Making the garden with recycled materials you bring from your area on foot and sowing seeds you find around. You can repurpose all kind of containers and even create substrate with discarded wood and compost. (Well that would be zero carbon, but there's plenty of room to reduce the footprint paying attention at how you source materials.)
If I've learned anything from watching objective science based RUclips channels over the years it's that they never fare as well as the clickbait, agenda driven or fear mongering stuff for a couple main reasons- 1. They don't get nearly enough views and 2. They take a lot more time, effort and research to provide depth of answer compared against the former. So I just wanted to say cheers, calling out bullshit on RUclips is a small service to the collective consciousness and while I have a very low carbon footprint purely due to scale it's still made me evaluate ordering cheap stuff on Amazon as opposed to using local Hazel wood or having a word with my nearest community allotment first.
Thank you! I appreciate that. And funny you mental hazel, as I am trying to get hazel (and maybe willow) started on my property so I can use them to create fences.
Just like the news article, you may have good information in your article/video, but it doesnt matter if the titles and perceived message are inflammatory, misleading, and biased. It doesn't matter if the study itself doesn't have a bias. It matters that the articles have a bias and are used to discourage entry into home/urban ag. The biggest issue for me is the value of this study since home/urban ag aren't even close to a contributing factor in overall carbon footprints and environmental impacts vs commercial/large scale ag.
To change things for the better we first need to understand what actually makes things better and what does not. That's the point of studies like this.
Basically my first thought when I heard about this study was that economy of scale applies to carbon footprint, not just financial profitability. Of course it's going to consume less resources per unit of output to operate on a larger scale. Especially considering the fact that most home gardeners aren't aiming for maximum profitability. Most of us home gardeners aren't optimizing our bed size and planting density, we aren't bringing in inputs by the semi load to save on transport costs. A lot of folks own an inefficient gas powered rototiller that gets about 2 hours of use per year, and sits in a garage or garden shed for the rest of it's life. Those are all things that add to the carbon footprint a lot faster than they add to the food production capacity. I think it's ridiculous to give up on gardening because of it, but it is a great place to start a conversation about how we can make better use of our resources as small scale food producers.
That's a great point about inefficient gas powered rototillers. I am looking for someone to till up a new garden plot, but it doesn't make sense to buy a tiller that will rarely see much use after the first year. It would be great to see more tool libraries and backyard garden cooperatives so people can pool resources and cut down costs.
As a Marxist when i saw the same article a handful of thoughts came to mind. 1st was either economy of scale 2nd was who paid for the study 3rd what kind of urban gardener are we talking about. I learned from my grandparents how to reuse everything we can, compost, rain water, reusing materials, ect. However i know some urban gardeners that buy everything new, have fancy raised beds, truck in soil every year and produce a lot of waste with single use plastics. I didnt bother reading the article since i assumed id see people talking about it later, but its good to hear the science behind the article is good, and that it was just a poorly adaptation by whatever group published the second article. Always good to check ourselves tho, and know where we can improve urban gardening :)
It's surprising to me, there's debate about this paper. Obviously, agriculture should aim for a smaller environmental footprint since higher costs imply more waste. Experts are expected to perform better than amateurs, it seems to indicate that the discussion may be driven by people seeking to validate their preconceptions. Just as a homemade engine can't match the efficiency of one manufactured in a German factory, it would be very surprising to me, if professional operations were less efficient. However, this doesn't mean there's no room for improvement or that industrial methods don't have their own issues. Urban gardening is amazing, and we should all do it more, but expecting it to compete with people who makes their income with it, where every single little cost adds up, and every single cost is a carbon footprint, that just seems silly.
My feelings related to this are twofold. 1) Urban agriculture and home gardens is not *really* about food production. They do not come close to actually creating enough food for everyone, and should therefore be reframed. In my view there are two purposes worth discussing. One is a small increase in resiliency. Reducing the requirement of long transports can be helpful in times of crisis. The food still won't be enough, but it can help. Second is the enjoyment. Home gardens and urban farming is done by private individuals on their free time. It is a hobby, albeit a productive kind. I cannot think of many hobbies that are not carbon intensive, and accepting a higher carbon intensity of the food produced comes naturally to me for that reason. We absolutely can and should reduce it if possible, but I am more than willing to accept twice the intensity given the other benefits and carbon replacements provided. 2) Urban agriculture and home gardens are very likely not comparable. Home gardens are probably similar to low-tech UA sites in the study, but it's not clear which material is used to create these low-tech sites. Given the large impact on the total carbon impact I'd wager that they are in concrete or stone and would thus have a much larger impact than ones using wooden beds, which arguably could be carbon neutral, or very low carbon. Wooden beds are more common in home gardens where I live, though some use stone beds. In this case, the structure will likely remain for long, since there are no outside pressures. On tope of this, the additional infrastructure of urban agriculture discussed in the article (paths, etc.) are not used in most home gardens. In essence, the high carbon impact from infrastructure would likely be much lower in home gardens. In the end though, single-family homes would still have a much larger carbon impact than an apartment dweller, so it's only a small plus. My point is, keep growing food at home, the carbon impact is fine unless you do something truly ridiculous.
