{"id":253823,"date":"2023-04-20T21:51:47","date_gmt":"2023-04-20T19:51:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=253823"},"modified":"2023-04-20T21:51:51","modified_gmt":"2023-04-20T19:51:51","slug":"wrong-mayor-adams-monitoring-and-limiting-food-choice-curtails-freedom-but-it-wont-stop-climate-change","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=253823","title":{"rendered":"Wrong, Mayor Adams, Monitoring and Limiting Food Choice Curtails Freedom, but It Won\u2019t Stop Climate Change"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From ClimateRealism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Linnea Lueken<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has targeted \u201cemissions intensive\u201d food consumption for tracking and gradual government-mandated limits, in order to reduce the city\u2019s alleged climate change impacts. Adams\u2019 focus on the food New Yorkers eat is misguided at best and authoritarian and ineffective at worst. In fact, tracking carbon dioxide emissions from food production and consumption is complicated, and ultimately unhelpful, because data show meat and dairy, the likely prime targets for Adams\u2019 food policing policies, contribute very little to global emissions, despite what alarmists assert.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A story in Gothamist, a news site run by New York Public Radio, titled \u201cNYC will target food choices in its battle against climate change<\/a>,\u201d describes Adams\u2019 crusade against meat and dairy consumption in New York City. The mayor\u2019s office announced a plan to start tracking the carbon footprint that everyday household consumption has, and \u201ca new target for New York City agencies to reduce their food-based emissions[.]\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201chousehold consumption tracker\u201d will detail all the emissions involved in the production, transportation, and consumption, of common household items, especially food. The mayor\u2019s office claims that, \u201c20% of the city\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions come from food consumed by households,\u201d and \u201cofficials said New Yorkers can help the planet by eating more fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article also reports that Adams\u2019 plan goes beyond monitoring and restricting food choice at public hospitals, schools, and cafeterias in government buildings, rather \u201cAdams is asking private sector companies to cut their emissions by 25 percent by 2030.\u201d Gothamist doesn\u2019t mention who the \u201cprivate sector companies\u201d are, but if that includes the city\u2019s hundreds of butchers, steakhouses, pizza places, Michelin star restaurants, and mom and pop diners and delis, for which meat and dairy food items make up the core of their business, or are popular items on their menus, this will sharply curtail their income and likely result in closed businesses and significantly fewer dining choices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adams is not the first politician to suggest limiting or changing what people eat to fight climate change. In Australia, for example, schools came under fire for incorporating insect powder in children\u2019s lunches in order to force kids to have \u201ceco-friendly\u201d eating habits. Climate Realism<\/em> discussed this in \u201cCorrect, The Epoch Times<\/em>, Eating Bugs is Not Necessary or Desirable,\u201d<\/a> pointing out that while eating bugs is common in some parts of the world, the driving factor is poverty and starvation, not desire. Insects can actually be dangerous to consume, with the consumption of locusts and grasshoppers causing a notable percentage of fatal allergic reactions<\/a> in China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Besides the economic and social implications of Adam\u2019s efforts to police food consumption, and the questionable legality and ethics of controlling individual\u2019s food choices, Adams\u2019 police state food monitoring and any regulatory limits that flow from it are unlikely to have any measurable effect on climate change. Evidence presented in Climate Realism<\/em>, here<\/a>, for example, suggests that \u201ceating local\u201d does little or nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and may, under some circumstances, increase them. Large farms producing huge quantities of produce, grown efficiently, actually probably have a lower emissions impact than small-scale local farms, even when emissions from transportation are included.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Livestock do not have nearly the emissions impact Adams claims. Research from Prof. Habil Wilhelm Windisch<\/a>, Ph.D., of the Technical University of Munich, for example, shows that grazing livestock like cows and sheep actually only contribute about 5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, as opposed to the 20 percent figure claimed by Adams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, provided in Climate at a Glance: Livestock and Methane<\/em><\/a>, confirm this, reporting that beef cattle make up only 2 percent of emissions, with the rest of U.S. livestock accounting for less than 4 percent of domestic greenhouse gas emissions. (See figure below)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1: Greenhouse gas emissions by sector in the United States. Note that beef production is less than half of the entire livestock sector, at just 2 percent. Source: Data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Graphic by Anthony Watts. Artwork icons in graphic licensed from 123rf.com.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adams\u2019 push to track and control what New Yorkers eat is anti-scientific and authoritarian. The only way his rules might actually reduce the city\u2019s \u201ccarbon footprint,\u201d will be if it results in the closure of popular New York restaurants and businesses, providing New Yorkers one more reason to leave a city that is already\u00a0bleeding businesses and people<\/a>. Contrary to alarmists\u2019 claims, the data on food production and alleged eco-friendly lifestyles shows that there is no measurable benefit to dictating peoples\u2019 food choices. Contrary to the assumptions behind Adams\u2019 plan, replacing beef, pork, and chicken, with fruit, bugs, and beans will not prevent climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Linnea Lueken<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Linnea Lueken<\/a><\/blockquote>