal protein. Holistic grazing mimics the herd activity of wild animals, grouping the animals together to graze on perennial grasses for strictly controlled periods before rotating them to a new area. Though it has its skeptics, many ranchers have found that holistic grazing restores soil fertilityand reduces their use of water, pesticides and feed grain. Meanwhile, emerging research indicates that holistically grazed grasslands sequester large amounts of carbon, more than negating the warming effect of the animals’ methane emissions.

Paleo guru Robb Wolf, producer of a weekly podcast and several books is, as far I can tell, the only prominent Paleo advocate who talks publicly about the sustainability of the diet. Wolf promotes pastured protein and denounces government grain subsidies that prop up factory-farmed meat. He understands that most Paleo wannabes cannot afford pastured meat and advises them to “do the best that they can.”

Wolf’s stance begs the question: How many people can afford pastured meat, assuming it’s even available at their local grocery store or farmers’ market? And what is the national and global production capacity for this kind of meat? An hour of Googling suggests that no one really knows, but my hunch is there’s not enough grazing land on the planet to feed enough livestock to put meat and eggs in front of all seven billion of us three times a day.

And there’s certainly not enough fish. According to the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization 53 percent of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, and 32 percent are overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion. More to the point, “The global fishing fleet is 2-3 times larger than what the oceans can sustainably support.” Most of the developed world now relies heavily on aquaculture, but farmed fish still requires feed made with wild fish.

For indigenous coastal communities, fish is their dietary and cultural heritage; we are taking it away from them by eating fish unsustainably harvested by commercial fisheries. What a sad irony is transpiring—Paleos are contributing to the destruction of the very way of life that inspired the Paleo diet.

The environmental impact of the Paleo diet has not escaped the notice of climate hawks such as Elizabeth Kolbert, chronicler of the tragic and terrifying mass extinction currently underway (The Sixth Extinction: An Unusual History). She argues in The New Yorker that “paleo’s ‘Let them eat steak’ approach is a [greenhouse gas] disaster.”

Another critic of meat-eating is Nicholas Stern, former World Bank vice-president and author of the widely-respected Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change prepared for the British government. He advocates a vegetarian diet as part of a global strategy to prevent runaway climate change.

If there’s not enough animal protein to go around without cooking the planet, who should be first in line? Diabetics? Children? Celiacs? Cancer patients? Seniors? Pregnant women? Traditional hunters? A case could be made for any of these groups but, living in a free-wheeling market economy, there is one and only one basis for determining who gets the goods and that is—whoever can afford it.

I don’t know what the answer is. But I find it troubling to see the Paleo community gro —and evangelize—without discussing these issues. Anna Lappé, author of Diet for a Hot Planet, shares this concern: “Any diet that encourages high levels of meat consumption without acknowledging the reality of American meat production is irresponsible. Nearly all of the meat we find in supermarkets and restaurants in the United States today comes from industrial operations and, especially when it comes to beef, is the most energy-intensive, water-intensive, greenhouse gas-intensive way to put protein on your plate.”

Paleo dieters are in it for their health … fair enough. But it’s critical to understand that human health is inextricably bound to the health of Earth’s ecosystems. Humans are but one link in the web of life, and that web is being polluted and stretched to the breaking point.

If Paleos want to eat a lot of meat and fish, I’d like to see them get engaged in figuring out how to sustainably produce it. Wolf, to his credit, serves on the board of the Savory Institute, a research and training center for ranchers wishing to transition to holistic management. The next edition of his cookbook will encourage consumers to choose fish that are lower on the food chain and, when I suggested he plug Seafood Watch, he promised to consider it.

Wolf incorporates sustainability issues into his talks but says his audience generally doesn’t want to hear it. “The vast majority want to know about protein, carbs and fat, so they can have abs and fit into their skinny jeans,” Wolf laments. He says that Paleo thought leaders tend to steer clear of the sustainability issue because it negatively impacts book sales. “It’s a buzzkill,” says Wolf.

Which brings me to Lierre Keith, author of The Vegetarian Myth, an important albeit uber-doomy book that gives new meaning to the word “buzzkill.” Keith, a vegan-turned-omnivore, argues that choosing a plant-based diet out of concern for the environment is a tragically misinformed choice based on ignorance of the critical role predators and farm animals play in the food web.

Keith is the first to admit that there’s not enough land to graze enough animals to feed everyone and adamantly calls for population control, a radical agrarian overhaul and the dismantling of patriarchy as the only hope for human survival. Like Wolf, she believes that livestock, properly managed, are essential for restoring topsoil that has been ruined by millennia of plowing and planting vegetables, grains and legumes. And the only way we can arrange to have animals stamping their organic manure into the earth is if we pay ranchers to raise and slaughter those animals for meat. Which brings us back full circle: Our food can and must be produced in ways that restore degraded ecosystems, but there isn’t enough of this kind of food, nor is there any large-scale movement in this direction.

Paleo’s sustainability contradictions aren’t limited to meat. Palm oil is a Paleo pantry staple. A while back, I sent an email to the Weston A. Price Foundation (WPF) criticizing their promotion of palm oil. (WPF doesn’t consider itself Paleo, but its nutritional advice is heavy on animal protein and palm oil). WPF President Sally Fallon Morell fired back a curt reply, referring me to the “Coconut Information Center.” This website claims that the soy industry has duped environmental groups into believing that palm oil plantations are destroying rainforests when, in reality, the palm industry plays a “protective” role. As Earth Island Journal readers are aware, palm plantations spur deforestation just as surely as ruminants belch, but these are inconvenient truths for people with a myopic view of human health.

Paleos obviously don’t want to bring about ecological collapse, but they ignore the unfolding catastrophe at their own peril. Wolf says Paleos are slowly embracing the notion of sustainability and that he gets less pushback now than he did five years ago, but the community is still a long ways from seriously grappling with the unintended consequences of their diet. They should pull their heads out of the sand and start discussing these issues pronto. With so many great minds no longer addled by carbohydrates, they may hit upon some solutions.

Research assistance for this article was provided by Christopher Cook, author of Diet for a Dead Planet.


Related articles:
PALEO, MEAT, AND THE ENVIRONMENT‏
Can the Planet Sustain 7 Billion People Eating a Paleo Diet?
Jane Says: If You Believe in Science, Don’t Go Paleo
Eating Less Meat Could Save 5 Million Lives, Cut Carbon Emissions by 33%
How Meat Contributes to Global Warming
Can eating less meat really tackle climate change?
Giving up beef will reduce carbon footprint more than cars, says expert
Film: Cowspiracy, the sustainability secret
Oxford university: Reducing meat consumption can drastically reduce people’s carbon footprints
Livestock: The methane makers
Consumptive water use in livestock production
GHG emissions from the EU livestock sector could be mitigated by up to 60%
Halving meat and dairy consumption could slash farming emissions
Rising Meat Consumption Takes Big Bite out of Grain Harvest


חשבונאות סביבתית של מערכת אספקת הבשר הישראלית
ביס מסוכן: מזהמים את העולם בשביל סטייק
האו"ם מבקש: איכלו פחות בשר כדי להפחית גזי חממה

Eating Less Meat Could Save 5 Million Lives, Cut Carbon Emissions by 33%

נשלח 2 ביולי 2016, 12:54 על ידי Sustainability Org   [ עודכן 2 ביולי 2016, 12:55 ]

| March 22, 2016

Cutting down meat consumption can result in better health and a lower carbon footprint, a new study finds.

lessmeat750

If people continue to eat meat at  current rates, half of the carbon budget would be lost in three decades. By 2050, according to the modeling, switching to diets of limited meat consumption can cut emissions by a third while saving 5 million lives, vegetarian diets could reduce emissions by 63 percent and save 7 million lives, and vegan diets ​could reduce emissions by 70 percent and save 8 million lives.

For a deeper dive: Guardian, Washington Post, Pacific Standard, LA Times, Reuters, TIME, Huffington Post

Source: ecowatch.com

A Study Did NOT Actually Find That Vegetarianism Hurts The Planet

נשלח 19 בדצמ׳ 2015, 3:57 על ידי Sustainability Org   [ עודכן 19 בדצמ׳ 2015, 3:58 ]

It's a lot more complicated than that.

Hilary Hanson News editor, The Huffington Post, 12 Dec 2015

Cool your jets, carnivores.

Multiple headlines Tuesday suggested that a new study determined vegetarianism to be more harmful to the environment than eating meat, flying in the face previous research. But the researchers behind this new study say that’s a total mischaracterization of what they found.

Rather, in terms of environmental impact, it turns out that not all foods in a particular food group are created equal, Michelle Tom and Paul Fischbeck of Carnegie Mellon University told The Huffington Post.

“You can’t lump all vegetables together and say they’re good,” Fischbeck said. “You can’t lump all meat together and say it’s bad.”

Some journalists emphasized the finding that calorie for calorie, producing lettuce creates more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than bacon. But these are only two foods. Realistically, no vegetarian is going to replace each pork calorie with a lettuce calorie. Citing this data point alone ignores the researchers' finding that kale, broccoli, rice, potatoes, spinach and wheat (just to name a few) all rank lower than pork in terms of GHG.

