UBC Undergraduate Research

Empowering eaters to make climate-friendly choices : a public education initiative Karimibiuki, Nazila; Keung, Ida; Kohnen, Courtney; Kolb, Carolyn; Kong, Alice; Kwan, Michael; Laban, Jennifer; Lai, Ka-Yan Apr 10, 2009

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


18861-Karimibiuk_N_et_al_SEEDS_2009.pdf [ 409.71kB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0108647.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108647-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108647-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108647-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108647-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108647-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108647-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report       Empowering eaters to make climate-friendly choices: A public education initiative Nazila Karimibiuki, Ida Keung, Courtney Kohnen, Carolyn Kolb, Alice Kong, Michael Kwan, Jennifer Laban, Ka-Yan Lai  University of British Columbia AGSC 450 April 10, 2009           Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.  1  of 24    UNIV ERSI TY OF BRITI S H COLU MBIA  FOOD SYST EM PROJ ECT 200 9     Scenario 3b: Empowering eaters to make climate-friendly choices: A public education initiative    Group 12 Nazila Karimibiuki Ida Keung Courtney Kohnen Carolyn Kolb Alice Kong Michael Kwan Jennifer Laban Ka-Yan Lai   AGSC 450 TA: Amy Frye April 10, 200 9 2  of 24   Table of Contents  I. Abstract........................ .......................................................................................... ..........................3 II. Introducti on........ ........................................................................................................................….4 III. Problem Statement.... ................................................................................................... ....... ...……4 IV. Vision Statement…………………………………………………...............................................7 V. Value Assum pti ons......................................................................................................... ..........…..8 VI. Findi n gs and Disc ussion.......................................................................................................…….8 VII. Conclusi on.............................................................................................................. ................. ....21  VIII. References……………………………………………………………………………………..23 IX. Appendix A…................................................................................................................…......…27 X.  Appendix B….................................................................................................................….........28 XI. Appendix C…................................................................................................................…..........293  of 24   ABSTRACT    Agriculture and th e food s ystem ar e responsi ble fo r one thi rd of carbon dio x ide emi ssi ons worldwide (Mel eca, 200 8). Howev er, cli mate cha nge publi c educ ati on ini tiati ves rar el y focus on foo d choice as a soluti on to reducing human impa ct on cli mate (Ne ff, Chan, & Clegg, 2008 ). Our proj ect aim s to increase consumers’ awareness of the impact of the food supply chain and personal food choices on cli mate chan ge. We designed a carbon -f riendl y fo od guide wit h six ke y rec omm endati ons for redu cing food-relat ed ca rbon emi s sions . The brochur e tar ge ts Vancouver residents and will be dist ributed at UBC 's farmer 's m arket. We hav e also cr eated a websit e which compl ements the brochure and furth er elab orates on our recomm end ati ons, and a label to indi cate which foods at the farmer 's market are c arbon-f riend l y. Wit h the brochure, websi te and label, it is hoped that consum ers at the UBC farm wil l become mor e conscious of the food s ys tem's contribut ion to cli mate chan ge. Reco gniz ing that gr eenhouse gas contribut es to global war mi ng and ch an gin g pers o nal food choices can si gn ificantl y decr ease food s ys tem emi ssi ons.  4  of 24   INTRODUCTION  The University of British Columbia’s Food System Project (UBCFSP) is an ongoing collaboration between UBC’s Faculty of Land and Food Systems and Sustainability office. The proj ect was crea ted in response to reco gnit ion that our glob al, national and local food s ystems are insecure and unsust aina ble (Rojas et al., 2007).  Sinc e 2002, students have be en rese archin g and propo sing wa ys to inc reas e the sust ainabili t y of the UBC ca mpus comm unit y.    In keepin g with this go al, the Centre for Sustainabl e Food S ystems (CS FS ) at UBC Farm and the 100- Mile Diet Society are collaborating on the “Changing the Food System to Change the Climate” project. The go al of this two - yea r project is to hi ghli ght how sust ainable agricultural techniques can be used to reduc e the negati ve environmental effe cts of our food s ystem.  Fiv e AGS C 450 student grou ps have been asked to research and develop three educational tools to improve Vancouverites’ awarene s s of the impacts of food choic es on cli mate chan ge. Th e tool s are a Carbon Sma rt Food Guide, a websit e to accompan y th e guide, an d a label or si gn to be dis pla ye d at the UBC Farm Markets.     This report wil l cover the foll owing: an outli ne of the impacts of agricult ur e and food ch oices on cli mate chan ge, refl ecti o ns on the UBCFS P visi on statement and our valu e assum pti ons, a discussi on of our findi ngs and finall y, our three educati on mate rials based on our findings.   PROBLEM DEFINITION  Climate change has b een identified as one of the greatest ch all en ges facin g our planet. Gr eenhouse gas es (GH G) like carbon diox ide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nit rous ox ide (N 2 O) are reco gniz ed to b e causing th ese ch an ges th at include incre asin g mea n global tempe ratur es, risi ng sea l evels and a high er prevalen ce of ex treme weather (FA O, 2006). Glo bal gr eenhous e gas (G H G) emi ssi ons have incr ea sed by 70% since 1970 (IP C C , 2007). Total carbon diox ide emi ssi ons have incr eas ed by 40 % since pre -indu strial times, and anthropo genic (h uman-c aused) emi ssi ons alone nea rl y doubl ed since 1970 (IP C C , 2007). CO 2  accounts for th ree qu arte rs of anthropo geni c emi ssi ons, and as such is used as the base fo r compa rison for the global warmin g pote nti al of other gases ( IP C C , 2007).     