<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Food for thought - carbon footprint of rice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/</link>
	<description>Can we shop our way to sustainability?</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Oryzon</title>
		<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/#comment-3718</link>
		<dc:creator>Oryzon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:23:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loleegreen.com/?p=434#comment-3718</guid>
		<description>The United States Geological Survey presents that rice SEQUESTERS carbon, and builds organic material into the soil, raising soil indexes by rice's contributions which also mitigates subsidence.
Link:
http://www.water.ca.gov/deltainit/docs/rice_factsheet.pdf

A typical yield for organic rice is 60/cwt or 6000 pounds per acre. The organic material/straw residue that is returned to the soil is about 10,000 pounds per acre. Rice wetlands preserve a web of life and an inter-dependent set of ecosystems developed over geologic time; that include migratory and non- migratory birds &amp; shore birds, land, sea &amp; aquatic animals; amphibious animals and aquatic insects, invertebrates and mollusks.

Rice paddies erupt huge invisible plumes of oxygen into the atmoshere while seqestering carbon into the soil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The United States Geological Survey presents that rice SEQUESTERS carbon, and builds organic material into the soil, raising soil indexes by rice&#8217;s contributions which also mitigates subsidence.<br />
Link:<br />
<a href="http://www.water.ca.gov/deltainit/docs/rice_factsheet.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.water.ca.gov/deltainit/docs/rice_factsheet.pdf</a></p>
<p>A typical yield for organic rice is 60/cwt or 6000 pounds per acre. The organic material/straw residue that is returned to the soil is about 10,000 pounds per acre. Rice wetlands preserve a web of life and an inter-dependent set of ecosystems developed over geologic time; that include migratory and non- migratory birds &amp; shore birds, land, sea &amp; aquatic animals; amphibious animals and aquatic insects, invertebrates and mollusks.</p>
<p>Rice paddies erupt huge invisible plumes of oxygen into the atmoshere while seqestering carbon into the soil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: flo</title>
		<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/#comment-3054</link>
		<dc:creator>flo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:11:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loleegreen.com/?p=434#comment-3054</guid>
		<description>Thanks DJ!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks DJ!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DJ</title>
		<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/#comment-3032</link>
		<dc:creator>DJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:11:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loleegreen.com/?p=434#comment-3032</guid>
		<description>Here are my final results on rice and climate change, following the response of two experts in the field: http://asymptoticlife.com/2009/07/14/the-scoop-on-rice.aspx

They both put the figure for rice at 1.2 - 1.4 pounds of CO2 equivalency per pound of rice-- far less than beef, but more than soy, eggs, chicken, or turkey, and about the same as cheese or pork.  Considering other grains can (and often are) grown in a carbon neutral manner, rice still has quite an environmental cost.

I apologize for any confusion my earlier post caused.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here are my final results on rice and climate change, following the response of two experts in the field: <a href="http://asymptoticlife.com/2009/07/14/the-scoop-on-rice.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://asymptoticlife.com/2009/07/14/the-scoop-on-rice.aspx</a></p>
<p>They both put the figure for rice at 1.2 - 1.4 pounds of CO2 equivalency per pound of rice&#8211; far less than beef, but more than soy, eggs, chicken, or turkey, and about the same as cheese or pork.  Considering other grains can (and often are) grown in a carbon neutral manner, rice still has quite an environmental cost.</p>
<p>I apologize for any confusion my earlier post caused.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DJ</title>
		<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/#comment-2811</link>
		<dc:creator>DJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loleegreen.com/?p=434#comment-2811</guid>
		<description>In my post "Consider Your Diet," I incorrectly stated that rice prodices 276 pounds of CO2 per pound of rice grown.  I am unable to substantiate that figure.  

In fact, estimates of CO2 equivalency for methane emitted from rice production range from 0.6 (much lower than beef) to 35 pounds (much higher than beef) per pound.  This does not include the N2O emissions.  And it's a ridiculously large range, though scientific research by IRRI does indicate that rice-related methane emissions can vary by more than 100-fold depending on soil, temperature, and cultivation methods.