Similarly, in terms of “blue” water usage -- meaning fresh water that’s withdrawn from ground and surface water, as opposed to water that falls directly from the sky as rain -- produce like cherries, mushrooms and mangoes needs more water than any meat product. But corn, peanuts, carrots and wheat all use less water than all non-seafood meat.

In other words, the researchers didn't find that vegetarianism is bad for the environment. They found that not every plant product is more environmentally friendly than every meat product.

“My bottom line is that there are no simple answers to complex problems,” Fischbeck said. “Diet and the environmental impact of agriculture … is not a simple problem.”

The original point of the study, which was published in the journal Environment Systems and Decisions in late November, was to look at the environmental impacts of following the dietary guidelines recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In general, the USDA recommends greater intakes of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood. Researchers then looked at three potential dietary plans:

  1. A diet that reduced caloric intake, but with a mix of food types representing the average American diet.
  2. A diet that did not reduce calories, but included the proportions of food types recommended by the USDA.
  3. A diet that reduced calories and included the proportions of food types recommended by the USDA.

The researchers analyzed these potential diets for industrial energy use (meaning resources like gasoline and electricity), blue water footprint and GHG emissions per calorie. They found that scenario 2 was the worst in terms of environmental impact -- increasing energy use by 43 percent, blue water footprint by 16 percent and GHG by 11 percent. Scenario 3 was not as bad, but still worse than scenario 1, increasing energy use by 38 percent, blue water footprint by 10 percent and GHG emissions by 6 percent.

But none of these hypothetical diets were vegetarian. In fact, a large part of the increase in GHG for scenarios 2 and 3 is because of the USDA recommendation to increase consumption of seafood, which has a relatively high GHG emission level. And though certain fruits and vegetables have a higher environmental footprint than meat, vegetarian staples like grains and soy have some of the lowest levels of energy use and GHG emissions.

So, yes, some vegetables can be worse for the environment than some meat, but if you’re looking for an excuse to keep throwing back the burgers guilt-free, this isn’t it.


Related articles:

Film: Cowspiracy, the sustainability secret

נשלח 6 בנוב׳ 2015, 12:56 על ידי Sustainability Org


About the Film

Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret is a groundbreaking feature-length environmental documentary following intrepid filmmaker Kip Andersen as he uncovers the most destructive industry facing the planet today – and investigates why the world’s leading environmental organizations are too afraid to talk about it.

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, water consumption and pollution, is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the transportation industry, and is a primary driver of rainforest destruction, species extinction, habitat loss, topsoil erosion, ocean “dead zones,” and virtually every other environmental ill. Yet it goes on, almost entirely unchallenged.

As Andersen approaches leaders in the environmental movement, he increasingly uncovers what appears to be an intentional refusal to discuss the issue of animal agriculture, while industry whistleblowers and watchdogs warn him of the risks to his freedom and even his life if he dares to persist.

As eye-opening as Blackfish and as inspiring as An Inconvenient Truth, this shocking yet humorous documentary reveals the absolutely devastating environmental impact large-scale factory farming has on our planet, and offers a path to global sustainability for a growing population.


The Facts

Director’s Note:

The science and research done on the true impacts of animal agriculture is always growing. The statistics used in the film were based on the best information we had available while producing the film. We will continually update this list with further resources as they become available

- GREENHOUSE GASES -

Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.   [i]

Fao.org. Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.

Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions.  [.i]

Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation.

Fao.org. Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.

Environmental Protection Agency. “Global Emissions.”

Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

WorldWatch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19.

Animal Feed Science and Technology “comment to editor” Goodland, Anhang.

The Independent, article Nov. 2009.

Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

“Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.

Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

(Please note the following PDF is very large and may take a while to load)

“Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.

Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.

“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.

Emissions for agriculture projected to increase 80% by 2050.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html

Energy related emissions expected to increase 20% by 2040.

Energy Global Hydrocarbon Engineering

IEA, World Energy Outlook 2014

US Methane emissions from livestock and natural gas are nearly equal.

EPA. "Overview of Greenhouse Gases."

Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day.   [xi]

Ross, Philip. “Cow farts have ‘larger greenhouse gas impact’ than previously thought; methane pushes climate change.” International Business Times. 2013.

250-500 liters per cow per day, x 1.5 billion cows globally is 99 - 198.1 billion gallons. Rough average of 150 billion gallons CH4 globally per day.

Converting to wind and solar power will take 20+ years and roughly 43 trillion dollars.

The Cost Of Going Green Globally

Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2e limit by 2030, all from raising animals.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Source: calculation is based on http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 analyses that 51% of GHG are attributed to animal ag.

Reducing methane emissions would create tangible benefits almost immediately.

U.N. Press Release, Climate Summit 2014.

- WATER -

Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) water use ranges from 70-140 billion gallons annually.

“Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources.” EPA Office of Research and Development. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011.

Animal agriculture water consumption ranges from 34-76 trillion gallons annually.   [ii]  [xv]

Pimentel, David, et al. “Water Resources: Agricultural And Environmental Issues.” BioScience 54, no. 10 (2004): 909-18.

Barber, N.L., “Summary of estimated water use in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3098.”

Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of US water consumption.   [xv]

“USDA ERS – Irrigation & Water Use.” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2013.

Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of water in the US.   [xv]

Jacobson, Michael F. “More and Cleaner Water.” In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.

Californians use 1500 gallons of water per person per day. Close to Half is associated with meat and dairy products.

Pacific Institute, "California's Water Footprint"

2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef. 

(NOTE. The amount of water used to produce 1lb. of beef vary greatly from 442 - 8000 gallons. We choose to use in the film the widely cited conservative number of 2500 gallons per pound of US beef from Dr. George Borgstrom, Chairman of Food Science and Human Nutrition Dept of College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, "Impacts on Demand for and Quality of land and Water." ) 

Oxford Journals. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues"

The World's Water. "Water Content of Things" 

Journal of Animal Science. "Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the United States." 

Robbins, John. “2,500 Gallons, All Wet?” EarthSave

Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group.

“Water Footprint Assessment.” University of Twente, the Netherlands.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print

477 gallons of water are required to produce 1lb. of eggs;  almost 900 gallons of water are needed for 1lb. of cheese.

“Meateater’s Guide to Climate Change & Health.” Environmental Working Group.

1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk.

Water Footprint Network, "Product Water Footprints".

 

A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products, WFN.

5% of water consumed in the US is by private homes. 55% of water consumed in the US is for animal agriculture.   [xv]

Jacobson, Michael F. “More and Cleaner Water.” In Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could save Your Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.

Animal Agriculture is responsible for 20%-33% of all fresh water consumption in the world today.  

1/5 of global water consumption:

27%-30%+ of global water consummation is for animal agriculture. 

1/3 of global fresh water consumed is for animal ag.

“Freshwater Abuse and Loss: Where Is It All Going?” Forks Over Knives.

- LAND -

Livestock or livestock feed occupies 1/3 of the earth’s ice-free land.

FAO. "Livestock a major threat to environment"

Livestock covers 45% of the earth’s total land.

Thornton, Phillip, Mario Herrero, and Polly Ericksen. “Livestock and Climate Change.” Livestock Exchange, no. 3 (2011).

IPCC AR5 WG# Chapter 11, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Us (AFOLU) 

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction.  [xix]  [iv]

Animal agriculture contributes to species extinction in many ways. In addition to the monumental habitat destruction caused by clearing forests and converting land to grow feed crops and for animal grazing, predators and "competition" species are frequently targeted and hunted because of a perceived threat to livestock profits. The widespread use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers used in the production of feed crops often interferes with the reproductive systems of animals and poison waterways. The overexploitation of wild species through commercial fishing, bushmeat trade as well as animal agriculture’s impact on climate change, all contribute to global depletion of species and resources. [XIX]

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Comfortably Unaware. Oppenlander.

NOAA, "what is a dead zone".

Scientific America, "What Causes Ocean "Dead Zones"?".

“What’s the Problem?” United States Environmental Protection Agency.

“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.

The Encyclopedia of Earth, "The Causes of Extinction". 

Annenberg Learner, Unit 9: Biodiversity Decline // Section 7: Habitat Loss: Causes and Consequences

WWF, "Losing their homes because of the growing needs of humans."

Center for Biological Diversity, "How Eating Meat Hurts Wildlife and the Planet".

Science Direct “Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption”

FAO, "Livestock impacts on the environment".

“Fire Up the Grill for a Mouthwatering Red, White, and Green July 4th.” Worldwatch Institute.

Oppenlander, Richard A. “Biodiversity and Food Choice: A Clarification.” Comfortably Unaware. 2012

“Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004.

 Livestock operations on land have created more than 500 nitrogen flooded deadzones around the world in our oceans.

PRESS RELEASE, LOUISIANA UNIVERSITIES MARINE CONSORTIUM August 4, 2014

NOAA News, 2014.

Largest mass extinction in 65 million years.

Niles Eldredge, "The Sixth Extinction". 

