Dumbest article ever.

[mrfrapp]

It's hard to know where to begin with this article as it's so full of absurdities.

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.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

[TreasonousBastard]

1. But can you refute the specific examples? n/t

[iamjoy]

3. I Can, Sort Of

when they calculate the 2 pounds of CO2 added to the atomosphere by a 3 mile drive, are they only using the CO2 emitted during that drive or are they including the CO2 emissions used in the production of the fuel and its transport to the gas station?

[mrfrapp]

4. Spin

The environmentalist is talking about inefficient farming methods. The Times has chosen to misinterpret his statements to claim that walking produces more carbon emissions than walking which wasn't his point at all.

[lazer47]

6. It only works if you have been eating a lot of Baked Beans

[iamjoy]

2. Is This A Joke

sounds almost like something that would be in "The Onion"

[mrfrapp]

5. Unfortunately not.

Times journalism at it's very worst.

[n2doc]

7. The "environmentalist" assumes one is eating a 100% meat diet

Or 100% milk. The CO2 taken up by veggies ain't discussed. Nor, as pointed out by another poster, are the aggregate costs of running a car (roads, construction of said car, maintenance and oil changes, etc...).

These kind of fake "scientists" (anyone with access to a calculator and a few review articles, in this case it seems) can come up with almost any kind of idiotic argument. There is a whole industry based on these kind of "well, common sense is wrong!" kinds of articles.

By the reasoning of the Author we should all drink gasoline.

[environmentalist]

9. Hey, wait a min!

I hope you mean another "environmentalist" :D

The Times of London leans so far right, it tilts the newsracks.

Very frustrating article.

Posted by The Environmentalist

[n2doc]

10. Sorry, didn't mean you, of course! n/t

[environmentalist]

11. :)

:)


Posted by The Environmentalist

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. Geez, why don't we all just climb into our pods and close the hatch?

:eyes: MKJ

[freedom fighter jh]

12. It's about the way food is produced.

They get to the real point about halfway down the article: That modern food production depends heavily on fossil fuels and produces a great deal of carbon per calorie of food.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. True