News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

junctionist

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
4,294
Dominic Kennedy

Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.

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.

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.

“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.â€

Mr Goodall, Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford West & Abingdon, is the latest serious thinker to turn popular myths about the environment on their head.

Catching a diesel train is now twice as polluting as travelling by car for an average family, the Rail Safety and Standards Board admitted recently. Paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic because of the extra energy needed to manufacture and transport them, the Government says.

Fresh research published in New Scientistlast month suggested that 1kg of meat cost the Earth 36kg in global warming gases. The figure was based on Japanese methods of industrial beef production but Mr Goodall says that farming techniques are similar throughout the West.

What if, instead of beef, the walker drank a glass of milk? The average person would need to drink 420ml – three quarters of a pint – to recover the calories used in the walk. Modern dairy farming emits the equivalent of 1.2kg of CO2 to produce the milk, still more pollution than the car journey.

Cattle farming is notorious for its perceived damage to the environment, based on what scientists politely call “methane production†from cows. The gas, released during the digestive process, is 21 times more harmful than CO2 . Organic beef is the most damaging because organic cattle emit more methane.

Michael O’Leary, boss of the budget airline Ryanair, has been widely derided after he was reported to have said that global warming could be solved by massacring the world’s cattle. “The way he is running around telling people they should shoot cows,†Lawrence Hunt, head of Silverjet, another budget airline, told the Commons Environmental Audit Committee. “I do not think you can really have debates with somebody with that mentality.â€

But according to Mr Goodall, Mr O’Leary may have a point. “Food is more important [to Britain’s greenhouse emissions] than aircraft but there is no publicity,†he said. “Associated British Foods isn’t being questioned by MPs about energy.

“We need to become accustomed to the idea that our food production systems are equally damaging. As the man from Ryanair says, cows generate more emissions than aircraft. Unfortunately, perhaps, he is right. Of course, this doesn’t mean we should always choose to use air or car travel instead of walking. It means we need urgently to work out how to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our foodstuffs.â€

Simply cutting out beef, or even meat, however, would be too modest a change. The food industry is estimated to be responsible for a sixth of an individual’s carbon emissions, and Britain may be the worst culprit.

“This is not just about flying your beans from Kenya in the winter,†Mr Goodall said. “The whole system is stuffed with energy and nitrous oxide emissions. The UK is probably the worst country in the world for this.

“We have industrialised our food production. We use an enormous amount of processed food, like ready meals, compared to most countries. Three quarters of supermarkets’ energy is to refrigerate and freeze food prepared elsewhere.

A chilled ready meal is a perfect example of where the energy is wasted. You make the meal, then use an enormous amount of energy to chill it and keep it chilled through warehousing and storage.â€

The ideal diet would consist of cereals and pulses. “This is a route which virtually nobody, apart from a vegan, is going to follow,†Mr Goodall said. But there are other ways to reduce the carbon footprint. “Don’t buy anything from the supermarket,†Mr Goodall said, “or anything that’s travelled too far.€

(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece)

Quite the inconvenient truth?
 
Michael O’Leary, boss of the budget airline Ryanair, has been widely derided after he was reported to have said that global warming could be solved by massacring the world’s cattle. “The way he is running around telling people they should shoot cows,†Lawrence Hunt, head of Silverjet, another budget airline, told the Commons Environmental Audit Committee. “I do not think you can really have debates with somebody with that mentality.â€


I'm just waiting for the more nutbar type environmentalists to come out and suggest wholesale slaughter of human beings to "save the planet."

The ideal diet would consist of cereals and pulses.

The ideal diet would still be doing all those nasty things to environment.

A great laugh, otherwise.
 
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.

okay if that us true but driving the car plus eating the food is still worse than just walking and eating the food. i would do pretty intensive body working before but eat the same, if not less sometimes.

the question is now, are lazy people using environmentalism as a copout?



"nah man, i can't exercise. it uses too much energy. this isn't fat, it's conservation"

also...