Excellent points! Nearly everything in the modern world has a carbon cost, but that alone isn’t a reason not to do it. When you start to factor in the compound benefits of gardening, the “cost” goes way down. I also agree that UA and home gardens may not be totally comparable. When I think of the garden plot I had in a DC community garden, it is very different than the expansive yard and garden I have in Kentucky. And good point about the paths! I thought the same when I read that. My paths are wood chips from storm damaged trees, that are feeding the soil and help store water. It would be very different if I’d trucked in a bunch of gravel or stone. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and adding to the conversation! Happy gardening! 🌱
The carbon footprint of home garden is usually upfront in setting up the garden. Also its not fair to compare municipal water to river water depending on where you live. if you live in a wet area then rain might suffice and you dont need much municipal water on the other hand the water wars in a dry area like California is a topic worth of a video on its own.
Man, I had the wrong idea of commenting on the subject and explaining the study and... people got insane. Dozen of people doing everything they can NOT to read the study and just throwing their crap at me.
So first, I think the comparison is the wrong thing to compare, it is the easy to compare. I think it should be compared to other urban area uses, specifically those like parking lots. (will add on as watching more of the video in a reply to this comment)
So, one major flaw from what I can tell of the study, is it isn't addressing many of the runoff carbon costs of conventional agriculture. This is things like the increase municipal water carbon footprint from needing to clean out the fertilizer runoff from conventional agriculture.
now for what urban ag can do better. more composting, rainwater capture and use, selective crop choices (both for where conventional ag struggles and what grows with low inputs locally), more waste materials for construction is also good.
So little adendum, I'd also like to know how urban (suburban) ag does compared to turf. It's as much how you compare to what your competition is as it is how you compare to what you are replacing.
Excellent point on comparing urban ag against the alternatives of either pavement or lawn. Lawn/grass is the most irrigated crop in the US and makes up more than 40 million acres. I’ve hear thoughts that suburbs, which are horrible for the environment for many reasons, could be one of the best things if those lawns get partially converted to native species and crops.
I think like everything in life there are trade offs. conventional farming are the leading cause of dirt degradation, pollution run-offs, and bad tasting produce. a little carbon is fine.
Yes there are trade-offs, but I think we can move large scale farming into a more sustainable model with better minimal or no-til practices, better cover cropping, integrated pest management, and a shift towards seasonal produce developed for taste and nutrition rather than designed for durability. That’s the optimist in me.
Dude, click bait thumbnails are not the way Article is very poignant, definitely a good read. Your video is not, it rambles, it engages in clickbaitery. Get to the point, in your video and your thumbnail, or choose a different topic.
I disagree that my title is clickbait, as it is a direct reflection of the discussion I have seen about the research. And while long and a little unorganized, I said up front that the video was going to have little editing and just be me working through some points… so there’s that. I hope you have a happier day ✌️
@@TylerLloyd For the record, though salty, I haven't liked or disliked your video, I save that for genuinely offensive things. Ah, and I said it was your thumbnail that was clickbaity, not the title I'll admit I am an asshole, but I do try to be a constructive asshole, whether I succeed is up for debate though.
How can you lower your environmental impact when gardening?
by not caring about it at all, and just getting on with your day and gardening however you want
@@nmueller I prefer to think about my relationship to the world around me and the impact that I may have.
@@TylerLloyd cool have fun with that, i'm sure it will make a meaningful impact 🤣
Making the garden with recycled materials you bring from your area on foot and sowing seeds you find around. You can repurpose all kind of containers and even create substrate with discarded wood and compost. (Well that would be zero carbon, but there's plenty of room to reduce the footprint paying attention at how you source materials.)
Excellent review of the article, and not only a reinterpreted headline. This king of discussion furthers try science. Thank you.
Much appreciated!
I dismissed the research without looking into or looking at why, thanks for the video I gained some valuable insight!
Glad it was helpful! And I understand the jump to dismissal, since the news article headlines were so off the mark.
