Walking does more damage to the environment than driving

[numbercruncher]

After reading this it makes you think that maybe we are toast, perhaps we are trapped on a climate change rollercoaster that cant be stopped short of mass death of our species?

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.

What if, instead of beef, the walker drank a glass of milk? The average person would need to drink 420ml – three quarters of a pint – to recover the calories used in the walk. Modern dairy farming emits the equivalent of 1.2kg of CO2 to produce the milk, still more pollution than the car journey.

So it seems we should be instructed to drive more, eat less, cross our fingers until they revolutionise our farming methods!

 

[insider]

Re: Global Warming - walking does more damage to the Enviroment than Driving

BS dude... The sun is our main source of energy....

 

[chops_a_must]

"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."

Carbon will be emitted in the same amounts whether we eat the food or not. And with people still going hungry, and the increasing demand in biofuels, I can't see a reduction in the growing of food happening.

But it's another way that statistics can be skewed. If we all excercised more and ate less, then the statistics would show that there would be less calories per distance walked... simple.

 

[Smurf1976]

And this is precisely why biofuels such as ethanol are no solution to any future shortage of oil. It takes more energy (from fossil fuels) to produce most agricultural crops than they contain.

 

[moses]

And this is precisely why biofuels such as ethanol are no solution to any future shortage of oil. It takes more energy (from fossil fuels) to produce most agricultural crops than they contain.

Or solar cells. I'm told by a moderately reliable source that a solar voltaic cell requires more electrical energy to manufacture than it will ever produce in its lifetime.

Anyone able to confirm this?

 

[Jikx]

Or solar cells. I'm told by a moderately reliable source that a solar voltaic cell requires more electrical energy to manufacture than it will ever produce in its lifetime.

Anyone able to confirm this?

Energy payback is between 1-5 years. I don't see why such rumours still exist when there is a thing called the internet :/

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37322.pdf

 

[Julia]

How reliable is this latest piece of bad news? Who said it and where?
Just to nitpick, I don't see how they can determine the precise amount of milk which would need to be consumed to replace the used calories, when said no. of calories has not been determined or the distance to the shops stated.
(Heavens, I must be bored to even think about this!)

 

[arminius]

how about we put an end to this absurd notion.

 

[Julia]

Agreed. The logical conclusion would be that we could all simply cease to exist in order to save the planet.

 

[Smurf1976]

Agreed. The logical conclusion would be that we could all simply cease to exist in order to save the planet.

Ignoring the bit about walking for the moment, the underlying issue is absolutely serious.

In short, modern agriculture works only with an ongoing fossil fuel energy input. That is very different to traditional agriculture relying on the sun only.

Given that not even the optimists expect the abundance of oil and gas to last more than another few decades, the ability to keep 6.6 billion or so people on this planet would seem to be under a very real threat. Traditional agrigulture produces food, but not on the same scale that we're eating today.

This issue ranks well ahead of terrorism, interest rates etc in importance in my opinion. I'm not worried about having to drive less (or not at all). But not being able to continue eating would be a rather big problem...

 

[numbercruncher]

Ignoring the bit about walking for the moment, the underlying issue is absolutely serious.

In short, modern agriculture works only with an ongoing fossil fuel energy input. That is very different to traditional agriculture relying on the sun only.

Given that not even the optimists expect the abundance of oil and gas to last more than another few decades, the ability to keep 6.6 billion or so people on this planet would seem to be under a very real threat. Traditional agrigulture produces food, but not on the same scale that we're eating today.

This issue ranks well ahead of terrorism, interest rates etc in importance in my opinion. I'm not worried about having to drive less (or not at all). But not being able to continue eating would be a rather big problem...

My sentiments exactly .......

Once the oil age ends the Planet simply cannot support this massive population. People completely underestimate how Oil has been the single most important factor in Increasing population from 1 biliion to over 6 in 100 years.

Coupled with issues like Drought in Australia destroying the Wheat yield, Floods in India destroying the Rice, Drought in Africa destroying crops and evaporating what little water there was, Places like the USA turning food producing farmlands into Biofuel crops .... the list gos on .... Big dramas ahead for food availability, but well be ok here Downunder with our small population ...... You can expect we will be a tasty target/destination though for those less fortunate!


What a world my Kiddies have to look forward to ...... Id like to be a fly on the wall when the troubles turn from desperate to a matter of survival

 

[noirua]

If you want your walking footwear to live a long, adventure-filled life, it's important to take good care of it. Here’s a quick step-by-step guide on how to prolong the life of your gear.

Step 1: Scrub clean

Take a stiff brush and warm water and remove the worst of the mud and debris from the upper and sole of the shoe. If you want to give them a deep clean, Nikwax Footwear Cleaning Gel is an easy-to-use product that works a treat.

Step 2: Remove moisture

Even though walking footwear is usually waterproof, moisture from your sweat can still cause them to become slightly damp. Moisture-absorbing products help to draw this moisture out of the material and neutralise odours at the same time. Alternatively, leave them by a radiator or in the airing cupboard until thoroughly dried out before storing them in a dry space until the next use.

Step 3: Reproof

All waterproof products need reproofing every once in a while to maintain their peak performance. Footwear is no different, so be sure to pick up some repellent such as Grangers Universal Footwear Repel alongside your new boots or shoes. It’s really easy to apply and takes just a few seconds. If your boots are leather, you could condition them with Granger’s G-Wax instead, which helps to soften the leather, reduce cracking and provides an extra layer of waterproof protection. Just make sure to let your footwear dry out after you’ve applied either of these solutions.

Step 4: Check before you trek

Failing to prepare is preparing to fail. Best practice is to perform gear checks on all your clothing and equipment before you hit the trail. Check your soles for signs of wear and look for any weak spots in the stitching to the upper. If you spot an issue, it may not be the end of the road for your laced companions. Some manufacturers like Scarpa offer a resoling service which will be cheaper than the cost of a new pair and better for the environment too