The agricult ur al sector has the fourth hi ghest GH G producti on afte r powe r producti on (~21%), indus trial processi ng (~1 7%) and transpo rt (~14% ) (van Aardenn e, Dent en er, Oli vier, Peters & Ganz eveld, 2000). Agri c ult ure has been esti mated to account for 8% to 13.5% of tot al GHG emi ssi o ns (Environmen t Canada, 2007; FAO, 2009; van Aa rdenne, 2000) but includi ng the enti re food s ystem , thi s number could be as hi gh as 20 -30% (Pim entel & Pim entel, 1996). This sect or is a signific ant contrib utor to all three major GH G as well as am moni a and re frigerants. Food related emi ssi ons rose by 27% bet ween 1970 and 1990; growth can be tied to urbanisati on , crop intensificati on, tec hnological chan ges and worldwide ec onomi c gro wth, among man y oth er factors (IP C C , 2007; FAO 2006). Onl y 50% of GHG emi ssi ons related to our food s ys tems ar e from on -fa rm producti on – the other half come from transport ati on, processi n g, pack a ging and waste (H ell er & Keoleian, 2000). Foods n ow travel on ave ra ge 25% fu rther than thi rt y yea rs ago using more ener g y-int e ns ive methods of transpo rtati on such as airf rei ght and tru cking (FA O, 2006). Cons umpt ion of processed foo ds has risen dram ati call y since the 1950s and now accou nts for 16% of the tot al ener g y used in the food s ystem (Hell er & Keol eian, 2002). A quarte r of all calories produced for huma n consum pti on are throw n awa y, and l ess than 3% of food waste is compost ed and used as fertili z er (He ll er & Keoleian, 2002). Landfill ed waste contribut es huge amount s of carbon diox ide and methane. That an enti re half of foo d s ystem emi ssi ons come from off- farm se ctors m eans that consumer choice can hav e a lar ge effect on emi ssi on contribut ion. Eshel and Marti n (2006) demons trated that personal food choices co ntribut e to GHG emi ssi ons on the same orde r of magnit ude as indi viduals ’ transportati on choices. Neff, Chan and Cle gg Smi th (2008) foll owed cli mate chan ge -r elated articles in 16 5  of 24   large Ame rican newspap ers and found th at onl y 2. 4% named the food s yste m as a contribut or to GH G emi ssi ons. Of these, onl y one -fifth discussed food s ystems in an y detail (Ne ff et al., 2008). To gether, these studi es impl y that the nee d for publi c educ ati on ab out making environment all y cons cious food choic es is both great and unmet.     To meet this need in Van couver, the Chan gin g the Food S ystem to Chan ge the Clim ate project is creati n g a carbon smart food guide to be dist ribute d at the UBC Farm. A websit e will accompan y th e guide, and a si gn will be creat ed to identi f y ca rbo n friendl y products at the UBC Farm Mark ets. For the purposes of these educ ati on materials and this paper, we have defined a ‘carbon friendly diet’ as “a hea lt h y di et that focuses on reducin g carbon emi s sions . This includes the processes in which th e foo d is produced, transported, processed, consumed and disposed.”      VISION STATEMENT  As menti oned, our small project is one of man y th at contribut e to the UBCFS P 's vision for a sust ainable food s ystem at UBC. This vision is made up of sev en guidi ng principles. Of these princ ipl es, our project contribut es m ore specifi call y to incre a sing aw aren ess amon g co nsum ers - those who pur chase food from the UBC farmer’s market – about the effect a carbon -f riendl y diet can hav e on redu cin g e mi ssi ons and creati n g a more sust ainable food s ystem. Our group was ask ed to review the visi on statement and afte r much discussi on, we decided that we gen erall y agreed with the goals pr esented, though it inspi red seve ral questi ons and suggesti ons for addit ions/ ex tensions.     One of the qu esti ons that arose durin g our dis cussi on was whethe r or not it was contradi c tor y for the visi on statement to suggest that food be locall y gro wn and ethni c all y div erse. Often, ethni call y di verse food must be shipped fro m other countries. Altho ugh we beli eve it is important to offer as much var iet y on campus as poss ibl e, we t hink th e UBC food s yste m should limit thi s variety to what can be grown locall y.     We also discussed wheth er or not promot ing awa r eness was enou gh to cha nge th e behaviour of consum ers, espe ciall y in the case of promot ing a carbon -f riendl y diet. Man y nutrit ion educ ati on theories suggest that promot in g awaren ess is onl y the first step in promot ing behavi our chan ge (Contento, 2007). Acti on usuall y does not occur unless the educato r also provides inst ructi ons about how to chan ge an d/or modi fies the environmen t to be more conducive to behaviour ch an ge (Cont ento, 2007). In the case of the ca rbon- friendl y diet, we teach the consum er the im portance of eati n g local and then, on our websit e, offer a map and recommend shopping at farmer’s markets or trying community- s upport ed agricult ur e (CS A) box es. We suggest the UBCFS P team becom e more fami li ar wit h strat e gie s for behaviour chan ge as the behaviour of both produ c ers and consum ers wil l be a critic al part of makin g a sust ain able food s yste m at UBC.     In te rms of addit ions, we beli eve that or gani c food producti on pla ys an important part in a sust a inable food s ystem and shoul d be added to t he visi on statement. As is ex plained more full y lat er in thi s paper, when the closed system farmin g techni ques used on organi c fa r ms are e mpl o yed, fewe r ener g y-int ensive input s are requi red for food producti on. Reducing ou r reli an ce on dwindli ng oil suppl ies is obvious l y an important step to increas e the sustain abil it y of food produ cti on.     Lastl y, we su ggest that in addit ion to rec ycli n g and compos ti ng, waste reduc ti on and material re -use are also clea rl y stated in the visi on statement. Rec yc li ng is important, b ut, the off -sit e re c ycli n g of man y packa gin g mat erial s stil l requires a gre at dea l of oil -derived en er g y. Also, man y rec ycli n g met h ods can onl y salva ge a perce ntage of mate rial for re -u se, and new material mus t stil l be created, often from petroleum (Church, 2005 ). Re-using m aterials, red ucing consum pti on and creati n g less waste can thu s contribut e to a sustainabl e food s ystem b y red u cing dep enden ce on oil -bas e d product and en er g y.           6  of 24   VALUE ASSUMPTIONS Our group work ed from a weak anthropoc entric posit ion. This means that whil e we focus ed on the effe cts of cli mate ch an ge as they affect humans we beli eve that the environ ment has int rinsic value. Howe ve r, the edu cati ona l materials are deli vered from a stron g anthropoc e ntric stance becaus e we beli eve that thi s would make it more ac cessi ble to all mem bers of the public. We decided that people who appreci ate natur e as mor e than just a means to an end are likel y alread y aw are of th e impact of their food choices. As such, we cho se to tar get a stron gl y ant hropocentric audienc e.     