Walking to the store damages the planet more than driving

[JW]

So says one leading environmentalist. Interesting story about myths and misconceptions about preserving the environment and climate. No, I'm not vouching for all of it. But I do know there is a lot of kneejerk environmentalism that sounds good but isn't necessarily sound science. And, yes, I do believe in preserving the environment and working to mitigate climate change factors. And I just found this fun to read.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2195538.ece

Long story at link. Here are some tidbits from the story:

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.

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

[dawgfan]

I think what this article really points out is the problem with thinking of "environmentalism" as being about a single issue (i.e. climate change), when in fact there are many issues that comprise "environmentalism", and many things that benefit the environment in one way harm the environment in another way.

That becomes a problem when we as a society choose to focus on single issues without looking at the situation is a whole.

[JW]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think what this article really points out is the problem with thinking of "environmentalism" as being about a single issue (i.e. climate change), when in fact there are many issues that comprise "environmentalism", and many things that benefit the environment in one way harm the environment in another way.

That becomes a problem when we as a society choose to focus on single issues without looking at the situation is a whole.

Good points, particularly the last. Some popular environmental fads are not necessarily good for the environment. The paper vs. plastic idea is a good example. It isn't a simple matter of "paper good, plastic bad." It is more complicated. Not using plastic has some good effects, but using paper instead creates its own problems.

I like the idea I learned in Europe, btw, of carrying reusable mesh bags to carry your purchases in.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

I'd really like to see the data behind this. Over what distance? Given what level of fitness? What if the person is combining food-shopping with other tasks? Yeah, I'm sure its true for some value of X, but I hope that's not what's meant by a "convincing argument".

— 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

Actually true, especially as you can buy non-bleached diapers made from recycled materials.

— 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

That's only one facet of it, though, which doesn't take into account the lingering affects of having all those bags blowing around and filling up landfills. Sure the argument sounds good....

— 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”

Using train service in rural Britain as an example of futility is roughly the same as using the Oakland Raiders (of the past 10 years or so) for the same purpose. Hilarity.

— Burning wood for fuel is better for the environment than recycling it, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered

At what level? For how long? What happens when you run out of wood? Sloppy.

— Organic dairy cows are worse for the climate. They produce less milk so their methane emissions per litre are higher

Hybrid cows now exist which are a cross between the traditional milk-in-quantity producing cow and a breed which is happy to live off of grass. Again, sloppy.

— 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

What about the person who doesn't buy two bags of imported veggies? Is this an argument against installing "green" lightbulbs or against buying imported veggies? Is this an apples to apples argument, really?

— 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

Actually, the study in question found that trees may be producers of methane gas, under certain laboratory conditions.

Anyway, good read. LOL

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

That becomes a problem when we as a society choose to focus on single issues without looking at the situation is a whole.

What he said.

[Karlifornia]

Is it wrong that I believe in global warming, but don't really care all that much?

[Sgran]

It is a good article, but I wish he'd changed his lead because that's all some people read and then go to the water cooler and say, "hey, did you know it's better for the environment to drive instead of walk?" which is complete bullshit. The real jist of the article is that many lifestyle and production choices affect the environment, not just cars and airplanes. So remember, if this guys tries this line at the water cooler, you can say "yeah, if you eat at Mcdonalds every day. But I eat locally produced food and ride my bike, which is much more efficient than walking, while your car coughs out ground level ozone, sulphur and nitrogen ozides that lead to acid rain, as well as tons of CO2."

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think what this article really points out is the problem with thinking of "environmentalism" as being about a single issue (i.e. climate change), when in fact there are many issues that comprise "environmentalism", and many things that benefit the environment in one way harm the environment in another way.

That becomes a problem when we as a society choose to focus on single issues without looking at the situation is a whole.

Interesting. I thought about about the policy tradeoffs when I read through the ethanol thread. For example, on the face of it, it might make sense to promote sugar-based ethanol at the expense of corn-based since the former appears to be much more efficient. But from a public policy standpoint, knowing that corn-based sweeteners are a major contributor to obesity in the United States (which correlates with increased costs in terms of both health care expenditure and productivity loss), one could argue that corn ethanol should be favored, if it could force a major shift back to sugar cane-based sweeteners (via the increased cost-effectiveness of sugar, if corn ever becomes more valuable as a fuel source).

[NoMyths]

/just bought a hybrid

//begone, carbon footprint!

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Is it wrong that I believe in global warming, but don't really care all that much?

not at all. it's pretty much on the same level as me reading one of your posts.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

/just bought a hybrid

//begone, carbon footprint!

Please tell me this is sarcasm. Ordinarily I wouldn't even question, but... well... you know... I could actually see you being serious about this.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Please tell me this is sarcasm. Ordinarily I wouldn't even question, but... well... you know... I could actually see you being serious about this.

/for serious

//except this silly part

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's only one facet of it, though, which doesn't take into account the lingering affects of having all those bags blowing around and filling up landfills. Sure the argument sounds good...

