1) Based on emissions of UK vehicles, not US vehicles (we're one of the worst!)
2) Assuming that you would only use beef to fuel yourself for a walk!
3) In the US, most people are probably eating that much food anyway. So it's not use X amount of food OR burn Y amount of gasoline.
Um, yeah. That's an argument for eating less beef, not for driving more. And has anyone attempted to measure the carbon imprint of the health effects of not getting enough exercise?
I think its just a fun way of pointing out that our current methods of food production really suck. Aside from the beef-heavy arguments in the article, I think we take for granted the impact there is for us to have.. say.. oranges in January. Or apples in April.
Leaning towards the Hundred Mile Diet (http://100milediet.org/), one of the things that makes a difference is learning to eat seasonally, using food preservation as necessary, and making sure that you aren't importing food from thousands of miles away. Some of that does mean diet and preference changes, but that is the kind of thing that makes a difference.
The the carbon footprint of drinking milk instead of eating beef is 1/3rd as big??? Something is wrong here. Argument is invalid in at least a couple ways.
What they said. I've managed to cut most beef out of my diet, since the meat industry is so spectacularly bad. Of course, I still eat fish, and the fishing industry is killing us as well. ugh.
It is COMPLETELY WRONG in context, that's why you have a hard time believing it.
They are measuring your walking caloric expenditure and comparing that to the car - but they're only going by distance, not including a few things that radically change the equation:
1) Cars don't just go from "home to store". They have to park (and find parking), they often have to take one way routes more circuitous than walking, and they sit in traffic.
2) Making the car in the first place, maintaining it, and building and replacing/maintaining roads is horribly carbon intensive, as is shipping you all that fuel. They're counting the carbon output of production of food here, but not the carbon output of production of the vehicle and its fuel.
3) You're still burning calories when you're in the car.
Yeah, it seems the answer is not driving more, but eating less, and eating less out of season unnaturally grown stuff. Of course, its nice to see an article mentioning the pointlessness of recycling.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-08-06 02:55 pm (UTC)2) Assuming that you would only use beef to fuel yourself for a walk!
3) In the US, most people are probably eating that much food anyway. So it's not use X amount of food OR burn Y amount of gasoline.
Um, yeah. That's an argument for eating less beef, not for driving more. And has anyone attempted to measure the carbon imprint of the health effects of not getting enough exercise?
no subject
Date: 2007-08-06 02:57 pm (UTC)Leaning towards the Hundred Mile Diet (http://100milediet.org/), one of the things that makes a difference is learning to eat seasonally, using food preservation as necessary, and making sure that you aren't importing food from thousands of miles away. Some of that does mean diet and preference changes, but that is the kind of thing that makes a difference.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-06 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-06 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-06 07:07 pm (UTC)They are measuring your walking caloric expenditure and comparing that to the car - but they're only going by distance, not including a few things that radically change the equation:
1) Cars don't just go from "home to store". They have to park (and find parking), they often have to take one way routes more circuitous than walking, and they sit in traffic.
2) Making the car in the first place, maintaining it, and building and replacing/maintaining roads is horribly carbon intensive, as is shipping you all that fuel. They're counting the carbon output of production of food here, but not the carbon output of production of the vehicle and its fuel.
3) You're still burning calories when you're in the car.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-06 07:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-06 10:24 pm (UTC)