Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’

[adios]

Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’

Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

and

“The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better.”


I guess being a vegatarian couch potato consumming little food would be the best practices for an individual in order to save the planet.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess being a vegatarian couch potato consumming little food would be the best practices for an individual in order to save the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

SUCCESS!

[iron81]

I'm really don't appreciate this. I was running out of reasons to execrcise and you're not helping. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess being a vegatarian couch potato consumming little food would be the best practices for an individual in order to save the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop the federal government from subsidizing roads and specific plants like corn and you solve this problem very easily.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really don't appreciate this. I was running out of reasons to execrcise and you're not helping. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

We're trying to save the planet here, do your part [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I guess being a vegatarian couch potato consumming little food would be the best practices for an individual in order to save the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop the federal government from subsidizing roads and specific plants like corn and you solve this problem very easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope we're not subsidizing beef because that may be a bigger problem:

The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. “Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

[bobman0330]

I think this result is based on the assumption that the additional calories you consume will be replaced solely by beef, which is a tad unrealistic.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this result is based on the assumption that the additional calories you consume will be replaced solely by beef, which is a tad unrealistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I think that's it more or less. See reply to Tobiny below.

Edit: Not sure about how much extra we'd need in protein for more excercise as an example. What is the appropriate substitute for the nutrional value derived from beef?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’

Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

and

“The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better.”


I guess being a vegatarian couch potato consumming little food would be the best practices for an individual in order to save the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]


What is up with all the climate fascism???

I'm pretty sure something like this is hella more dangerous than breathing, eating and driving in your car.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...erPanorama.jpg

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this result is based on the assumption that the additional calories you consume will be replaced solely by beef, which is a tad unrealistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides the ridiculous assumption that every calorie burned will be replaced by the most environmentally damaging food source possible (gee, no bias there, now is there?), it also omits other factors like the more people drive, the more servicing their vehicles require; while the more people walk and exercise, their health risks decrease (thus driving adds external energy costs while exercising decreases external costs); and the more people drive, the higher demand for roads and more infrastructure maintenance required, thus more energy costs and pollution. And of course, there's this little gem: If one person takes 5 min to drive to the store and another takes 15 min to walk there, the first person isn't going to just stand idle for that other 10 min of free time -- they will be doing something that burns energy, too. So, to make the comparison fair, you can't go on a trip-by-trip basis, but rather on a time basis, if you really are looking for net savings. How much environmental impact per day do people who walk some of their errands and drive less contribute compared to people who drive all their errands? That's the real issue.