<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Debunking the notion that walking is bad for the planet]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by spaceshaper http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/ Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:17:43 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/1 FWIW

A 155lb human walking at 3 mph will burn about 88 calories per mile. Thanks to the efficiencies of the wheel, that wonder not found in nature, a 155 lb cyclist traveling at 12-14 mph uses about half that, around 43 cals/mile.

Using the gasoline energy equivalent of food per corn ethanol as a marker that translates into about 138 mpg and 280 mpg respectively.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

]]> FWIW

A 155lb human walking at 3 mph will burn about 88 calories per mile. Thanks to the efficiencies of the wheel, that wonder not found in nature, a 155 lb cyclist traveling at 12-14 mph uses about half that, around 43 cals/mile.

Using the gasoline energy equivalent of food per corn ethanol as a marker that translates into about 138 mpg and 280 mpg respectively.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

]]> Comment #2 by thand http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/ Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:55:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/2 good article but

Clark: when you state that NOx (nitrogen oxides) has a climate warming affect i believe you meant N2O(nitrous oxide)?

my understanding of NOx is that it contributes to smog, breaks down very quickly in sunlight and is not a greenhouse gas.

I wasn't to sure about this so i googled. resulting in:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/eng/akimoto/010502/

limiting NOx emissions without simultaneously limiting CO emissions has a warming impact.

If CO and NOx are both reduced their is a climate benefit


]]> good article but

Clark: when you state that NOx (nitrogen oxides) has a climate warming affect i believe you meant N2O(nitrous oxide)?

my understanding of NOx is that it contributes to smog, breaks down very quickly in sunlight and is not a greenhouse gas.

I wasn't to sure about this so i googled. resulting in:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/eng/akimoto/010502/

limiting NOx emissions without simultaneously limiting CO emissions has a warming impact.

If CO and NOx are both reduced their is a climate benefit


]]> Comment #3 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/ Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:19:11 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/3 Walking is More Important Than Driving


Forget energy usage.

Walking is more important than driving.

At the very least, the use of our bodies helps the brain, both sides, unite, and makes us calm, focused, intelligent.

We need to walk.

It's better than biking.

And driving is anathema.

Sometimes I think that cars and houses, are really just coffins (borrowed from "The Office").   We get to be 18, we drive, we buy a house.   And we die.

Who knows...maybe it's meant to be that way.   But cars, and houses, should not pollute The Children!

We need to get back to the idea that world is not a plaything for Adults -- but that the Adults are there to protect, and serve, the next gen...

John Bailo
Supratext:


]]> Walking is More Important Than Driving


Forget energy usage.

Walking is more important than driving.

At the very least, the use of our bodies helps the brain, both sides, unite, and makes us calm, focused, intelligent.

We need to walk.

It's better than biking.

And driving is anathema.

Sometimes I think that cars and houses, are really just coffins (borrowed from "The Office").   We get to be 18, we drive, we buy a house.   And we die.

Who knows...maybe it's meant to be that way.   But cars, and houses, should not pollute The Children!

We need to get back to the idea that world is not a plaything for Adults -- but that the Adults are there to protect, and serve, the next gen...

John Bailo
Supratext:


]]> Comment #4 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/ Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:42:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/4 This meme is being propogated by a

"leading environmentalist ...The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life."

I'm sure he does not advocate that we drive instead of walk. He is trying to sell his book by promoting controversy. He got you to write this article, which got me and hundreds of others to read the article that mentioned his book.

Of course, he does this under the auspice of illustrating the carbon intensity of modern food production. Never mind that his claim will be used by SUV drivers and global warming denialists to make fun of environmentalists in general. A small price to pay to sell a book.

He is using this meme to promote another meme, the purported low energy intensity of a 100 mile diet, which as you point out:

"...about 2 percent of total energy consumption in the U.S. -- is used for fertilizer, tractor fuel, and other farm inputs. Even "food miles" aren't such a huge deal, at least on average. Perhaps a tenth of food energy -- one percent of the U.S. total for all sectors -- is for long-distance food transport. Most of the rest of the energy in the food system is used for home refrigeration and cooking, food-industry processing and packaging, running restaurants and supermarkets, and driving to the store."

Apparently, reducing food transportation energy on average is not a big ticket item and would also be difficult to implement. The idea is to buy time to transition to a world without cheap oil by finding ways to make it last longer (use it up slower).

Promoting the 100 mile diet for its aesthetic values makes sense to me. It will help fund local small farmers with a niche market that may grow into a major market. But propogating bullshit by not bothering to do a reality check on every urban legend that happens to support one's eco-fantasies (energy intensity) just leaves environmentalists open to attack by detractors and casts a bad light on environmentalists in general.

The bottom line is that we owe our very existence to cheap fossil energy. We eat oil. Our population could never have swelled to what it is today without that oil and is unlikely to stay this swollen without it unless we come up with better answers than reducing our 1% food transport energy use down to 0.9% by restructuring our entire agriculture system--assuming that a 100 mile diet would not actually increase net energy use.

The world is heading for a giant population crash if we have not found envrionmentally benign (not agrofuels) solutions when we run out of cheap oil.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> This meme is being propogated by a

"leading environmentalist ...The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life."

I'm sure he does not advocate that we drive instead of walk. He is trying to sell his book by promoting controversy. He got you to write this article, which got me and hundreds of others to read the article that mentioned his book.

