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

[nabraxas]

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.” [email protected]

Shattering the great green myths

— Traditional nappies are as bad as disposables, a study by the Environment Agency found. While throwaway nappies make up 0.1 per cent of landfill waste, the cloth variety are a waste of energy, clean water and detergent

— Paper bags cause more global warming than plastic. They need much more space to store so require extra energy to transport them from manufacturers to shops

— Diesel trains in rural Britain are more polluting than 4x4 vehicles. Douglas Alexander, when Transport Secretary, said: “If ten or fewer people travel in a Sprinter [train], it would be less environmentally damaging to give them each a Land Rover Freelander and tell them to drive”

— Burning wood for fuel is better for the environment than recycling it, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered

— Organic dairy cows are worse for the climate. They produce less milk so their methane emissions per litre are higher

— Someone who installs a “green” lightbulb undoes a year’s worth of energy-saving by buying two bags of imported veg, as so much carbon is wasted flying the food to Britain

— Trees, regarded as shields against global warming because they absorb carbon, were found by German scientists to be major producers of methane, a much more harmful greenhouse gas

Sources: Defra; How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, by Chris Goodall; Absorbent Hygiene Products Manufacturers Association; The Times; BBC

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/s...icle2195538.ece

& this response to the above made me laugh:

People should stop wallowing in angst over the physical health of the world and instead make the most of what it has to offer. Live fast, sleep around and die young.

The problem we have is there are too many miserable middle and old aged people who aren't dead!

If more of the energy saving light bulb, vegan, knitted swimming trunks types spent their lives enjoying themselves rather than bitching, whining and trying to juggle facts and figures to solve unsolvable riddles; we'd probably find ourselves in a better place.

Racing motorcycles, BASE jumping and hot-footing it from one brothel to another whilst high on a cocktail of drugs, drink and junk food until one or more of the aforementioned results in a youthful but exhilirating death is the way forward.

Wasting your one life totting up 'carbon-footprint' stats whilst sucking on a lettuce leaf and shouting "DON'T LEAVE THE TV ON STAND-BY" to bemused passers by is rather dull and ultimately pointless.

Please get a grip.

James, Lancaster,

[Μορφέας]

yeah thats complete and utter crap, shit science

[Torsten]

dogs use protein for energy, but humans mainly use carbohydrates. So why use meat as a comparison for an energy source? his whole point doesn't make much sense. Although the article does point out a few good things and in particular forces people do think twice about green hype.

[chilli]

dogs use protein for energy, but humans mainly use carbohydrates. So why use meat as a comparison for an energy source? his whole point doesn't make much sense. Although the article does point out a few good things and in particular forces people do think twice about green hype.

Yeah that's what I was going to say, it would totally depend on what food you were using for energy... I guess he needs some controversial headlines to help sell his book.

[Jesus On Peyote]

ahh wtf, and this is from a environmentalist!

this is why i dont bother listening to GW shite no more, the earth is warming, get over it Mr Chris Goodall.

[Auxin]

The main problem is that people believe in one sided overly simplistic absolutist environmental philosophies.

Car vs Walking, one must universally be better in all instances... or so people think out of their intellectual laziness.

In the example of walking vs. driving you'll notice he did not subtract out how much food energy you'd consume while driving. Factor that in and the differential would be less, but still probably on the side of driving. Then factor in that no rational human eats nothing but beef, that reduces it more. In the end driving might put out a bit less emissions... in that example of a 3 mile trip to the store. Who walks 3 miles for chips and beer when they have a car in the driveway?

Walking 3 blocks would be quite a bit different.

Oh and one can learn the local plan life and probably have lots of free snacks along the way, snacks that needed no human support to grow. If you can find a spot where no one is spraying poison then the outdoors is like a giant free salad bar. And if your a hippie grasshoppers are free too.

[teonanacatl]

yeah always interesting points to consider before buy 'green' things. And the thing about trees producing methane im dont know but a fellow i know has shown that in dryer years the daintree rainforest produces more CO2 then it fixes.

The best solution is to decrease the population, then people could drive cars and eat beef and it wouldnt be a problem.

[chilli]

Who walks 3 miles for chips and beer when they have a car in the driveway?

Me! That is why I have such svelte legs...

Oh, and poor grasshoppers!

[Jesus On Peyote]

The best solution is to decrease the population, then people could drive cars and eat beef and it wouldnt be a problem.

Lol, are you volunteering? or who here would be volunteering to get culled?

I say we shouldent worry about it too much, just go after the multi-national gazillion dollar companies that do most the damage and once the planet has had enough ittle do its own thing and fix the situation.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Jesus On Peyote

[Torsten]

Lol, are you volunteering? or who here would be volunteering to get culled?

I culled my kids. I think it is ridiculous to add to the population when we know that population is exactly the main problem facing this planet. When people email me their proud baby pics I always feel like I should be sending out my condolences on adding another pest specimen to this planet.

