Bummer: Organic Food Is Worse For ‘Climate Change’ Than Conventionally Farmed Food

Hipsters and Instagram influencers everywhere hardest hit, along with Cult of Climastrology members who hate modern food

An inconvenient truth? Organic food’s impact on climate change in the spotlight following critical report

Organically farmed food has a bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed food due to the greater areas of land required, according to a new study. Researchers have developed a new method for assessing the climate impact from land-use, and used this, along with other methods, to compare organic and conventional food production. The results show that organic food can result in much greater emissions. But some points of the study are being challenged by advocates in the organic farming sector.

The researchers – involving the Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden – created the novel metric for calculating the carbon footprint of specific land use.

“Our study shows that organic peas, farmed in Sweden, have around a 50 percent bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed peas. For some foodstuffs, there is an even bigger difference. For example, with organic Swedish winter wheat the difference is closer to 70 percent,” says Stefan Wirsenius, an associate professor from Chalmers, and one of those responsible for the study.

The reason why “organic food is so much worse for the climate” is that the yields per hectare are much lower, primarily because fertilizers are not used, notes the research.

The bigger part of all this is that money, probably from taxpayers, was wasted looking at this subject.

And, of course, the organic producers do not like the study, but, they couldn’t actually dispute it.

The researchers do recognize that organic farming does not use fertilizers and the goal is to use resources like energy, land and water in a long-term, sustainable way. Crops are primarily nurtured through nutrients present in the soil and the main aims are greater biological diversity and a balance between animal and plant sustainability. Only naturally derived pesticides are used.

Yes, they’re farming like it’s 1499. The more modern methods generally mean that the food is much safer, doesn’t have diseases or bugs, there is a higher crop yield, and it’s modern.

“The arguments for organic food focus on consumers’ health, animal welfare and different aspects of environmental policy. There is good justification for these arguments, but at the same time, there is a lack of scientific evidence to show that organic food is in general healthier and more environmentally friendly than conventionally farmed food, according to the National Food Administration of Sweden and others,” says a PR statement from the researchers.

Well, it’s certainly not better for the climate, if we’re to use the Warmists talking points about carbon footprints and such.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Bummer: Organic Food Is Worse For ‘Climate Change’ Than Conventionally Farmed Food”

  1. Jl says:

    And here I thought the science was always settled….

  2. Kye says:

    The science was settled….until it’s resettled……again and again. The left treats science like it treats votes. It keeps changing them over and over till they reach the outcome they want. But there is no voter fraud nor climate fraud. No in deedy. None.

  3. Kye says:

    I’m amused at how those who believe Bruce Jenner is now a female insist if we don’t agree on AGW we are the science deniers. Hilarious!

  4. Jethro says:

    Science is never settled, although overwhelming evidence can make it seem that way.

    Do you think this study invalidates the theory that greenhouse gases cause warming or something?

    There’s a medical consensus that tobacco use causes cancer, yet most heavy smokers do not develop cancer. Does a smoker without cancer invalidate the theory?

    Gravity is only poorly understood, yet it’s still likely that apples will fall from a tree, rather than rise into space. Does a helium balloon invalidate the theory of gravity?

    Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere slow the loss of infrared radiation from the Earth, warming the atmosphere and surface. Organic farming is not part of the theory.

    (BTW – There’s precious little evidence that organic farming is healthier for people or the environment.)

    • formwiz says:

      Well, at least I got him to lay off the science is settled idiocy, but the evidence is far from overwhelming when they had to cook the books to get it.

      There’s a medical consensus that tobacco use causes cancer

      No, the FDA found that cigarettes may cause cancer if smoked in quantity (1 a day will not kill you).

      Gravity is only poorly understood, yet it’s still likely that apples will fall from a tree, rather than rise into space. Does a helium balloon invalidate the theory of gravity?

      Gravity is the force by which a planet or other body draws objects toward its center. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit around the sun.

      NASA seems to get it pretty well. The reason a helium-filled balloon floats is because helium is lighter than air.

      Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere slow the loss of infrared radiation from the Earth, warming the atmosphere and surface.

      Greenhouse gases make the plants grow (another black hole in Jeffery when it comes to photosynthesis).

      • Jethro says:

        You didn’t do shit, smegma. We’ve always maintained that science is never settled. Why do you type lies?

        Theories are never proven, but they can be invalidated. Scientific theories are accepted as supporting evidence accumulates. That’s when a scientific consensus forms. You should know all this – it’s in lots of books.

        And your understanding of gravity is decades behind the times.

        You dishonor yourself and your family with your nonsense.

        • formwiz says:

          I’ve always maintained that science is never settled.

          No, we had multiple discussions on this with you pushing the Albert Gore platform and me talking facts. You know you really are transparent on these things.

          Theories are never proven

          ????? Really? If enough evidence is found, theories are often proven. You just have to present honest data, not cooked books.

          Do everybody (but mostly yourself) a favor and quit trying to sound as if you know anything about science because you really don’t.

          Back to consensus, are we? There was a consensus for millennia about the theory the sun revolved around the Earth. A coupla guys named Galileo and Copernicus bucked the consensus and were proven right.