If I've learned anything from watching objective science based RUclips channels over the years it's that they never fare as well as the clickbait, agenda driven or fear mongering stuff for a couple main reasons- 1. They don't get nearly enough views and 2. They take a lot more time, effort and research to provide depth of answer compared against the former.
So I just wanted to say cheers, calling out bullshit on RUclips is a small service to the collective consciousness and while I have a very low carbon footprint purely due to scale it's still made me evaluate ordering cheap stuff on Amazon as opposed to using local Hazel wood or having a word with my nearest community allotment first.
Thank you! I appreciate that. And funny you mental hazel, as I am trying to get hazel (and maybe willow) started on my property so I can use them to create fences.
Just like the news article, you may have good information in your article/video, but it doesnt matter if the titles and perceived message are inflammatory, misleading, and biased. It doesn't matter if the study itself doesn't have a bias. It matters that the articles have a bias and are used to discourage entry into home/urban ag. The biggest issue for me is the value of this study since home/urban ag aren't even close to a contributing factor in overall carbon footprints and environmental impacts vs commercial/large scale ag.
To change things for the better we first need to understand what actually makes things better and what does not. That's the point of studies like this.
Yes, what @grimwaltzman said!
Basically my first thought when I heard about this study was that economy of scale applies to carbon footprint, not just financial profitability. Of course it's going to consume less resources per unit of output to operate on a larger scale. Especially considering the fact that most home gardeners aren't aiming for maximum profitability. Most of us home gardeners aren't optimizing our bed size and planting density, we aren't bringing in inputs by the semi load to save on transport costs. A lot of folks own an inefficient gas powered rototiller that gets about 2 hours of use per year, and sits in a garage or garden shed for the rest of it's life. Those are all things that add to the carbon footprint a lot faster than they add to the food production capacity. I think it's ridiculous to give up on gardening because of it, but it is a great place to start a conversation about how we can make better use of our resources as small scale food producers.
That's a great point about inefficient gas powered rototillers. I am looking for someone to till up a new garden plot, but it doesn't make sense to buy a tiller that will rarely see much use after the first year. It would be great to see more tool libraries and backyard garden cooperatives so people can pool resources and cut down costs.
As a Marxist when i saw the same article a handful of thoughts came to mind.
1st was either economy of scale
2nd was who paid for the study
3rd what kind of urban gardener are we talking about.
I learned from my grandparents how to reuse everything we can, compost, rain water, reusing materials, ect. However i know some urban gardeners that buy everything new, have fancy raised beds, truck in soil every year and produce a lot of waste with single use plastics.
I didnt bother reading the article since i assumed id see people talking about it later, but its good to hear the science behind the article is good, and that it was just a poorly adaptation by whatever group published the second article.
Always good to check ourselves tho, and know where we can improve urban gardening :)
The notes about crops is super cool. I've considered growing wheat and lentils but it's so daunting lol
It's surprising to me, there's debate about this paper. Obviously, agriculture should aim for a smaller environmental footprint since higher costs imply more waste. Experts are expected to perform better than amateurs, it seems to indicate that the discussion may be driven by people seeking to validate their preconceptions. Just as a homemade engine can't match the efficiency of one manufactured in a German factory, it would be very surprising to me, if professional operations were less efficient. However, this doesn't mean there's no room for improvement or that industrial methods don't have their own issues. Urban gardening is amazing, and we should all do it more, but expecting it to compete with people who makes their income with it, where every single little cost adds up, and every single cost is a carbon footprint, that just seems silly.
Perfectly put!
You won me over with “whack a doodle” & “Don’t be a dick” 😊
Thank you for creating common sense content! 🫡
Great video!
😆 Much appreciated! 😊
My feelings related to this are twofold.
1) Urban agriculture and home gardens is not *really* about food production. They do not come close to actually creating enough food for everyone, and should therefore be reframed. In my view there are two purposes worth discussing. One is a small increase in resiliency. Reducing the requirement of long transports can be helpful in times of crisis. The food still won't be enough, but it can help. Second is the enjoyment. Home gardens and urban farming is done by private individuals on their free time. It is a hobby, albeit a productive kind. I cannot think of many hobbies that are not carbon intensive, and accepting a higher carbon intensity of the food produced comes naturally to me for that reason. We absolutely can and should reduce it if possible, but I am more than willing to accept twice the intensity given the other benefits and carbon replacements provided.