As a group, we questioned the UBCFSP’s assumption that a local food system is necessarily the most sust aina ble. Whil e reducin g depend enc e on fossi l fuels for transportat ion, it would require an increas e of eit he r proc essi ng food, or ene r g y-int en sive gr eenhous e - grown produce. Lo cal food s yste ms could also be more vulne rable to outbre aks of dise ases. It is also i mportant to consi der how sha rpl y decre asin g importati ons would affe ct farmers aro und the globe.     FINDINGS The subs ystem that wil l be the focus o f this resea rch pape r is Vanc ouver si nce our aim is to educate people of Vanco uver  about the envi ronmental im pacts of diff erent food choices.  In orde r to achieve thi s goal, we hav e separ ated our findings i nto six ke y messa ges. Th e messa ges are: eat local and in - season, eat less me at and lower on the food cha in, eat or ganic, reduc e waste, eat less pro cessed food, and walk or bike to the grocer y stor e.   1) Eat Local and In-Season  There is a popula r move ment right now to eat or ganic foods. Althou gh eati ng or ganic is important for redu cing ca rbon emi ssi ons, the benefits can be overshadow ed b y the dis tance food has tr avell ed. This dist ance can be reduced by choosi n g food th at is locall y produced and in -s eason.  The Can adian Fo od Inspection Agency considers a food “local” if the item’s origin is within 50 kilometres of where it’s sold (Fa rmFolk/ C it yF olk, 2008 ). The 100-Mi le Diet So ciet y us es a lar ger radius, which is more re ali sti c for Vancouve r, since a wide dist ributi on of agricult ur al land limi ts the cit y's p r ox imit y to loc al food producti on (100 Mile Diet Societ y, n.d.). This pa per has de fined "local " even further, b y su ggesti ng that food is produced withi n 100 miles of where it 's so ld and it is bought from local farmers, not corpo ra ti ons.   Food miles. C hoosi ng local and in-se ason foods reduces food mil es and emi ssi ons from transport. Accordin g the David Suz uki and Get Local B.C., the aver a ge No rth Americ an meal contains in gr edients from five countri es and tr avels an ala rming 2,400 kil ometers from field to plate (David Suz uki Foundati on, 2009; Fa rm Folk/ C it yFolk, 2008). St udies have shown that th e aver a ge hous ehold cou l d redu ce GHG emi ssi ons by a qu arte r of a tonne if the y repla ced enou gh imp orted foods with thos e locall y gro wn (Farm Folk/ C it yFo lk, 2008). That is equivalent to the carbon that cou ld fill 25,000 part y ball o ons. Choosing local doesn’t just mean skipping the exoti c fruits in the produce secti on. A lot of our food is transported unne cessa ril y. For ex ampl e, man y cou ntries import and ex port the same food product in sim il ar quanti ti es. For ex ampl e, Britain imports 61,400 tonnes of poult r y meat a year from the Net herlands and ex ports 33,100 tonnes to the Netherlands (Chu rch, 2005). Britain also i mports 240,000 tonnes of pork and 125,000 tonnes of  la mb whil e ex porting 195,000 tonnes of pork and 102,000 tonnes of lamb (Church, 2005). These ine fficien cies are char acte risti c of ou r curr ent glob al food s ystem. Choosi ng local thus also means selecting locally grown foods like potatoes or carrots when they’re available. Together, these decisi ons help to increas e the ef ficienc y of the fo od s ystem as a whole and are an impor t ant part of decre asin g the trav el distance of food and thus the environmental burden as sociated wit h transportati on.     Methods of transportation. Though the vast major it y of food is transpo rted by ship and ro ad, transportati on by air is b y far the bi gge st cont ributor to GHG emi ssi ons. Even though onl y 1% of food is 7  of 24   transported b y air it acco unts for 11% of all food t ransport ca rbon emi ssi ons ( Garn ett , 2008 ). This is both because air is an en er g y - i ntensive mode of transpo rtati on and bec ause food shipp ed b y air typi call y must travel farther to reach its desti nati on.  The most ener g y ef ficient mode of tr a nsportati on is by wate r, followed b y rail and ro ad which consum e 423, 67 7, 2890 KJ /t onne - km of ener g y respecti vel y, compared to 15,839 KJ /t onne- km consum ed b y air fr eight (Lan g & Heasman, 2004 ). Per kilom etre, airf rei ght thus contribut es six - fold more CO2 emi ssi ons than road, 30 - fold more than rail , and 40 - fold more than water (Lan g & Heasman, 2004) .     Why local doesn’t always mean carbon-friendly. People have com e to ex pect food to be av ail able ye a r- round and ha ve sev eral opt ions for pur chasi ng out -of -season foods. It can be transpo rted from other countries, grown in local gr eenhouses, o r remov ed from local cold stora ges. Though the re are two lo cal opti ons, in this case, buying local isn’t necessarily the most carbon -f riendl y choice be cause gre enhou ses and cold stora ge are actu all y quit e en er g y-int ensiv e practi c es. Thus, imported foods can be less carb on -costl y. For ex ampl e, it was found that in the UK, apple s are less GHG -int e nsive than imports when the y are in-se ason. But, when apples ar e not in season, apples shipped from the southern hemi sphere actu all y contribut ed less ca rbon than the UK appl es maint ained in cold stora ge (Ga rnett , 2008). Another stu d y found that importing Spa nish tomatoes to the UK result ed in few er GH G emi ssi ons than thos e locall y gro wn in greenhous es (G arnett , 2008). The details about gr eenhous es and refri ger ati on and their contribut ion to carbon emi ssi ons will be discussed further late r in this paper.     Supporting local farms can help decrease emissions. Loc al farms are mor e likel y to be environmentall y responsi ble becaus e the y are usua ll y small er and mor e like l y to emplo y closed s yste m farmin g practi ces (the be nefits of which are ex pl ained later in this paper ). It has also been su ggested that small farmers hav e more incenti ve to be environm entall y responsi ble when compared to co rporat e farmers, bec ause the y wil l personall y su ffe r the co nsequences o f an y harm the y do to the environmen t (Har rington, 2008).  For ex ampl e, if soil fertili t y i s damaged be cause th e fa rmer fail ed to us e crop rotati ons, he/she wil l lose a lar ge r porti on of his/ he r income due to unsuc ces sful crops than a la r ge -s c ale farmer would.       Transportati on is not the onl y contribut ion imported and out -of-s eason foo ds make to carbon emi ssi ons. Local and in -s eason foods require less processi n g, pa cka gin g, and storage, and, few er pre serv ati ves, all of whic h require fossi l fu els and contribut e to carbon emi ssi ons. But, a fo cus on bu yi n g locally shouldn’t distract from the bigger impacts at other stages in the supply chain. Every Canadian produces about 5 tonnes of greenhous e gas emiss i ons per yea r (Seeds, 200 6). A swit ch to local food s onl y reduces p ersonal carbon emi ssi on b y 5% (Se eds, 2006).  