August 5, 2007

Starve For Mother Gaia

According to Dominic Kennedy at the Times of London, taking a walk to local shops increases global warming more than taking a car there. In fact, the diesel locomotives used for mass transit do more damage than the individual cars of those who eschew public transit do, and food production is the biggest culprit of all. Starving for Mother Gaia may be the only option left (via Memeorandum):

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. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

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.

“The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better.”

I'd like to form a new environmental group -- Couch Potatoes To Save The Earth! The CPSE would insist that people do their part by relaxing on weekends instead of attempting to go shopping at malls, mow lawns, or do anything that requires any expenditure of excess energy. That way, we can get by while eating less, and therefore battle global warming.

Members of the CPSE would mostly consist of husbands and teenagers. We will insist that this is a coincidence.

These calculations do have a serious point, however. They demonstrate the folly of insisting on particular solutions without thinking the energy equations all the way through. One recent example is the electric car. Environmental activists insisted that consumers should start buying electrical cars, and that the government should subsidize them. They seemed to forget that electricity generally comes from coal in this country, and that the much-maligned internal combustion engine actually burns gasoline much more efficiently than most electrical plants burn coal. The disposal of the batteries also never got much attention, but that was a different environmental problem.

Kennedy focuses mostly on food production in this column. Food production uses a tremendous amount of energy, but what's the alternative? He quotes experts as advising people to "avoid supermarkets" and to reject frozen foods and meals as especially wasteful. It would be better to have fewer choices, less nutrition and balance, and more starvation, according to this worldview. Kennedy admits that only a vegan would choose to live this way, and even then, they'd have to drive their cars hungry to the organic grocers every other day to buy and keep their food fresh enough to eat without freezing or long-term refrigeration.

Oh, but I forgot -- organic agriculture wastes even more energy than the industrialized version.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/10789

Comments (30)

Posted by filistro | August 5, 2007 12:52 PM

Why don't those clever liberals just tax plumpness?

Say, 10 bucks a year for every pound you exceed your ideal weight. In one fell swoop we could save the environment AND the health care system.

And with the proceeds, we could fix all the infrastructure!

Posted by Uncle Ben | August 5, 2007 1:29 PM

It's like these people are puppies with ADHD chasing their tails and too dizzy to have a clue what's going on. It almost makes me wonder if they can wipe their butt without consulting an environmental trade publication.

Posted by MarkJ | August 5, 2007 1:38 PM

Dear filistro,

I know you're being faceitious, but this story indicates you are closer to the truth than you may realize:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/03/nhs303.xml

Posted by Conchem | August 5, 2007 1:54 PM

Captain, another recent example is the fraud known as transportation ethanol from corn. The economics, either energy-wise or money-wise, are not there. Ethaol from corn is like taking corn and burning it in your furnace for heat and steam. Food crops should never be used to produce a fuel for transportation or for heat. Only corn byproducts and other crop byproducts should be used for this purpose. Food crops should be used to feed people and animals, period.

conchem

Posted by Tom Holsinger | August 5, 2007 2:03 PM

Ed,

It's really meat-eating which causes the greatest greenhouse gas emissions. Converting one greenie to vegetarianism will do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than making ten energy-hogs swap their Hummers for Toyota Priuses.

So tell the fools that you'll give up your SUV only when they give up their big Mac's.

Posted by peterargus | August 5, 2007 2:14 PM

Goodall forgot to include the caloric cost of the driver in his equation. This, like watching TV, amounts to about 150 cal/h. With that added in it turns out that driving produces slightly more CO2 than walking.

Posted by dave | August 5, 2007 3:07 PM

Why is the comparison made with pedestrians getting their calories from beef (or milk)? Make the comparison with the pedestrian getting their calories from potatoes, and walking then turns out to be 100 times more efficient than driving (and riding a bike is 200 times as efficient). Eating meat is a tremedous waste of energy, and fresh water as well. Also, the health care costs required by pedestrians/vegetarians are much less than meat-eating/driving/fat-asses.

Posted by Only_One_Cannoli | August 5, 2007 3:13 PM

I read that the consumption of 2lbs of beef results in 80 lbs. of CO2. And Alan Arkin (a great actor and probably a nice guy, imo) says that there's only 35 years of fish left in the oceans.

So maybe whe should be picking berries and acorns. Slowly so as not breathe out too much CO2.

I've wondered if some of this environmental angst has anything to do with other anxieties -- say the more immediate threat from jihadists. Sort of a subconscious effort to find a less threatening enemy which in the case of global warming always seems to be our fellow Americans, Brits, Candians. At least it's an issue that doesn't require one to make any difficult moral choices. Earth = good. (western) polluters = bad.

I'm off to eat a burger.

Posted by Ray | August 5, 2007 4:13 PM

“The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better.”

So, to save the planet we all need to stop exercising and gain weight? I though that obesity was suppose to be a major health problem?

