Changed Your Lightbulbs, Your Soul, and Your Eating Habits

Sam Corcos just sent me this flier over at Pitzer College. (I generally avoid Pitzer after its plans to ban Coca-cola.) The flier is part of a campaign intended for "low carbon diet day," which just so happen to coincide with Earth Day. I first mentioned this campaign several months ago in a piece entitled "Bon Appetit Favors Food Protectionism?"

As I blogged then, Bon Appetit has a list of all the initiatives it is behind.

• Reducing the use of beef by 25% - Livestock production is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions.
• Sourcing all meat and poultry from North America - 80% of the energy used by the food system comes not from growing food, but from transporting and processing it.
• Sourcing nearly all fruits and vegetables from North America, using seasonal local produce as a first preference and using tropical fruits only as “special occasion” ingredients - Most bananas have traveled 3,000 miles in high-speed refrigerated ships to reach an American breakfast plate. A local apple might be grown within 10 miles.
• Serving only domestic bottled water and reducing waste from plastic bottles - Americans throw away 40 million plastic water bottles every day.
• Reducing food waste - Goal of 25% reduction in three years or less.
• Auditing the energy efficiency of kitchen equipment - In home or commercial kitchens energy losses of up to 30% can be easily corrected for very low cost.

Some of these decisions seem wise for Bon Appetit, but the surest way to solve some of these problems are through market mechanisms. Don't like food waste? Institute a pay as you go system. Don't like energy efficiency of kitchen equipment? Use more energy efficient equipment. You might save a penny or two.

But as for the rest of it, its an exercise in food protectionism. That's not even addressing the rather unsubstantive debate over bottled water and tap water. Turns out, bottled water isn't safer.

Moreover, by refusing to buy internationally, Bon Appetit ends up supporting the very wasteful practices of state-run water facilities here in the U.S. Juxtapose that with the pay for use water system of the U.K. and its easy to see which one is the more environmentally friendly.


Let's turn to the fliers that have sprung up in the dining halls.

Each one of the fliers asks a question or poses a statement:
Is my cheeseburger causing global warming? Does your sushi get more frequent flyer miles than you do? You've changed your light bulbs, now change your lunch.

Just for the record, we've had sushi only once during the past year and it was mediocre at best.

I've chosen to examine the lunch question because I think it's most indicative of the P.R. campaign to get us to eat, but more importantly, think alike. The picture is all the more symbolic because we don't get to see the real face of the person encouraging us to change our diet, nor do we get to critically examine his conclusions.

I never changed my light bulbs because I thought it would be good for my pocketbook, not for some mythical Earth. Given how little light it emits, I wonder if I ought to have changed them back, lest I risk damaging my vision any further.

The real question is why are food must be politicized and why we weren't even allowed to debate whether or not we would be without trays today.