As we will discus s further, a mo re app ropr iate focus m ight be on th e t yp es of food we choose, for ex ampl e, plant versus an im al, rather than how far our food has travel ed.    2) Eat Less Meat  Total GHG emi ssi ons fro m the Canadian Agric ult ure Sector inc reas ed 25% between 1990 and 2006, mainl y result in g fr om the ex pansion of the beef catt le and swine ind ustr y as well as an inc rea se in synthetic nitro gen fertili z er use (Enviro nment Can ada, 2006). To have less negati ve impact on the environ ment, we could choose to eat meat from grass -f ed catt le, eat less red meat overall , or just sto p eati ng m eat.  Red meat is 150% more carbon int en sive than chicken or fish (Weber, 2008). Havin g one meatl ess da y a week can have the same cli mate impact as sol el y bu yin g loc al foods (W eber, 2008 ).    Grass-fed and grain-fed cattle. Inst ead of being fed gr ass, most catt le toda y are gr ain -f ed. This is bec ause grain - fed catt le gro w faste r and are mor e cost -eff ecti ve (W alsh, 2 005). As a result , the con sumer gets ch e aper meat (Walsh, 2005). However, a cow’s digestive system is not meant to digest grain, and 8  of 24   eati ng grain causes them to release an ex cess of gaseous compounds such as methane and carbon dio x ide, two potent GHG (W alsh, 2005).  Howeve r, havin g more grass - f e d catt le on the ma r ket involves increasin g deforestatio n which affe cts biodiversit y, le ad s to erosion and flooding (Stock & Rochen, 1998 ). Defor estatio n also reduc es the number of potential tre es that can absorb GHG fro m the air. Addit ionall y, carbon diox i de is released as the trees are cut down and as trees and othe r plants de compos e (Stock & Roch en, 1998).   Grain -f ed catt le stil l have a lar ge r impact on the en vironment (Stock & Roc hen, 1998). Firstl y, indus triall y grown gr ain lim it s biodiversit y, deplet e s soi ls and often involve s the use of pesti cides (FAO, 2006). Secondl y, artificia l nitrogen fertili z er is produced throu gh an ener g y -consum ing process that uses gr eat quantit ies of natu ra l gas and produc es hu ge amount s of CO 2  and N 2 O (FAO, 2006 ). Thirdl y, the tractors, slicers and harv e sters use diesel fo r ene r gy and contribut e GH G emi ssi ons (FAO, 2006). Nex t, plasti c used to ba g up har vested grass and corn sila ge adds to environmental poll uti on (FAO, 2006). Finall y, tr ansportin g fe ed to livestock incurs la r ge ener g y costs and furthe r increas es GHG emi ssi ons (FAO, 2006 ).    Animal by-products. The manure and gas from catt le are the most si gnifican t source of GHG emi ssi ons from livestock by-p roducts. The y produ ce 9% of hum an -induced carbon diox ide, 37% of all human -induced methan e, and 64% of amm onia, which is tied to acid rain (Environment Canada, 20 06). The y also gene rate 65 % of human -induced nit rou s ox ide emi ssi ons (N 2 0), which has 296 tim es the global warming potential of CO 2  (Environment Canada, 2006). Ru n-off from improperl y mana ged manur e at fac tor y farms can lea ch int o the water suppl y, cau sing eutrophic ati on (Oli ver, 2008). This is when ri vers and streams are starv ed of ox ygen, harmin g fish and other species (Oli ver, 2008). The an aerobic decompos it ion of sediment that result s from eutro phicati on can lead to incr eased methan e release from lakes (Hutt unen et al., 2003). Other b y-p roducts th at aff ect the environm ent are une aten skin and bon es, which are added to the la ndfill .     Eat foods with a high energy return on input.  A food chain is a s ystem that involves prim ar y producers, herbivor es, carnivores, omnivores, and decompos ers. As ener g y is being pass ed throu gh each stage of the food chain, t here is less of it avail abl e at ever y sta ge be cause ener g y i s used for pu rpose s such as breathi n g and di gesti ng. This con cept is ex plained by th e ecolo gic al p yr ami d, which shows that onl y 10% or less of en er g y is t ransfe rred from one trop hic level to the nex t (Arc yt e ch, 2000). For ex ampl e, if there are 10,000 calor ies at one level, onl y 1,000 are transf err ed to the nex t. In cre asing po pulation an d economi c growth is causing and in cre ase in deman d for meat (Li et al., 2006). This means that the fo od s ystem requires much la r ge r grain consum pti on through feedin g grains to anim als and then eati n g the anim als (Li et al ., 2006). In fact, two -thi rds of all gr ains produc ed ar e now used to feed livestock, no t humans (FAO, 2006 ). As discussed earlie r, cult iva ti ng grain involves the re lease of massi ve amount s of gr eenhouse gas emi ssi ons. As omni vores, we hav e a choic e betw een eati ng anim als and eati n g plan ts. By choosi ng to eat foods tha t are lowe r in the food ch ain, we obtain en er g y mo re dire ctl y and ef ficientl y, and at the same time redu ce GHG emi ssi on.  3) Eat Organic Contrar y to conventi onal gro wing m ethods which are bas ed on max im iz ing output s and minim iz ing cost, or ganic farmin g supports an envi ronmentall y responsi ble phil osoph y. It allows for a healt h y relations hip betw een the food and the land in which it is grown. Or gani c agricult ur e is based on reduc in g or eli mi nati ng reli ance on ex ternal inputs such as fertili z er, pesti cide and irri gati on. A true organic farm wil l have a closed syst em; that is, external inputs and waste output s are at a mini mum . Self -sufficienc y is achie ved using ca reful manu re man agement, compos t, crop rotation and other low -im pact 9  of 24   farmin g methods. Biodi v ersit y is also vital in redu cing reli anc e.  Manur e an d compos t management are a ddressed lat er in this pa per; the other aspects are consi dered below.  Th e FA O repo rts that a change from conventi onal chemi cal -b ased agriculture to or ganic agriculture reduc es ener gy requirements b y 25 -50 % (2009). The s ame repo rt states that the incre ase in soi l organic matt er has an ev e n gr eate r ca rbon sequestr ati on potential (FAO, 20 09). It is beli eved that if onl y 10,000 medium - siz ed far ms in the U.S . converted to organi c producti on, th e y would store so much carbon in the soil that it would be equivalent to takin g 1,1 74,400 cars off the ro ad, or reducin g car miles dri ven by 14.62 bil li on miles (Sa yr e, 2003).     