I should really be using cloth shopping bags (I have a couple), but when I don't, I generally opt for plastic as it it is something that our local recycling system accepts, so I hope that my plastic bags aren't littering landfills...

Bottom line though, I really should be more conscientious of bringing my own cloth shopping bags to use.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I should really be using cloth shopping bags (I have a couple), but when I don't, I generally opt for plastic as it it is something that our local recycling system accepts, so I hope that my plastic bags aren't littering landfills...

Yep. Us, too. We recycle them all.

[flere-imsaho]

We use cloth bags for grocery shopping, along with cloth mesh bags for the produce, both of which are good for reasons beyond "environmentalism". For instance, we can carry much more in the cloth bags and they're much less likely to break, and the mesh bags allow the produce to stay fresher longer.

Plus, the cloth bags double as gym/library/dog-outing/etc... bags really nicely.

[Bee]

If I tried to throw away a plastic or paper grocery store bag, my wife would shoot me. I have no idea what she does with them all, but I do know that I'm not allowed to throw them away.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JW

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.
Shattering the great green myths

I do not "fill up on food" to go to the store.
I eat X number of calories a day, if I walk to the store or watch TV does not change this.
So walking to the store is free as far as the environment is concerned.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I do not "fill up on food" to go to the store.
I eat X number of calories a day, if I walk to the store or watch TV does not change this.
So walking to the store is free as far as the environment is concerned.

Here is the comparison from the story. I'm not defending his numbers, but he would disagree with you and say that you are burning more calories if you walk to the store than if you are sitting at home.

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.”

Of course he used beef as the basis of comparison. I imagine there are other foods with lower carbon footprints.

Again, I don't know if any of his numbers are right. But I do think he is trying to make the point that we often think in simplistic terms regarding complex problems and fail to consider all the variables and unintended consequences. And he is saying that nothing is free, not even walking to the store.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JW

I'm not defending his numbers, but he would disagree with you and say that you are burning more calories if you walk to the store than if you are sitting at home.

I understand the point he is making.
Converting gas to food to energy is mush less efficient then converting gas straight energy.
I do not disagree with this.

But I was looking at it from the other end.
If you stop at the store on your way home from work, you are not hurting the environment any more then just driving to work.
If you make a special trip you are.

So, if I am consuming X number of calories anyway, I might as well do something useful with them.
I do not eat more just because I walked to the store.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I understand the point he is making.
Converting gas to food to energy is mush less efficient then converting gas straight energy.
I do not disagree with this.

But I was looking at it from the other end.
If you stop at the store on your way home from work, you are not hurting the environment any more then just driving to work.
If you make a special trip you are.

So, if I am consuming X number of calories anyway, I might as well do something useful with them.
I do not eat more just because I walked to the store.

That all makes sense. I just enjoy his approach that everything isn't what it appears.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

.Hybrid cows now exist which are a cross between the traditional milk-in-quantity producing cow and a breed which is happy to live off of grass. Again, sloppy.

I'm not sure what kind of hybrid cows you may have heard of, but they sure aren't commonplace.

The main breed of dairy cow out there today is your traditional black and white Holstein. They have traditionally been the superior cows in that they have superior production to all other breeds.

The problem these days is that the breeders that offer genetics to the world have taken such a narrow focus that they have created these inbred beasts that milk a ton but are severely lacking in other areas such as reproduction and physical fitness.

I'm currently experimenting on my farm with creating hybrid cows where I mix and match different breeds and try to capture the best combinations of hybrid vigor to create a cow that may milk a little less but on the other hand will eat a little less. I'm looking to scale back their size a little bit as these gigantic cows are too damned brittle and their only redeeming quality is the sheer volume of milk they produce.

So far my experiement has gone much better than planned. I actually haven't lost as much volume of milk as I thought I would, and in the process I've gained so much efficiency in other areas that I wish my old man would've started doing this 10 years ago.

Yet a lot of traditional farmers think I am an absolute nutcase for milking anything that isn't black and white.

I'm fairly confident that I'll have the last laugh when I'll be years ahead of the game when others start to take this up when more studies come out showing that these animals are much more profitable and efficient. The first studies are already showing that.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Bee

If I tried to throw away a plastic or paper grocery store bag, my wife would shoot me. I have no idea what she does with them all, but I do know that I'm not allowed to throw them away.

+1, one of the great mysteries in my life

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by lungs

I'm not sure what kind of hybrid cows you may have heard of, but they sure aren't commonplace.

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest they were commonplace.

And I'll defer to your greater experience on this.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JW

That all makes sense. I just enjoy his approach that everything isn't what it appears.

It is a fresh perspective, which I never thought about, and in that regards it is good.

But the way he put it struck me as twisting the facts a bit to make his point.
There is so much misinformation getting throw about people need to be honest or risk losing their credibility.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by lungs

I'm fairly confident that I'll have the last laugh when I'll be years ahead of the game when others start to take this up when more studies come out showing that these animals are much more profitable and efficient. The first studies are already showing that.

