timesonline.co.uk — Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated. 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
Aug 4, 2007 View in Crawl 4
sepelesterAug 5, 2007
This doesn't mean that driving a car is better for the environment than walking as you would hardly think of walking 100+ miles to visit a friend over the day. With statistics, you can fool anyone.
jessejAug 6, 2007
You need education.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2007
Maybe this is comment abuse.... but after reading the article.......WHY DO WE EVEN f**kING TRY ANYMORE?!? According to the enviros...WE WILL DESTROY THE EARTH NO MATTER WHAT.....ESPECIALLY IF we try to "help" the environment.......it's a no-win situation.It makes me sad. :(
aoeguyAug 6, 2007
The theory of carbon emissions destroying the atmosphere is complete baloney. Go watch the BBC Documentary on how GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!
catatonicAug 6, 2007
This article is flawed.....walking is only reasonable for a 1mi or less distance when shopping, from a time perspective.Any further than that, a bicycle is the best option. A bicycle fitted with a basket, or a rack with grocery bag panniers (saddlebags for the non-cycling crowd) can haul most anything you would buy for a small trip.If you frequently buy large items (lumber, etc), Xtracycle makes a bike (and a bicycle conversion kit for your existing bike) that's big enough to hold passengers or carry up to two full size bicycles. I've been considering buying one for a while....but have no clue where to fit it, living in an apartment and all. They aren't small, that's for sure.And on a side note....the 3mi walker would be more fit than the driver, thus more energy efficient throughout the day, am I right? I'm a heavy cyclist myself (we call ourselves clydesdales), and it's a fact that mile per mile I use more calories at the same speed a rider with a lower weight would use (weight/aerodynamic disadvantages).
horrorshow119Sep 13, 2007
The experiment relies on you getting all of your energy from beef. Not only is beef relatively low in energy, but the beef industry produces a lot of atmospheric carbon. Now I'm not suggesting we all become a vegetarian, but I'm just pointing out that the vegetables, and vegetable products (bread, rice, pasta etc.) that you eat are not this harmful. Think about all the atmospheric carbon that has gone INTO the apple tree.
bowgoodgirlDec 13, 2007
First choise of shopping online <a class="user" href="http://www.1st-shoppingonline.com">http://www.1st-shoppingonline.com</a>