Mass extinction of species has begun.

Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction

2-5 acres of land are used per cow.

The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms / EIB-73:  study by USDA - Economic Research Service ( for acres/cow- pages 12 and 13)

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. 

Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Nearly half of the contiguous US is devoted to animal agriculture. 

The US lower 48 states represents 1.9 billion acres. Of that 1.9 billion acres: 778 million acres of private land are used for livestock grazing (forest grazing, pasture grazing, and crop grazing), 345 million acres for feed crops, 230 million acres of public land are used for grazing livestock. 

U.S. extrapolated data from EPA, Land Uses.

Versterby, Marlow; Krupa, Kenneth. “Major uses of land in the United States.” Updated 2012. USDA Economic Research Service.

USDA, Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997.

“Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns.” UN News Centre, 2006.

1/3 of the planet is desertified, with livestock as the leading driver.   [xviii]

“UN launches international year of deserts and desertification.” UN news centre, 2006.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

UWC, “Desertification".

The Encyclopedia of Earth, "Overgrazing".

UN, "Desertification, Drought Affect One Third of Planet, World’s Poorest People, Second Committee Told as It Continues Debate on Sustainable Development".

An article that explains desertification and livestock’s role:

- WASTE -

Every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US.

This doesn’t include the animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction or in backyards, or the billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the US.   [v]

“What’s the Problem?” United States Environmental Protection Agency.

“How To Manage Manure.” Healthy Landscapes.

335 million tons of “dry matter” is produced annually by livestock in the US.“FY-2005 Annual Report Manure and Byproduct Utilization National Program 206.” USDA Agricultural Research Service. 2008.

A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people. [vi]

“Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Office of Research and Development. 2004.

130 times more animal waste than human waste is produced in the US – 1.4 billion tons from the meat industry annually. 5 tons of animal waste is produced per person in the US.   [xii]

Animal agriculture: waste management practices. United States General Accounting Office.

  In the U.S. livestock produce 116,000 lbs of waste per second: 

-Dairy Cows, 120lbs of waste per day x 9 million cows.

-Cattle, 63lbs of waste per day, x 90 million cattle.

-Pigs, 14lbs. of waste per day, x 67 million pigs.

-Sheep/Goats. 5lbs of waste per day, x 9 million sheep/goats.

-Poultry, .25-1lbs of waste per day, x 9 billion birds.  

Dairy cows and cattle-1.08 billion pounds per day (from 9 million dairy cows, 120 pounds waste per cow per day) + 5.67 billion pounds per day (90 million cattle, 63 pounds waste per one cattle per day) = 6.75 billion pounds per day wasteor 2.464 trillion pounds waste per year (manure+urine)

** 3.745 trillion pounds waste per year(this is the equivalent of over 7 million pounds of excrement per MINUTE produced by animals raised for food in the U.S. excluding those animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction, backyards, and billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the U.S.) 

 Animals produce Enough waste to cover SF, NYC, Tokyo, etc,

based off 1lb of waste per 1sqft at 1.4 billion tons. 

US Livestock produce 335 million tons of “dry matter” per year.

- OCEANS -

3/4 of the world’s fisheries are exploited or depleted.

“Overfishing: A Threat to Marine Biodiversity.” UN News Center.

“General Situation of World Fish Stocks.” United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

We could see fishless oceans by 2048.

Science, "Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services".

National Geographic, article Nov. 2006

90-100 million tons of fish are pulled from our oceans each year.   [vii]

“World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2012. (pg 6, 20)

Montaigne, fen. “Still waters: The global fish crisis.” National Geographic.

As many as 2.7 trillion animals are pulled from the ocean each year.

A Mood and P Brooke, July 2010, "Estimating the Number of Fish Caught in Global Fishing Each Year".

Montaigne, fen. “Still waters: The global fish crisis.” National Geographic.

For every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill.   [viii]

“Discards and Bycatch in Shrimp Trawl Fisheries.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO).

As many as 40% (63 billion pounds) of fish caught globally every year are discarded.

Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries

Goldenberg, Suzanne. “America’s Nine Most Wasteful Fisheries Named.” The Guardian.

Scientists estimate as many as 650,000 whales, dolphins and seals are killed every year by fishing vessels.

Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries

Goldenberg, Suzanne. “America’s Nine Most Wasteful Fisheries Named.” The Guardian.

Fish catch peaks at 85 million tons.

“World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture.” UNITED NATIONS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO). 2012.

40-50 million sharks killed in fishing lines and nets.

Shark Savers, "Shark Fin Trade Myths and Truths: BYCATCH”. Bonfil, R. 2000. The problem of incidental catches of sharks and rays, its likely consequences and some possible solutions. Sharks 2000 Conference, Hawaii, 21-24 February

Animal Welfare Institute

- RAINFOREST -

Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction.

World Bank. "Causes of Deforestation of theBrazilian Amazon”

Margulis, Sergio. Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Rainforest. Washington: World Bank Publications, 2003.

WORLD BANK WORKING PAPER NO. 22

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

1-2 acres of rainforest are cleared every second.

“Avoiding Unsustainable Rainforest Wood.” Rainforest Relief.

Facts about the rainforest.

Rainforest facts.

World Resources Institute, "Keeping Options Alive".

The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops.

“Livestock impacts on the environment.” Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (fao). 2006.

Up to137 plant, animal and insect species are lost every day due to rainforest destruction.

“Rainforest statistics and facts.” Save the amazon.

RAN, Fact Page.

Tropical Rain Forest Information Center, NASA Earth Science Information Partner

Monga Bay, "What is Deforestation?".

150-200 species per day are lost per day, The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

26 million rainforest acres (10.8m hectares) have been cleared for palm oil production.   [ix]

“Indonesia: palm oil expansion unaffected by forest moratorium.” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2013.

136 million rainforest acres cleared for animal agriculture.

“AMAZON DESTRUCTION.” MONGA BAY.

214,000 square miles occupied by cattle (136 million acres):

1,100 Land activists have been killed in Brazil in the past 20 years.   [x]

Batty, David. “Brazilian faces retrial over murder of environmental activist nun in Amazon.” The Guardian. 2009.

20 years ago the Amazon lost its strongest advocate.

Further reading on Sister Dorothy Stang.

http://www.sndohio.org/sister-dorothy/

- Wildlife -

USDA predator killing of wild animals to protect livestock.

http://www.predatordefense.org/USDA.htm

Washington state killed the wedge pack of wolves.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/09/22/wedge-wolf-pack-will-be-killed-because-of-increasing-beef-consumption/ 

More wild horses and burros in government holding facilities than are free on the range.

BLM holding population: 49,021

BLM on the range population: 33,780

Ten thousand years ago, 99% of biomass (i.e. zoomass) was wild animals. Today, humans and the animals that we raise as food make up 98% of the zoomass.

Vaclav Smil, Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact, Population and Development Review 37(4): 613-36, December 2011. The proportions are of mass measures in dry weight.  

Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact,Vaclav Smil

New York Times Jul 2013

- HUMANITY -

414 billion dollars in externalized cost from animal ag.   [xvi]

Simon, David Robinson. "Meatonomics" Conari Press (September 1, 2013)

Huffington Post, Sept 2013.

Why A Big Mac Should Cost $200

Global Environmental costs of Animal Agriculture estimated at $170 billion

80% of antibiotic sold in the US are for livestock.

Center For A Livable Future, "New FDA Numbers Reveal Food Animals Consume Lion’s Share of Antibiotics”.

FDA 2009, "Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals".

World population in 1812: 1 billion; 1912: 1.5 billion; 2012: 7 billion.

“Human numbers through time.” Nova science programming.

Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact,Vaclav Smil

70 billion farmed animals are reared annually worldwide. More than 6 million animals are killed for food every hour.

A well-fed world. factory farms.

Compassion In World Farming. Strategic Plan 2013-2017

ADAPTT. "The Animal Kill Counter"

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

 

Throughout the world, humans drink 5.2 billion gallons of water and eat 21 billion pounds of food each day.

Based on rough averages of 0.75 gallons of water and 3 lbs of food per day. water - 1/2 - 1 gallon

food - 3lbs globally per capita per day

US Americans consume 5.3lbs of food per day

Worldwide, cows drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day.

Based on rough average of 30 gallons of water and 90 lbs of feed per day for 1.5 billion cows.

We are currently growing enough food to feed 10 billion people.

Common Dreams, "We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People… and Still Can’t End Hunger".

Cornell Chronicle, "U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists".

IOP Science, Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare

Worldwide, at least 50% of grain is fed to livestock. 

FAO, "Livestock - a driving force for food security and sustainable development".

Global Issues, "BEEF".

Wisconsin Soybean Association, "U.S. and Wisconsin Soybean Facts". 

82% of starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, and the animals are eaten by western countries.

http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/the-world-hunger-food-choice-connection-a-summary/

80% of the worlds starving children live in 14 countries. (figure 5)

Livestock production country list

Livestock global mapping

15x more protein on any given area of land with plants, rather than animals.

