[Steve.J.Davies]

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

[Badger0-0]

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.

Utter rubbish, IMO.

What about the energy involved in making the car, not to mention the energy used in getting the fuel in the first place and transporting it etc

[Artie Fufkin]

It sure shows how complex this issue is - mind you, I'm sure someone will come along an do an "ad hominem" on it .

I really am turning towards joining the "why bother" brigade - my efforts mean nothing in the grand scheme.

[Steve.J.Davies]

It is even more complex when you look at the whole life 'costs' of a car. e.g. the Prius (friend of greens) scores really badly. Hence the name maybe....
Public
Relations
Is
US

[Badger0-0]

Very clever

It is complex, without a doubt.

[njp]

The rather obvious objection to the argument is that it supposes the walker eats more than the car driver in order to supply the extra energy. In reality, the car driver is likely to eat the same amount as the walker (or perhaps more, since the walker may be more health conscious), and simply gets fatter as a result, causing his car to burn more fuel.

In any case, fat people, as everybody knows, are the True Cause of Global Warming.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by njp

In any case, fat people, as everybody knows, are the True Cause of Global Warming.

[loz]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

What about the energy involved in making the car, not to mention the energy used in getting the fuel in the first place and transporting it etc

But what about the energy used running a farm, making an abatoire, cold storage, and getting the beef to your supermarket, where it is kept in a refrigerator?

Who said energy use comparisons were easy

[Badger0-0]

Agreed

But to suggest that driving is better than not is just pure rubbish and should be put down for what it is, ie pure tosh.

Just another load of rubbish from the Times, which is business oriented and has most to lose

[Steve.J.Davies]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

Agreed

But to suggest that driving is better than not is just pure rubbish and should be put down for what it is, ie pure tosh.

Just another load of rubbish from the Times, which is business oriented and has most to lose

The Times didn't produce the study, merely reported on them.

http://www.lowcarbonlife.net/downloads/beef.pdf
http://environment.newscientist.com/...vironment.html

reported in many other places also
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=ca...s=&safe=images


Trying to shoot the messenger does not change the message.

[Badger0-0]

I know your thoughts on the subject mate, so won't bother reading them

You either believe we're affecting things or you don't.

You're in the latter group, I'm in the former.

Which is all well and good

But I do wonder if you have a hidden agenda, seeing as you raise the subject so often.

Just my opinion, the way I see it, no offence meant

This doesn't seem to take into account that it is often two people that make the shopping trip, and if they have children maybe more.

I guess that tilts it even further in favour of the car.

[Badger0-0]

I guess you should drive your car more often then, as it's obviously good for the planet.

This is not aimed at you, but what an utter joke, IMO

[loz]

Originally Posted by Badger0-0

I guess you should drive your car more often then, as it's obviously good for the planet.

Surely, the important point is that driving your car is the vegitarian option, rather than eating beef.

[MikeTV]

Well, I'm just glad I only have to walk about 500 yards to the shops, and not 3 miles. I can have my cake and not eat it.

[Jonstone]

What if you are doing a weekly shop?

You can get it all in one trip in a car but you would have to make multiple trips on foot as you would never be able to carry it all

Well damn, I guess I'll just buy a Hummer and drive around all day saving the planet.

I imagine the original study was supposed to highlight how much co2 is being emitted by the meat industry, not trying to make some stupid claim that driving is better for the planet.

I read an article saying that Hummers are more green than Priuses, because of the production of the vehicles. Even if this is true, it's probably because hybrid engine production is a new process and will be refined over time.

Can we please stop making excuses for our reckless disregard for the environment?

[mrm3]

Originally Posted by stratagem

This doesn't seem to take into account that it is often two people that make the shopping trip, and if they have children maybe more.

I guess that tilts it even further in favour of the car.

Walking to the shops with 2 kids is a mission full stop !

[mrm3]

Hmmm I knew it. We should stop people doing pointless exercise in gyms unless they generate energy.

Olympic rowers burn 7000 cals a day.

Plus living longer has a bigger impact on env.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by kherm

I really am turning towards joining the "why bother" brigade - my efforts mean nothing in the grand scheme.

No they don't. We all appreciate your efforts, that has got to mean something.
And don't do anything for the sake of Climate Change, do it for yourself! Every pound you don't spend on heating, every litre of fuel you don't put in your car, all the money you save on not having to buy that slightly larger pair of jeans, it's all money in your back pocket.

Back on topic, if you believe everything that's printed, soon beef won't be available, because all the grain its currently fed on will be going to make biofuel.
So you will be able to drive to the shops, but there won't be any beef available. Then the next step will be everyone is allocated a certain weight of grain, which they can eat or use to fuel their cars. It will be interesting to see how many people starve themselves rather than go without a car

[Corey USA]

we keep forgetting one key thing mentioned in the article the food is energy intensive.... Why?

Food mileage is one reason we are obsessed with having things out of season and such so food will travel around the world.

This would not be an issue if food was local. It would not be an issue if we were responsible in which foods we grow that are less energy intensive. Wheat is energy intensive in that it needs a lot of water. Same thing with rice. growing gardens is not that energy intensive in that if you do it yourself by hand then there is no machinery involved other than in grinding or canning. Even then it can be kept to a minimum in that you use a human powered grinder via stationary bike belted to the flywheel of the grinder.