You can't have it both ways - on one hand claiming to be environmentalist and on the other adding to the load. Breeding hippies are the ultimate hypocrisy. And the whole 'but I will raise my kids with environmental values' doesn't cut it either. More kids rebel against their parent than they copy them. So in fact we should be encouraging more ultra conservative parent to have kids if we want more environmentalists.

just go after the multi-national gazillion dollar companies that do most the damage and once the planet has had enough ittle do its own thing and fix the situation.

do some research. It's not them doing most of the damage. It's us doing it. And it is us fuelling the demand that allows big companies to do the polluting in our name. It always comes back down to the individual. But of course it is much easier to blame the big bad companies.

[apothecary]

I culled my kids.

From what he tells me, whole civilisations have been lost to CS' favourite sock. Maybe we should give him a medal

[platypii]

"The whole system is stuffed with energy and nitrous oxide emissions"- I can think of some very profound purpose for said emissions.

[gamma.goblin]

I culled my kids.

I hope you did it humanely

[Torsten]

From what he tells me, whole civilisations have been lost to CS' favourite sock. Maybe we should give him a medal

LOL. Took me a while to get that. Must be a bit slow today

'wanker of the year' medal eh?

[Monk]

I think it is ridiculous to add to the population when we know that population is exactly the main problem facing this planet

I've often struggled with this concept due to my aspirations to be a professional plant breeder. The way I saw it for a long time was as follows: If all the dregs are reproducing like mad with an almost complete lack of 'nurture' for their little ones while the knowledgeable/environmentally aware folks don't reproduce at all, the human race will degrade at an even faster rate to the most 'hempy,' weedy form it has ever known. When I shared this selection idea to my soon to be wife who had notions about solely using the nurture aspect by adopting those in need, we came up with a compromise: We plan to produce one child (less than replacement level) to carry on our fine, sexy, intelligent and caring genes and adopt at least one other to give this individual the upbringing that will hopefully benefit him/her and the planet. This seems to be a reasonable compromise that if practised on a larger scale (and with decreased 3rd world output) could lead to better breeding and cultivation practices within our species. It's awfully idealist, I know, but it's got mind and heart behind it. Whatcha think?

[gamma.goblin]

its pretty much exactly my wishes Monk. I agree, the more fucked up and ignorant an individual is, the more they seem to think that thier 'magic' genes must be preserved and passed on.

[Torsten]

genes aren't that special, so the whole 'pass on my good genes' thing doesn't work much for me. If I go back just 4 generations in my family I come across everything from street beggar and DEA agent, to highly educated and intelligent professionals. And then there is me. I see plenty of myself in my nephews, so I no longer have any emotional need to breed, let alone a rational one. If you are talking about your good genes then you really need to look at your family background. We now know that things like intelligence are less likely to be transmitted to your kids than ADD or other psychological disorders. It always pains me to see how people who intend to breed gloss over these handicaps.

The whole genes thing is totally egocentric. Understandable though as it is in our primitive programming. But if we are supposedly so intelligent and non-primitive then this is exactly what we need to get over. I do see the one child option as a good compromise. if the whole world followed this for a while then we would quickly have a positive impact on the planet. The problem here would be religion. Most religions know they need a high birthrate to survive. Multi child families are more likely to be poor and more likely to stay in the grasp of religion.

Adoption is another matter though. 'Trash' is going to breed no matter what and educated people are decreasing their birthrate dramatically. So the best thing that can be done is to nurture some of those who would otherwise not get the opportunity.

Interestingly, I know 4 adopted people. None of them have rebelled against their adoptive parents. So maybe nurturing an adopted child is a much better way of having a positive influence on the planet.

[gamma.goblin]

I dont think religion would be the problem, rather poverty amplified survival instinct. The developed world already has pretty low birth rates.

[Monk]

genes aren't that special

This may well be the case for something so outcrossed as a modern human, but in cultivated plants this is far from the truth. From watching populations and seeking a desired outcome, I have personally come to the conclusion that the extent of expression of a certain trait is probably about 70% genetic in plants. Better cultivation can lead to enhanced expression, but genes put the limits on the extent. Whether this is true for humans or not, I do not know. Hence the experiment involving one 'nature' individual and at least one 'nurture' individual. Time will tell, I suppose.

EDIT: sorry for the hijack

Edited August 17, 2007 by FeloniousMonk

[Jesus On Peyote]

i cant sit by n not have kids (i dont have kids yet and dont plan to for the forseeable future) because of overpopulation. its a tricky subject so please dont slam me. where is the worlds overpopulation from? what parts of the world have more children then they can raise? asia n africa. i dont see why "us" in lesser populated areas have to cut our breeding down to extinction when asians and africanss are breeding freely. now, not to sound racist but in a long term old world style view, if the worlds pop stands at 1 billion euro descendent's with 7,8 or 10 billion thirdish world descendents then thats pretty messed up,china alone can already "repopulate" all of europe man for man with their poor, and still leave enough to run their country.

see what im saying?

thows everything off balance. so once again, as much as i love the planet and all i dont see myself culling my children so other countries can continue to breed.

