Here's a new one: walking is worse for the environment than driving
Is August 4th the British equivalent of April Fool's Day? That was my first thought when I saw the headline of this article: Walking to the shops 'damages planet more than going by car.' The article, by Dominic Kennedy, was published on the 4th, and features some mindbending twists of common sense (and some real careful omission of fact) to come to the conclusion that driving is greener than walking. On top of everything, the Times says that "a leading environmentalist" is the one who calculated this new statistic.
Ok, let's figure out where this leading environmentalist (Chris Goodall) leads us astray. First, he carbon carbon numbers from industrialized beef production to explain how much CO2 it takes a person to walk a certain distance, vs. the CO2 from a "typical UK car" (Frances Moore Lappé would have a thing or two to say about that decision - omitting sustainable vegetable food production from his model leaves Goodall seriously open to attack). Second, he's comparing production CO2 for the food vs. emission CO2 for the car, not taking into account what it costs to produce and ship the fuel (as far as I can tell).
Another choice tidbit from Goodall:
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"
Okaaaay. So, Mr. Goodall, why not advocate for more train use, or for people to not drive Freelanders but instead to shift to greener vehicles?
Look, I know the environmental debate is confusing and it's good to rethink the things we think we know. The hard truths are that (IMHO) we need to shift our entire lifestyle away from consumption and disposability to a sustainable way of life. Making a claim that driving is better for our lungs than walking doesn't really help; it's something you do when you're trying to sell something. Oh .
Related:
[Source: Times of London via Terra Rossa]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Scatter 12:41PM (8/08/2007)
The car CO2 calculation doesn't include upstream emissions. It's also a bit low because it looks like it uses the average real world CO2 emissions (207.5g/km) but this is an average across all driving conditions and short (often urban) journeys emit a lot more CO2 per km than longer distance open road driving.
But I think the thrust of Chris's comments and this article is more to flag up how outrageously carbon intensive modern industrial agriculture is. Yes he's been selective with the facts, but it's to illustrate a very important point. I think the article does quite a good job of bringing this across and it even says that he doesn't want people to drive to the shops (although people who just glance at the headline might get the wrong impression).
What he wants is for us to demand changes to the way we produce and distribute our food, not the way we get to the shops. If you buy organic, local, seasonal food your impact is greatly reduced.
Reply
Manu Sharma 2:21PM (8/08/2007)
> how outrageously carbon intensive modern industrial agriculture is
I think you mean meat production, which, as a recent study pointed out, is several times carbon intensive than vegetarian food.
Reply
GoodCheer 4:13PM (8/08/2007)
While meat production must, by the nature of animal biology, be less efficient that vegetable production, the use of intensive organic (i.e. hydro-carbon based) fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides makes all industrial agricultural pretty carbon-intensive.
Reply
Chris M 5:47PM (8/08/2007)
I see this as an advanced gullibility test - if you believe this kind of nonsense, you'll believe anything!
Sorry, I failed. My BS detector just wouldn't let me fall for it!
Reply
mark 11:14PM (8/08/2007)
I did read somewhere, that the output of CO2 per kilometre for a well trained marathon runner (their lungs are trained to quickly transfer CO2 out of the blood stream), is around 1/4 that of a Prius, i.e. a Prius with 4 Marathon runners travelling in it has roughly the same CO2 output as if they ran the same distance. Of course, since hopefully the runners are eating renewable food supplies, the carbon was sequestered before they expelled it, making the runners carbon neutral overall. The same can't be said for the prius.
Reply
Scatter 4:54AM (8/09/2007)
Sorry Manu I was referring to meat production primarily but as GoodCheer says industrial vegetable production is very carbon intensive too. Being able to buy asparagus in mid winter is a luxury which really is not very good for the planet.
Anyone who doubts the impact of livesetock on the world should read this:
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm
Reply
PhilipH 7:38AM (8/09/2007)
Two interesting article is the BBC series 'Ethical Man':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/meet_daisy_the_cow_global_climates_enemy_number_on.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6320000/newsid_6326700/6326705.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1
It claims, as per the FAO report, that livestock represent 18% of the worlds CO2 emissions - more than all forms of transport put together.