What about all the CO2 producing energy it will take to treat the health problems those extra pounds will cause later in life? Wouldn't it be better in the long run if everyone walked several miles to and from the supermarkets every time the need to restock their pantries so they can get some exercise and don't end up with weight related health problems?

If you think it takes a lot of energy to replace the food you eat, imagine how much energy it takes to treat people for heart attacks, for example. Think about the hospitals, the electric devices, the doctors offices, the manufacture of drugs, etc. that is required in treating a simple heart attack. Think about how much CO2 is released into the environment just to power all that infrastructure. If you use a benefit analysis like in this article, it is apparent that a lot of CO2 production could be avoided if you stay healthier by walking to the store instead of driving.

Ed is right, some people don't seem to think these type of equations all the way through to a logical conclusion.

Posted by burt | August 5, 2007 4:53 PM

Ed, it's good to read that you have come around to the conventional wisdom that electric cars don't save fuels unless the electricity comes from fission power plants or pie in the sky fusion power plants. That goes for hydrogen fueled cars as well. These ideas are hardly new, however. They have both been around for at least two decades.

Next, maybe you will learn that petroleum is not a scarce material. What is scarce is inexpensive petroleum. At one time the cost of extraction of petroleum from the Arabian peninsula was as low as $2/barrel. Even in Arabia that has passed. There is a Canadian company, Oilsands Quest, which until last month was officially considered a small company for tax purposes. This company has self estimated reserves of ten billion barrels of petroleum of which they hope to recover more than half. The estimate is based upon about two hundred cores. The official estimate by a disinterested party comes out in a couple months. That is a lot of oil for a small company. There is no question that there is a lot of oil, although the estimate may be high or low. There is a big question about whether it will ever recovered. That depends upon the cost of recovery, the price of competing oil and the confidence of investors that the price will stay high enough to be worthwhile.

Posted by Clem | August 5, 2007 5:14 PM

Obviously, we just need to find a way to kill off 90% of the world's population. Then there just won't be that many people left to do anything that creates CO2. That sounds like a reasonable solution. Let's have a nice nuclear war!

Wait... how much CO2 do decomposing bodies give off? Dammit!

Posted by Bambi | August 5, 2007 7:21 PM

Have any of you read "State of Fear" by Crichton? It's really interesting and he argues for common sense for both sides.
It's no wonder that hollyweird won't film his book.
Last chapter written by the author aside from the story is great.

Posted by patrick neid | August 5, 2007 8:08 PM

they are going to find it's a lot easier just hating bush.......

Posted by amr | August 5, 2007 8:30 PM

There was a recent report that when the total amount of energy required to produce a Hummers and Toyota Priuses, the impact on the environment considering the battery production and disposal as well as the expected life time of each vehicle, the Hummer was in total more environmentally sound. True? Who knows, but many times when the quick fix is analyzed it is less of a fix than what it was to replace.

Posted by lexhamfox | August 5, 2007 8:48 PM

It's August on Fleet St....

Posted by richard mcenroe | August 5, 2007 8:55 PM

"It almost makes me wonder if they can wipe their butt without consulting an environmental trade publication."

Well, not if they're Mariah Carey...

Posted by sestamibi | August 5, 2007 8:59 PM

As far back as 1973, D. Keith Mano wrote "The Bridge", a scathing satirical novel of a future controlled by these kinds of people: food was replaced by an inorganic "e-diet", since we had no right to kill any other creature. Finally, the governing council decides that everyone has to commit suicide because the act of breathing kills off bacteria in the air. One man stands against the madness, repopulates the world, and hundreds of years later the prevailing religion regards him as savior.

Posted by Nels Nelson | August 5, 2007 9:47 PM

Perhaps it's because I'm unfamiliar with British cuisine, but I'm confused as to why he calculated the cost with calories from beef and milk. There are beneficial things to be found in them, such as protein, minerals, and B12, but many other foods have a better calorie-to-cost ratio. It's hardly some earth-shattering news that, with the same amount of resources it takes to raise a cow, many people could eat a vegetarian diet.

Posted by OC Chuck | August 5, 2007 10:21 PM

Make it "Couch or Round Potatoes to Save the Earth", and you can call it CORPSE.

Posted by MICHAEL DOOLEY | August 6, 2007 5:50 AM

How do we know vegetarians live longer, healther lives? Well, smarty pants, because they tell us so! Nothing turned me off vegetarianism more than the self-righteous priggs vegetarians tend to be.

Has anyone thought through how our lives would be if we stopped bringing fruits and vegatable from all over the world to put in our food stores? What if the only food we could eat was what was grown only within forty miles of our homes? It is not just "meat-eaters" who benefit from worldwide inports/exports of food. Vegetarians could not live without these major "carbon footprints".

People seem to forget that our forebearers who had a smaller "carbon footprint" also had shorter lifespans. In spite of having a better excerise to calorie ratio than we do, they also were less healthy. Modern "energy intentive" medicine provides a standard of health care to today's poor and average citizens that the very wealthy could not buy for any price not that long ago.