"timmy, don't masturbate. you'll grow hair on your palms and then you'll have to trim it with an electric razor which runs on electricity that is generated by burning coal. GHG's make baby jesus cry"

:p
 
It seems like the core if this guy's argument is that walking to the grocery store is bad because in doing so you will then have to come home and eat steak to make up for the burned calories. Since the steak produced more green house gases than driving, you're contributing to global warming.

Furthermore, he assumes a distance of 3 miles between your house and the grocery store, which would be impractical to walk anyway. And what if I actually did walk that distance, but rather than having steak I had a granola bar and an apple? Or two cookies? I don't know many people who eat steak every time they do something active.

And chances are, if you live in an area where it's possible to walk to the grocery store, it's possible to walk to much more than just that. I live in such an area, and only put about 4,000 km on my car per year. That's probably in the bottom 5% of the population.
 
Where's Wendell Cox when you really need him?
american-dad-060522.jpg
 
Bad science. They should have used an average diet, not one of the most energy intensive foods. I'm surprised they didn't factor in the methane from cow farts...
 
I'm just waiting for the more nutbar type environmentalists to come out and suggest wholesale slaughter of human beings to "save the planet."

There's a recent book that I'm looking to pick up that talks about what would happen to the planet if we simply disappeared. Something I often think about when walking around. What would the city look like 100 or 1000 years with no humans around.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_31/b4044089.htm
Save The Planet—Disappear


JULY 30, 2007

IDEAS -- BOOKS

Save The Planet—Disappear
Weisman presents a curiously refreshing vision of the apocalypse

THE WORLD WITHOUT US
By Alan Weisman
Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press -- 324pp -- $24.95
(Readers' Reviews below)
EDITOR'S REVIEW


The Good An intriguing vision of how nature would flourish if humans disappeared.

The Bad Some readers may find the trick of assuming away humanity to be frustrating.

The Bottom Line A curiously refreshing, and oddly hopeful, vision of the apocalypse.

The extinction of humankind is a grim topic. Yet in The World Without Us, journalist Alan Weisman invokes this ancient specter as the jumping-off point for a refreshing, and oddly hopeful, look at the fate of the environment. His central question: What would earth be like if humanity just vanished?

Weisman's answer is as fascinating as it is surprising. It turns out, from towering bridges to sprawling cities--not to mention delicate books or masterly artworks--precious few of man's creations would last long. The author richly documents the damage done by industrial civilization, providing further momentum for business to go green. But his explanation of just how all of our methodically built cities, factories, and temples would implode under the slow assault of rot, rain, plants, and critters is the most compelling aspect of the book. The winners in Weisman's tour de décomposition are the very flora and fauna that today are under pitiless assault from humanity.

In an abandoned Manhattan, for example, key bits of infrastructure would fail in hours. The grid would go dark, shutting down pumps that keep the subways dry and sewers from clogging. In days, groundwater would flood subterranean spaces. In time, some of the island's buried streams would resurface, accelerating the process of rust and rot from below. The seasonal freeze-and-thaw cycle would soon crack sealed surfaces, and in countless gaps, plants would take root, adding the soft push of roots to the process.

In a decade, mighty steel-frame skyscrapers would begin to collapse as metal joints corrode and rupture. Waterlogged pillars holding up subway tunnels would disappear even sooner, collapsing into pond-filled craters and new waterways. These would hydrate the island's resurgent fauna, descendants of today's small but resilient menagerie of raccoons, feral cats, amphibians, and birds. They'd eventually be joined by returning species from the north such as bears, beavers, and wolves, plus perhaps a few zoo escapees.

Such images, like Weisman's narrative as a whole, represent a curiously optimistic vision of the apocalypse: It would be great for nature if calamitous for mankind. Weisman drops in on exotic hot spots of biodiversity, from the Korean DMZ to Europe's most ancient forest and the otherworldly high, wet Aberdares moors in central Kenya. There, he finds the last remnants of rare species--such as Kenya's seldom seen black leopard--that could return in force.

Weisman's what-if approach lets him avoid a familiar fault of many environmental tomes: the simplistic cataloging of the disasters facing one species after another. It also makes the book easily accessible. Flip open to any chapter, and a series of punchy vignettes illuminates his broader point.