Closed System. In or ganic agricult ur e, soil fertili t y is achieved throu gh a cl osed s ystem approa ch using compos ted crop wa stes and anim al manures (Alt ieri, Ponti , and Nicholl s, 2005). This minim iz es both ex ternal inpu ts and waste output s required. Organic farme rs often us e manure produced b y farm livestock as a natur al fert il iz er on grassl and fi elds (Alti eri et al., 2005). Re c yc li n g manur e vastl y red uces emi ssi on of methane, nit r ous ox ide and amm onia, which occur when manu r e is discarded (Bad gle y, Moghtad er, Quint ero, Zakem, J ahi Chappell , Avilés -Váz quez , Samul on, and Perfecto, 2007 ). Ther ef ore, int egr ati on of livestock and arable producti on can be useful in redu cing th e global warming pot enti al of food producti on.  Crop Rotations. C onventional agriculture reli es he avil y on the monocult ur e (the cult ivation of the same c rop in a field yea r after ye ar ). This crop ho mogen eit y has contribut e d to the doubli ng of crop loss es due to insect dama ge ov e r the last six t y ye ars (Pim e ntal et al ., 1992).   In ord er to miti gate the eff ects of the conventional farm’s ecosystem, harmful agents, such as pesticides and synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are uti li z ed (Meleca, 2008).   Pesti cides are used at great environmental and eco nomi c cost. N e gati ve im pacts trac ed ba ck to the use of pesti cides include contamination of anim al products and groundw ate r, loss of natural pest en e mi es, pesti cide resis tanc e and poll ination losses (Pim ental et al., 1992). In cludi ng human healt h impacts of pesti cide use, costs hav e been esti mated to be 5 to 8 billi on doll ars per ye ar. The producti on of fertili z ers is ener g y int ensive. It ad ds between 300 and 600 mill ion tonnes CO 2  per year, repres enti ng betwe e n 0.6 - 1.2% of the world’s total GHGs (Bellarby, 2008). Also , fertili z ers are oft en appli ed in ex cess or at subopt im al tim es and not full y used b y the crop pl ants, so that some of the surplus is los t as N 2 O to the atm osphere (Bell a rb y, 20 08). Growin g crops in the same site redu ces soi l fertili t y and can en coura ge a buil d up of pests , disease s and weeds in the soil (Bell arb y, 2008 ).   In or ganic agricult ure, farmers use crop rotations as one of their main tools to control soi l fertili t y. Rotating crops in opti mi zed sequenc es help br eak pest cyc les and prevent a carr y ov er of pests to the nex t sea son. It also ensur es th at a field alw a ys has a cr op or cover crop; fields l eft to lay bar e suffe r fro m significant soi l erosion (Hell er & Keolei an, 2002) . A good croppin g s yste m allows for a rebuil ding phase to restore soil fertili t y an d buil d organic matt er (Bell arb y, 2008). A hu ge amount of carbon is seque stered from the atm ospher e whe n soil is allowed to restore in this manner (FAO, 2009). Additi onall y, a hea lt h y soil can hold much more water and dec reas es the need for ir ri g ati on (FAO, 2009).    Biodiversity. Geneti c div ersit y is anothe r tool for combating against pests and diseases in or ganic s y stems. Planting sev eral different crops or sever a l varieties of one crop de creas es suscepti bil it y to disease, pests and enviro nmenta l conditi ons (Meleca, 2008). Wit hout biodiversit y, opti ons for lon g - term sust ainabili t y and agri cult ural self -r eli ance are lost . As the diversit y of a s ys tem decre ases, the risk that a pest or disease will spre a d throughout an agricult u ral plant or anim al bas e increas es (Mele ca, 2008 ).  Diversity in a field significantly reduces the farmer’s need for fertilizers and pesticides     Other Farming Methods . In Lo w Gr eenhouse Gas Agriculture (2009 ), the FAO discusses othe r wa ys farms can reduce their environment al impact s. Til lage is the disrupti o n of the ground to read y the soil for seedin g. Strip or reduced till a ge in cre ases carbon sequ estrati on, and require less herbicide an d 10  of 24   fertili z er. Selecti ng variet ies and bre eds espe ciall y fit for local conditi ons al so m ini miz es inpu t needs, and can improve yields in co nventi onal and organic sys tems ali ke. Man y or ga nic farme rs ar e using int e gr ated pest mangement (IP M) to replac e the role of pesti cides in conventi onal agr iculture. Finall y, or ganic waste can be used to p art iall y fuel farm ma chiner y whil e reducin g environmental impact (FA O, 2009).      4) Reduce Waste     Landfills. Organic waste in landfill s is eventuall y decompos ed b y bacteria found naturall y in the waste and sur rounding so il (Crawford & Smi th, 1985). Ba cte rial d ecompos i ti on contribut es heavil y t o landfil l gas whi ch includ es a mix ture of man y dif f erent gas es, mostl y meth ane and carbon diox ide (Crawfo rd & Smi th, 1985).  In the year 2000, wor ldwide landfill s of municipal sol id waste gener ate d over 730 mill ion metric tons of CO 2  equivalents which is equal to 12% of total global methane emi ssi ons (Oli ver, 2007). This num ber is ex pected to esc alat e by 9% from 2005 to 20 20 due to an incre asin g rate of organic wast e deposi ts (United States Environmental Protecti on A genc y, 2006). If the methan e prod uced by landfil ls is not coll ect ed, it will escape int o the atm osphere not onl y to further poll ute our enviro nment but also imparts a lost opportuni t y to captur e and uti li z e as a source of en er g y (United States Landfil l Methane Outr each Pro gr am, 2009).    Waste in food supply chain. One major wa y to cut down the or ganic waste going to landfill s is to reduce food wasta ge. Ab out half of the produc e th roughout the world ends up being disc arded alon g the food suppl y ch ain (D avid Suz uki Foundati on, 2009). Much of this waste is due to spoil age, but o ften , fruit and ve getabl es are discar ded solel y du e to cosmeti c defe cts such as ir re gula r siz e and shape. Superm arkets tend to overstock their sh elves to compensate for consum ers' pref e ren ce for perfe ct -looki ng produc e (Garn ett , 2008). Thus, to reduce th e amount of pro duce wasted at the super market we recomm end choosi ng fruit and ve get a bles re gardl ess of small blemi shes or bruises, espe ciall y wh en bu yin g or gan ic, to reduce th e amount of pro duce wasted at the super market.    Personal food waste . North Americans also tend to bu y mor e food than the y need. As a result , one in four food purch ases en d up in the trash (David Suz uki Foundati on, 2009). To avoid this reason fo r food waste, we recom mend sh opping with a list to avoid impul se bu yin g and bri ngin g Tuppe rwa re to pac k up leftovers at restaur ants.   