Re: [asa] CO2 in Food Production...

From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Dec 07 2009 - 07:10:23 EST

There is a fallacy in that argument: the assumption is that you eat more
food if you walk to work than if you drive to work.

Most days I cycle to work (around 6 miles each way) , but on occasion I use
the car. I eat the same amount of food either way. If I drove to work each
day, I would put on weight, not reduce the amount of CO2 from food
production.

Not that cycling has a zero carbon footprint. More washing is involved, and
cycling to work also apparently increases life expectancy significantly. If
you live longer, you pollute more. However, I do not know how the figures
compare. But clearly the best way not to pollute is to be dead.

Iain

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:27 AM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Here is an interesting tid bit of trivia I found while researching this.
> Does anyone know if this has any basis to it or not?
>
> John
>
> Here's a fun fact for you: If you live within walking distance of work,
> which do you think would put more CO2 into the atmosphere, driving to work,
> or walking to work? Contrary to what most would expect, the correct answer
> is walking to work! The food production that would be necessary to replace
> the calories that you would burn would put three times as much CO2 into the
> atmosphere than driving your car the same distance! Thus, if you buy into
> this global warming stuff, you better not exercise, because you are "causing
> global warming!!"
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 7 07:10:46 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 07 2009 - 07:10:46 EST