Reply
lodel 1:05AM (8/15/2007)
Having less babies would reduce CO2 as well.
Reply
Neale 11:11PM (8/11/2007)
Your stupid to walk when you are able to drive.
Reply
Scott H. 9:37PM (8/11/2007)
I believe from my chemistry days, cars produce CO more than CO2
Reply
Paul 10:17PM (8/11/2007)
Scott is right. People exhale CO2 which is the biproductive of metabolizing O2. Plants absorb CO2 and produce O2. Cars release CO which is considerably different. This "study" is a joke or the product of a moron who doesn't know the difference.
Reply
Shawn 10:34PM (8/11/2007)
Also you have to take into account people walking to the grocery might not actually eat more but just be thinner and healthier!
Reply
Belle Starr 11:49PM (8/11/2007)
I think who ever came up this on too much gin and tonic .
If I eat three beef and bean burrtios with a pint of ale and then walk or jog 10 k I am making zero bad stuff . Where is if I drove , I risk everyone and emit bad stuff .
Reply
Constance 12:20AM (8/12/2007)
I agree that differentiating between CO and CO2 makes quite a difference. Also, I know for a fact that I do not release heavy metals and other various toxins into the atmosphere during my stroll to the store. I do agree that factory farming is a horrible pollutant, so for ethical purposes, I will continue my organic vegetarian diet!
Reply
alan patch 1:37AM (8/12/2007)
The production of meat seems the culprit in this dialogue, yet driving to buy it adds so much vaguery to the equation...so many variables.
Suppose we raised our own meat, chickens/ rabbits/hogs and cattle. It becomes an old equation. What to do with a whole pig/cow/ or flock of chickens ready for slaughter...commerce happens and the transportation that goes with that.
Can we decide we will only eat rabbit? or chicken...or beef(the methane factory)...side note
vegans fart as often and long as the cattle they are not eating...the answer
popuation decemation...cull the herd, stem the flow of fresh humans...attrition will balance the game in 20 years.
Reply
goreykor 9:27PM (8/15/2007)
The title is misleading, no one has the patience to read further, please don't pollute the information-wave.
Reply
Bri 1:57AM (8/12/2007)
Who seriously cares? Global warming is all a bunch of fake crap anyways. If you look at the facts the enviroment has been in worse shape than it is now many time in the past. It is just a cycle of the enviroment and people need to get over it.
Reply
happyaddict10 1:58AM (8/12/2007)
Ok, well lets just remember onew thing, whether we are walking or driving or taking a train, we still have to eat. therefore by driving we are addibg the co2 emmisions of the car to that of the meat production of our food, not exchanging it.
Reply
Larry Cox 3:26AM (8/12/2007)
Just remember that the earth ends on December 12, 2012. The mayan calender, which has been sooo precise for 2000 years, mysteriously ends on December 12, 2012. So does the chinese I Ching.
Reply
Satan 5:55AM (8/12/2007)
I love all this talk that the planet is in danger, The planet has been through catastrophic collisions that hve led to nass extinctions, been covered in ice, been covered in volcanic ash and molten lava, the planet isn't in any danger at all. We are, the weather is cyclical, has man made an impact? Probably, but how do you explain the planet being worse off now than at the turn of the twentieth century when all houses, trains, ships and industrial machines were powered by coal, one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet. All I know is that when I was a kid all of the major industrial cities had air so polluted and filled with smog that everyday the air and sky were orange and black and you could barely make out the central cities of many American cities. Now those jobs are all gone , most sent too anywhere else where labor was cheapest and anti-pollution laws were non exisitent. Has man impacted the planet? Probably, but with all evidence showing weather to be cyclical, you can't blame all of the changes on the impact of CO2. Remember the "greatest" president ever knew the cause of Co2 emissions, the great leader Ronnie Ragun's blamed trees for pumping CO2 into the air. So maybe we should encourage the destrucution of the rain forests and kill all tree's, I've always known they were sneaky bastards, those tree's can't be trusted.
Reply