The problem with the expression "true cost" is with the word "true". It implies that any cost that differs from my own estimate is therefore not true but false. Yet there are different ways of estimating cost that varies from price paid by consumers. These include externalities which can be estimated in various different ways. But these are just estimates, which are not demonstrably either true or false merely more or less persuasive.
I love your question re. TCA assessment accounting for the vast differences in land use, with beef production as a fantastic example. I came across an article in The Art of Eating magazine (that has since migrated to Substack) that made an argument in favor of regenerative beef (i.e., free range) for the very nature of free-roaming sequestering carbon back into the earth.
I wish there could be TCA for the downstream negative health externalities of Ultra-Processed Foods so that whole, ideally nutrient-dense, fruits, vegetables, meats, legumes, dairy, and grains cost less (perhaps significantly less) than the alternative.
I love your point on ag-tech innovation driving productivity that has (and will continue) to create affordable food. My understanding of ag (and ag-tech) is very limited and I'm looking forward to learning more by following along.
It is the case that without a global tax on net CO2 emissions and correct pricing of water some things are relatively more expensive and some things less that with the tax and proper water pricing, but I doubt that anything is 1.5 or double.
I find it hard to beleive that grass fed beef produces more greenhouse gases than a feedlot beef whose diet is mostly chemcal dependent grains and wate products both unnatural to the beef animal's digestive system. One of the problems of feedlots is the concentration of animals producing hige concentrqation of gases than cann't be easily dispersed and digested by the lower atmosphere. By contrast, the grass-fed animal is eating a natural diet whose gas emissions are tiny ompared to his feedlot brethern gathered in the thousands. Grass fed means few animals per acre (an average of one animal for 2 acres) with rotations designed to promote fast regrowth hence greater CO2 absorption. The benefits to grassfed are many...no chemicals, no chemical dispersion into the atmposphere and greater CO2 capture from grass regrowth. The cost of the damage to the atmosphere and to the environment of feedlots is beyond reckoning.
Concentration is not a bad thing. On the contrary, farts in a field will inevitably escape into the atmosphere but there is at least some possibility of capturing those emitted in a contained environment.
Yes, but it is the better quality aspect that I am focused on. Continuing to become more efficient but improving in quality. A lot of our mass produced food is of terrible quality.
You are welcome to choose high-quality foods of which there are more now than ever. Plus I have not seen evidence that the actual agricultural products are of lower quality than in earlier eras.
Your objections seems to be with processed foods which has nothing to do with agriculture. That is your choice whether to purchase such foods.
Understood - perhaps you'll write a "part 2" article where you address this. Maybe not.
Not sure where you live. In the USA, most people can only afford to go to the least expensive chain grocery stores. And for the most part, they are only able to buy low quality food. And you are correct that the worst of it is processed food. I do not care to go back to your article to find it, but I am pretty sure you made a comment along the lines of: it is better to focus on making more efficient/less expensive food of higher quality. I was hooked by this point because I agree with the premise. What is beyond my depth is how it will be achieved.
The problem with the expression "true cost" is with the word "true". It implies that any cost that differs from my own estimate is therefore not true but false. Yet there are different ways of estimating cost that varies from price paid by consumers. These include externalities which can be estimated in various different ways. But these are just estimates, which are not demonstrably either true or false merely more or less persuasive.
As a society it is critical that we prioritize the comfort of journalists and NGOs above all else.
I love your question re. TCA assessment accounting for the vast differences in land use, with beef production as a fantastic example. I came across an article in The Art of Eating magazine (that has since migrated to Substack) that made an argument in favor of regenerative beef (i.e., free range) for the very nature of free-roaming sequestering carbon back into the earth.
I wish there could be TCA for the downstream negative health externalities of Ultra-Processed Foods so that whole, ideally nutrient-dense, fruits, vegetables, meats, legumes, dairy, and grains cost less (perhaps significantly less) than the alternative.
I love your point on ag-tech innovation driving productivity that has (and will continue) to create affordable food. My understanding of ag (and ag-tech) is very limited and I'm looking forward to learning more by following along.
plants need more CO2
As an engineer, limits are to be overcome, not observed.
To put it another way, these are problems to be solved, not avoided like some kind of wuss (yeah, I said it).
¿Por qué no los dos?
It is the case that without a global tax on net CO2 emissions and correct pricing of water some things are relatively more expensive and some things less that with the tax and proper water pricing, but I doubt that anything is 1.5 or double.
I find it hard to beleive that grass fed beef produces more greenhouse gases than a feedlot beef whose diet is mostly chemcal dependent grains and wate products both unnatural to the beef animal's digestive system. One of the problems of feedlots is the concentration of animals producing hige concentrqation of gases than cann't be easily dispersed and digested by the lower atmosphere. By contrast, the grass-fed animal is eating a natural diet whose gas emissions are tiny ompared to his feedlot brethern gathered in the thousands. Grass fed means few animals per acre (an average of one animal for 2 acres) with rotations designed to promote fast regrowth hence greater CO2 absorption. The benefits to grassfed are many...no chemicals, no chemical dispersion into the atmposphere and greater CO2 capture from grass regrowth. The cost of the damage to the atmosphere and to the environment of feedlots is beyond reckoning.
Concentration is not a bad thing. On the contrary, farts in a field will inevitably escape into the atmosphere but there is at least some possibility of capturing those emitted in a contained environment.
Ok, nice setup, but I spent the whole article waiting for the punchline, which never came: how to make cheaper, more efficient food better in quality.
Continuing down the same path that we have been going down. Food is continually becoming cheaper.
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-production
Yes, but it is the better quality aspect that I am focused on. Continuing to become more efficient but improving in quality. A lot of our mass produced food is of terrible quality.
Fine, but that is not what the article is about.
You are welcome to choose high-quality foods of which there are more now than ever. Plus I have not seen evidence that the actual agricultural products are of lower quality than in earlier eras.
Your objections seems to be with processed foods which has nothing to do with agriculture. That is your choice whether to purchase such foods.
Understood - perhaps you'll write a "part 2" article where you address this. Maybe not.
Not sure where you live. In the USA, most people can only afford to go to the least expensive chain grocery stores. And for the most part, they are only able to buy low quality food. And you are correct that the worst of it is processed food. I do not care to go back to your article to find it, but I am pretty sure you made a comment along the lines of: it is better to focus on making more efficient/less expensive food of higher quality. I was hooked by this point because I agree with the premise. What is beyond my depth is how it will be achieved.
Thanks for your efforts.
¿Por qué no los dos?