Joule - a value for sustainable choices?

If you care about a sustainable future and questions like how to feed 6 billion people, then you are likely to discover vast amounts of waste. Our food waste in the industrial countries accounts for up to 50% of the food we produce (1, 2, 3). It is therefore really odd to me why some scientists advertise research to meet the potentially growing food demand when population grows. Especially if the scientists support basic ecology: more food for a species = increased numbers of that species = more demand for food etc. The food for growth is often a key argument for sustainability and gene modified organisms (GMO).

But why do we waste so much, purposefully? Why do products travel several times around the world before we can buy it in the shop, throw it in the garbage within a few days to years, and sometimes never even use it.

Well, money from what I can tell. It is sensible because the driver for sense is economy. If you can sell something cheaper and gain profit - you have to for the sake of competitors and stake holders. Same for buying. People buy what they can afford. Makes sense.

Not really.

It makes sense only as long as you think of currency as a value. If you compare a choice with "what resources do I have to consume to get item A versus getting it locally or making it myself" then it often makes little sense. Examples: growing/making your own food, making your own clothes, using certain transportation's.

As a scientists I have been thinking hard of how to expose this lack of logic - how to measure it. Currency is a common denominator for work time, transport, fuel, materials etc. but how can you compare this with something that is not using money Example: milking by hand rather than by machine is reflected in differences in time used, but do not account for the building and use of the machine.

My best shot so far is: joules. Human labor, extracting and shaping raw materials, transportation, heating, etc. can all be added a joule value and compared.

I think experiments that would examine these traditions and habits using joule consumption we have could have a strong impact on peoples mentality and choices. Your choice would suddenly have number of waste. Imagine you standing in the supermarket and on your banana you have a total number of joules used to make and bring it there for you (and it is not a small number).

Yes - yes I know, the work places. If people do not buy things, other people will be out of a job. And if you do not have to transport things 4-10 times to get it to you, it means even less work and jobs. But is it smart? Could peoples time and money be saved for more useful things than shuffling papers and moving things? Would both mom and dad have to work at the same time if you do not need so much money to spend? More physical work wouldn't hurt most peoples health would it? Would it be better for the family - for life in general?

In a week I attend a course on how to construct models that examine and predict sociological-ecological interactions in farming. The course is aiming at finding solutions within the existing framework of agriculture. Let us see how my colleagues will like my new proposal.

Examples of how joules (in some cases as calories) can be counted:
Physical activity
Social study of connection between food and money
Example of study using calories to estimate agricultural practices in Pakistan

Books on the subject
   

Political blocks - targeted funding. Funding of products.

Funding of research is not supporting the scientific community. Politiken brought reflected on an anaylsis of the Danish funding of science the 22nd April 2010. As a scientist the result is not surprising, but it may shock those who pay tax money in the hope education and development of the future is for the common good... or at least logical. Between 2001-2006 20% of the total sum of funding for research (7 billion DKR) in Denmark went to 56 people (0.7% of applicants). And as the study empathize that it is not the lack of applicants or their qualifications, because they apply within the frames set for them.
As a scientist you currently need to have the right buzz-words in your application to get a chance for funding. Nano-"something", "food-safety"-something, "biofuel"-something etc. If you have the cure for cancer and it involves methods non-cutting edge technology you do not stand much of a chance. And the irony is that many scientists spend 1/3 of their time on applying for funds or other paperwork.

So why?

I got a few suggestions:
The evaluation system
Universities are rated much like individual scientists: graduating students, publications, and patents. In that order. You better spit out articles like a madman, and preferably have some patents. Then you are a "good" scientist. Output is what counts.

High-tech.
The best solutions are not necessarily high-tech or cutting-edge as demanded by funding. But it employs more people, and moves more money.

Targeted funding.
The largest funding program in Europe, the Framework Program, decide the next periods "target areas" (buzz-words) in triad between industry, governments, and universities. Universities having the smallest voice. So the chance of scientists having in say in what is good science is really insignificant, good science, or important. In addition you need to attach industrial enterprises to you application. Independence is not an option.

A good example: biofuels.

Why do we need biofuels? They take up vast amounts of space, output is not very high and laborsome, can do ecological damage to the area as industrial plantations, and could be used (if willing) to feed people who need it. Because - it is a good transition from fossil fuels where industry can earn a good buck before we take the full logical step to electricity. And, to make matters worse biofules also release more CO2 than normal fossile fule. Really, what is the point?

Second example: gene-modified crops (GMO).

Why invent a super sonic car if a wheel do the same job? GMO seems to be a powerful tool with many applications. I do not doubt that. Personally I also think that concerns about "power-weeds" or out-of-control spreading of seeds etc. are a bit over-empathized speculations. GMO is often preached to be the solution to food safety, feeding a hungry population, and sustainability. But to me it seems to be another billion dollar patch-solution to a system that do not work. Our agriculture the last 50 years have destroyed and consumed resources what "primitive" but sustainable (but laborious) methods worked for thousands of years to build up. Examples are biochar, sustainable desert farming, and more recent experiments of "do-nothing" agriculture". In stead of fixing broken systems, we might as well try to learn a little from how things have been done the last few millenia in nature. It is not a question of if it can be done, but choosing to do it and admit that we might sometimes be on the wrong track with our glorious technology. But how do you find funding for showing more primitive farming is just as good as cutting-edge?

The funding system supports products! Not basic research or answering fundamental questions.

I say it again. Scientists need to find a new source of funding or cut out the middle men (fund holders) - and go directly to the users for support (you). That is why I so strongly support Open Science. Otherwise scientists are becoming paid workers that produce the product ordered.

Further reading: