Adopting a vegan lifestyle out of compassion is misguided but kind. Farming for high quality nutrients relies on bone meal, fish emulsion, and other animal products. Harvesting grain kills millions of mice and countless other small mammals caught up by large threshers - ask any farmer. Only one animal died to provide me with steak versus potentially hundreds to feed me bread. Also this:
The CO2 converted to plant matter should roughly zero out over a very short time scale because of the short lifecycle of the product. Simplifying a bit, CO2 is converted to plant matter which is then burned and/or discarded and left to decay returning that CO2 back to the atmosphere. This all happens on timescales of less than a year, generally.
The challenge is the energy used to grow, process, and transport marijuana releases additional CO2 above and beyond the roughly net-zero growth/harvest cycle.
One variable that must be considered when weighing the carbon benefits of indoor vs. outdoor is a concept called land use change. This essentially tries to quantify the potential impact of converting land currently being used to provide one service (grow food, provide habitat, etc.) to grow marijuana. The increased crop density and accelerated growth cycles that are attainable with indoor operations may significantly push back on the carbon benefits of using the sun instead of electricity.
Answering the question of whether indoor or outdoor has a lower carbon foot print is nuanced, and requires consideration of variable such as land use change, whether the electricity is generated from renewable sources or not, the origin of fertilizers used, the impact of land management and agricultural strategies, etc. Its not a simple question. But if youre lucky enough to know your farmer, asking questions can go a long way towards a gut check of the potential carbon footprint of the product you are purchasing.
"But for the vast majority of patients and users, there's simply no reason good old fashioned, sun-grown cannabis can't get them the relief or the high they're looking for."
this sentence highlights how poorly thought out this editorial is. the vast majority of patients and users...the overwhelming majority, in fact, as supply cannot begin to meet demand (hence all things black market)...are poor, live in cities, have few connections and/or live in states where marijuana is illegal. i wonder how many equally scathing letters thadeus has written to his government representatives imploring legal reform. the price of marijuana could and should be negligible, anybody could grow it freely, etc. etc. etc. this editorial is pretty ridiculous in too many ways, less the author cares to truely audit his lifestlye in equal accord if his real and driving concern is the environment.
Nonsense you have not calculated the co2 converted to oxygen during the grow
That bill is long overdue and it will probably never happen on a federal level. But it can happen on a state level. Marijuana is till a controlled substance under state law. That should have been included in Prop 64 legislation, but like many other missives in Prop 64 it was not addressed.
In Print This Week:
Apr 20, 2017
vol XXVIII issue 16
North Coast Journal
Website powered by Foundation