Let me start with the following rule:Energy is the only universal currency: to achieve anything, one of its many forms must be transformed” Economies are simply complex systems designed to carry out these transformations, and all economically significant energy conversions have (often highly undesirable) environmental consequences. As a result, when it comes to the biosphere, the best anthropogenic energy conversions are those that never take place: no emissions of gases (both greenhouse gases and acidifying gases), no generation of solid or liquid waste, no destruction of ecosystems. The best way to achieve this was through higher efficiency energy conversion: without their widespread use (whether in large diesel and jet engines, combined cycle gas turbines, light-emitting diodes, steel smelting or ammonia synthesis) we would have to convert much more primary energy, which would involve all associated environmental impacts.
Conversely, what could be more wasteful, more undesirable, and more irrational than negating a huge portion of your conversion gains by wasting them? Yet this is exactly what is happening – and to an indefensible degree – for all energy end uses. Buildings use about one fifth of all energy in the worldbut due to inadequate wall and ceiling insulation, single windows, and destitute ventilation, they waste at least one fifth to one third of that energy compared to well-designed interior spaces. The typical SUV is now twice as massive as a regular pre-SUV vehicle and requires at least a third more energy to perform the same task.
The most offensive of these wasteful practices is food production. The modern food system (from the energy associated with breeding new varieties, synthesizing fertilizers and other agrochemicals, and producing field machinery to the energy used in harvesting, transporting, processing, storing, retailing, and cooking) is close to 20 percent of the world’s demand for fuel and primary electricity— and we waste as much as 40 percent all food produced. Some food waste is inevitable. However, widespread food waste is more than indefensible. In many ways it is a crime.
Fighting him is difficult for many reasons. First, there are many ways in which food is wasted: from losses in the field to spoilage in storage, from perishable seasonal surpluses to maintaining “perfect” displays in stores, from large portions when eating out to the disappearance of home cooking.
Second, food now travels very far before reaching the consumer: The average distance a typical food product travels 1,500 to 2,500 miles before it was bought.
Third, remains too cheap in connection with other expenses. Despite the recent increase in food prices, families currently spend only approx 11 percent disposable income for food (in 1960 it was about 20%). Spending on food away from home (typically more wasteful than eating at home) now accounts for more than half of this amount. Finally, as consumers, we have an overabundance of food choices at our disposal: just consider that the average American supermarket currently offers over food products.
Our society is apparently quite happy to waste 40 percent of the almost 20 percent of all energy used on food. Unfortunately, in 2025, this shocking level of waste will receive no further attention. In fact, the situation will only get worse. While we continue to pour billions into the search for energy “solutions” – from recent nuclear reactors (even fusion!) to green hydrogen, each of which carries its own environmental burdens – in 2025, food, the production of which required huge amounts of fuel and energy electricity.