          That’s in a lot more books.

          And your understanding of gravity is decades behind the times.

          Apparently, so is NASA because it’s their quote.

          That “nonsense” is the result of a very expensive education and can be found in just about all books. And at least I know who my family is.

          Especially my father.

          And when did you ever read a book?

          • Jethro says:

            No disrespect, but you’re an ignoramus. Born of arrogance no doubt.

            Let me guess, you think Big Orange is a great leader.

  5. Kye says:

    If a person is going to pick and choose what they believe in science based on their political views then they are not interested in real science. I am not a scientist nor am I a politician but I am capable of a rational decision in both fields given enough data that I understand. What I can recognize is when people start talking bullsh!t based on their politics and not the subject at hand.

    If man causes some climate change that is perfectly understandable since everything in the ecosystem affects everything else. If one believes that man can and is destroying the earth he has passed into the the realm of science/politics and is no longer capable of discussing the subject rationally because if he believes that he must necessarily believe that to save the planet we must sacrifice mankind and that’s idiotic.

    • Jethro says:

      Kye,

      Thank you for trying to understand.

      The theory is simple. Since CO2 absorbs and re-releases infrared radiation (emitted from Earth after absorbing sunlight), adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere and surface to warm. Svante Arrhenius demonstrated that CO2 absorbs infrared over a century ago. Nothing new there.

      The increase in atmospheric CO2 that has occurred over the past century is from humans burning fossil fuels. This has been demonstrated from analyzing the fractions of isotopic carbon in fossil fuels and the change in the ratios in atmospheric CO2. Eazy-peazy.

      The Earth has warmed considerably, nearly one degree Celsius in the past century, much of that since the mid 70s. Some argue that the data are faked, but they’re wrong. Because of the prolonged residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, even stopping all emissions today would not change the warming trend for decades. Some argue that 1C is a miniscule increase but they don’t understand the difference between 1C warmer on a summer’s day and 1C warmer for the global mean surface temperature.

      I don’t know of anyone proposing that the extinction of humans would be a good thing. Stopping global warming is to benefit humankind and our societies.

      The lies are coming from those that want global warming to continue. You’ll have to ask them why they think a warming Earth is good for humanity.

      • Jl says:

        “Some argue the data are faked, but they’re wrong”. Good one J. But they’re not, as many, many examples illustrate. “The earth has warmed considerably..some don’t understand 1C warmer for the global temperature”. Your’re right- and those would be the alarmists. As usual, they start their “argument” from the false premise that warming would be bad, when they have no evidence that it will. http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/#sthash.qFUDWwc0.dpbs

      • formwiz says:

        Some argue the data is (this is America, after all) and they’re right because they can prove it.

        The increase in atmospheric CO2 that has occurred over the past century is from humans burning fossil fuels.

        Humans have been burning fossil fuel since there have been humans.

        Because of the prolonged residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere

        Back to denying photsynthesis again. CO2 is absorbed into plants to make them grow.

        The lies are coming from those that want global warming to continue.

        Well, half true. The lies are coming from those that want the lies that global warming exists to continue.

  6. Hoss says:

    Those geniuses are just figuring out that land that produces 1/20th of the yield as conventional farming is harder on the ecosystem. My garden is 100% organic (at least as organic as egg shells, banana peels, and worm poop/tea can get), but I’m only trying to keep me and my people in a couple of different kinds of peppers and tomatoes (and cilantro, chives, and oregano), not feed volume. My grandpa was a tomato farmer, and my uncle is still a corn farmer on a massive scale, and trust me, they try/tried to be as clean as possible when it comes to the food being produced and the land and surroundings it’s being produced on.

  7. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    Despite the rantings of a certain nignorant angry little negro fella in st. louis…

    …there is no valid, replicable, scientific evidence that humans or fossil fuel emissions have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always governed Earth’s complex, frequently changing climate and weather systems.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/17/we-are-still-in-totalitarians-flunk-basic-reality/
    https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  8. formwiz says:

    No disrespect, but you’re an ignoramus. Born of arrogance no doubt.

    Let me guess, you think Big Orange is a great leader.

    Hey, I’m not the guy who doesn’t get photosynthesis.

    And, of course he is. If he weren’t, you wouldn’t be here every day whining about him.

    No disrespect, but you’re still an ignoramus.

    Telling lie after lie makes you appear weak.

    Yet I had brains enough to look up what NASA thought about gravity to make you look like the fool you are.

    And I’m happy to see you recognize you have a problem with compulsive lying. Next step is seek help

    • Jethro says:

      You rely on NASA for bland statements aimed at gradeschoolers, but accuse them of pushing the “hoax of global warming”. How selectively ignorant of you. Do you really believe that NASA scientists are creating “fake” temperature data?

      What’s the nature of the gravity “force”? Gravity rays or waves? A curvature of spacetime? Undiscovered tethers that keep planets and moons in orbit? If the gods suddenly caused the Sun to disappear, how long would the Earth continue in its current orbit? So you accept the theory of gravity based on evidence even though it’s nature is unproven? How selective.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5090 access attempts in the last 7 days.