Car travel is less carbon intensive than walking

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

From the Freakonomics blog:

When it comes to saving the environment, things are often not as simple as they seem at first blush.

-snip-

At least some choices are beyond reproach environmentally. It is clearly better for the environment to walk to the corner store rather than to drive there. Right?

Now even this seemingly obvious conclusion is being called into question by Chris Goodall via John Tierney’s blog. And Chris Goodall is no right-wing nut; he is an environmentalist and author of the book How to Live a Low-Carbon Life.

Tierney writes:

If you walk 1.5 miles, Mr. Goodall calculates, and replace those calories by drinking about a cup of milk, the greenhouse emissions connected with that milk (like methane from the dairy farm and carbon dioxide from the delivery truck) are just about equal to the emissions from a typical car making the same trip. And if there were two of you making the trip, then the car would definitely be the more planet-friendly way to go.

So, if you want to be green, you should stop the walking and start driving to the store.

Be Green: Drive - Freakonomics

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/how-virtuous-is-ed-begley-jr/

[Kythereia]

:dubious: :dubious: :dubious:

Surely I can’t be the only one who finds this premise flawed. People go on walks… and immediately refresh themselves with glasses of milk?

[Lobsang]

You are not Kytheria.

And I suspect things are even more complicated than they state. For instance I don’t think there was an entire delivery truck devoted to my glass of milk.

To be more serious about it… the things associated with these tiny consumptions are going to happen whether we have that glass of milk or not…
And…diddly…and. If we walk more… we might actually consume less as part of being healthier.

Car drivers might consume a lot more food on average than people who walk.

[Geek_Mecha]

So, if you want to be green, you should stop the walking and start driving to the store.

No, you should walk and not drink the milk. :dubious:

[Lobsang]

What if I drink petrol?

[freckafree]

@Lobsang

What if I drink petrol?

Not recommended. It will make you very gassy.

[pravnik]

Oh, nevermind.

[WhyNot]

@AudreyK

No, you should walk and not drink the milk. :dubious:

So…how are you fueling your body? I don’t think his point was that milk, in particular, is the problem here, but that adding up the environmental impact of what we do is a tricky thing, and that even walking - which seems “free” - burns calories that have to be replaced, and food has an environmental impact as well as cars.

I’m intrigued, although not yet sold, on this notion.

[scout1222]

@freckafree

Not recommended. It will make you very gassy.

BWA!!

[Triskadecamus]

I just have a few sincere questions, Two and a half.

Does this little factoid actually convince you of something? Do you really find it relevant?

Accurate, or not, provable or not, are not my questions.

My questions are:
Do you personally actually believe this?
Do you personally find the logic and evidence behind it to be useful in forming your opinions?

Tris

[Mahna_Mahna]

Or you could replace those calories with a home-grown tomato that has been grown from heirloom organic seed, fertilized with your own poop and watered with old bathwater… and still keep walking, smug in the knowledge that you are the most earth-friendly person around.

I think you’ve missed the point by a mile. The author is saying that you should consider that every action that seems environmentally friendly at face value may have unexpected not-so-friendly repercussions hiding below the surface, and that you need to consider every single aspect of your life when calculating your impact to the planet.

[WF_Tomba]

@WhyNot

So…how are you fueling your body? I don’t think his point was that milk, in particular, is the problem here, but that adding up the environmental impact of what we do is a tricky thing, and that even walking - which seems “free” - burns calories that have to be replaced, and food has an environmental impact as well as cars.

I’m intrigued, although not yet sold, on this notion.

It’s a good point, but at least as far as Americans are concerned, we eat more than enough to replace the calories we burn, and walking more won’t necessarily cause us to eat more.

[Mangetout]

@Lobsang

You are not Kytheria.

And I suspect things are even more complicated than they state. For instance I don’t think there was an entire delivery truck devoted to my glass of milk.

Oh, I bet there’s a great deal of dishonesty in that thing - for example, the the carbon in the milk was absorbed from the atmosphere when the plants grew that fed the cow. Also, when you drive your car, you don’t completely stop exhaling carbon dioxide.

[Smeghead]

Also, cows fart like you wouldn’t believe.

[Geek_Mecha]

@WhyNot

So…how are you fueling your body? I don’t think his point was that milk, in particular, is the problem here, but that adding up the environmental impact of what we do is a tricky thing, and that even walking - which seems “free” - burns calories that have to be replaced, and food has an environmental impact as well as cars.

Well sure, I do eat, but I don’t “replace those calories” after walking to the store or any other minor physical activity. The act of walking to the store isn’t going to add to my environmental footprint.

Besides, we’re not weighing these costs fairly. If we’re counting the methane from cow farts and delivery truck CO2, then why aren’t we also refilling the car’s gas tank by the amount it took to drive to the store, and then calculating the environmental impact of refining oil into gasoline and hauling it to the gas station?

[What_Exit]

This is some junk science at its worse. Thank you for sharing this stupidity before it could surprise us from some other source.

[elbows]

I thought we were fighting ignorance here.

Such a one trick pony.

How does this not qualify as ‘being a jerk’, he’s not asking anything, won’t defend his crap.

I don’t get why this poster is continually allowed to do this, perhaps someone can enlighten me.

[Hypno-Toad]

The premise seems to assume that I’m going to drink milk if I walk to the store but not if I drive. Buddy, my body needs nourishment whether I walk or drive.

[Mangetout]

@Hypno-Toad

The premise seems to assume that I’m going to drink milk if I walk to the store but not if I drive. Buddy, my body needs nourishment whether I walk or drive.

Your body will require more nourishment if you walk than drive though - the energy to propel you there has to come from somewhere. But it’s the height of absurdity to suggest that driving is more efficient (energy and carbon-wise) than walking.

[matt_mcl]

@Mangetout

Your body will require more nourishment if you walk than drive though - the energy to propel you there has to come from somewhere. But it’s the height of absurdity to suggest that driving is more efficient (energy and carbon-wise) than walking.

It’ll require more nourishment, but it probably won’t get more nourishment, or rather, you probably won’t eat less if you drive. That being the case, it’s trivially obvious that CO[sub]2[/sub](glass of milk + car) < CO[sub]2[/sub](glass of milk).