Very true, that’s why it would pencil out to be awful. Basically no caloric value. If your question is ‘How do we feed ourselves with the lowest carbon impact?’ then the question of how many calories does become important (and maybe you just take nonfood luxuries like coffee off the chart).
I agree with you both. But I can’t think of a better metric. emissions per kg is definitely not appropriate. Maybe “How do we feed ourselves with the lowest carbon impact?” is the right question, so calories/Joule is a good measure. Otherwise you use some other food-quality measure, where coffee would be at the bottom and maybe potatoes or avocados would be at the top. Probably such a measure already exists.
Very true, that’s why it would pencil out to be awful. Basically no caloric value. If your question is ‘How do we feed ourselves with the lowest carbon impact?’ then the question of how many calories does become important (and maybe you just take nonfood luxuries like coffee off the chart).
I agree with you both. But I can’t think of a better metric. emissions per kg is definitely not appropriate. Maybe “How do we feed ourselves with the lowest carbon impact?” is the right question, so calories/Joule is a good measure. Otherwise you use some other food-quality measure, where coffee would be at the bottom and maybe potatoes or avocados would be at the top. Probably such a measure already exists.