The Carbon Footprint of a Cheeseburger

Photo courtesy of Alaina B.

Today’s Wordless Wednesday Walkers has been moved to Friday because I found this amazing video today and just had to share it with you.

Below, is a video produced by National Geographic entitled "Carbon Footprint of a Cheeseburger." As part of their Six Degrees film project, Jamais Cascio, the filmmaker, broke down the carbon emissions of this unique and definitively American cuisine, which is now eaten world-wide in virtually every country.

What’s a Carbon Footprint?

A carbon footprint means all the energy that was consumed every step of the way for each of the cheeseburger’s parts. Each of us has a carbon footprint, based on what we do, how we do it, and how long it takes us to get it done.

When you look at the variety of processes in the making of a cheeseburger, you have to account that it contributes greenhouse gas emissions by:

Raising the cattle including the feedstock fed to them, slaughtering them, industrial processing of cheese, farming of lettuce, onions and tomatoes, the packaging of all the meat, cheese, produce, and condiments (which also have their own initial growing and mass production), the shipping all the ingredients, the cold storage of the meat and cheese, the preparation of the cheeseburger which is then served in a fast food restaurant which requires enormous amounts of electricity, whose patrons mostly drive to the restaurant.

That’s a lot of process steps.

Facts from the video:

1. Americans eat an average of 3 cheeseburgers per week.

2. 200,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents are produced from all those cheeseburgers in the USA

3. More greenhouse gas emissions from cheeseburgers than all the SUVs combined

How can you Lower the Carbon Footprint of Cheeseburgers?

The obvious answer is to eat less—or no—cheeseburgers. On a 360 degree basis, you should eat less processed foods. Every food will have some sort of carbon footprint, but the less processed it is, the lower its carbon footprint and accompanying greenhouse emissions.

Buying and consuming local foods in your own vicinity will contribute the least amount of carbon.

What’s your reaction? Were you as flabbergasted as I was at this information?

Each one of us affects the environment in so many known and unknown ways.

It’s food for thought, because,

After all, it’s about a healthy lifestyle!

Tags: carbon_footprint, environment, greenhouse_gases

Comment by David on April 23, 2008 at 8:09pm: These are astonishing facts. I guess when the late John Belushi, from SNL, use to say, Cheeseburger, Cheeseburger, Cheeseburger, he couldn't have known what a pollutant it turned out to be.

Comment by Carol on April 24, 2008 at 1:15pm: I personally don't buy into this. There is no scientific consensus from climatologists that global warming is even real. Nearly 100 scientists signed the Leipzig Declaration expressing their doubts about the validity of global warming forecasts. And over 17,000 scientists (including hundreds of climate experts) signed the Oregon Petition saying they see "no convincing scientific evidence" that humans are disrupting the earth's climate. The Kyoto Protocol commits the US to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions by 30-40% by 2012 - but even with "full and perfect compliance" (the average global temperature in 2050 would be only 0.06 degrees C (0.2 degrees F). (according to the US National Center for Atmospheric Research) In other words, the world would pay a horrific price for virtually no benefits. Of course you all are free to believe what you want. But as for me, there simply isn't enough evidence to support this.

Comment by Metroknow on April 24, 2008 at 8:51pm: I also have some reservations on the "science" that is bandied about on global warming, but for me, the underlying fact is we all should consume less of the earth's resources, pollute less, destroy less, regardless of how we feel about hotbutton issues. The salmon crisis on the West coast of the US is an obvious example - it is being linked directly to pollution and water diversion of the Sacramento river (their chief spawning ground).

In the end, our shortsightedness is now putting thousands of families in jeopardy on the coast, because salmon aren't there anymore.

So as I said, regardless of our political views or guesses about science, reducing our impact by working "smarter" is the right thing to do. If we can't unequivocally prove that it will Not damage future generations, then we should do what we can now in hopes that our children don't pay for what turns into our lack of foresight.

Comment by Lisa Newton on April 24, 2008 at 11:28pm: If my understanding is correct, and I'm far from being a scientist, a carbon footprint isn't so much about global warming as it is about energy usage. It takes energy to grow the feed to feed the cattle, energy to butcher the cow, get the meat, process it, store it, etc. The same is true for the ingredients that go into the bun, the lettuce, tomatoes, etc.