I am still trying to get at the truth of the matter, and have contacted several experts.  When I have a better answer, I will provide an update.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my post &#8220;Consider Your Diet,&#8221; I incorrectly stated that rice prodices 276 pounds of CO2 per pound of rice grown.  I am unable to substantiate that figure.  </p>
<p>In fact, estimates of CO2 equivalency for methane emitted from rice production range from 0.6 (much lower than beef) to 35 pounds (much higher than beef) per pound.  This does not include the N2O emissions.  And it&#8217;s a ridiculously large range, though scientific research by IRRI does indicate that rice-related methane emissions can vary by more than 100-fold depending on soil, temperature, and cultivation methods.</p>
<p>I am still trying to get at the truth of the matter, and have contacted several experts.  When I have a better answer, I will provide an update.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: flo</title>
		<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/#comment-2774</link>
		<dc:creator>flo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loleegreen.com/?p=434#comment-2774</guid>
		<description>awesome comment Andrew!!! I should've checked the reference more carefully as well so that I didn't make such mistake.....  thanks again =). happy rice eating..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>awesome comment Andrew!!! I should&#8217;ve checked the reference more carefully as well so that I didn&#8217;t make such mistake&#8230;..  thanks again =). happy rice eating..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/#comment-2758</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:05:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loleegreen.com/?p=434#comment-2758</guid>
		<description>Please can you correct this article - if you scroll to the bottom of your reference "this article" the author admits that he got the decimal point wrong and his rice figure is 1000 times too big! He did not realise that the rice production figure was in '000s of CWT - he thought they were just CWT. Please can you correct this so people are not given false impressions - rice is much, much less bad for the environment than beef (around 10 to 20 times less)And I am not even a vegetarian!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please can you correct this article - if you scroll to the bottom of your reference &#8220;this article&#8221; the author admits that he got the decimal point wrong and his rice figure is 1000 times too big! He did not realise that the rice production figure was in &#8216;000s of CWT - he thought they were just CWT. Please can you correct this so people are not given false impressions - rice is much, much less bad for the environment than beef (around 10 to 20 times less)And I am not even a vegetarian!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: flo</title>
		<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/#comment-1730</link>
		<dc:creator>flo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 19:37:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loleegreen.com/?p=434#comment-1730</guid>
		<description>Hello Matt - thanks for pointing that out!  I guess I should have clarified that GWP for methane is 12 in &lt;strong&gt;lifetime &lt;/strong&gt;and 72 in the&lt;strong&gt; first 20 years&lt;/strong&gt;. Since the report is produced by EPA, you're right that most likely GWP of 12 is used for methane.  I guess i'll need to go back to the numbers again and see if they match!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Matt - thanks for pointing that out!  I guess I should have clarified that GWP for methane is 12 in <strong>lifetime </strong>and 72 in the<strong> first 20 years</strong>. Since the report is produced by EPA, you&#8217;re right that most likely GWP of 12 is used for methane.  I guess i&#8217;ll need to go back to the numbers again and see if they match!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/#comment-1725</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 16:17:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loleegreen.com/?p=434#comment-1725</guid>
		<description>According to the EPA (http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/ExecutiveSummary.pdf pg. 3) the global warming potential of methane is only 21, not 72.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to the EPA (http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/ExecutiveSummary.pdf pg. 3) the global warming potential of methane is only 21, not 72.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: flo</title>
		<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/#comment-1447</link>
		<dc:creator>flo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 07:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loleegreen.com/?p=434#comment-1447</guid>
		<description>It would be great to capture methane as you pointed out that methane is one of the cleanest burning fuel!!  There must be something we can do about methane from rice fields.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would be great to capture methane as you pointed out that methane is one of the cleanest burning fuel!!  There must be something we can do about methane from rice fields&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GassyMan</title>
		<link>http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/#comment-1328</link>
		<dc:creator>GassyMan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 20:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.loleegreen.com/?p=434#comment-1328</guid>
		<description>It to bad we can't capture the methane because methane burns very cleanly and could help decrease our dependants on fosil fuels.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It to bad we can&#8217;t capture the methane because methane burns very cleanly and could help decrease our dependants on fosil fuels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