2) Urban agriculture and home gardens are very likely not comparable. Home gardens are probably similar to low-tech UA sites in the study, but it's not clear which material is used to create these low-tech sites. Given the large impact on the total carbon impact I'd wager that they are in concrete or stone and would thus have a much larger impact than ones using wooden beds, which arguably could be carbon neutral, or very low carbon. Wooden beds are more common in home gardens where I live, though some use stone beds. In this case, the structure will likely remain for long, since there are no outside pressures. On tope of this, the additional infrastructure of urban agriculture discussed in the article (paths, etc.) are not used in most home gardens. In essence, the high carbon impact from infrastructure would likely be much lower in home gardens. In the end though, single-family homes would still have a much larger carbon impact than an apartment dweller, so it's only a small plus.
My point is, keep growing food at home, the carbon impact is fine unless you do something truly ridiculous.
Excellent points! Nearly everything in the modern world has a carbon cost, but that alone isn’t a reason not to do it. When you start to factor in the compound benefits of gardening, the “cost” goes way down. I also agree that UA and home gardens may not be totally comparable. When I think of the garden plot I had in a DC community garden, it is very different than the expansive yard and garden I have in Kentucky. And good point about the paths! I thought the same when I read that. My paths are wood chips from storm damaged trees, that are feeding the soil and help store water. It would be very different if I’d trucked in a bunch of gravel or stone. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and adding to the conversation!
Happy gardening! 🌱
The carbon footprint of home garden is usually upfront in setting up the garden.
Also its not fair to compare municipal water to river water depending on where you live.
if you live in a wet area then rain might suffice and you dont need much municipal water on the other hand the water wars in a dry area like California is a topic worth of a video on its own.
Yeah, growing up in KY we had an acre garden with zero irrigation. If it was dry, some things just struggled and that was ok.
2:05 that is the most passive aggressive internet argument I have ever seen in my life lmao
😂
Man, I had the wrong idea of commenting on the subject and explaining the study and... people got insane. Dozen of people doing everything they can NOT to read the study and just throwing their crap at me.
Same! At a minimum take a few minutes and read the introduction and conclusion of the original paper 🤷♂️
@@TylerLloyd ...and quick ctrl+F on the PDF to find that yes they did consider transportation and no mention of "eating bugs".
So first, I think the comparison is the wrong thing to compare, it is the easy to compare. I think it should be compared to other urban area uses, specifically those like parking lots. (will add on as watching more of the video in a reply to this comment)
So, one major flaw from what I can tell of the study, is it isn't addressing many of the runoff carbon costs of conventional agriculture. This is things like the increase municipal water carbon footprint from needing to clean out the fertilizer runoff from conventional agriculture.
now for what urban ag can do better. more composting, rainwater capture and use, selective crop choices (both for where conventional ag struggles and what grows with low inputs locally), more waste materials for construction is also good.
So little adendum, I'd also like to know how urban (suburban) ag does compared to turf. It's as much how you compare to what your competition is as it is how you compare to what you are replacing.
Excellent point on comparing urban ag against the alternatives of either pavement or lawn. Lawn/grass is the most irrigated crop in the US and makes up more than 40 million acres. I’ve hear thoughts that suburbs, which are horrible for the environment for many reasons, could be one of the best things if those lawns get partially converted to native species and crops.
Wackadoodle😁
Is that a confession? 😆
@@TylerLloyd No, just love the use of the word, sorry for not giving context. I enjoy your videos.
@@hyperiondig oh, no worries! I figured. It is such a fun word 😃 and thank you!
I think like everything in life there are trade offs. conventional farming are the leading cause of dirt degradation, pollution run-offs, and bad tasting produce. a little carbon is fine.
Yes there are trade-offs, but I think we can move large scale farming into a more sustainable model with better minimal or no-til practices, better cover cropping, integrated pest management, and a shift towards seasonal produce developed for taste and nutrition rather than designed for durability. That’s the optimist in me.
Dude, click bait thumbnails are not the way
Article is very poignant, definitely a good read. Your video is not, it rambles, it engages in clickbaitery. Get to the point, in your video and your thumbnail, or choose a different topic.
I disagree that my title is clickbait, as it is a direct reflection of the discussion I have seen about the research. And while long and a little unorganized, I said up front that the video was going to have little editing and just be me working through some points… so there’s that. I hope you have a happier day ✌️
Not click bait. This guy was a tool. Good work man.
@@TylerLloyd For the record, though salty, I haven't liked or disliked your video, I save that for genuinely offensive things.
Ah, and I said it was your thumbnail that was clickbaity, not the title
I'll admit I am an asshole, but I do try to be a constructive asshole, whether I succeed is up for debate though.