Some human artifacts would last, including massive stone structures such as arch bridges. Another survivor: plastic. Unlike most other man-made materials, no biological agent has yet evolved that can digest it. And while the sun's ultraviolet rays can break it down, so much plastic is buried or sunk that it will persist for eons. In the distant Pacific Ocean where currents and winds end, Weisman visits an Africa-size flotilla of plastic bags, suspended in a lifeless, slowly spinning gyre.

Some readers may find Weisman's trick of assuming away humanity to be frustrating. Yet he does explore the matter, finding the odds of such a vanishing to be slight but within the realm of possibility. Mankind is the über-cockroach of the global ecosystem: stubbornly hardy, fast-breeding, and near-impossible to exterminate. Disease seems an obvious possibility. Yet even a 99.99% lethal disease would leave more than 650,000 disease-resistant humans, plenty to repopulate an emptied earth.

And what of global warming? It is perhaps the greatest wild card. "Our redesigned atmosphere," as Weisman describes it, would take 100,000 years to return to pre-human levels of CO2 and so would be one of our longest-lasting legacies. And the magnitude of climate change, Weisman admits, could mean a future far different from the one he imagines. If the planet were to reach temperatures not seen in eons, the global system could reset in a scenario resembling the Permian die-off. During that pre-dinosaur era, 95% of the world's species perished.

Today we know of this period only from the fossilized remnants of tree-size ferns and giant insects. After reading Weisman, you may find yourself imagining future alien visitors probing the soils of a human-free earth millions of years hence--and wondering just what kind of creatures could have made the plastic Barbie dolls they find.
 
There was a story about that book in the Globe or the Times a couple of weeks ago. I leafed through it at Indigo last week. It looks like an interesting read. I may buy it the next time I'm at Pages or Book City.
 
Has the author of the book volunteered to start the process?
 
Furthermore, he assumes a distance of 3 miles between your house and the grocery store, which would be impractical to walk anyway. And what if I actually did walk that distance, but rather than having steak I had a granola bar and an apple? Or two cookies? I don't know many people who eat steak every time they do something active.

If you do eat (anything) every time you do something active you would very quickly gain a ton of weight.

Exercise usually doesn't burn very many calories compared to the "reward" eaten for doing said exercise.

Walking up stairs for an hour at a good pace (as in, climb the CN Tower 2 to 3 times in an hour) will burn enough that you can eat a 6 ounce steak (no condiments or sides) and break even.
 
If you do eat (anything) every time you do something active you would very quickly gain a ton of weight.

Exercise usually doesn't burn very many calories compared to the "reward" eaten for doing said exercise.

Walking up stairs for an hour at a good pace (as in, climb the CN Tower 2 to 3 times in an hour) will burn enough that you can eat a 6 ounce steak (no condiments or sides) and break even.

we are powerhouses! they should design an organic motor from stem cells. ;)
 
If you do eat (anything) every time you do something active you would very quickly gain a ton of weight.

Exercise usually doesn't burn very many calories compared to the "reward" eaten for doing said exercise.

Walking up stairs for an hour at a good pace (as in, climb the CN Tower 2 to 3 times in an hour) will burn enough that you can eat a 6 ounce steak (no condiments or sides) and break even.

Hmmm...
From: http://www.annecollins.com/calories/calories-steaks.htm
"Tenderloin steak, 6oz, lean only: 210 calories"

http://www.coolnurse.com/calories.htm
Stair climbing (normal speed) for one hour for a 180 lb. individual: 528 calories

To be fair, if you get a really rich steak, you might get up to about 528 calories. I think no matter what the steak, it'd have to be bigger than 6 oz., unless you're talking about eating beef fat.

I never really thought people rewarded strenuous exercise with food (as people often do it to lose weight, which would be counterproductive), but rather exercise to make up for gluttony.
 
What about economic cost and environmental impact of the care required for unhealthy people, of which we have an increasing number?

I'm actually finding it hard to decide if this article is just one big satire. Certainly I don't take it very seriously.
 

Back
Top