“Soy Benefits”. National Soybean Research Laboratory. Retrieved 2010-04-18.

The average American consumes 209 pounds of meat per year.

Note: created from averages of 4 different studies. Center For a Livable Future, "How much meat do we eat, anyway?"

Haney, Shaun. “How much do we eat?” Real agriculture. 2012. (276 lbs)

“US meat, poultry production & consumption” American Meat Institute. 2009. (233.9 lbs)

Bernard, Neal. “Do we eat too much?” Huffington Post. (200 lbs)

Dairy consumption may leads to breast lumps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/10868428/Give-up-dairy-products-to-beat-cancer.html

Dairy may “give guys man-boobs”

http://chestsculpting.com/milk-and-dairy-for-guys-with-man-boobs/

World Population grows 228,000+ people everyday.

 https://www.populationinstitute.org/programs/gpso/gpso/

World Population Data Sheet

Land required to feed 1 person for 1 year:

Vegan: 1/6th acre

Vegetarian: 3x as much as a vegan

Meat Eater: 18x as much as a vegan   [xvii]

Robbins, John. Diet for a New America, StillPoint Publishing, 1987, p. 352

“Our food our future.” Earthsave.

PNAS. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States

“Soy Benefits”. National Soybean Research Laboratory. Retrieved 2010-04-18.

Direct Seeded Vegetable Crops, Johnny Seeds.

1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food.

1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of meat.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Direct Seeded Vegetable Crops, Johnny Seeds.

USDA NASS, "One Acre of Washington's farmers land"

Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 2012.

A person who follows a vegan diet produces the equivalent of 50% less carbon dioxide, uses 1/11th oil, 1/13th water, and 1/18th land compared to a meat-lover for their food.   [xx]

CO2:  "The Carbon Footprint of 5 Diets Compared." Shrink The Footprint.

“Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.” Climactic change, 2014.

Oil, water: “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003.

One Green Planet, "Meat The Truth".

Robbins, John. "Food Revolution". Conari Press, 2001

Land [xvii]: “Our food our future.” Earthsave.

 

Each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 sq ft of forested land, 20 lbs CO2 equivalent, and one animal’s life.   [xiv]

“Water Footprint Assessment.” University of Twente, the Netherlands.

“Measuring the daily destruction of the world’s rainforests.” Scientific American, 2009.

“Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.” Climactic change, 2014.

“Meat eater’s guide to climate change and health.” The Environmental Working Group.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Further reading on US food disparagement law

https://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm

Further reading on Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA)

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act-(aeta)

The problem with the Allan Savory's grazing approach.

Dr. Richard Oppenlander.

Professor James McWilliams.

George Wuerthner.

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

[i] NOTE: In 2013 the UN-FAO lowered livestock’s GHG emissions to 14.5%.

There are many other factors to consider in terms of level of concern we should have regarding the role of food choice in climate change, global depletion in general, and certain applicable time lines as represented (or misrepresented) by the United Nations or any other governing or research institution. In particular:

    1    does not represent the entire life cycle analysis (LCA) or supply chain of livestock products, notably omitting carbon dioxide production in respiration (on average 4.8 tons CO2 e/year/cow, 2.3 CO2 e/year/pig, etc.), provides no consideration for increased indirect radiative effects of methane on atmospheric aerosols and particulate capture related to smog (Shindell et al. 2009), and manages land use changes (LUC) with admitted “uncertainty” and under-counting/reporting

    2    ultimately defers to a separate category for reporting of greenhouse gas emissions related to “deforestation” (20% of global GHG emissions per UN-REDD), of which livestock and feed crops play a significant role, needing to be added to direct emissions (80% of Amazonian rainforest deforestation and degradation, and destruction of Cerrado savanna since 1970 has been due to expansion for cattle, with another 10% loss due to planting crops to feed them and other livestock)

    3    the global warming potential (GWP) for methane used in this report was from IPCC 2007, which was 21 at 100 years. However, the GWP of methane is actually 86 GWP at 20 years

    4    the report gave no consideration to carbon sequestration potential lost on land now used for livestock and feed production, which should have been considered as emissions (45% of the land mass on Earth now used by livestock and crops to feed them–International Livestock Research Institute)

    5    Consideration should be given to the fact that the lead authors have potential bias in this report; Pierre Gerber is the Livestock Policy Officer of the FAO and Henning Steinfeld is Chief, Livestock Information of the Livestock Sector Policy Branch of the FAO. There is little doubt why obvious omissions were therefore seen in their conclusions presented: “The global livestock sector is faced with a three-fold challenge: increasing production to meet demand, adapting to a changing and increasingly variable economic and natural environment and, lastly, improving its environmental performance.

This FAO report failed to represent urgency in regard to climate change and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, performed no analysis of alternatives, and failed to present risks versus benefits of raising livestock on a global scale.

    1    there was no consideration of the effects of raising livestock on continued warming, acidification, deoxygenation and therefore diminished climate regulatory mechanisms of our oceans or time lines related to potential detrimental effects on the oxygen-nitrogen-carbon dioxide cycling capacities.

    2    the report gave no account for anthropogenic greenhouse gases generated by agricultural systems related to extraction or raising and eating fish–fuel, refrigeration, packaging, processing, transportation, etc. for both wild caught operations as well as those pertaining to aquaculture/aquaponics/aeroponics, which would thereby provide a more accurate and complete agricultural portrait related to our food choices making it easier for policy makers and consumers to interpret the data and findings

    3    there is no discussion, in an overview sense, to provide clarity regarding the component this happens to represent in livestock’s role, or food choice for that matter, in our current state of un-sustainability and the interrelated issues we face–freshwater scarcity, collapse of sea life oceanic ecosystems, unprecedented extinctions and loss of biodiversity, food security and agricultural land use inefficiencies, implications in human health and disease, rising health care costs and loss of productivity, economic risk factors, questions of social justice and implications regarding future generations, etc. (many of these issues are irreversible in our lifetime)–all part of the task of basic but thorough environmental scientific assessment, perhaps beyond the scope of livestock researchers/proponents for this one report, but the critical connection and relevance are vital should have been mentioned, nevertheless.It is quite clear by this report, which presents a filtered and quite limited view of the role of livestock in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and global depletion, that our team should focus our attention on whythere is suppression of information, lack of clarity, or elucidation of facts by our leaders related to the overarching problem of animal based agriculture as a component of food choice–and then how to swiftly correct this. Global governmental institutions such as the United Nations and its FAO should examine all the facts and present them accordingly as they interrelate. Then, they should be able to call for the frank elimination (or comprehensive “replacement”) of imminent threats to our survival such as food choices and agricultural systems that are disease promoting, ecologically unsustainable, and which condone massive unnecessary slaughtering–rather than calling for their perpetuation.

 

[.i] Some have challenged that the 18% of GHG emissions from animal ag cannot be compared to the 13% of GHG for transportation emissions because it does not take into consideration the full lifecycle analysis of the transportation industry. We have made it clear in the film that 13% of GHG emissions only accounts for the exhaust from the worlds vehicles. 

 

[ii] Although there are Cornell studies citing the water consumption of the US livestock industry at over 66 trillion gallons every year, we decided to go with a much more conservative figure of 34 trillion gallons based off the 2005 USGS figures putting the US total consumptive water use at 76 trillion gallons annually (non-consumptive is for thermoelectric and hydroelectric use that is typically returned directly back to its source immediately). The USDA says that agriculture is responsible for 80-90 percent of US water consumption and growing the feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of that water, bringing the total water consumption of the livestock industry to 34 trillion gallons.

 

[iii] 1 burger = 2 months showering: based on taking a 4-minute daily shower with a 2.5 gpm shower head.

 

[iv] “A typical five-acre hog waste lagoon releases 15-30 tons of ammonia into the air annually. Approximately half of the ammonia rises as a gas and generally falls to forests, fields, or open water within 50 miles, either in rain or fog. The rest is transformed into dry particles that travel up to 250 miles.

Ammonia is the most potent form of nitrogen that triggers algae blooms and causes fish kills in coastal waters. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality estimates that hog factories constitute the largest source of airborne ammonia in North Carolina, more than cattle, chickens, and turkeys combined. In 1995, Hans Paerl, a marine ecologist from the University of North Carolina, reported that airborne ammonia had risen 25% each year since 1991 in Morehead City, 90 miles downwind of the hog belt.”

 

[v] -Dairy Cows, 120lbs of waste per day,x 9 million cows.

-Cattle, 63lbs of waste per day, x 90 million cattle.

-Pigs, 14lbs. of waste per day, x 67 million pigs.

-Sheep/Goats. 5lbs of waste per day, x 9 million sheep/goats.

-Poultry, .25lbs of waste per day, x 10 billion birds.

Dairy cows and cattle-1.08 billion pounds per day (from 9 million dairy cows, 120 pounds waste per cow per day) + 5.67 billion pounds per day (90 million cattle, 63 pounds waste per one cattle per day) = 6.75 billion pounds per day waste or 2.464 trillion pounds waste per year (manure+urine)

** 3.745 trillion pounds waste per year

 

[vi] Enough waste to cover, etc: based on 1 pound of waste per 1 square foot of land

“Animal farms produce as much manure as small and medium sized cities. A farm with 2500 dairy cattle is similar in waste load to a city of 411,000 people.”

