Re: Walkers damage the planet


"Simon Challands" <simon_usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:721de50f4f.SimonC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <n112dy9zctcs.efcihv8d6okw$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Chris Street <ngfb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Now here is why it is wrong.

The comparison is between the CO2 emissions for a car, and the CO2
emissions in the production of beef leading to the conclusion that a car
emits less CO2 than a walker. There are a deal of things wrong with this
approach.

Another thing I've not seen mentioned (admittedly without having read
the original piece) is are we talking about the excess energy usage of
the walker, or are we ignoring the fact that the car driver is still
having to eat as well, and burns up a few calories even when sat
behind the wheel?

This may have been addressed already, I could easily have missed it,
what with having killfiled Angus some time back.


What we should be talking about is how much more food should someone who
walks regularly have to buy compared to someone who mostly drives. It is the
purchasing of food which creates the demand which creates the supply which
creates the emissions. Unless you can demonstrate that a walker (or cyclist)
actually buys more food on days in which they walk/cycle than on days which
they drive then the whole issue of including food production in human
powered transport is wrong.

I don't eat any more food when I cycle to work than when I drive to work. I
have, however, lost over 1 1/2 stone in bodyweight (which requires less
energy to move about doing general activities) and probably have a more
efficient cardiovascular system (which again will reduce respiratory CO2
emissions slightly).

Finally, since the preferred energy source for walking/cycling comes from
carbohydrates and carbohydrates come from plants, is the fact that the
plants absorb CO2 from the air whilst they are growing taken into account?

Adam


.

Relevant Pages