[teonanacatl]

Lol yes to answer the initial question I dont want to have kids.

I agree with T just cos shit people are breeding doesnt mean their genes will be shit. I think that alot of lower society is incredibly smart, they just use it in other ways or dont use it. Its how your raised thats important i think

How will decreasing population help? I will try and answer

Aboriginals use to live nomadically, they would enter an area and eat all the plants (kill the palms for hearts) eat the animals then burn the area and move on. Its not very environmentally friendly but it was suitable because of the low population. Imagine that now....... the whole of australia would be burned in under a year. Ever wanted to take a plant but the answer was "if everyone takes a plant then there will be none left" that to me says there are tomany people. If there was only 2million world wide instead of 4? billion, then people could drive the worst cars without catalytic converters and there would not be a problem.

Its not just an issue here, all countries would need to cull breeding, lead by example?

[Hagakure]

i disagree on the genetic front.

its not just how you are raised. sure this matters but it aint all of it by far. raise a 2 dozen clones of jessica simpson in as many different environments as you like and you aint going to produce a leading astrophysicist (not allowing transhumanism)

social programs that encourage large families for welfare families should be discouraged. intelligence is linked to genes. last thing we need is the stupidest least successfull of the population producing the most babies. if you have a range of dope plants do you let the ones with the worst taste and the lowest THC do all the pollinating? when you are breeding dogs do you let the aggressive, antisocial, heriditary illness ridden dog have all the bitches?

extreme examples and no doubt highly offensive but have a think about it. would you? cause if you wouldnt do that with dog breeding programs or with dope plants what logical reasoning is there to do so with humans?

has been some contreversial work in this field by some scientist. forgotten what his name was. been meaning to look into more of his work though so i will hopefully track it down soon.

does really politically incorrect science looking into race, gender vs intelligence etc.

science aint meant to be PC though. if the data says its so then thats what you work with.

i think a bit has been written about how much britain was fucked up by WW1. lost many of their best men with damaging effect to the gene pool.

and look at australia. australia was project of the british to enhance their own stock at home. complete removal from teh gene pool by shipping the convicts across the other side of the world. of course plenty of free settlers and migrants allowed in based on intelligence has probably put us in a better situation thyan most countries nowadays though.

measures should be in place to encourage breeding by people who are better members of society than others.

face it. some dudes are neanderthal thugs who fight, are involved in sexual assuaults, drive dangerously etc etc. same as their father, same as their grandfather. is it too hard to see a link between genes and the amount of various hormones released in the body that are resonsible for agression?

they were fantastic when we were all in tribes in africa and needed to fight other tribes. they are great as soldiers.

meatheads willing to take a risk that may get them killed but will hopefully provide meat for the tribe or slay a few of the enemy.

but lets hope humans can start moving on from all that now.

could babble on about this for ages but right now its 1 o'clock and i have to be up at 8.

also i know this type of thought is highly offensive to some but find the logical faults within and i will try and address it. if you have a valid argument against an idea i hold i will gladly drop it.

i aint dropping an idea, however, because it is politically incorrect or because it is not held by the majority.

[Monk]

if you have a range of dope plants do you let the ones with the worst taste and the lowest THC do all the pollinating? when you are breeding dogs do you let the aggressive, antisocial, heriditary illness ridden dog have all the bitches?

Exactly, Hagakure. That's what I was trying to get across (if a little less directly ) I don't understand why so many of us plant nerds that have seen these inheritance processes time and again try to deny them in our own species. Maybe it is the PC thing, I dunno. That's why we came up with our own compromise, though, and I'm trying to spread the idea. Also, I do agree with the other side that humans, as outcrossed as they are, have more potential to react positively to proper cultivation techniques than many organisms. Hence the eventual adoption in the plan. Of course, I would like to carefully select in that process as well...

[teonanacatl]

you could breed two dip shits and get an einstein, it does depend on their genes, but what the parent is isnt always what the kid is. The other point i was making is that there are smart people in the slums of society. There will always be a need for smart people and there will always be people to fill those holes. Lets face it we need more lower class people then upper class, if everyone was IQ200 academic then who would wnat to clean toilets?

I agree about the better members of society breeding

Perhaps the most interesting thing will be once we have got green energy sorted, the next hurdle will be worse and even harder to get over unless we drop our population.

Edited August 20, 2007 by teonanacatl

[XipeTotec]

The other point i was making is that there are smart people in the slums of society. There will always be a need for smart people and there will always be people to fill those holes.

the wheel of fortune?