Carbon emissions due to shopping bags. In the Un it ed States, 100 bill ion plasti c shoppi ng ba gs are produced each ye ar (Abl eman, M., Bond, A. B. , Gussow, J., Kirschhenmann, F., Landri gan, P., Per era, F., Roberts, J ., Wall jasper, J., 2008). Plastic bag prod ucti on is an ener g y-int en sive process requirin g a lar ge amount of fossi l fuels (A bleman et al., 2008). Pap er bags are not a suit able replac ement for plasti c in terms of c arbon emi ssi ons. It actuall y takes fou r times more ene r g y to prod uce and ten tim es mor e ener g y to rec ycle a pap er bag (Ableman et al., 2008). Th e refor e we recomm end usi ng a reusabl e clot h ba g t o carr y hom e groc eries.  Recycling and composting produces fewer GHGs . Although the pro cess of rec ycli n g requi res ener g y and produc es som e GHG emi ssi ons, it is still bett er than throwin g re c yc lable waste into the tr ash. Land fill waste gen erat es 1.5 lb of GHG emi ssi ons compared to 0.5 lb for r ec yc led waste (H arrin gton , 2008). There fore, it is wi se to rec ycl e and pur chas e products pa cka ged with rec ycl ed materials wh en ever possi ble. Compost ing also produces som e GHG emi ssi ons because it is decompos ed b y bacte ria, bu t it is sti ll a bett er alt ernat ive th an landfil li ng. When use d as a repl acem ent for fer ti li z er it reduces the emi ssi ons associated wit h fertili z er's producti on.  5) Eat Less Processed Foods    Processed food has beco me increasin gl y popular i n the Canadian diet. In la rge, develop ed count ries like Canada, fo od processi n g is often necessar y to pr event spoil a ge and pres erve nutriti onal 11  of 24   quali t y durin g shipping and storage durin g the win ter mont hs. But, a lot of unnecessa r y proc essi ng occurs in Canada and all Wester n countries. This is due to the fact that comp eti ti on in the food indus tr y has put pressure on suppl iers to "add value " to foods throu gh pro cessi n g to make th eir products more appe ali ng at the gro ce r y store (Nestl e, 2002). For ex ampl e, a compan y mak es a lar ger profit selli ng potato c hips than it would sell ing potatoes. As a result of the comp eti ti on and the avail abil it y of cheap oil , the number of steps between food producti on and consum pti on has steadil y incr eas ed (Nestl e, 2002; Church, 2005). The lengthenin g of th e food s uppl y ch ain consum es en er g y and cont ributes to greenhouse gas emiss ions in man y  wa ys; re fri ger ati on, packa gin g, therm al proc essi ng, food addit ives, machiner y, and transport ati on are all dep endent on fossi l fuels (Church, 2005). In thi s paper, we focus on t ransportati on, refri ger ati on, and pack a ging.     Transportation and food processing. As we hav e alread y mentioned, tr ansportati on is a big contribut or to GHG emi s sions . In food processi n g, raw mate rials ar e often gath ered from man y diff erent sources, includi n g those i n other countries (Chur c h, 2005). Also, food must be shipped between st a ges o f producti on, and some foo ds require a su rprisi n g nu mber of sta ges. For ex ampl e, Swedish ketchup req uires more than 52 transport and process sta ges from farm to final product (Ch ur ch, 2005). The ex tension of our food suppl y ch ain has become possibl e in lar ge pa rt due to ref rigerati on (G arnett , 2008).     The impact of refrigeration . Refri ger ati on is neces sar y for food saf et y to reduce the food spoi la ge, and also for food stor a ge t o make food avail abl e year - round. How ever, co mpared to six t y ye ars ago, refri ge rati on has be come more and more nec essar y as the food suppl y chain has length ened and in cluded more transportati on and s torage sta ges. Now, our food suppl y ch ain is refri gerator -d epend ent and ma n y foods require t emperatu r e -control at ever y sta ge i n the suppl y ch ain (Ga rn ett , 2008). The en er g y re quired to operate this equipm ent is enormous and some of the gases used as refri gerants hav e global warmi ng potentials that are thous a nds of times gr eater th an CO2 (Garn ett , 2008).        Packaging . As menti one d, packa gin g pla ys a bi g role in the producti on of gr eenhouse gases. In food processi n g, mate rial s such as deliver y box es, metal cans, printed -p ape r labels, plasti c tra ys, cell ophane, glass ja rs, plasti c and metal lids (man y of which ar e petroleum -based) are heavil y reli ed on to protecti vel y pack a ge and preserv e food (Chur ch, 2005). Howev er, a great deal of packa gin g is used onl y to shi p food products fro m one stage of pro cessi n g to th e nex t, result ing in ex cessi ve waste that is often not properl y re c ycled or cannot be rec ycl ed (The Strateg y Unit, 2008).   Choosi ng local foods tha t are minim all y pro cesse d and bu yin g in bul k can help to reduce th e carbon emi ssi ons associa ted wit h the tra nsportati o n, refri ge rati on, and pack agin g invol ved in the producti on of man y food s.  6) Walk Or Bike To The Grocery Store Using less pe rsonal trans portati on directl y redu ces GHG emi ssi ons. As we've mentioned, Canada 's largest sourc e of GH G gas is transport ati on (Envir onment Canada, 2005; Natural Resourc es Canad a, n.d.). In 2006, Transport Can a da (2007a) esti mated 18. 5 mill ion personal vehicles wer e on the roa ds in Canada which coll ecti vel y drov e approx im atel y 300 bil li on kil ometres. The GHG emi ssi ons from t hese pers onal vehicles have grown b y 10 percent sinc e 1990, des pit e a signific ant incre ase in fuel effici enc y, which indi cates that people are drivi ng more often (T ran sport Canada, 2007a; Tr a nsport Canada, 2007b).    We can infer from shopp ing trends in th e UK that one of the reasons people are drivin g more is fo r the purpose of pickin g up gro ceri es (Ga rnett , 2008 ; Lan g & Heasman, 2004 ). To reduc e the emi ssi on s associated wit h person al transportati on we recom mend walki ng or biking t o the gro ce r y store. This is reasonabl e in Vancouv er because th e cit y is relativ el y dense and groce r y stores are ver y ac cessi ble b y foot (Metro Van couver, 2007 ). For those livin g in area s where walki ng or bikn g is not possibl e, publi c transportati on is a bett er mode of transportat ion. One could also use their personal vehicl e but mak e few er 12  of 24   trips. If this is the case, t hen improving fu el effcie nc y b y keepin g tires infla ted and drivi ng below 10 0 km/ hour on the highwa y, for ex ampl e, and/or cho osing a fu el -e fficient veh icle can also help redu ce emi ssi ons (Environment Canada, 2005).     DISCUSSION Carbon Friendly Food Guide. We chose to presen t our Carbon Fri endl y Fo od Guide as a tri -folded, 8.5 x 11" pamphl et. We decided to use thi s format for ease of prod ucti on, distribut ion and use. To limi t our own carbon foo tprint , it is print ed on recyc l ed pape r and will be full y re c yclable. The bro c hure was created to tar get all audiences. It is e ye -c atchi ng and simpl e, but contai ns more than just basic information. We highli gh ted simple key ph ras es like “Save the plant, Eat a Carbon diet”, and “Six Steps to a Carbon Friendly Diet” to spark interest. The messages match the website so consumers that choose to further ex plore the topic will be fami li ar wit h the format.  