Let’s start with the following principles.Energy is the only universal currency. To get something done you need to convert it from one of its many formats” Economies are complex systems built to make these changes, and all economically significant energy transformations have (often highly undesirable) environmental impacts. Therefore, as far as the biosphere is concerned, the best anthropogenic energy conversion is one that never occurs: no gas emissions (greenhouse effect or acidification), no solid or liquid waste production, no ecosystem destruction. is. The best way to achieve this was to convert energy with higher efficiency. Unless widely adopted (large diesel and jet engines, combined cycle gas turbines, light emitting diodes, steel smelting, ammonia synthesis, etc.), significantly more primary energy will be required, taking into account all the attendant environmental impacts. needs to be converted.
Conversely, what could be more wasteful, more undesirable, more irrational than wasting a large portion of these conversion benefits? But this is precisely the case when all final energy uses are continues to occur. Buildings consume about one-fifth of the planet’s energy, but with poorly insulated walls and ceilings, single-pane windows and inadequate ventilation, well-designed indoor spaces You’re wasting at least one-fifth to one-third compared to A typical SUV now has twice the mass of a typical vehicle before it, and requires at least one-third more energy to perform the same task.
The most disgusting of these wasteful practices is our food production. Modern food systems (from the energy embedded in breeding new varieties, synthesizing fertilizers and other pesticides, and manufacturing field machinery, to the energy used in harvesting, transport, processing, storage, retailing, and cooking) consumes nearly 20 percent of fuel and cooking. And we waste as much as 40 percent of all food produced. Some level of food waste is inevitable. But rampant food waste is indefensible. It is criminal in many ways.
It’s difficult to counter that for a variety of reasons. First, there are many ways to waste food. From losses in the field to spoilage in storage, from seasonal perishable surplus to maintaining “perfect” displays in stores, from excessive portions when eating outside the home to the decline of home cooking.
Second, food now travels much longer distances to reach consumers. The average distance a typical food item travels before being purchased is 1,500 to 2,500 miles.
Third, it is still too cheap compared to other costs. Despite recent increases in food prices, households now spend only about 11 percent of their disposable income on food (compared to about 20 percent in 1960). Food costs spent away from home (which is usually more wasteful than eating at home) now account for more than half of that total. And finally, as consumers, we have a plethora of food options available to us. Consider that the average American supermarket now carries more than 30,000 food items.
Our society seems pretty content with wasting 40 percent of the roughly 20 percent of all energy we spend on food. Unfortunately, by 2025, this shocking level of waste will no longer be in the spotlight. In fact, the situation is only going to get worse. We continue to pour billions of dollars into the search for energy “solutions”, from new nuclear reactors (even fusion!) to green hydrogen, all of which have environmental impacts. In 2025, we will continue to fail to address our enormous energy waste. Food that requires large amounts of fuel and electricity to produce.
