Lol, I figured this one was coming.

Brett,

I completely agree with him and in fact went to high school in his district. Industrial beef production is incredibly damaging to the environment (and the reputation of the UK for that matter.)

I normally eat an organic, free range, locally grown diet - so probably OK for me to ride my 25 pound bike instead of driving the the 2000lb van.

Reply, but he also says organic beef production produces more methane than conventional. Brett.

Brett,

I doubt he is correct, but atmospheric methane is decreasing, so not a problem anyway. I'm not so concerned about greenhouse gases as I am about the many other environmental, health and ethical problems associated with bulk of the beef industry.

Lol, thanks Brett. I needed that. My direct tv is out right now and I was really bored. I really don't know what to say about that article. Well, it was interesting. I like how you mention Patrick and his bike in the blog!

Anyway, im going back to watching tv. O wait, I CAN'T.

"Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere."

I'm curious whether he factors in the energy used to produce all the different parts of a car, transport them to the assembly plant, and then transport each car to the dealer where sold. On top of that, there's the energy used to find a drilling site, build an oil platform and all its associated needs, produce the oil, transport it, refine it, and transport it again to the gas station...the energy needed to build and sustain the stations....

You get my point. There's so much energy that goes into transportation that counting only the energy it takes to move a car from point A to point B seems to be underselling it's impact by quite a bit.

To walk from A to B, all you need is yourself. So I don't think I'll be hopping in my car to drive to the grocery store down the block any time soon. My sneakers do the job quite well.

Reply: you make a valid point Travis. Maybe it ends up that you need to do that walk from point A to point B about a 100 times or whatever to make the carbon output greater than the car. Who knows. Brett

Atmospheric methane is decreasing because deforestation is increasing, which is another unresolved problem.

The research used in the report was specially chosen to give the impression that nothing much is being or can be done to limit co2 emissions.
Even though the calculations used are biased the conclusions are quite correct.

If you walk, the health benefits might reduce your risk of obesity related disease. Savings of co2 can then be gained by less need of medical services, doctor�s ambulances and petrochemical drugs are needed to combat the effects of overeating, therefore savings are made.
However the walker will also drive and the driver and the walker will also stop and buy fast food
Perhaps the author of the article is just having a laugh.

CO2 savings from a change of light bulbs was never going to make a difference. While global manufacturing of most consumer goods occurs thousands of miles from markets, transportation of all goods will far outweigh any promised savings.

Lowering population is the only way to limit co2 emissions, which unfortunately will not be done willingly.

This Green party guys seems to be some sort of off the wall vegan. He may actually turn people off from trying to help. Besides, most people that exercise load up on carbs not hamburger.

For a more rational mitigation strategy for Global Warming, consider the IPCC report.
It is more balanced and follows alone the lines of increased efficiency for cars, appliances and lighting as well as land use, farming and forestation pratices.

Also, near term health benefits from reduced air pollution due to lower emissions off sets most of the cost. A win - win.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

Hope this helps.

Mass,

Think global - act local.

Have you considered becoming the first volunteer in your population reduction plan? If you value human life so little, perhaps you should make room for others who value it more.

There are many refutations, but the simplest one is to calculate the health-care carbon footprint of the driver. How much carbon does a bypass surgery or daily insulin injections use?
I often find with these life-cycle analysis that just enough life-cycle is analyzed to prove a point. In this case, it must be assumed both driver and walker eat about 15% calories from meat (or whatever the average is).

"Lowering population is the only way to limit co2 emissions, which unfortunately will not be done willingly."

And I figured this one was coming too.

And the insanity continues!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

This really shows how gullible people are. For one thing, it proves that cars are really not the big emitters that AGWers have been claiming.

The bottom line is that there is no scientific or logical evidence that C02 is a problem, so

Drive Far, Eat Beef, Drink Milk, Exercise a lot!

Maximize your C02 footprint!

I guess when we all die younger due to lack of exercise, we will emit less CO2 & Methane in our lifetime. Why don't we take it one step further & ask the Green party for volunteers to kill themselves? Hey, if they really want to help with GW, why won't they?