Website. Our websit e (A ppendix B) elaborat es on the brochur e b y providi ng more in -depth information about c arbon emi ssi ons for int erested indi viduals. We have provided a carbon cal culator to all ow them to calculate their emi ssi ons. Then we provided links that elabo rate on our six key m ess a ges, each with fu rther use ful links. For ex ampl e, we gave a list of local foods, re cipes, and restaurants tha t ma y encoura ge people to eat more local foods. Finall y, we provided links to other useful websit es such as the UBC Farm, the 100 -Mi le Diet, th e David Suz uki websit e, and more. Our websit e is eas y to navi gat e with a side panel that pe rmits users to go from pa ge to page. We also have a se a rch en gine that enables people to search fo r rel ated infor mation.  Though the app earan ce of the websit e we cre ated wit h Microsoft P ubli sher is not what we would like to see cr eated, the format and content is appropriate.     Sign. To indi cate to shoppers at the UBC Farm Markets which foods ar e Carbon Friendl y, we chose to create thr ee sma ll signs (Appendix C). The signs will be approximately 4”x 6” and posted on or nea r items. We decide d to use a sign rathe r than a label to be put on indivi dual pieces or bags of pro duce for sust ainabili t y reasons . Signs will be lami nated and farm sta ff will use washable mark ers to ch eck off the criteria that appl y to t he product. We have cho sen three dif fer ent sets of criteria to lend fl ex ibi li ty to the crop that is bein g adv ertised. Our int enti on is for the farm to hav e sev er al copies of these th ree si gns so that the y can be some wh at tail ored to indivi dual crop char acte risti cs.  CONCLUSION  The conventi onal food in dust r y pla ys a big part in contribut ing to global warming be cause of its dependen ce on oil in eve r y step of food produ cti on. We have learn ed that, by far, the bi ggest cont ributor to carbon emi ssi ons in the food suppl y chain is the meat indust r y (Ga rnett , 2008). There fore, the best advice to give peopl e wh o want to increas e the car bon -friendliness of their diet is to reduce me at consum pti on and eat low er on the food chain. O ne could go farthe r to make a diet carbon -fri endl y b y walki ng to the gro ce r y store with a reusable ba g and choosi ng whol e, or ga nic, local, and in -se ason foods with mini mal packagin g. Personal food choic es co uld pot enti all y have a lar ge impa ct on the food s ystem. For ex ampl e, if ev er y American skipped on e mea l of chicken pe r we ek an d subst it uted it wit h a veget arian meal, it would be equal t o the carbon diox ide savings of removi n g at least half a mill ion cars off th e U.S. roads (Eshel & Ma rtin, 2006).   We defined a carbon- frie ndl y diet as a healt h y die t that focuses on redu cin g carbon emi ssi ons. This includes the proc ess in which the food is produced , transported, pro cessed, consum ed and disposed. The goal of our carbon - friend l y food guide and websit e was to empow er consu mers to make informed choices about ca rbon -friendl y eat ing. How ever, raisi n g aw areness is onl y the first st ep in sti mul ati ng behavio ur chan ge acco rding to som e theories, such as Contento's transtheo reti cal mo del (2007). It su ggests th at there are sev eral sta ges of beh a viour chan ge. Once cons umers are awa re of wh y t o make chan ge, the y mus t also 13  of 24   be mot ivated to take acti on and tau ght how to get started (Contento, 2007). There are man y th eories and strate gies which aim to mot ivate and facil it ate be haviour chan ge. One str a teg y would be to bui ld environmental support that could enable consum er s to choose ca rbon -fri end l y foods. Th e sign we designed for the UBC far m is a good ex ampl e of environmental support bec ause it will help consum e rs reco gniz e which food is carbon - friendl y. We thi nk the UBCFS P team ma y benefit from be comi ng fami li ar with some of the behavio ur chan ge th eories pr esen ted in Contento's tex tbook (2007) as the y could he lp guide the UBC FS P 's nex t steps in facil it ati ng cons umer chan ge.  14  of 24   References:  100 Mile Diet Societ y. (n .d.). 100 mile diet: Local eating for global change. Retrieved Mar ch 30, 20 09 from htt p:/ /100m il ediet.org/   Ableman, M., Bond, A. B., Gussow, J., Kirschhe nmann, F., Land rigan, P., Perera, F., Roberts, J ., Wall jasper, J. (2008). Green Guide: The Complete Reference for Consuming Wisely . Washington, DC: Nati onal Geo graphi c Societ y.  Alti eri, M. A., Pont i, L. and Nicholl s, C. (2005): Enhanced pest mana geme nt through soil healt h: toward a belowground habit at man agement strate g y. Biod ynami cs (Sum mer) pp. 33 - 40.   Arc ytech. (2000). Interesting facts about food chains. R etrieved on Mar ch 16, 2009 from htt p:/ /www.arc yt ech.o r g/j ava/popul ati on/facts_foo dchain.ht ml     Bad gle y, C., Mo ghtade r, J ., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Jahi Chappell , M., Avil és -Váz quez , K., Samulon, A. and Perfe cto, I. (2007 ): Organic agriculture and the glob al food suppl y. R enewabl e Agricult ur e and Food S ystems: 22(2) ; 86 -108.    Bell arb y, J essi ca (2008 ). Cool farming: Climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential . Amst erdam: Gre enpea ce Inte rnati onal.  Bloui n -Gas con, M. (200 4). Why should people recycle? R et rieved from htt p:/ /www.ec.gc.c a/Envi roZin e/en gli sh/i ssues/46/ email_s tor y_ e.cfm? Link=/EnviroZin e/en gli sh/i ssues/46/an y_qu esti ons_e.cfm&p a ge=qu esti   Church, N. (2005). Why our food is so dependent on oil . Retrieved Feb ruar y 15, 2009 from htt p:/ /agbio.ca/DOCs/ iss ues food oil.pdf   Contento, I. R. (2007). Nutriti on Educati on: Linki ng Rese arch, Theor y, an d Practi ce. Sudbur y, MA : J ones and Ba rtle Publ ishers.  Crawford & Smi th. (1985). Landfill Gas Primer – An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals. R etrieved from  http:/ /w ww.atsdr.cdc. gov /hac/l andfill /ht ml /ch2.htm   David Suz uki Foundati on. (2009). Food and climate change. Retriev ed Fe bruar y 4, 2009 from htt p:/ /www.davidsu z uk i.org/C li mate_Chan ge/W hat_You_C an_Do/Food_ a nd_C li mate_Change. asp   David Suz uki Foundati on. (2009). David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge. R etrieved Mar ch 22, 2009, fro m  http:/ /www.davidsu z uki.org/N atureC hall en ge/ne wslett ers/sept2008_harve stbou nt y/p a ge2.asp   Eshel, G., and P.A. Marti n, 2006: Diet, Ener g y, an d Global Warming. Earth Interactions ,   10, 1–17.  