[bratcomplex]

“ Even food that is well & truly wasted isn't really contributing all of its carbon or the emissions released to grow it back into the atmosphere because carbon is actually sequestered in the food itself, the same way and for the same reasons that planting new trees sequesters carbon.”

other than the cost of transportation and storage. the the decomposition phase, which produces quite a lot of greenhouse gases.

[ineedasername]

I mentioned composting: Composting produces significantly lower amounts of greenhouse gasses compared to simply letting the food decompose in a trash heap: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=198

[AstralStorm]

And if you do it very well, you can recapture almost all emitted methane, using it as an efficient fuel in fuel cells. (Preferably, rather than just burning it.) It's a very clean source.

[NoOneNew]

Define quite a lot when it comes to greenhouse gas production. We can make the argument for clearing out rain forests because decomposing foliage makes greenhouse gases based on the same principle of "food decomposition is bad". Its not like the food never decomposes. You eat it, you fart and shit the decomposition. If we nitpick every little greenhouse gas producer, we are going to end up with pathologizing ending humanity because we produce greenhouse gases. That and youre giving polluters/deniers extremely easy fodder to combat civilization's general need to rehab off of fossil fuels. Anyways, "greenhouse gases" are needed for planet Earth in general. It's the artificial over production of greenhouse gases that's harmful. Not their general existence.