So, we have come full circle with circular arguments brought forth by our Modern Day Calvanists. Orginal Sin exists after-all. Big Oil, Big Beef, and Big Macs have taken the place of the Vatican as their target of derision. Converts of this later day movement do not rely on The Ten Commandments or Holy Scriptures as thier moral compasses, but instead they seek salvation through thier pocket computers. Furiously they compute and recompute thier carbon footprints in vain attempts to find the Promise Land of the 0 Carbon Footprint.

To borrow a phrase from Mencken, today's Carbon Calvanists can be defined as "somebody who is desperately afraid that somebody somewhere might be having a good time."

But Steven, exercise hasn't been "proven" to make you live longer. It's just "likely" to make you live longer according to a "consensus" of scientists.

Why should we waste our time and energy exercising if it hasn't been proven in a laboratory setting with the scientific method that it makes you live longer?

Hey, I'm just using deniers' logic here.

Why should we waste our time and energy exercising if it hasn't been proven in a laboratory setting with the scientific method that it makes you live longer?

Why not?

It appears that JP, who was a relatively common-sense skeptic, has turned political like the rest of 'em.

Your posts are getting more and more political in nature, deviating from how you used to post.

So sad.

Nice flip, Mark!! I'm just trying to show that if you continue somebody's arguement to an extreme it often causes the arguement to fall on its' face. Kind of like the martial arts, where if you enhance your opponent's energy flow, they fall.

For the record, I'm a GW agnostic, but I'll take on anybody's lame arguements. The only thing I know for sure is, lately, the earth has been getting warmer & sea levels are rising.

"To borrow a phrase from Mencken, today's Carbon Calvanists can be defined as "somebody who is desperately afraid that somebody somewhere might be having a good time."

But the Calvinists were resigned to human extinction as mentioned in the Book of Revelations (if I'm wrong here plz correct me) and the Carbon Calvanists are actively trying to prevent a human extinction (utilizing tech progress along with low footprint lifestyles). I don't see the connection. I'll say again: a person who lives a sedentary lifestyle and dies earlier than someone who walks regularly, will still use up a larger carbon footprint as major surgeries are very carbon intensive.

"Your posts are getting more and more political in nature, deviating from how you used to post."

The kettle again calling itself black.

Mark and Phillip,

My apologies. Just trying to insert a bit of humour into the converstaion (You must admit our arguements, at times approach a farce). HL Menckin was fabously humourous in his time- and the butt of his wit was Christian Conservatives. Sorry. Now back to our regularly scheduled scream sessions...

JP, I used humour in another thread to lambast all Republicans, when some like The Governator (and also those who made funding biosensors part of the Homeland Security agenda) are among my favourite politicians. Really, I'm only sticking around here to see more Katie clips.

Let's have everyone on the planet stand side-by-side and one in front of the other and not move.

The entire crowd of 6 billion would then fit on the big island in Hawaii. Do the math, we're much smaller than we think and don't add up to much meat and potatoes. We may as well stop all the fish in the ocean from moving, so they don't develop friction anymore, geez!

I suppose humans are always the only ones that have to make "dumb and dumber" concessions, because we're the only ones that can come up with these silly ideas. The rest of nature is unaware and does'nt care.

Mass Death:
Too bad your parents did'nt think of that. You then, would not have an opinion on the idiotic subject of population control. Go ahead and sacrifice yourself if you believe in it so seriously and then spend an eternity standing beside Hitler and Dame Margaret Mead. If you have any children, give them to someone that won't look at them as a detriment to the planet.

Well, unforunately Mr. Goodall did not account for his own affects on the environment. His lovely book is made of paper, coming from wood that would have ultimately aided in reducing carbon levels within the atmosphere. His theory on walking/biking verses driving is preposterous!!! Think about everything that it takes to CREATE that one vehicle. Ultimately, think about the efficiency of your typical car - putting several thousand pounds into motion to transport a few hundred. Even with hybrid technologies, the efficiency of these machines is below 5% at best.

But seldom is the bigger picture ever truly considered while so much attention is given to the minute details.

>> Why should we waste our time and energy exercising if it hasn't been proven in a laboratory setting with the scientific method that it makes you live longer?

Mark, you missed a crucial, critical and important difference:

No one suggesting people be FORCED to exercise against their will. You are attempting to use the power of government, set up only to protect human rights, to violate people's right to use energy, based on a pseudo scientific idea, falsified by empirical evidence and known scientific laws.