Environment C anada. (2 005). Lo werin g Can ada 's Vehicle E mi ssi ons. EnviroZine: Environment Canada's 15  of 24   On-line Newsmagazine, 54 (2). Retrieved from htt p:/ /www.ec.gc.c a/Envi roZin e/en gli sh/i ssues/54/ featur e2_e.c fm  Environment Canada. (2006). National inventory report: greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada, 1990-2006 (CRF Sector 4). Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2006_report/s6_eng.cfm#s6_1  Environment Canada, 20 07. Canada 's 2005 Gr een house Ga s Inv entor y: A Summ ar y of Trends. Avail able online at htt p:/ /www.ec.gc.c a/pdb/ gh g/i nventor y_r eport/20 05/2005s umm ar y_e. cfm    Farm Folk/ C it yFolk Soci et y. (200 8). Get local: Local food is the right choice for our environment. R etrieved Februa r y 28, 2009 from htt p:/ /getl ocalb c.or g/en/   Garnett , T. (2008 ). Cooking up a storm: Food, greenhouse gas emiss ions, and our chan gin g cli mate. Retrieved Februa r y 15, 2009 from htt p:/ /www.fcrn.or g.uk/fr cnP ubs/ publi cati ons/ P DFs/C uaS _web.pdf   Harrin gton, J . (2008). The climate diet: How you can cut carbon, cut costs, and save the planet. Lon don: Earthscan.  Hell er M.C., and Keoleia n G.A., 2002: Assessing the Su stainabil it y of the US Food S ystem: A Lif e C ycle Pe rspecti ve. Agricultural Systems , 76:3, 1007 -104 1  Huttunen, J. T., Alm , J ., Lii kanen, A., Juuti nen, S., La rmola, T., Hamm a r, T., Silvol a, J ., Martikainen, P. J. (2003). Flux es of methane, carbon diox ide an d nit rous ox ide in boreal lakes and potential anthropo genic effe cts on the aquati c gr eenhouse gas emiss ions. Chemosphere, 52 (3), 609 - 621. doi: 10.1016/j .ph ysletb.2 003.10.071   Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2007). “Climate Change 2007: Mi ti gati on of Climate Change”. Retrieved 21 November 2007, from HYPERLINK "htt p:/ /www.ipcc.ch/i pc c reports/ar4 - w g3.htm   Lan g, T., & Heasman, M. (2004). Food wars: The global battle for mouths, minds and markets. Lon don: Earthscan.  Li, P., Wang. Y., & Tan X. (2006, April 11). Grain security vs. food security.  Message posted to http://www.safea.gov.cn/english/content.php?id=12742763  Meleca, Anthon y (2008, 7, 30). The or ganic answ er to cli mate ch an ge. Ret rieved Mar ch 30, 2009, from Organic Guid e Web site: htt p:/ /www.organic guid e .com/ comm unit y/ educati on/t he -or ganic - answe r-t o -cli mate-chan ge/   Metro Vancouv er. (2007 ). Cli mate Change as a 'D river ' for th e Re gional Growth Strateg y. Th e Sustainable Region Init ia ti ve (Region al Growth Strate g y Review Ba ck grou nder #8). Retriev ed April 9, 2009 from 16  of 24    http:/ /www.metrovancou ver.or g/pl annin g/develop ment/s trateg y/ Ba ck groun dP apersReports/ R GS_back ground8_cli mate_ cha nge_ Dec2007.pd f   Neff, R., Chan, I.L. Clegg Smith, K. (2008) Yesterday’s dinner, tomorrow’s weather, today’s news? US newspape r cove ra ge of food s ystem contribut ions to clim ate chan ge. Public Health Nutrition , 11(8), 972-981. doi: 10.1 017/S 1368980008003480  Nestl e, M. (2002). Food poli ti cs: How the food indus tr y influen ces nutrition and healt h. Los An gel e s: Universit y of Cali fornia Press.  Niggli , U., Fli eßb ach, A., Hepperl y, P. and Scialab ba, N. (2009). Lo w Gree nhouse Gas Agri cult ure: Miti gati on and Adaptatio n Potential of Sustainable Fa rming S ystems. Rome: United Nati ons Food and Agricult ure Organisa ti on.  Oliver, R. (2007). All about: Landfills. R etrieved from htt p:/ /www.cnn.com/ 2007/W ORLD/ asiapcf/10/08 /eco.about.l andfill s/#cnn S TCTex t  Oliver, R. (2008, January 7), Animal waste: Future energy, or just hot air? Message posted to http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/07/eco.about.manure/index.html   Pimentel, D., and M. Pimentel, 1996. Food, Ene r gy, and Soci et y. Universit y Press of Col or ado, Niw ot, CO.   Poll an, Michael (2006). The omnivore's dilemma: a natural history of four meals . New Yo rk: Pengu in Press.   Rojas, A ., Richer, L., Wagne r, J. (2007). University of Britis h Col umbi a Fo od S ystem Project: Towa rds Sustainabil e and Secure Campus Food S ystems. EcoHealth , 4, 86-94.   Sayr e, Laur a (2003 ). Or ganic fa rming combats glo bal warmin g. Retrieved March 30, 2009, from Rodale Insti tut e Web site: htt p:/ /www.rodal einst it ute.org/ ob_31   Seeds. (2006). One tonne challenge: Small actions add up to make a tonne of a difference! Retrieve d March 12, 2009 from htt p:/ /www.seedsfoundati o n.ca/ot c/i ndex .htm   Smith, A. & MacKinnon, J . B. (2007). The 100 mile diet: A year of local eating. Vancouver, BC: Ra ndom House Canada.  Steinfeld, H., Gerb er, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V. , Ros ales, M., de Haan, C . (2006) Livestock 's Lon g Shadow - Environmental Issu es and Options . Rom e: Food and Agricultur e Organiz ati on of the United Na ti ons.  Stock, J. & Rochen, A. (1998). The choice: Doomsday or arbor day. R etrie ved on March 16, 2009 from htt p:/ /www.umi ch.edu/~gs265/ societ y/defo restati on.htm   The Strate g y Unit. (2008 ). Food Matte rs: Towards a Strate g y for the 21st C entur y. R etrieved M arch 15, 17  of 24   2009 from  http:/ /www.cabinetoffic e .gov.uk/m edia/c abinetoff ice/st rate g y/assets/ food/f ood_matters1.pdf  Transport Canad a. (2007 a). Transpo rtati on in Canada: An Ove rview. Retri eved April 9, 2009 from htt p:/ /www.tc.gc. ca/pol ic y/R eport/anr e2007/pdf/o verview.pdf   Transport Canad a. (2007 b). Transportati on in Can ada: An Ove rview. Add e ndum. Retrieved April 9, 2009 from http: // www.tc.gc.ca /p oli c y/R eport/anr e2007/pdf/add2007 -e.pd f  United States Environmental Protecti on Agenc y. (2009) . Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). R etrieved Mar ch 22, 200 9, from  http:/ /www.epa.gov/l mo p/overview.ht m   Van Aardenne, J .A., Den tener, F.J ., Olivi er,  J.G.J., Peters,  J.A.H.W ., Ganz eveld, J .A.H.W . The Emi ssi on Da tabase for Glob al Atm ospheric Rese arch 3.2 Fa st Track 2000 datas et (Re port No. 32FT2000). Retrieved from htt p:/ /www.mnp.nl /edgar / Ima ges/Desc ript ion_of_EDGAR _32FT2000( v8) _tcm32 -22222.pdf   Walsh, C.W. (2005, April 6), Grass Fed vs. Grain Fed Beef? Message posted to http://www.luciesfarm.com/artman/publish/article_85.php   Weber, C.L., and Mathews, H.S., 2008. Food-Miles and Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 3508-3513.    18  of 24   APPENDIX A: Brochure  P aper cop y to foll ow 19  of 24   APPENDIX B: Website  Electronic cop y to foll ow .  20  of 24   APPENDIX C: Sign  The f oll owing is one vers ion of the sign, desi gned for produc e grown at the UBC farm.         


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items