Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think a distinction can be made between a scientific study, and extracts from a book that relies largely on 3rd party statistics and focuses on a single geographical area.

To you maybe.

To most people - I would think...

I think things like this point out the total lack of understanding the GW bunch have. Some scientist observes that the planet is warming and everyone assumes that we are causing it. (Even though the planet has warmed and cooled long before we got here) So they say we must do this and that to "save the planet" and it turns out they make things worse than before. They don't think, they react.

When you say, 'GW Bunch', you can't be talking about the unanimous consensus of climate scientists around the world. You're reacting to those who react to the scientific reports. Some people take things to an extreme, but they aren't the scientists.

[L_n_O 3]

odd

[thetreble 19]

people telling people to drive instead of walk? that's good for our health.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

people telling people to drive instead of walk? that's good for our health.

Exactly! It appears that not everything was factored into the equation.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

If people became couch potatoes, they would get sick more often (lack of excersise depresses the inmune system) and consequently, they would need more medicine

and if they need more medicine, what about the energy that would go to manufacturing and transporting that medicine...and so...gas emissions

didn't factor that in the equation

Caro

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If people became couch potatoes, they would get sick more often (lack of excersise depresses the inmune system) and consequently, they would need more medicine

and if they need more medicine, what about the energy that would go to manufacturing and transporting that medicine...and so...gas emissions

didn't factor that in the equation

Caro

Yes. It also assumes that people only consume enough calories to burn, but obviously couch potatoes consume more than they burn.

[GaryC 7]

When you say, 'GW Bunch', you can't be talking about the unanimous consensus of climate scientists around the world. You're reacting to those who react to the scientific reports. Some people take things to an extreme, but they aren't the scientists.

HEHEHE!!! There you go again! Got your blinders on again? We really don't want to get into the dueling links again do we? It's hardly a consensus let alone a unanimous one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When you say, 'GW Bunch', you can't be talking about the unanimous consensus of climate scientists around the world. You're reacting to those who react to the scientific reports. Some people take things to an extreme, but they aren't the scientists.

HEHEHE!!! There you go again! Got your blinders on again? We really don't want to get into the dueling links again do we? It's hardly a consensus let alone a unanimous one.

From what I've read - its mostly in the US that there's a 'debate'. Then again outside of the US - you don't have oil company execs running the country's energy policy in the brazen way that ####### Cheney is running it out of his office.

[GaryC 7]

When you say, 'GW Bunch', you can't be talking about the unanimous consensus of climate scientists around the world. You're reacting to those who react to the scientific reports. Some people take things to an extreme, but they aren't the scientists.

HEHEHE!!! There you go again! Got your blinders on again? We really don't want to get into the dueling links again do we? It's hardly a consensus let alone a unanimous one.

From what I've read - its mostly in the US that there's a 'debate'. Then again outside of the US - you don't have oil company execs running the country's energy policy in the brazen way that ####### Cheney is running it out of his office.

You guys are funny to watch!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When you say, 'GW Bunch', you can't be talking about the unanimous consensus of climate scientists around the world. You're reacting to those who react to the scientific reports. Some people take things to an extreme, but they aren't the scientists.

HEHEHE!!! There you go again! Got your blinders on again? We really don't want to get into the dueling links again do we? It's hardly a consensus let alone a unanimous one.

From what I've read - its mostly in the US that there's a 'debate'. Then again outside of the US - you don't have oil company execs running the country's energy policy in the brazen way that ####### Cheney is running it out of his office.

You guys are funny to watch!!!

Gary - if you go outside of the US you won't find a massive, convoluted debate about climate change.

[Caladan 19]

It's not the absolute costs that count, but the net costs. Do a little math with me. Yes, eating causes CO2 production... but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all the people who drive their cars to the shops probably eat just like the people walking. Net advantage: walkers.

The guy's overall point, that modern agriculture wastes a lot of fuel, is quite correct.

[GaryC 7]

When you say, 'GW Bunch', you can't be talking about the unanimous consensus of climate scientists around the world. You're reacting to those who react to the scientific reports. Some people take things to an extreme, but they aren't the scientists.