On a 1000-pound live weight basis, each of these animals produces more waste than a human. A CAFO with 1000 animal units of turkeys produces a waste load comparable to a city of 87,700 people. A dairy CAFO with 1000 animal units is equivalent to a city of 164,500 people. The important difference lies in the fact that human waste is treated before discharge into the environment, but animal waste is either not treated at all or minimally treated by virtue of the storage methods used before disposal.” http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=901V0100.txt

 

[vii] Additionally – Oppenlander says 1-2 trillion fish extracted (inc. “bycatch,”) from our oceans each year (“by fishing methods such as trawling, purse seine, long lines, explosives, and other techniques that are damaging ecosystems”) http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/biodiversity-and-food-choice-a-clarification/

 

[viii] The figures for by-kill rates can be as high as 20lbs of untargeted species trapped for every pound of targeted animals killed.

 

[ix] “The USDA currently forecasts 2013/14 palm oil production…total area devoted to oil palm plantings is estimated at a record 10.8 million hectares.” [26.7 million acres]

 

[x] “[Dorothy Stang’s] death prompted Amazon activists – more than 1,000 of whom have been murdered in the last 20 years – to demand Brazil’s government crack down on the illegal seizure and clearance of the rainforest to graze cattle, raise soy crops, and harvest timber.”

“More than 1,100 activists, small farmers, judges, priests and other rural workers have been killed in land disputes in the last two decades.”

 

[xi] A single cow can produce between 66-132 gallons of methane a day. The average US vehicle gas tank can hold about 16 gallons of gas.

 

[xii] “The US meat industry produced some 1.4 billion tons of waste in 1997— five tons of animal waste for every US citizen. (USDA)”http://www.worldwatch.org/fire-grill-mouthwatering-red-white-and-green-july-4th

 

[xiv] The average person in the U.S. uses 405,000 gallons of freshwater per year (combination of the subfractions which comprise 206 pounds of meat per year– divided between 46 pounds of pig, 58 pounds of cow, 102 pounds of chicken and turkey in addition to 248 eggs and 616 pounds of dairy products), which equates to saving 1,100 gallons of water each day.

– 45lbs of grain saved per day: Grain: multiply ounces of each meat consumed daily per person by the feed conversion factor for each animal.

– It is estimated that 80,000 acres of rainforest are cleared each day with an additional 80,000 degraded, with 70-91% of that degradation for the livestock industry.

– CO2 based of feed conversion ratios and the average US meat consumption of 209lbs per year, per person.

Beef is at 22-27 kg CO2 Eq per kg produced/consumed X 2.5 ounces/day=1.75 kgor 3.85 pounds

Cheese/milk is 13.5 kg per kg product X 2 pounds/day=12.15 kg or 12.5 pounds

Pork is 12 kg per kg product X 2 ounces/day=.68 kg or 1.5 pounds

Combination chicken and turkey is 7 kg per kg product X 4.48 ounces/day= .89 kg or 1.96 pounds minimally (using only chicken)

{turkey, for instance, is 11 kg per kg product}

Eggs are at 5 kg per kg product X 2/3 egg per day= (50 g/egg) .55 pounds

— which equals 20.36 pounds of CO2 Eq saved per day.

 

[xv] An important distinction must be made between water "use" and "consumption". Hydroelectric power is one of the largest "users" of water in the US, but actually consumes very little water. The water is used to power turbines or for cooling and is almost always returned to the source immediately. Agriculture is the largest "consumer" of water because it pulls water from the source and locks it up in products, not returning it to the source immediately, if ever.

 

[xvi]  $414 billion of externalized costs breaks down to: $314 billion in health-care costs, $38 billion in subsides, $37 billion in environmental costs, $21 billion in cruelty costs, $4 billion in fishing-related costs. Learn more by reading Meatonomics, by David Robinson Simon.

 

[xvii]  On average, one acre of land of any level of fertility will be able to produce 15 to 18 times more protein from plant based sources than from animal products. Additionally, using any agricultural database regionally, nationally, or internationally, one can calculate that on average between 10 times and 100 times (in weight) more plant foods (vegetables, fruit, grain/nuts) on one acre of land than from animal products raised on that same acre of land, regardless of the level of fertility of that particular acre of land, presuming it is the same acre used for either product, animal or plant based.

 

[xviii] Many organizations are studying humanity’s effect on soil degradation, erosion, and eventual desertification but not willing to emphasize the final connection of dots to animal agriculture. According to the UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification), nearly 20 million acres of arable land is lost each year due to desertification and the primary reasons are:

1. deforestation due to cultivation of crops and pasture

2. overgrazing from livestock (“eating away grasses and eroding topsoil with hooves”)

3. intensive farming stripping away nutrients in soil

http://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/background.shtml

Overgrazing by livestock is the principal land problem related to desertification as indicated in the article: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002-186/002-186.html And, according to the UNDDD: “Nearly 20% of the degrading land (globally) is cropland, and 20-25%, rangeland.” Understanding that over 70% of the global arable land used for agriculture is planted for crops grown for livestock, there is be ample support for the statement that “animal agriculture is the leading driver for approximately 1/3 of the land lost on earth due to desertification.” http://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.shtml

 

[xix]   Few prominent scientists will openly proclaim the connection of their research findings with the need to eliminate animal agriculture or promotion of fully plant based nutrition. This is an observation that spans all aspects of global depletion related to food choice, including the topic of loss of biodiversity and extinction of species. 

The statement that animal agriculture is the primary driver of biodiversity loss and extinction of species is supported by many discussions and interviews with leading authors and scientists working for the Convention of Biodiversity and IUCN as well as publications regarding current biodiversity assessments as presented by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the IUCN Red List, and the Global Environmental and Biodiversity Outlook.

Most organizations that associate their work with species and ecosystem/biodiversity concerns as well as the scientific community as a whole believe that the six main threats to our oceans are climate change, overfishing, predator loss, pollution, destruction of habitat, and bycatch, (“bykill”).

(For instance: The Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union and the Convention on Biological Diversity).

As of August 2012, the 2004 Global Species Assessment was the most recent empirical data on global extinction rates, based on birds, mammals, and amphibians. According to an interview conducted by Dr. Oppenlander with Simon Stuart, PhD, chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission:

“Habitat loss from grazing livestock and feed crops is far and away the most pervasive threat to terrestrial animal species, impacting 86 percent of all mammals, 88 percent of amphibians, and 86 percent of all birds. One in every eight birds, one in every three amphibians, and one in every four mammals is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the near future. Overexploitation of wild animals for consumption remains a second major factor for extinction, such as can be seen in bushmeat trade in Africa and Southeast Asia and all hunting endeavors on land, globally.” 

The Alliance for Global Conservation estimates 36 percent of all species on our planet are in danger of extinction.

Scientists have divided our planet into 825 terrestrial “ecoregions” (as well as 450 freshwater and a number of oceanic ecoregions), each defined by its own distinct set of animal and plant species, as well as climate. Of all these land ecoregions, almost half are reported by lead scientists (interviews/discussions) to have livestock as a current threat. The World Conservation Union reported in 2010 that “most of the world’s endangered or threatened species” on their Red List (which lists the species that are most endangered) are suffering habitat loss due to livestock—not due to agriculture but to livestock.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Nagoya, Japan, in October 2010 agreed that none of their goals from 2002 for lessening the rate of biodiversity loss were met. The attendees confirmed that the main pressures for the rapid loss of species—habitat change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive species, and climate change—were all increasing in intensity.

Current biodiversity assessments (as presented by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the IUCN Red List, and the Global Environmental and Biodiversity Outlook) now generally agree that land use change, modification of river flow, freshwater pollution, and exploitation of marine environments are the most significant drivers of biodiversity change and loss of species. Because more than 50% of the land use changes on Earth are related to livestock (ILRI), 70 to 90% of freshwater pollution in western countries (particularly the U.S. and China) can be traced back to animal agriculture, minimally 14.5% of anthropogenic GHG emissions/climate change, and 100% of “exploitation of marine environments” is related to the global commercial fishing industry, it can be safely and confidently demonstrated that “the primary driver of global species’ extinctions and loss of biodiversity is animal agriculture.” 

