Carbon footprint of a hamburger? Give me a break ...

[Richard Cranium]

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Fire Up the Grill, Not the Atmosphere
By BRIAN PALMER

Published: June 30, 2011


FOOD is responsible for 10 to 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. By many estimates, cooking represents more of a meal's carbon footprint than transport. For certain vegetables, it accounts for more emissions than agriculture, transport and disposal combined.
Fourth of July, the national celebration of combustion, presents an opportunity for atonement.
I'm not advising you to forsake grilling this holiday and join the ranks of raw-foodists. Nor do I believe that we can reverse climate change by eating burgers rare instead of well done. But a little creative thinking can reduce this year's Fourth of July carbon emissions without gustatory sacrifice. And maybe that awareness will carry into other days and other parts of our lives.
Consider potato salad: a pale mixture of boiled potatoes and mayonnaise that is sometimes appetizing but always wasteful. An overwhelming majority of the energy in boiling goes into heating the water rather than cooking the potatoes.
Direct-heat methods are more efficient and usually tastier. Cubed and pan-fried potatoes take just 10 minutes to cook and require less than one-third the energy of boiling. (According to my math, microwaving potatoes is about 40 percent more efficient than pan-frying them on an electric stove, but when I do it the potatoes come out rubbery, and that is too much sacrifice for a holiday.)
If you insist on boiling, lower the heat once bubbles appear. Keeping the burner on high only speeds evaporation; it doesn't make the water any hotter or shorten cooking time. And cut the pieces small, because cooking time decreases as surface area increases.
Now for the burgers and dogs. First, a green disclaimer. Beef is an environmental disaster, no matter how you cook it. However, if you can't resist grilled cow, your big decision is between charcoal and propane.
Charcoal is made of wood, so the carbon it releases upon combustion is approximately equal to the carbon the tree it came from once removed from the atmosphere. In theory, charcoal should be less damaging than propane, which releases carbon that has been sequestered harmlessly underground for hundreds of millions of years.
It's far more complicated in practice, though. We get most lump charcoal from cutting down mesquite trees, and in addition to the deforestation effect, it takes more fuel to produce and transport charcoal than it does propane. As a result, according to a 2009 study in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review, propane is nearly three times as efficient as lump charcoal.
Charcoal briquettes, however, are a different story. The compressed round briquettes are made from scrap wood that would otherwise go to waste. The better manufacturers build their plants near construction centers and use recycled heat from those centers to power their briquette kilns. If you take that into account, charcoal briquettes are ahead of lump charcoal and propane as the best option in terms of climate change. (Any kind of charcoal, however, releases more particulate matter than propane, which makes charcoal a greater contributor to air pollution. There are few easy choices in environmental analysis.)
And finally we come to dessert. Skip the pie. Baking is so energy profligate that the government hasn't yet figured out a way to reward any residential ovens with the Energy Star label.
Here's where you can really make use of your briquettes. One problem with charcoal is that you can't turn it off when the burgers are done. In most backyards that means lots of heat - and carbon dioxide - goes to waste. Not in your yard, though.
Use that leftover charcoal glow to grill up dessert. Apples, pears, peaches and nectarines grill beautifully, and are even better à la mode. Or you can prepare a cobbler in a foil pan and grill it on the dying coals. From an environmental perspective, that's free energy.
Maybe an Independence Day meal of pan-fried potatoes and grilled peaches seems un-American. But the tradition of backyard grilling isn't exactly Jeffersonian in pedigree. Independence Day feasts in the early 1800s featured such classic American fare as turtle soup. By midcentury, revelers were gathering en masse to buy parts of whole roast pigs from street vendors. (A British visitor pondered, "What association can there be between roast pig and independence?") Backyard grilling didn't become popular until the interwar period at the earliest, and accelerated with the baby boom and suburbanization that followed World War II.
In other words, there's nothing so very sacred about the Fourth of July cookout. So this year, why not experiment?


Brian Palmer writes for Slate and The Washington Post.

[68X426]

Painfully laughable. One volcano burping blows away the carbon footprint calculations.

Put a cork in the volcanos, and enjoy eating grilled meat, all you wonderful bastard carnivores.!

[bull]

We need to eradicate humans from the Earth. Then not only will it be saved but there won't be anyone here to worry about it.

[Domino]

I propose a volcano fart tax, or make them plant trees somewhere else. 

[John_Kunkel]

Painfully laughable. One volcano burbing blows away the carbon footprint calculations.

In other words if somebody is up to their lips in water, adding enough water to cover his nose is "laughable"?

[68X426]

Painfully laughable. One volcano burbing blows away the carbon footprint calculations.

In other words if somebody is up to their lips in water, adding enough water to cover his nose is "laughable"?

We will have all grown gills by then. 

[68X426]

Seriously, and god knows I don't want to be serious, ....

The laughable part is the concept of guilt. The writer and his article are all about soothing the guilty feelings of the rich American consumer.

Seeing who pays him to write allows me to easily make the following not-PC correct statement:

the article's audience has guilty consciences, and cannot reconcile those feelings with their consumer reality, therefore not boiling water and not eating meat will help these people feel better about themselves,

even as they sip their Fiji water (flown in from Fiji),

wearing their hemp clothing (shipped in from Mongolia),

planning their next vacation to Patagonia (to peacefully enjoy nature),

before flying to Aspen to see friends to reminiscence about last year's great trip to St. Martin where they played with the dolphins.