I agree with Metroknow's idea of pollution, but I also believe there is a limited amount of energy currently being produces, and solar or wind power has only reached the stage of replacing a fraction of the total.

I totally believe in the energy figures, but they're based on the idea of 3 cheeseburgers per person per week. That number is very high, IMHO. I don't know anyone who eats three burgers in one week. Do any of you?

Comment by Metroknow on April 25, 2008 at 12:14am: It is definitely related to energy production, but it is more a measure of greenhouse gases that are produced as a result of any human activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint).

On the cheeseburger question, I was talking to my wife about that actually because it was astonishing to me too. But then I realized, ya know when I was in my late teens and early twenties, that number would have been about right given that I was a bachelor at the time, working construction jobs etc., so cheap food (read: Fast Food) was my daily norm. Where it may not have been specifically a cheeseburger for breakfast, it was easily the equivalent with a sausage mcmuffin or two each day, then a cheeseburger for lunch, and good heavens - pizza for dinner if I could get it.

Wow, how times have changed. :)

Comment by Steve on April 29, 2008 at 7:34pm: I became a member just so I could respond to Carol's comments about global climate change. Both the Leipzig Convention and the Oregon petition have been debunked and shown to be, for the most part, hoaxes and scams. Just a few minutes of searching on the internet will reveal the absurdity of both. Also, "belief" occurs when there is little proof but strong conviction. If you choose to "believe" that there is no global climate change than you are flying in the face of reality. An overwhelming majority of scientists have, on the other hand, been "convinced" by a preponderance of evidence that global climate change is a real phenomenon. You may believe whatever you like but in this case I believe you are hiding your head in the sand.

Comment by Metroknow on April 30, 2008 at 11:12am: @Steve: "...Hoaxes and scams..." - Can you point to some credible links on that? I'd really be interested in finding out more. I read a bunch of material on Wikipedia and came to the conclusion that both sides have valid, data driven arguments (more than just "belief"), leading to really just more confusion on trying to understand the truth. And I have to say, when folks like Al Gore use completely disprovable "science" (there is not enough water on the planet to make sea levels rise 20 feet globally, for example; just by doing simple surface area calculations the math simply doesn't add up - its not as complicated as folks make it out to be), it really clouds the issue for people who think beyond snippets and headlines.

And please don't misunderstand -- this isn't a challenge to what you're saying; I really want to know what the latest understanding is on the subject, and I'm finding it impossible to find anything that isn't agenda driven (or produced by corner case studies) or skewed by either side.

Comment by Steve on May 1, 2008 at 5:32pm: Metroknow,

For an analysis of the signers of the Leipzig Convention an interesting place to start is:

http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html

A good analysis of current trends and projections in climate change:

http://www.celsias.com/2008/01/21/melting-from-pole-to-pole/

And for the absurd Oregon Petition:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

And I don't take your comments as a challenge. I teach a course about food {You are where you eat) that emphasizes critical thinking so that intelligent decisions can be reached. The thing I tell my students about reading an article is to question "who wrote this, what are their credentials and why did they write it." With both of these documents that sort of analysis makes for illuminating reading. I wish more people were like you with an open mind and willingness to learn rather than just be sponges.

Comment by David on May 1, 2008 at 6:53pm: From the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Scripps's global oceanographic research is led by the world's best ocean science researchers and students.

Oxygen Depletion: A New Form of Ocean Habitat Loss

Scientists confirm computer model predictions that oxygen-depleted zones in tropical oceans are expanding, possibly because of climate change

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=905

This study proves that the world's oceans are, indeed getting warmer--no direct linkage, yet, directly from Climate Change, but the writing is on the wall.

Comment by Metroknow on May 1, 2008 at 7:27pm: Thank you to both Steve and David - these are excellent pointers. It's funny - intuitively I accept global warming, but for some reason I need to have some "real" data to really kill the skepticism. :) Probably a good thing. :)

Comment