[emersonbiggins]

It's all in how you look at it, of course. As these life-cycle analyses become further developed over time, I would surmise that almost everything we assume about being "green" or "sustainable" will be negated, reaffirmed, tossed, reconstituted and parroted once again. In other words, a fatalist's wet dream.

Notice how the life cycle analysis of the automobile conveniently goes unmentioned. No use arguing, though, as these are foregone conclusions, I suppose.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')alking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’
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.”
...
Also,
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
...
Times Online

[Starvid]

That's a retarded article.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')hat's a retarded article.

[morph]

if you read it, he is using beef as the source of calories for the walking. Beef (and all animal food generally) use alot more energy to prodce than plant foods so he would have to really compare different diets to come to a full conclusion

[SILENTTODD]

What was it Disraeli said? “There are three kinds of Lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”.

[seldom_seen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes.

[emersonbiggins]

I keep changing the title of this thread to reflect my thoughts on it; I certainly don't want this article perceived as a rational scientific rebuttal to sustainable activities. It's merely an exercise in sophistry and a piece of corporate disinformation at its finest, but that doesn't mean that it won't get quoted, misquoted and used to create apathy in debates about climate change and the environment. Still, it's quite humorous to see the status quo get rationalized and sanctified by TPTB.

[oowolf]

Total psychotic nonsense. A 2800 pound vehicle that gets 25 mpg uses 100 times the caloric energy of walking. Only around 1% of the energy in fuel is actually used to move the driver--the rest is lost to heat and friction of moving the machinery. A 175 pound person walking(3mph) a mile on a relatively level surface uses about 65 calories for the walking--that is, above the calories burned to maintain life. And I can grab wild Juneberries as I walk so my only contribution to CO2 pollution consists of breathing--not much I can do about that.

This article must have come from "The Wonderland Gazette and Rabbit-Hole Reporter".

[Twilight]

Eat the beef, drive the car!

Next!

[ClassicSpiderman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oowolf', 'T')otal psychotic nonsense. A 2800 pound vehicle that gets 25 mpg uses 100 times the caloric energy of walking. Only around 1% of the energy in fuel is actually used to move the driver--the rest is lost to heat and friction of moving the machinery. A 175 pound person walking(3mph) a mile on a relatively level surface uses about 65 calories for the walking--that is, above the calories burned to maintain life. And I can grab wild Juneberries as I walk so my only contribution to CO2 pollution consists of breathing--not much I can do about that.

[Benzin]

Nothing says freedom like eating, shopping and polluting the environment all at the same time!

[mmasters]

LOL being a lazy fat SUV driving slob is green.

Reminds me of that credit card commercial advertising "freedom"

Talk about propping people up to get hit full speed by a MACK Truck.

[skeptic]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')hat's a retarded article.

[EnergyUnlimited]

If one takes that article at face value, s/he can easily realise how fucked up our civilization is.
It can be concluded that in falling energy world dieoff is unmitigable must. That conclusion is in fact correct.

In falling energy world it would be still more efficient to drive then walk.
However there will be no means to drive...and walking will be even more hopeless energywise.
Such reasoning can plant fear in cornucopian minds.

[kevincarter]

Wow... I'm quite impressed, are you sure this wasn't written in April 1st??? so many absurd ideas packed together. And that's THE TIMES??????