 

[xx] The amount of water, land and fuel used for differing diets varies greatly from the types of foods consumed, amount consumed and the geographical region where the food was raised. Taking into consideration that 1lb of beef requires upwards of 2500 gallons of water to produce compared to only 25 gallons for 1lb of wheat, the water footprint of a person consuming a high meat diet could be 100x greater than that of a person consuming only plant foods. The same applies for land and oil use. Many arid areas of the world can not support 1 cow per 2 acres and require 50+ acre per cow, compared to a crops such as potatoes that can produce 50,000lbs+ per acre. The energy/fuel inputs are similar. 1 calorie of beef can take 27x more energy to produce than soybeans.

cowspiracy infographic




המפעל החכם שיודע בדיוק כמה עולה לייצר כל פחית בירה

נשלח 29 באוג׳ 2015, 21:48 על ידי Sustainability Org   [ עודכן 29 באוג׳ 2015, 21:48 ]

כמה מים וחשמל הושקעו בכל בקבוק מים מינרלים? מה העלות הייצור המדויקת של פחית משקה קל? מה פליטת ה-CO2 בגין כל מוצר? לכל השאלות הללו, יש כעת תשובות ■ שימוש בביג דאטה לייעל תהליכים ולחסוך באנרגיה ובעלויות ייצור מספק כלי ניהולי חדש, שרק עכשיו נכנס לשימוש במפעלי התעשייה המסורתיים

מאת אמיר טייג, ענבל אורפז, 22/8/2015

אלפי בקבוקים רצים על מסועים ומתקבצים אוטומטית למשטחים. מלגזות, משאיות, מחסנים לוגיסטיים ענקיים, רעש וחום בלתי נסבל - במבט ראשון נראה מפעל טמפו הוותיק למשקאות קלים ובירה בנתניה כאנטיתזה לכל מתחם היי־טק בארץ או בעולם. ואולם מאחורי המעטה האנלוגי מסתתרת מערכת דיגיטלית חדישה שדוחפת את המפעל המסורתי הזה לעידן העכשווי: כל מכונה על פס הייצור, כל מתקן להבשלת הבירה ומשטח בקבוקים, מדחס לחץ אוויר, מצנן, מסנן מים או מכונת קיטור מחוברים לרשת של כ-400 חיישנים שמפוזרים במפעל ויוצרים רשת עצבים מתוחכמת המנטרת בזמן אמת כל משאב שנכנס בשערי המפעל - אם זה חשמל, מים, גז, קיטור, מזוט או פלסטיק - וכל מוצר שיוצא משעריו. המפעל אמנם נותר מפעל ייצור מסורתי, אך הניהול שלו נהפך לדיגיטלי.

"המהפכה התעשייתית הראשונה היתה מנוע הקיטור, המהפכה השנייה היתה קווי הייצור והשלישית היתה הבקרים האלקטרוניים שמנטרים את המכונות. כיום אנחנו בפתחה של המהפכה התעשייתית הרביעית - אינטרנט של הדברים", אומר ירון בן נון, שותף וסמנכ"ל חדשנות בלייטאפ - המפתחת, מיישמת ומטמיעה פתרון מתקדם לניהול צריכה וחיסכון בעלויות האנרגיה בארגונים ומפעלים - הסטארט־אפ שאחראי לשינוי הדיגיטלי בטמפו.

סרטון ידאו - לחץ כאן

המערכת של לייטאפ אמנם לא הפכה את המפעל לסטרילי יותר, אך היא העניקה לו מודעות עצמית - כמה מים וחשמל הושקעו בכל בקבוק מים מינרלים? מה העלות הייצור המדויקת של פחית משקה קל? מה פליטת ה-CO2 בגין כל מוצר? ומה זול יותר לייצר - שישיית בירה בפחית או בקבוק ממוחזר של חצי ליטר בירה? תובנות אלה ואחרות מספקות למנהל מפעל טמפו, ז'יל אסולין, כלי ניהולי שמעולם לא היה לו, שבעזרתו הוא יכול לייעל את הייצור.

"הצורך במערכת כזאת נבע מהרצון שלנו להתנהל נכון יותר מבחינה אנרגטית", אומר אסולין. "המטרה היא לבנות תהליך מתמיד שמאפשר לנהל את האנרגיה שלך. לשם כך, אנחנו צריכים קודם כל להבין בכלל איך אנחנו מתנהלים. מפעל שמתנהל נכון מבחינה אנרגטית הוא מפעל בריא. כמו גוף האדם, המפעל צריך להתנהל בצורה מאוזנת. אתה לא רוצה לבזבז אנרגיה היכן שלא צריך, אבל מצד שני אתה חייב את האנרגיה כדי לייצר את המוצרים. השאלה היא כמה אנרגיה ומה האופטימום שלך מבחינת צריכת אנרגיה כדי לייצר מוצר בהתאם לאיכות הנדרשת ממך".


מפעל טמפואייל טואג

"כיום אני יכול להשפיע 
טוב יותר על עלות המוצר"

התוצר העיקרי שמספקת המערכת של לייטאפ הוא לוח מכוונים דיגיטלי המשמש בעיקר את אסולין ואת מהנדס המפעל, אבי נבון. על פני ציר זמן יכולים השניים לראות כמה אנרגיה נצרכת בכל רגע על ידי המפעל כולו או כל פס ייצור בנפרד, וכמה תוצרת הוא מפיק. היחס בין השניים מספק להם מדד בזמן אמת לרמת היעילות האנרגטית. כל החלטה תפעולית שהם מקבלים מיועדת להשפיע על המדד ולהעלות את היעילות - אם זה החלפת מכונה בשרשרת הייצור, שינוי סדר הפעלת המכונות או החלפת ייצור של מוצר אחד במשנהו. המערכת מספקת להם מידע קריטי אם ההחלטות התפעוליות שקיבלו הוזילו בסופו של דבר את המוצר - או ייקרו אותו.

ז'יל אסוליןאייל טואג

"למשל, אנחנו יודעים כי צרכן האנרגיה הגדול ביותר שלנו הוא בית הבישול של הבירה. ניהלנו דיונים רבים כיצד לייעל את צריכת האנרגיה שם, אך לא היו לנו מספיק נתונים", אומר אסולין. "זה גרם לנו להתקין מונים רבים בכל המפעל שימדדו את צריכת האנרגיה, כך שבסוף כל תקופה הייתי מקבל דו"ח כתוב על צריכת החשמל. אך גם הדו"ח הזה לא היה שווה הרבה בלי מערכת שמנתחת את נתונים. כיום אני יכול לפתוח את המערכת ולראות בזמן אמת כמה חשמל אני צורך, לאן החשמל הזה הולך, מי מבין המוצרים שלי צורך יתר חשמל, איך צריכת החשמל משתנה לאורך היום ואם אני עומד באמות המידה שקבענו לעצמנו. כיום אני יכול להשפיע טוב יותר על עלות המוצר".

לדברי בן נון, המערכת לא רק מנטרת ואוספת מידע, אלא גם מבצעת השוואות בין מפעלים שונים ויוצרת אמות מידה וסטנדרטים. "יש רכיבים רבים שחוזרים על עצמם במפעלי ייצור שונים. מכונות ייצור זקוקות לאוויר דחוס, כך שבכל מפעל יש מדחסי אוויר, מצנני אוויר, מסועים וכו'. אנחנו יכולים לספק למנהלי המפעלים מדדים השוואתיים ולהראות להם עד כמה הם יעילים מבחינה אנרגטית. המערכת מייצרת נתונים המקובלים על כל מקבלי ההחלטות במפעל, ומאפשרת להם לנהל דיונים מעמיקים יותר ולהבין בקלות כיצד ההחלטות שלהם משפיעות על עלויות הייצור".

נבון נותן דוגמה להחלטה מסוג זה: "מדי בוקר מגיעים העובדים הראשונים למפעל ומתחילים בפרוצדורה קבועה לפני שמפעילים את קו הייצור. הם מפעילים את כל המכונות, אבל עד שיוצא המוצר הראשון מפס הייצור, עוברות עוד כמה שעות של הכנה. במהלך שעות אלה מבוזבזת אנרגיה בלי שמיוצרים מוצרים. גילינו כי מרב האנרגיה מתבזבזת בתנור הנמצא בסוף פס הייצור, שתפקידו לכווץ את התווית מניילון העוטפת את הבקבוק. התנור הזה היה עובד מ-6:00 בבוקר עד 10:00 שלא לצורך. מספיק היה לשנות את סדר הפעלת המכונות, ולהדליק את התנור ממש בסמיכות ליציאת המוצר הראשון כדי לחסוך המון אנרגיה".

"נגיד שבקצה המפעל קיימת מערכת לצינון מים שעובדת כבר שנים ארוכות", אומר גיא פאר, שותף מייסד וסמנכ"ל תפעול בלייטאפ. "יש שם חמישה מצננים שונים, שאף אחד לא יודע כמה אנרגיה הם צורכים ומה התפוקה שלהם. יכול להיות שאחד המצננים מבזבז 100 אלף שקל בשנה בגלל תקלה מכנית כלשהי. מאחר שיש במפעל חמישה מצננים כאלה, אף אחד לא יזהה את התקלה עד שיתחיל להעלות עשן מהמצנן, וזה כמובן יהיה מאוחר מדי. המערכת שלנו מודדת לאורך זמן את היעילות של אותו מצנן ומספקת השוואה ל-200 מצננים דומים במפעלים אחרים. אנחנו יכולים להפנות את תשומת הלב של מנהל המפעל לתקלות לפני שהן מתרחשות, אבל גם לגלות לו מכונות במערך הייצור שלו שאפשר לייעל".

