Letters to the Editor
-
What a delightful Duck this is
Are we to take from this thought experiment that the transportation and preperation of 100 calories of beef produces so much more net CO2 than the the transportation and preperation of 100 calories of say grain, that the very real net CO2 reduction of walking is offset, and one can drive one's car?
Firstly, since humans do not consume fossilized carbon, walking is always carbon negative, since a plant has removed more carbon from the atmostphere than we will consume or rerelease back into the atmosphere, the same is true if the plant's carbon is first cycled through a cow. Cars since they do consume fossilized carbon will always produce net CO2 regardless of their efficiency. The fossilized Carbon would not reeneter our atmostphere without combustion, which the car requires for locomotion.
Now, the argument is that excessivly more carbon will be produced by the trucks transporting the cow, than by the trucks transporting grain because grain must also be transported to the cow. However, because we are discussing calorie vs. calorie here, keep in mind that the calories within the cow are far more efficiently packed and lighter than the calories in the grain. Additionally, remember that while cows can digest raw cellulose, humans can not. As such what the cow is eating is largely carbon removed from the atmostphere that humans can not consume. The cow ensures that far more carbon is used by the end consumer (built into proteins) than just the raw grain. Since cows are likely eating locally (which is not a corrollary to the car argument) what you are doing is processing locally grown vegitable matter into a far more enegery efficient package before transporting it across the country to the walking consumers.
Now, granted if you are taking the car when walking is an acceptable form of transit you are probably in worse shape physically, and thusly are likely to die earlier than the meat eating walkers, and so over your life time your net carbon production might be lower, but I think the actual numbers would show the lie of the original inflamatory statement. Net CO2 is not caused by the processes of living things. It is caused by the combustion of fossilized carbon. No process that combusts fossilized carbon can ever be carbon negative, and the greater weight per calorie of carbon transported for grains are likely going to offset any advantage that a non local vegitarian life style might afford if one drives everywhere.
When people who wear the white coats of science make intentionally stupid statements that are filled with political and personal biases the whole of science suffers.
-
just not true
"Goodall's explanation is that the exercise required to walk to burns calories that need to be replaced with additional food."
That's a big, shakey assumption. One of the reasons that many people try to increase their physical exercise (by walking to the store, for example) is that without exercise, they tend to ingest more calories than they burn.
-
Just a book push
The "environmentalist" author is deliberately picking unrealistic data for his calculations. If he wants to make it a true comparison, he needs to include the carbon footprint of manufacturing the car, the steel, rubber, plastics and other componants, the cost of drilling for the oil and the manufacture of all the tools that requires, the cost of transporting the fuel to the pumps AND the cost of the food the person will be eating anyway. Of course, he could also assume that the person is eating a more balanced diet instead of just beef. Or is he comparing this to driving a hummer?
Sounds like another vegan trying to scare people out of eating meat. Sad that they have to lie to even make the attempt.
-
something to do while alive...
This is a ridiculous argument. For the above and well-put reasons and also for this: People eat to stay alive, and are going to eat anyway. Usually they eat pretty much the same amount each day regardless of whether they've walked around or not. If they decide to burn some calories walking to the store that usually means just some excess fat burned off, not extra food put into the gullet.
I imagine that book was written by a vegan or PETA member with a hidden agenda at trying to get everyone off eating meat. Myself, I just had lunch and- since I'm alive anyway- I'll mosey on down to the corner cafe.
-
Easy to upset the calculations
Assuming the math is right that came up with driving being more carbon-friendly than walking, a huge leap as I think about it but accepting to for the moment, it's still easy to screw up the calculation. What if we get something other than beef? Or the beef is locally produced? How much will driving instead of waling contribute to the obesity epidemic, and how much more gasoline is burned as cars haul heavier people?
And of course the big one: with, as I understand, half our greenhouse gases coming from coal power plants, what difference will it make for us to walk if we don't do something about how our electricity is generated? While he's calculating his calories, he's nibbling around the edges.
-
Just being alive increases our carbon (dioxide) footprint
Breathing releases CO2, so should we all just stop doing that and commit collective suicide?
It's one thing to be aware of the environmental damage our lifestyles cause, but carbon dioxide release will never be a zero sum game. If we obsess about every little action we make, it will drive us crazy.
Really, the only solution to this climate change and peak oil crisis is a radical restructuring of our lives. We need smaller decentralized economies where food production and manufacturing are as local and sustainable as possible. We need to drastically reduce our energy consumption and rely on solar, wind, and geothermal power. If we are to survive long-term, we need to be like the Amish, but with internet access.
-
Why some environmentalists work for the other side
If his calculation is true, what about vegetarians and fish vegetarians? Are they more efficient? How about where the food came from? And if you eat only organic? If tractors weren't used in production, but horses were? And if you are in good shape, and not heavy, you use less calories?
He makes a good point, then wraps it in malarky. After all, if we were dead, we'd use less carbon too.
My rule of thumb, and what I've noticed, is that what is good for the planet is 'back to the future." I.E. the more the modern world does something, the less likely it is sustainable, and in fact is oil-based. Walking and eating is something we've done for millions of years and have never heated the environment.
Cuba has gone to nearly a completely organic agriculture, due to the collapse of the USSR's oil flow to them, and the odds are they now pollute less than the Floridians across the straight.
Walking and farting - now that is something else...