Fat people are an issue in that not because they are fat but the root of the problem in that the fat person is "over consuming" If they consumed the appropriate amount they wouldn't be fat to begin with.

This also sounds like tobacco industry tactics employed by energy industry.

Food it self is not the problem it is how we produce and use it. Any body consider that the food for biofuels may also be factored in, in that it is covered under the AG industry. So food based biofuels maybe being factored in to coming up with those calculations when they use the energy it took to raise the food.(oil that ran the equipment).

the study did not mention the health cost of unfit bodies that don't exercise it is extremely energy intensive to treat sick people. Think of all the process that goes into diagnostic , producing of medicines, specialized equipment, etc.

The medical field has been given exempt to energy use so no one actually studies how energy and resource intensive it is to keep sick people alive.

If this was factored in I bet you my life that it would swing back in favor of walking vs driving. "total cost." Had some practice working with this.

Kherm People like yourself and I when added together does make a difference. Keep up the good fight and know this: more people are jumping on the band wagon when they find out how easy it really is. Also when they find out they don't need to give everything up, just change how they do things.

[toycollector]

I watched a programme over the weekend that said the production of cement produced more CO2 than all the air traffic in the world.
True or false?
If true, why have we not heard of this?

[njp]

Originally Posted by toycollector

I watched a programme over the weekend that said the production of cement produced more CO2 than all the air traffic in the world.
True or false?
If true, why have we not heard of this?

True. You would have heard of it if you'd read the IPCC reports...

[Corey USA]

One of the other reasons you would not hear it outside of IPCC is that industry does not want you to know about this for there is no easy fix to replace cement at least no cheap alternatives.

there maybe alternatives but it would not fit into the current economic business model so it is not pursued in that we only view wealth as a gain in $$ not the gain in other terms.

any alternatives that does not give a +$$ flow is ejected regardless of all its other benefits.

[ad47uk]

Originally Posted by kherm

It sure shows how complex this issue is - mind you, I'm sure someone will come along an do an "ad hominem" on it .

I really am turning towards joining the "why bother" brigade - my efforts mean nothing in the grand scheme.

That is the reason why I don't bother,

[blearyeyes]

Originally Posted by toycollector

I watched a programme over the weekend that said the production of cement produced more CO2 than all the air traffic in the world.
True or false?
If true, why have we not heard of this?

Probably because until the PC days we now live in with constant guilt over our carbon footprints, nobody gave a toss. I was in Papaua New guinea 13 years ago and witnessed the 'environmental damage' a small volcano inflicts on both the human and natural environment. The main town of Rabaul was covered in ash to a depth of 30 feet and the surrounding bush was totally destroyed. It looked look a scene from Hiroshima! However an erruption on the same scale happened almost 60 years before with the same effects and yet the place recovered totally within that time. Incidentally, the ash is now being processed into cement by Japanese companies, so I am on thread!

The point is, nature can destroy itself on a scale we cannot begin to comprehend and also to heal itself over time.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

The point is, nature can destroy itself on a scale we cannot begin to comprehend and also to heal itself over time.

The point is, if MMGW exists, it will be very expensive for humans to deal with its effects. Much cheaper for us to take action now.

[Stephen Wilde]

Is it demonstrably cheaper to start dealing with the alleged effects of MMGW now ?

I think that could be highly contentious because you have to factor in the possibility that it is an entire waste of time and might well have counterproductive and unforseen consequences.

The real problems being population, pollution and resource depletion any attempt to centre action around MMGW could well skew the decisions made so that those other problems are less well analysed and dealt with. Many actions could theoretically reduce MMGW but have aggravating effects on those other problems. Iron filings in the oceans and other grandiose schemes that have been mentioned come to mind.

Am I right in thinking these discussions have become more civilised, thoughtful and wider ranging over the past few days ?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Am I right in thinking these discussions have become more civilised, thoughtful and wider ranging over the past few days ?

RUBBISH!

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Is it demonstrably cheaper to start dealing with the alleged effects of MMGW now ?

I think that could be highly contentious because you have to factor in the possibility that it is an entire waste of time and might well have counterproductive and unforseen consequences.

The real problems being population, pollution and resource depletion any attempt to centre action around MMGW could well skew the decisions made so that those other problems are less well analysed and dealt with. Many actions could theoretically reduce MMGW but have aggravating effects on those other problems. Iron filings in the oceans and other grandiose schemes that have been mentioned come to mind.

Demonstrably cheaper? Not necessarily, but it's a huge gamble.

And many of the remedies involve saving money anyway - low energy light bulbs and turning off kit that doesn't need to be on standby. I replugged my kit using a remote control mains switch so that only the Sky box, router and VCR are left on standby. TV, Amp, CD player, DVD player, Freeview box, Xbox360 all go off.

Our leaders have disounted the possibility that's its all a waste of time.

I can't easily see any mechanism whereby it could be counterproductive to use less energy and pollute less. To try and interfere more to counter MMGW I would not like at all. Then you are begging for the law of unintended consequences to come and bite you.