Energy consumption and emission is the focus of this mind-bending, paradigm-shifting article in the Times Online.
Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.
Similarly, it seems an airline mogul has been pointing out that beef eaters are a bigger problem for the environment than those who fly:
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.”
Statistics are a funny thing, as everyone from Groucho Marx to Mark Twain has famously observed. The question is, however, what really impacts people in their daily life.
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.”
And to think that kids who sat on the couch and ate bowls of cereal were derided for not keeping a healthy lifestyle. Little did we know they were really trying to save the planet…if you don’t count the marathon television and video game sessions.
The problem with the Times analysis is that it uses just the end product of car emissions and the complete analysis of walking. A more fair analysis would add to the car emissions calculation the following
1) the fractional CO2 of all workers who were employed in delivering the gas, car, and building the road (station attendants, pipeline builders, petrol delivery drivers, road builders, tire manufacturers, etc)
2) the fractional CO2 of all people involved in the destruction of the car when it reached its end of life.
Can you do the same for walking? Sure, but you’d only need to calculate wear on the soles of the shoes and the sidewalk.
If you do an honest calculation and really compare the resources used I’m sure the net CO2 emissions for the car would be much greater. And don’t forget the CO emissions which is 0 for walking.
It’s interesting how facts can be so easily skewed by limiting the comparisons. Do plastic bags vs. paper bags cause more harm to the environment? As if these are the only choices. How about reusable bags made from fabric? Does a hungry pedestrian have a larger carbon footprint than a driver who conserves calories? What about the vegan walker who eats lower down on the food chain? All I can say is what a bunch of wasted effort to prove something so silly. I wish that the same effort would be put into actually changing behaviors – something not so popular -easy – entertaining, I acknowledge, but much better for the world. This reminds me of the laughable position taken by Counterpunch’s’ Alex Cockburn, seemingly just to be an obstinate non-conformist lefty – criticized here – http://www.distantocean.com/2007/05/hes_at_it_again.html