Nowadays, almost every country in the world launches the campaigns to make people more awareness of global warming and climate change. There are many things that people can do, but what we can do to decrease pollution, and make the world better? Is another green project help?
According to “Grocery Home Delivery May Be Greener Than Schlepping To The Store”, groceries delivery can reduces the carbon dioxides, time go/back the store, and more environmental friendly because the delivery truck “shares ride for the food” (¶2). Journal of the Transportation Research Forum said that it is more efficiently if the households are in the cluster routes.
The idea of “share ride for the food” is a great idea that use the truck and deliver the foods in the same routes. People more concern about what causing the global warming after it's happening.
Many company have launch projects to make the world better, for example, the new design of their building that using natural resources such as wind and solar cell to make their own energy, and reduce power from the electricity. To reduce carbon dioxides and greenhouse gas are the factor that contributes the climate changes. When the climate change is tend to make the natural disaster around the world.
Home delivery is comfortable for lazy people, and people who lives far away from the store or grocery. However, many people like housewife and chef, they want to choose the fresh products themselves. My friend is the owner of one restaurant in Bangkok, her chef always go to the market or supermarket, and choose the fresh vegetable, fruits, and meat by himself. He wants to choose the best ingredients for his customers. This is make restaurant well-known because of delicious foods and the ingredients also fresh. It makes my friend restaurant very famous. As same as the TV show on Japan, Japanese chef especially sushi chef always wake up very early in the morning and going to the fish market for the fresh and best fish. I watched a different TV program about sushi chef, but the lifestyle of best sushi chef are the same. That's why sushi in Japan is very delicious.
___________
Reference
Shute, N. (2013, May 2). Grocery Home Delivery May Be Greener Than Schlepping To The Store. NPR the salt. Retrieved May 8, 2013 from http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/05/01/180330444/grocery-home-delivery-may-be-greener-than-schlepping-to-the-store
Ploy,
ReplyDeleteDid you write in MS Word or some other program and then copy and paste without cleaning away the strange formatting?
The blog display seems to have gone a bit weird.
Don't worry. I'll amend it shortly.
DeleteAll normal now.
DeletePloy's post reminds me of another common idea people have about organic food: that it's more ecologically friendly and less destructive of natural forest and jungle. But I'm sure that this is wrong, just as I'm sure that there is no evidence that organic food is healthier than non-organic.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I think the more environmentally more harmful nature of organic farming is linked to its higher price, which is why government price control could only be a disaster for people who like organic food.
I agree that we can't find any proof that organic food is better for consumers than non-organic. The main reason I buy organic vegetable in supermarket is that the product itself is grown without chemical composition. And I also have experience in planting hydroponic. Although I fail to grow some of it, I quite like the idea that I have no dangerous substance in my veggie.
DeleteIndoor hydroponic gardening set for small living space is my friend's thesis. She encourages people to plant by themselves by her invented tool. I find benefits as I mentioned above and hardly spot it's disadvantages, such as the high cost. This is probably because it is only a small scale farming. This is her video.
But when Ploy writes that steps are being taken "to reduce carbon dioxides and greenhouse gas [which] are the factor that contributes the climate changes" (¶ 3), I wonder if this is a sensible response.
ReplyDeleteEven if carbon dioxide and the like are causes of global warming, is reducing them a helpful response if that also threatens economic growth?
As we've been seeing in the readings in Quest, especially from Clayton's textbook, decisions can have far reaching and perhaps unintended consequences, as governments also learn, or not learn, when their policies have the opposite effects to those intended, or claimed to be intended. (I think governments often lie about the reasons for policies, for example, many policies claimed to benefit farmers, such as not allowing foreign ownership, are really to help the rich fellow citizens steal the poor farmers' land cheaply.)
I ended up with hungry when I finished reading Ploy's post. This is not what I expect when I started to read. Like in the film Jiro Dreams of Sushi is (2011), how dedicated chefs are!
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I've been realizing a lot of efforts in vain every countries claimed that they wished to see a better world's environment. There are only exaggerated rhetorics as they don't really act what they said especially those who are leaders of the industrial countries such as the US and Germany. I fervently believe that the industrial powers will never ruin their own national interest by reducing the huge amount of carbon dioxides gas emission. According to the news I read few years ago, a Japan declaration on limitation of such gas emission, attended by all of the world leaders, has been never reached.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSo this is a big issue in addressing this problem of global warming. I don't want to blame them but that's fact that they have a lot to contribute to our world conditions. In my opinion, there will are no any accord among the world leaders on this issue soon. It's not an exaggeration to say that if the world is devastated by harsh natural disasters, it's from them.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo save the world, shall we eat less rice?
ReplyDeleteAccording to “Rice Agriculture Accelerates Global Warming: More Greenhouse Gas Per Grain of Rice”, the researchers found that rice paddies can emit the potent greenhouse gas Methane (CH4) more than their usual, if rice paddies are in 2 conditions which are higher temperatures and more carbon oxides (CO2). However, the researchers point out, famers can reduce emitting Methane gas from their rice paddies by “management practices such as mid-season drainage and using alternative fertilizers”, Van Groenigen concludes (as cited in ¶7).
As we know that Thailand is one of the biggest countries that produce rice very much, Thai government should concern about the amount of Carbon di oxides gas that is emitted from many actives in Thailand because the CO2 gas will block heat which it is usually transmitted to the space and the result is the increasing temperature on the earth. After that higher temperatures and more carbon oxides (CO2) have effects on the amount of CH4 that comes from the rice paddies which the CH4 gas destroys Ozone on atmospheres. Therefore, the government can save our climate by reducing our emitting CO2 gas.
Reference
Rice Agriculture Accelerates Global Warming: More Greenhouse Gas Per Grain of Rice. (2012, October 21) Science Daily Science News Retrieved May 10, 2013 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121021154455.htm
So, would it be a sensible response for the Thai government to force rice farmers to take steps to reduce their CO2 emissions?
DeleteThis seems to be what Bas is suggesting. And I suspect that Ploy probably agrees. But I'm not sure that I do.
Might a better response to the challenge of global warming be to ramp up economic growth and use the wealth to find more innovative solutions, including the possibility of adapting to a changed climate? Or even ...