"אני צריך להחליט כיצד לחלק את תקציב התחזוקה במפעל", אומר אסולין. "האם עלי להשקיע בהחלפת מכונה או רק לשפץ אותה? אם אני יודע כמה אנרגיה מבזבזת לי כל מכונה וכמה אני יכול לייעל אותה, אני מקבל כלי המאפשר לי לחשב די בקלות את ההחזר על ההשקעה".


אייל טואג

"מחיר חוסר היעילות יכול 
להגיע למיליוני שקלים בשנה"

המציאות של ניהול מפעל תעשייתי שונה מאוד מניהול עסק המספק שירותים. לדברי בן נון, "הכל מתנהל כאן תוך תנועה. זה כמו מכונית שנמצאת על הכביש 15 שנה. בהתחלה היא יעילה מבחינה אנרגטית, אך לאט־לאט היא מתחילה להישחק. הצמיגים כבר פחות טובים, המנוע שורף שמן וצריכת הדלק עולה. זה לא משהו בודד שנשחק, אלא הרבה רכיבים קטנים שנשחקים מתוך המכלול הזה שנקרא מכונית. ההבדל בין מכונית פרטית לבין מפעל ייצור זה מחיר חוסר היעילות - במפעל כמו טמפו זה יכול להגיע למיליוני שקלים בשנה".

"אנחנו תעשייה שעובדת על מרווחים נמוכים מאוד", אומר אסולין. "כל 1% שאנחנו חוסכים מהוצאות הייצור שלנו מגיע ישירות לשורת הרווח. מרבית התקציב שלי הוא קשיח. קשה לי לייעל מהותית את כוח האדם ולצמצם את צריכת חומרי הגלם. חצי מתקציב המפעל יוצא על הוצאות אנרגיה - שם יכולה להיות לי גמישות. כל חברה במצב שלי מחפשת כלי ניהולי לייעול השימוש באנרגיה. זה אחד המקומות שבהם פוטנציאל החיסכון הוא הגבוה ביותר".

לדברי בועז אור, סמנכ"ל פיתוח עסקי בלייטאפ, "אדם מן היישוב שמסתכל על מפעל כמו זה של טמפו מאמין כי התהליכים כאן מנוהלים מתחילתם עד סופם. אבל חייבים להבין שמהפכת האינטרנט של הדברים רק בתחילתה. רק מפעלים מעטים בעולם אימצו את הרמה הזאת של איסוף נתונים, ניתוחם והשוואתם לנתונים בנצ'מרק בתעשייה".

ירון בן נוןאייל טואג

"התפישה היא ש-20% מהאנרגיה בעולם מבוזבזת בגלל תפעול לא נכון", אומר בן נון. "אם היינו יודעים לייעל את שימוש באנרגיה, לא היה מתרחש אסון אקולוגי. בעולם נעשה מחקר רב בניסיון לייעל את השימוש באנרגיה. אחד ממכוני המחקר המעניינים נקרא E2e - שיתוף פעולה של אוניברסיטת ברקלי בקליפורניה, אוניברסיטת שיקגו ו-MIT שבבוסטון. החל באוקטובר נתחיל בשיתוף פעולה עמם, שבמסגרתו קיבלנו מהם מענק של 5 מיליון דולר כדי שנחבר למערכת שלנו מאות מפעילים בצפון האמריקה. אנחנו נהיה למעשה הפלטפורמה המחקרית של המכון, שינסה בעזרת הנתונים שנאסוף להגיע למסקנה מה הערך הכספי שייחסך אם נהפוך את המפעילים לחכמים".

"אנחנו אדישים לשאלה מהיכן מגיע המידע ומה סוג החיישן", מוסיף בן נון. "לכל מפעל יש סוג חיישנים משלו, שפועלים בשפות שונות. למשל, החיישן שמורכב על המכונה הסינית מדבר בשפה שונה מזו שמורכב על המכונה הגרמנית. אנחנו יודעים לאסוף את כל המידע, ולאחד אותו תחת מערכת אחת. למעשה, אנחנו יכולים לגרום למערכות שונות, שלא דיברו זו עם זו מעולם, לדבר באותה שפה. כך אנחנו יכולים להציג תמונה רחבה על צריכת האנרגיה במפעל. הפילוסופיה שלנו אומרת שלא משנה בכלל כמה אנרגיה צורך המפעל, אלא משנה כמות הבזבוז ופוטנציאל החיסכון. כדי להגיע לנתון בודד כמו עלות הייצור האמיתית של בקבוק שתייה, צריך להתממשק להמון מערכות שונות".

אייל טואג

"בסופו של דבר, 
כולנו רוצים להשתפר"

גם עבור סטארט־אפ צעיר, לייטאפ, שהוקמה ב–2011 על ידי אלחי פרקש (המנכ"ל) וגיא פאר (סמנכ"ל התפעול) היא עדיין חברה קטנה מאוד המונה 12 עובדים בישראל ועוד ארבעה עובדים בעולם. עד כה הושקעו בה כ–2 מיליון דולר ממשקיעים פרטיים, והיא קיבלה מענקים בהיקף של כ–6 מיליון דולר מקרן בירד, המדען הראשי במשרד הכלכלה ורשות האנרגיה של מדינת קליפורניה (CEC). למעשה, החברה אינה עוסקת בהתקנות של חיישנים במפעלים, אלא יודעת לאסוף את המידע מהחיישנים הרבים שכבר מותקנים במפעל.

"המרכיב הראשון של המערכת הוא איסוף המידע מהחיישנים, האחדה שלו ומשיכת נתוני הייצור ממערכת הניהול המרכזית (ERP)", אומר פאר. "מהחיישנים אנחנו מקבלים את צד הצריכה, כלומר כמה אנרגיה, חומרי גלם וכדומה הושקעו במוצר. ממערכת ה–ERP אנחנו מקבלים את צד התפוקה, כלומר כמה מוצרים יוצרו בכל תקופת זמן. את המידע הזה אנחנו מכניסים למערכת, ומפעילים עליו את המרכיב השני במערכת, שהוא מנוע ניתוח אנליטי שיודע לייצר יחס בין צריכה לתפוקה וגם מדדים השוואתיים. האלמנט השלישי הוא ההצגה הגרפית, כלומר הדרך שבה המערכת מייצרת למנהל שקיפות ועוזרת לו לקבל החלטות. המערכת כולה נמצאת בענן, אך לקוח שרוצה מאוד לשמור על הנתונים אצלו יכול להפעיל אותה מתוך הענן הפרטי שלו, הנמצא מאחורי הפיירוול".


אייל טואג

למרות התחרות הקשה בין יצרני המשקאות הקלים, אסולין לא חושש לשתף עם מפעלים אחרים חלק מהמידע שמייצרת לייטאפ, אפילו עם מתחריו. "אנחנו מאתגרים את עצמנו כיום בעיקר כדי להפחית את צריכת ה–CO2 ליחידת מוצר", אומר אסולין. "טביעת הרגל הפחמנית שלנו נוצרת בעיקר בשל השימוש בחשמל. אנחנו קובעים יעדים להפחתת הפליטה הפחמית ומפרסמים אותם. זו גאווה מבחינתנו לעמוד ביעדים ולראות לכולם שהשתפרנו. אין לי התנגדות שהמתחרה שלי יידע כמה אנרגיה וכמה מים אני צורך בגין כל מוצר, כדי שגם הוא יוכל להשתפר. בסופו של דבר כולנו רוצים להשתפר. ברור שמידע קריטי כמו כמות הייצור חייב להישאר סודי".

באשר למודל העסקי אומר אור כי "אנחנו לא חברת חיסכון באנרגיה שלוקחת אחוזים מהחיסכון שהיא משיגה. מודל ההכנסה שלנו נגזר מהיקף האנרגיה המנוהלת במערכת. אנחנו נותנים שירותי תוכנה למפעל, וגובים תשלום חודשי או רבעוני לפי כמה אנרגיה מנוהלת במערכת. זה דומה מעט לניהול נכסים פיננסיים, ומודל של דמי ניהול. אנחנו פונים בעיקר למפעלים שחשבון האנרגיה שלהם עולה על 400 אלף שקל בחודש, שזה כולל חשמל מזוט, גז ועלות הטיפול במים ושפכים. למעשה, מערך החיישנים הוא לא שלנו, אלא של המפעל עצמו. אנחנו לא חברת אינטרגרציה שבאה ומתקינה חיישנים. את זה עושים אנשי המפעל".

"מדובר בתהליך ארוך יחסית עד שרואים תוצאות", אומר אסולין. "לקח לנו כמעט שנה כדי לחבר את כל החיישנים הקיימים ולשים חיישנים נוספים. כדי לקבל תובנות טובות גם צריך שתהיה היסטוריה של נתונים, כך שאפשר יהיה לבצע השוואות ולראות שינויים".