I know lots of rich American consumers. And they have guilty feelings. Often overwhelming.

The article is about soothing the consumers' guilty conscience. So I laugh.

Nothing personal John. Just observing the human condition.

I hug my trees. I grow my vegetables. I eat my vegetables raw. I eat locally grown meat. I am free range. I am responsible for my behavior and do all I can to clean up the pollution I make. But not boiling water is all about consumer guilt. And I for one choose to not have misplaced feelings of guilt. So I laugh.

[moparguy01]

The only thing that pops into my head is the following picture.

[Ghoste]

If someone is up to their lips in water because of a monsoon but the blame is being placed on whoever added the next inch of water, then yes it's laughable.  If that person added the extra water on purpose to specifically drown that water dweller, well no that wouldn't be funny.  But if the extra water was the result of some other natural process related to human survival then blaming the wrong source is very painfully laughable.

[BananaDan]

That dude can suck it...

[Todd Wilson]

We need to eradicate humans from the Earth. Then not only will it be saved but there won't be anyone here to worry about it.

YUP!   Get rid of all the humans!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Then all will be good on mother earfh again!


Todd

[PocketThunder]

We need to eradicate humans from the Earth. Then not only will it be saved but there won't be anyone here to worry about it.

YUP!   Get rid of all the humans!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Then all will be good on mother earfh again!


Todd

'
But then who will collect taxes from the "corporate jet" owners and use that money to buy votes?

[RECHRGD]

The author implies the eating "grilled cow" is a bad thing.  In my experience, when the human body is subjected to a purely vegetarian diet it produces a greater amount of methane gas that gets released into the atmosphere.  So all the farting vegans out there could be more harmful to the earth than a '68 440 Charger.

[bull]

This reminds me of the local cry babies around here who had the historic air show shut down due to noise. ONE day a year they were flying B17s, P51s, Coast Guard helicopters, etc., in to the local airport and apparently the beautiful sound of turbo charged v12s and those big radial engines was too much for a few people to handle. So now we get 365 days of nothing instead of 364.

So here's what I think of you, Brian Palmer.

[Troy]

Soooooo, what's the carbon footprint of about 10 billion firecrackers, sparklers, and snakes? Not to mention the several hundred HUGE fireworks shows put on by parks, towns, sports teams, and big cities. He mentions making a pie or grilling apples with the leftover charcoal but never once mentions that you could just make 2-3 times as many burgers and hot dogs instead. Perhaps this guy is the only one grilling by himself? (Which would not be surprising at all.) Most 4th of July cookouts are larger gatherings than normal and large gatherings are inherently more "green" than small groups or individuals (this is the primary argument against "sprawl" after all). He points out that our menu choices are far from "traditional" but ignores nearly everything else that is different from the first Independence Day. How much energy was wasted by this article?

Troy

[68X426]

My wife says she's at the top of the food chain and she will eat whatever she wants. 

[Tilar]

I agree with your wife.

[Budnicks]

My wife says she's at the top of the food chain and she will eat whatever she wants. 

Your Damn right we will...

[John_Kunkel]

If someone is up to their lips in water because of a monsoon but the blame is being placed on whoever added the next inch of water, then yes it's laughable.  If that person added the extra water on purpose to specifically drown that water dweller, well no that wouldn't be funny.  But if the extra water was the result of some other natural process related to human survival then blaming the wrong source is very painfully laughable.

Once again you're confused by the analogy, the quickest way to show one's ignorance of the environment is to compare natural emissions like volcanoes to man's emissions or to make light of global warming during a sub-zero blizzard....it's about the difference man makes, intentional or not.

Maybe the straw and the camel would be a better analogy.

[Ghoste]

Once again I'm confused?  I don't even recall having one of these discussions with you before but I'm sure I'm mistaken.  Whatever.
The only thing I get from your analogy is the same old tired left wing guilt trip.  Whether you like it or not I just don't buy it.
You take it from your spin and I'll take it from mine.

[Road Dog]

Methane Gas released from thawing permafrost is the real heavy hitter.

[John_Kunkel]

Once again I'm confused?  I don't even recall having one of these disussions with you before but I'm sure I'm mistaken.

You are....again. 

The only thing I get from your analogy is the same old tired left wing guilt trip.

As opposed to the old tired right wing "there's nothing to worry about" mantra?

It's only a "guilt trip" if one tries to make others feel guilty, as opposed to stating simple opinions for the edification of the reader. Speaking for myself, there's not a scintilla of guilt as I joyfully pollute the planet because I won't be here to suffer the consequences of living in the world the "nothing to worry about" crowd is creating. 

[Tilar]

After seeing the above BBQ Grill, I did a search and found one that even a flaming liberal would love to have. They can use this to cook hot dogs while at a gay pride march! How cool is that! 



I also found a couple for real men.

[Ghoste]

Once again I'm confused?  I don't even recall having one of these disussions with you before but I'm sure I'm mistaken.

You are....again. 
 

In that case I may as well resign myself to the fact that it will happen again.  Oh well, I'm sure I'll still sleep soundly.  Perhaps your environmental anaologies aren't all that good seeing as how they are confusing me and not leaving memorable impresssions?

[John_Kunkel]

Perhaps your environmental anaologies (sic) aren't all that good seeing as how they are confusing me

Or they are good and you're confused because...............