That's very cool to hear - I applaud your creative thinking.

[JW]

But how often do you have to replace the batteries on these hybrid cows?

Sorry. The hybrid cow info is interesting.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Of course, by walking, you may be healthier than a couch potato, which means hospitals and doctors would use less electricity in operating on you (and millions like you) - and for the doctors to drive to the hospital to treat you - and less energy to research and make the drugs to treat you (and millions like you) in your bad sedentary lifestyle, etc. So, I like how he sparks a new way to look at it, but his examples fall well short of supporting any type of argument.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by lungs

I'm not sure what kind of hybrid cows you may have heard of, but they sure aren't commonplace.

The main breed of dairy cow out there today is your traditional black and white Holstein. They have traditionally been the superior cows in that they have superior production to all other breeds.

The problem these days is that the breeders that offer genetics to the world have taken such a narrow focus that they have created these inbred beasts that milk a ton but are severely lacking in other areas such as reproduction and physical fitness.

I'm currently experimenting on my farm with creating hybrid cows where I mix and match different breeds and try to capture the best combinations of hybrid vigor to create a cow that may milk a little less but on the other hand will eat a little less. I'm looking to scale back their size a little bit as these gigantic cows are too damned brittle and their only redeeming quality is the sheer volume of milk they produce.

So far my experiement has gone much better than planned. I actually haven't lost as much volume of milk as I thought I would, and in the process I've gained so much efficiency in other areas that I wish my old man would've started doing this 10 years ago.

Yet a lot of traditional farmers think I am an absolute nutcase for milking anything that isn't black and white.

I'm fairly confident that I'll have the last laugh when I'll be years ahead of the game when others start to take this up when more studies come out showing that these animals are much more profitable and efficient. The first studies are already showing that.

Its a pity that more people don't think out of the box. As I mentioned in another thread, farmers down here are switching to corn and I think that by having a more balanced farm, they will make more money in the long run, rather than chasing the top dollar commodity year to year.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Its a pity that more people don't think out of the box. As I mentioned in another thread, farmers down here are switching to corn and I think that by having a more balanced farm, they will make more money in the long run, rather than chasing the top dollar commodity year to year.

It definitely is. When it comes to cows, there is definitely an old school way of thinking. When farm kids are brought up through 4H clubs and FFA they show cattle at county fairs and such. These cattle are judged based on their appearance and such which is based on a number of factors. Conventional wisdom used to hold that the better looking cows tended to last longer. And this was true. To that end, the artificial insemination industries decided to focus on this, along with production volume.

Fast forward several years. In order to create a more uniform looking cow, the industry steered farmers into doing a lot of inbreeding. In the Holstein breed currently, you can trace 25% of all genes in all Holstein cows in the United States to TWO bulls. When you narrow the genetic base like that, it is only a matter of time before undesirable recessive genes start to express themselves.

Last year, the University of Wisconsin discovered a gene that was linked to early embryonic death. This embryonic death occurs so early that most people would never know there was a pregnancy in the first place. And to top this off, this gene that causes the embryonic death was linked to high milk production.

When I read that study, I pretty much thought "No Shit!". But now I had actual proof of my theory that high producing cows are simply not as fertile. Yet the industry has tried to cover this up by introducing all these hormones and such to help fertility. Granted, these hormones help, but they are more of a band-aid approach than a solution.

So when I was sitting in my college Genetics classes and we started discussing crossbreeding, the light bulb turned on. Why the hell don't people do this in dairy cattle? They do it with other species of animals and plants all the time.

But it all goes back to the old school thinking. Everybody thinks they have to have pure bloodlines in their animals and they absolutely fear losing the high production they've built up over the years. I look at the high production we've built up to be an absolute curse that has sacrificed too much in other areas. The profitability of an animal is so much more than pure volume as any study will show. Reproduction and health are a big part of the puzzle too. We have to feed the animals for at least two years without ever getting a drop of milk out of them. If they aren't healthy enough to stick around, they won't make you a dime.

Well, I guess I've ranted quite a bit here. I'm guessing a lot of what I said here would be common sense to an outsider with a basic understanding of genetics. All jokes about inbreeding among our southern population aside, we all know inbreeding is not a smart thing to do in most cases. I guess I don't consider it a shame that other farmers aren't realizing this. I call that a competitive advantage. But I'm always willing to share my thoughts with other farmers with open minds. But there aren't many out there.

[JW]

One of the unintended consequences of increased corn production in north Louisiana is the effect it has had on the cotton industry, primarily the infrastructure supporting cotton. Many farmers switched to corn to make more money, and one result is that many cotton gins and processing and storage facilities had to close this year. This means people out of work and a negative effect on the economy, even though some of these people will be working supporting corn production and there are of course positive effects of increased corn production. So this one action has more consequences than people usually think about. Now for all I know switching for corn might have an overall positive effect on the economy here, and you certainly can't blame the farmers from growing what they think will make them the most money, but like any change, it also has some negative effects.