באופן מעט מפתיע, לייטאפ פיתחה את המוצר על בסיס ניסיון שנצבר בישראל. לחברה 52 התקנות במפעלים בישראל ורק שתי התקנות בארה"ב. "יש לנו פרויקט בתהליך בגרמניה, ועד שתי התקנות במכרות בצ'ילה, אך החל באוקטובר תתרחש קפיצת מדרגה - נתחיל להתקין את המערכת ב-100 מפעלים בארה"ב כחלק ממחקר של E2e", אומר בן נון. באשר לשותפים אסטרטגיים, מעריכים בלייטאפ כי חברות הייעוץ הגלובליות הן מועמדות קלאסיות לשיתופי פעולה אלה. "אנחנו חברה קטנה, אבל עובדים עם שותפים", הוא אומר.

אייל טואג

המהפכה הניהולית מתחילה בחיישנים

בזמן הביקור במפעל טמפו קשה שלא להיזכר בספר "המטרה" של ד"ר אליהו מ. גולדרט מ-1984, שנהפך לרב מכר בתחום הניהול. הספר עוקב אחרי תהליך שינוי שמוביל אלכס רוגו, מנהל מפעל אמריקאי שלא מצליח לעמוד באף אחת מההזמנות שלו במועד המבוקש ועומד על סף סגירה. השיטה שגולדרט מציג בספר, שמהווה את הבסיס לניהול לפי תורת האילוצים, מתבססת על זיהוי צווארי הבקבוק במפעל, קבלת החלטה כיצד לנצל אותם ולהתאים אליהם את יתר המפעל, תוך שיפור של הפעילות שלהם.

אחד היסודות שעליהם נשען תהליך ההתייעלות במפעל, שחרור צווארי הבקבוק והפיכתו ממפעל כושל למפעל ששולט בלוחות הזמנים ותחרותי, הוא כמות גדולה של נתונים. כך, כחלק מהשינוי המתואר בספר, שפורסם בראשית ימי המחשב האישי, מותקן מסוף מחשב בכל אחד מהשלבים בתהליך הייצור שמוגדרים כצווארי בקבוק. באמצעות הזנת מידע ישירות לבסיס הנתונים של המפעל מצליחים במפעל לחזות מראש ברמת דיוק של יום מתי ייצא משלוח מהמפעל. המידע הזה משמש, למשל, את מחלקת השיווק שיכולה בהתאם לדו"חות והתחזיות לפנות ללקוחות חדשים ולהתחייב ללוחות זמנים. כלומר, נתונים ומידע משמשים לא רק לייעול תהליך הייצור, אלא יכולים לשנות את הדרך שבה מתנהל המפעל כולו.

כבר בשנות ה-80 היה ברור שאחד הגורמים המרכזיים שמאפשרים את יישום השיטה הוא מידע מדויק ומעודכן לגבי התפוקות, הזמנים, הקצב וצריכת החומרים בכל אחד משלבי הייצור המפעל. לכן מפתיע כל כך לגלות שב–2015 לא קיים מידע מדויק ומעודכן בזמן אמת לגבי כל אחד מהפרמטרים בתהליך הייצור, אלא מידע כללי וגולמי כמו כמויות החשמל או המים הכוללות שצורך המפעל בכל חודש, בלי פירוט ספציפי לכל מכונה במפעל ובזמן אמת (לפני שנגרם בזבוז).

עבור מנהלי המפעלים זהו מידע יקר ערך בעל משמעויות אופרטיביות, כלכליות ואסטרטגיות. בשנים האחרונות ירדו מחירי החיישנים בצורה דרסטית, והכיוון שאליו צועד העולם הוא חיבור של כל מכונה ומכשיר לרשת האינטרנט. שילוב של שני הגורמים האלה למפעלים המסורתיים, יחד עם כלים שנגישים במכשירי מובייל בכל כיס, יכול להביא אותם למהפכה ניהולית של ממש, שתהפוך אותם לרלוונטיים למאה ה-21.



מדד ההשפעה הסביבתי

נשלח 12 בדצמ׳ 2014, 12:34 על ידי Sustainability Org   [ עודכן 12 בדצמ׳ 2014, 12:36 ]

מדד ההשפעה הסביבתי של המשרד להגנת הסביבה משקף את ההשפעה הסביבתית של החברות הציבוריות בישראל באמצעות שיקלול פרמטרים שונים כגון: רמת הציות של החברות לדין הסביבתי, כמות החומרים המזהמים או הפסולת הנפלטים או מועברים לסביבה, סיכונים הנובעים משימוש בחומרים מסוכנים, קרבה לשימושים רגישים ועוד.

מדד ההשפעה הסביבתי נועד לשמש כלי נוסף, לצד כלים רבים אחרים, שמסייע למשקיעים בקביעת הסיכון הפיננסי הנובע מפעילות חברות נסחרות, וכך להעניק למשקיעים בחברות מבט נוסף בנוגע לביצועי החברה. בנוסף, מהווה המדד אינדיקטור עבור המשרד להגנת הסביבה בעת קביעת מדיניות פיקוח ורישוי ועבור החברות עצמן לגבי היקף השפעתן הסביבתית ומרכיביה. 

לקבלת נתונים נוספים לחצו על שם החברה ברשימה האדומה למטה

 
פז חברת נפטקבוצת דלקחברת החשמל לישראלדלק חברת הדלק הישראליתכימיקלים לישראלאלון הריבוע הכחול ישראלהחברה לישראלבתי זיקוק לנפטטבע תעשיות פרמצבטיות בענייר חדרהאדמה פתרונות לחקלאותכלל תעשיותמפעלים פטרוכימיים בישראלאפריקה ישראל תעשיותכרמל אולפיניםשיכון ובינויטן חברה לדלקחד אסף תעשיותאפריקה ישראל להשקעותמבטח שמיר אחזקותשמן תעשיותהחברה לשירותי איכות הסביבהחברת השקעות דיסקונטפריגו קומפני פי אס אלאידיבי חברה לפיתוח בעתדיר גן (מוצרים מדוייקים) 1993צינורות המזרח התיכוןפרוטרום תעשיותטמפו משקאותמקורות חברת מיםמקסימה המרכז להפרד אווירגן שמואל מזוןשטראוס גרופמפעלי ע. שנפ ושותפלסטו שקקרדן N.Vפרוטליקסעמיר שיווק והשקעות בחקלאותדלק קידוחים - שותפות מוגבלתסנו מפעלי ברונוסדלק מערכות אנרגיהאבנר חיפושי נפט שותפות מוגבלתהרשימה האדומהImage Map
מקור: המשרד להגנת הסביבה


Livestock: The methane makers

נשלח 3 בנוב׳ 2014, 13:33 על ידי Sustainability Org   [ עודכן 3 בנוב׳ 2014, 13:34 ]

By Dan Bell , BBC News , 28 October 2009

The man behind one of the most influential reports on climate change, Lord Stern, has highlighted the impact meat production has on greenhouse gas emissions. Part of it comes through methane made by the animals as they digest food. So which farm animals expel the most methane?

Graphic showing animals and methane emissions

A diet that relies heavily on meat production results in higher emissions than a typical vegetarian diet, says Lord Stern.

The author of the 2006 Stern Review into the cost of climate change attacked the "enormous pressure" meat production puts on the world's resources and said people were becoming increasingly aware about "low carbon consumption".

He told the BBC that cutting greenhouse gas emissions was important across the board, in areas such as electricity, transport and food.

In a 2006 report, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, it said, all the world's cars, trains, planes and boats accounted for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Belching

The greenhouse gas emissions associated with meat consumption has many components, the largest of which is land use change - the clearing of forests for pasture or for the production of soya for animal feed. Other elements that have an impact on emissions include the rearing and slaughter of livestock, and the transport, refrigeration and cooking of meat.

There is also the nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, in the manure of animals reared for meat and the methane, another greenhouse gas, in their flatulence. Molecule for molecule, methane has a much larger warming effect than carbon dioxide.

As the diagram above shows, methane emission is dramatically higher in cows (primarily from belching) than other animals. But cutting back on eating meat is not the simple answer, say scientists.

For a start, many of the cows responsible for producing methane are not reared to be eaten, according to Elaine Matthews, a methane expert at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The breeds favoured in non-western countries are often bred for other uses, such as work, and these non-western cows are far more numerous than the larger dairy varieties reared in North America and Europe.

The larger western cows actually produce more methane per cow than their smaller non-western breeds, but because there are fewer of them, they only account for about 15% of all the methane produced by cows in general.

Cows
Western cows emit only 15% of methane expelled by cows

Meat output 'doubling'

Ms Matthews also says the quantity of methane they produce depends on the quality of food they are given. Cows that eat grain, she says, produce less methane than cows grazing on wild grass.

HAVE YOUR SAY
The simple fact of the matter is we don't need to eat meat, so why do we? Without it we can save releasing dangerous gases and save the cruelty of the meat trade
The Running Man, London

And methane is not the most important consideration in relation to livestock, says Friends of the Earth - it's the intensity with which they are reared.

According to the environmental pressure group, methane from livestock accounts for about 6% of greenhouse gas emissions, with 6% from CO2 released when forests are cleared for pasture and to produce soy for feeds.

What is clear is that people are eating more meat and dairy products every year.

Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.



1-10 of 125