We all have the illusion that we can make major changes in how we live and certain important essentials of our lives will remain the same. Just remember when it comes to a salad, if you got it, a truck brought it. Quite possibly, a ship did too.

Posted by dave | August 6, 2007 7:44 AM

"How do we know vegetarians live longer, healther lives?":

New research shows that being a vegetarian for 20 years or more adds almost four years to the average lifespan.

www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/21/1064082865083.html?from=storyrhs

Posted by LarryD | August 6, 2007 10:30 AM

Report on life cycle energy cost of cars (PDF format)

North American is a net sink of CO2

Organic farming is harder on the environment and is cruel to animals (Organic milk requires that the cow has never had antibiotics.)

Hat tip to American Thinker

Posted by Ray | August 6, 2007 11:24 AM

"New research shows that being a vegetarian for 20 years or more adds almost four years to the average lifespan."

Hum... Another study.

I guess that means 4 extra years in which to pollute Mother Earth.

Posted by Omri | August 6, 2007 12:01 PM

It's disgraceful to see both the right wing and the left descent do such utter inanity about the most important domestic security issue in the US, and here is the right's turn to be inane. Yes, walking takes energy. But, most of us who don't walk, myself included, get fat when we don't walk. Maintaining a layer of blubber also takes food and energy. Far more of it, in fact, than walking and getting lean.

In the mean time, we remain stupidly vulnerable to energy supply shocks of any kind, and our balance of payments is hemorhagging because we will not do anything on the demand side to lower the price of oil.

Shame on you. And shame on every right winger who refuses to face up to the national security implications of our refusal to start reducing our fuel consumption.

Posted by HocusFocus | August 6, 2007 12:30 PM

"Shame on you. And shame on every right winger who refuses to face up to the national security implications of our refusal to start reducing our fuel consumption."

Shame on you and every left winger that block our efforts to become energy independant.

Posted by Omri | August 6, 2007 1:02 PM

The left wing is not doing anything to block energy independence. That is the job of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You might as well accuse the left of blocking research in perpetual motion. So long as we remain dependent on liquid-fueled automobiles running on tarmac for every single thing we want to do, we will not be energy-independent. Right wingers who claim otherwise are either deluded or lying.

Posted by Ray | August 7, 2007 12:30 AM

"So long as we remain dependent on liquid-fueled automobiles running on tarmac for every single thing we want to do, we will not be energy-independent."

That's not completely true as energy can nether be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. Since Earth is a closed system, almost all of the CO2 that we emit by burning fossil fuels will eventually be absorbed by the plant life on this planet which will, through natural processes, generate even more fossil fuels. It just takes a hell of a long time to complete the cycle. (Yes, I'm being somewhat facetious.)

The reason we are so depended upon fossil fuels is the availability and efficiency of these fuels can not be matched by other sources at this time. Fossil fuels are found just about everywhere on Earth and the energy potential that is trapped in that fuel far exceeds the energy it takes to recover the fuel and exploit it to generate a useful form of energy for other processes like lighting our cities and transporting food to those who need to eat.

Until we have the necessary technologies and resources to create an alternative energy supply that is comparable to the efficiency and availability of fossil fuels, we will remain depended upon fossil fuels to generate the energy we need. That can't be helped.

Posted by dae | August 7, 2007 7:34 AM

Ray:
"Until we have the necessary technologies and resources to create an alternative energy supply that is comparable to the efficiency and availability of fossil fuels, we will remain depended upon fossil fuels to generate the energy we need."

The answer to the question of when will we have the "necesary technologies and resources to create an alternative energy supply that is comparable to the efficiency and availability of fossil fuels" is...NEVER. Solar, wind, etc will never get close to meeting this. Also, we are either at or close to peak oil right now. So what happens next?

Posted by amr | August 7, 2007 10:06 AM

dae:

The short term answer until fusion is perfected as an energy source could be Thermal Depolymerization (TDP). The process is said to be 85% efficient - that is, only 15% of the energy it produces goes to fuelling the process. A short cut to changing oraganic waste into oil.

A TDP operating prototype plant in Carthage, MO is the first full-scale commercial plant constructed about 100 yards from ConAgra Foods' massive Butterball turkey plant, where it is processing about 200 tons of turkey waste into 400 barrels (21,000 US gallons) of oil per day. This oil is being refined as No. 2 (a standard grade oil which is used for diesel and residential heating oil) and No. 4 (a lower grade oil used in industrial heating). It also contains light and heavy naphthas, a kerosene, and a gas oil fraction, with essentially no heavy fuel oils, tars, asphaltenes, or waxes present.

Posted by Davis | August 7, 2007 2:30 PM

This reminds of of Rodney Dangerfield's answer to inflation many years ago: feeding his kids less.

Post a comment