HEHEHE!!! There you go again! Got your blinders on again? We really don't want to get into the dueling links again do we? It's hardly a consensus let alone a unanimous one.

From what I've read - its mostly in the US that there's a 'debate'. Then again outside of the US - you don't have oil company execs running the country's energy policy in the brazen way that ####### Cheney is running it out of his office.

You guys are funny to watch!!!

Gary - if you go outside of the US you won't find a massive, convoluted debate about climate change.

So? That doesn't mean that they are right. Man-made global warming is junk science. I can show you enough respected climate scientists that will agree with that to blow this consensus idea away. And as time goes by more and more are seeing the error of their ways.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not the absolute costs that count, but the net costs. Do a little math with me. Yes, eating causes CO2 production... but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all the people who drive their cars to the shops probably eat just like the people walking. Net advantage: walkers.

The guy's overall point, that modern agriculture wastes a lot of fuel, is quite correct.

Absolutely - and attention should be drawn to that as much as on mass transit, power generation, or switching off lights you aren't using.

Again the comparison between driving and walking is rather simplistic in that CO2 is not the only by-product of fossil fuel engines - and there are other emissions which are just as, if not more harmful.

In that respect I think the author is pointing out some general points for consideration - but if people are taking his claims to that extreme (his analyses are based on 3rd party statistics) - I'd say they're merely hijacking it for their own purposes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When you say, 'GW Bunch', you can't be talking about the unanimous consensus of climate scientists around the world. You're reacting to those who react to the scientific reports. Some people take things to an extreme, but they aren't the scientists.

HEHEHE!!! There you go again! Got your blinders on again? We really don't want to get into the dueling links again do we? It's hardly a consensus let alone a unanimous one.

From what I've read - its mostly in the US that there's a 'debate'. Then again outside of the US - you don't have oil company execs running the country's energy policy in the brazen way that ####### Cheney is running it out of his office.

You guys are funny to watch!!!

Gary - if you go outside of the US you won't find a massive, convoluted debate about climate change.

So? That doesn't mean that they are right. Man-made global warming is junk science. I can show you enough respected climate scientists that will agree with that to blow this consensus idea away. And as time goes by more and more are seeing the error of their ways.

At the least - I think you should ask yourself why it isn't a big issue outside of the US. Given the way that this country's energy policy has been, and is being run by special interests attached to multi-national oil companies - I'd say the answer is rather obvious.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Number 6

[JVKn'CVO 11]

If people became couch potatoes, they would get sick more often (lack of excersise depresses the inmune system) and consequently, they would need more medicine

and if they need more medicine, what about the energy that would go to manufacturing and transporting that medicine...and so...gas emissions

didn't factor that in the equation

Caro

Yes. It also assumes that people only consume enough calories to burn, but obviously couch potatoes consume more than they burn.

More on sedentarism

The increasing incidence of sedentarism over the last three decades is a growing health concern for the U.S. population. It is estimated that 35% of deaths from coronary heart disease (CHD), 32% of deaths from colorectal cancer, and 35% of deaths from diabetes can be directly attributed to sedentarism and overweight (Powell & Blair, 1994). In 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that sedentarism is a major public health burden, and its eradication is one of the prime objectives to improve health across all ages of the U.S. population. It is alarming that children have adopted many of the deleterious behavior and lifestyle patterns of the adult population, and are becoming increasingly sedentary and overweight (Davidson & Birch, 2001; Hunter, Bamman, & Hester, 2000). Obesity and sedentarism are intricately linked conditions. Together, they are responsible for a large number of chronic diseases, impaired physical functioning, and decreased quality of life. Obesity and sedentarism lead to over 300,000 premature deaths per year and result in over $90 billion per year in direct health costs (Manson, Skerrett, Greeland, & VanItallie, 2004). The problem of sedentarism is not limited to the United States. In the World Health Organization's "Global Burden of Disease Study," sedentarism is identified as a major risk factor threatening global health (Ezzati, Lopez, Rodgers, Vander Hoorn, & Murry, 2003).

Think of all the gas emissions released during the production of the medication for all this

Source= http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5051516_ITM