The only think I can see wrong with this is:
Eating food is a NECESSITY.
Driving a car/flying/etc isn't.
Eating food is a NECESSITY.
Driving a car/flying/etc isn't.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Walking does more harm to the enviroment than driving
Come to think of it, i think we should exterminate ourselves if we wanna save the earth.
Everybody stop breathing.
Well your sig is contributing to global warming...Ayumiz wrote:
Come to think of it, i think we should exterminate ourselves if we wanna save the earth.
What a bunch of bullshit!
hell yajonsimon wrote:
Agreed.Ayumiz wrote:
Somehow i think, this is BS.
Also what about the enrgy required to get in your car, push the peddles, shift the gears and flipping the bird to grannies who can't drive whilst on your way to the destination?
I suppose this is feasible if you eat a diet consisting of pure beef. What the fuck?
Also, carbon is a smaller issue than the more toxic chemicals we release into the atmosphere in smaller quantities but which are multiple times more damaging to the environment. Everyone is hyped up on "carbon foot print" and nothing else though. For instance, in beef production I watched on discovery channel that it is not just the methane gas, but its the minor quantities of more lethal gases contained in methane production that is worse for the environment.
Not that everyone is eating a diet of pure beef in the first place. Further to the point, the cattle producing the methane gas isn't half as bad as the forest that was clear cut for it in the first place. Factor in how much oxygen the cut down forest would provide, and the cattle on the clear cut land are insignificant.
Edit: Not that I don't think carbon emission is a serious problem or that cattle aren't contributors, or that people could do less. But lets face it - at the end of the day with countries like China and India coming online, the environmental impact is going to be huge and nobody can tell another country they can have less then we have. Were all fucked, and I advise anyone who listens to make the most positive impact you can in this life and there's really not much more one can do. We can't force this or that on the whole globe - everyone has to work together and that is never going to happen, so basically get used to smog and pollution and a general downhill slide and a worse future for your kids. I hope were clear now!
Also, carbon is a smaller issue than the more toxic chemicals we release into the atmosphere in smaller quantities but which are multiple times more damaging to the environment. Everyone is hyped up on "carbon foot print" and nothing else though. For instance, in beef production I watched on discovery channel that it is not just the methane gas, but its the minor quantities of more lethal gases contained in methane production that is worse for the environment.
Not that everyone is eating a diet of pure beef in the first place. Further to the point, the cattle producing the methane gas isn't half as bad as the forest that was clear cut for it in the first place. Factor in how much oxygen the cut down forest would provide, and the cattle on the clear cut land are insignificant.
Edit: Not that I don't think carbon emission is a serious problem or that cattle aren't contributors, or that people could do less. But lets face it - at the end of the day with countries like China and India coming online, the environmental impact is going to be huge and nobody can tell another country they can have less then we have. Were all fucked, and I advise anyone who listens to make the most positive impact you can in this life and there's really not much more one can do. We can't force this or that on the whole globe - everyone has to work together and that is never going to happen, so basically get used to smog and pollution and a general downhill slide and a worse future for your kids. I hope were clear now!
Last edited by [CANADA]_Zenmaster (2007-08-06 01:41:25)
This is just another example of junk science. Taking one variable of a multivariable equation to an extreme. The same is done when determining that electric cars are better for the environment. You have to look at the overall energy budget to determine if it's better for the environement--not the carbon footprint. Carbon footprint is a concept developed just recently that has no relevance other than to the people who sell morons "carbon credits" to make them feel better about their excessive lifestyles.
Energy budget is a concept that has been around for decades, where you take the energy used to produce a product and subtract the expected energy savings (petroleum not used, toxins not created, etc). If it's positive, you win. Nobody has won yet. And electric cars are one of the highest toxin-producing products out there when you take into account their production processes...their savings in petroleum doesn't come close to making up for the toxins created in the battery production alone.
The bottomline is you can't have technology without paying a price...but it's not a zero-sum game as some alarmists would have everyone believe.
Energy budget is a concept that has been around for decades, where you take the energy used to produce a product and subtract the expected energy savings (petroleum not used, toxins not created, etc). If it's positive, you win. Nobody has won yet. And electric cars are one of the highest toxin-producing products out there when you take into account their production processes...their savings in petroleum doesn't come close to making up for the toxins created in the battery production alone.
The bottomline is you can't have technology without paying a price...but it's not a zero-sum game as some alarmists would have everyone believe.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
agent146 wrote:
hell yajonsimon wrote:
Agreed.Ayumiz wrote:
Somehow i think, this is BS.
Pathetic attempt by those afraid of losing profits to environmental measures to stir shit.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It's not that, it's to do with the CO2 emitted in the culling, processing, storage and transportation of the equvilent meat you would need to replace the calories lost by a walk to the shops or whatever.RDMC wrote:
Nowai that by walking I will breath out more CO2 than a car will.
Though, it's heavily biased because on that basis, you should also factor in the CO2 emitted in mining the crude oil, refining it into usable fuel, transporting it, and the petrol you use driving to the station to fill her up and get home again.....
So we should stop exercising and keeping fit and instead just sit in a damn car seat for the rest of our lives?
Fucking bullshit.
Fucking bullshit.
Doooooooooooomm
Doooooooooooomm
Doooooooooooomm
Doooooooooooomm
Doooooooooooomm
You win!Flecco wrote:
Yes, but the fact that the oil industry also produces carbon emissions in the act of producing oil seems to be ignored.SteikeTa wrote:
Everything that is written in that article is true....
The comparison of the total carbon emissions used by a car vs. walking is completely one-sided if the person making the comparison is only going to take into account the food industry's emission total and not take into account the fact that the total emissions made in...
Mining the ores used within the car.
Manufacturing the car.
Mining the oil.
Processing the oil.
Transport of all of the above.
Is going to produce a shitload more emissions than the food used to fuel a person's walking ever will.
I wish a large flying piece of space debris would crash into this planet and show these idiots (on both sides) what a real problem looks like.... kind of.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Walking does more harm to the enviroment than driving