Of course, he does this under the auspice of illustrating the carbon intensity of modern food production. Never mind that his claim will be used by SUV drivers and global warming denialists to make fun of environmentalists in general. A small price to pay to sell a book.

He is using this meme to promote another meme, the purported low energy intensity of a 100 mile diet, which as you point out:

"...about 2 percent of total energy consumption in the U.S. -- is used for fertilizer, tractor fuel, and other farm inputs. Even "food miles" aren't such a huge deal, at least on average. Perhaps a tenth of food energy -- one percent of the U.S. total for all sectors -- is for long-distance food transport. Most of the rest of the energy in the food system is used for home refrigeration and cooking, food-industry processing and packaging, running restaurants and supermarkets, and driving to the store."

Apparently, reducing food transportation energy on average is not a big ticket item and would also be difficult to implement. The idea is to buy time to transition to a world without cheap oil by finding ways to make it last longer (use it up slower).

Promoting the 100 mile diet for its aesthetic values makes sense to me. It will help fund local small farmers with a niche market that may grow into a major market. But propogating bullshit by not bothering to do a reality check on every urban legend that happens to support one's eco-fantasies (energy intensity) just leaves environmentalists open to attack by detractors and casts a bad light on environmentalists in general.

The bottom line is that we owe our very existence to cheap fossil energy. We eat oil. Our population could never have swelled to what it is today without that oil and is unlikely to stay this swollen without it unless we come up with better answers than reducing our 1% food transport energy use down to 0.9% by restructuring our entire agriculture system--assuming that a 100 mile diet would not actually increase net energy use.

The world is heading for a giant population crash if we have not found envrionmentally benign (not agrofuels) solutions when we run out of cheap oil.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #5 by GonzoDon http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/ Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:37:21 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/5 Ah, to live in a pedestrian-friendly world ...

When you have a population that is not encouraged to think critically and independently and with the healthy skepticism that underlies good science, you end up with a population that will swallow goofy ideas like 'walking is bad for the planet'.

Please.

Aside from the energy calculus, which clearly points to the energy-efficiency of walkable neighborhoods, it would be kinda nice to see more people out walking for other, um, 'trivial' reasons, such as:
People would be healthier;
People would be happier;
People would begin to SEE more of their local built environment, and begin to CARE more about whether it is attractive or butt-ugly;
People would actually begin to interact with more of their neighbors, either on the sidewalk or at corner cafes and public spaces;
Just a little bit more of our urban space would be freed up for something besides parking lots, widened avenues, and big-box stores.

Sound too good to be true?  Actually, it sounds a bit like many places I have visited (Rome, Parma, Cinque Terre, Paris, Pau, Barcelona, Orange, Quebec City, San Francisco, just to name a few.  And, oh yeah: Disneyland).




]]> Ah, to live in a pedestrian-friendly world ...

When you have a population that is not encouraged to think critically and independently and with the healthy skepticism that underlies good science, you end up with a population that will swallow goofy ideas like 'walking is bad for the planet'.

Please.

Aside from the energy calculus, which clearly points to the energy-efficiency of walkable neighborhoods, it would be kinda nice to see more people out walking for other, um, 'trivial' reasons, such as:
People would be healthier;
People would be happier;
People would begin to SEE more of their local built environment, and begin to CARE more about whether it is attractive or butt-ugly;
People would actually begin to interact with more of their neighbors, either on the sidewalk or at corner cafes and public spaces;
Just a little bit more of our urban space would be freed up for something besides parking lots, widened avenues, and big-box stores.

Sound too good to be true?  Actually, it sounds a bit like many places I have visited (Rome, Parma, Cinque Terre, Paris, Pau, Barcelona, Orange, Quebec City, San Francisco, just to name a few.  And, oh yeah: Disneyland).




]]> Comment #6 by nedruod http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/ Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:53:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/6 Limits

I can think of some extreme examples where it would be bad, but what's the likeliness of them happening?

Everything has it's limits.  Walking is a good way to burn off excess calories, but if we setup power plants powered by human walking I think everyone would agree that would be inefficient and just plain dumb (even if they used bikes).

What might not be so stupid is using the energy from people exercising an hour a day to stay in shape.

Another factor is if everyone spent 3 hours a day walking to work and back, productivity would go down and we'd have a harder time creating more efficient systems.  But wait!  Many people spend 3 hours a day driving to work and back.  Most walkers/bikers spend less time.

In terms of productivity, public transportation is near the top.  10 minute walk/bike ride commutes can compete, but I can read on the bus even if it's 20 or 30 minutes.

It's an odd vision, but I have one idea that maximizes all those concerns.  First, get an automated personal transportation system.  Second put a bike in each "pod".  Then you can read, exercise, generate power and get to work all at once.

Alas, it's a doomed idea because the cyclists will hate it because it won't give the exhilaration of biking, the drivers will be afraid they'll have to bike, and the environmental purists will dislike it because it doesn't require enough personal sacrifice.

]]> Limits

I can think of some extreme examples where it would be bad, but what's the likeliness of them happening?

Everything has it's limits.  Walking is a good way to burn off excess calories, but if we setup power plants powered by human walking I think everyone would agree that would be inefficient and just plain dumb (even if they used bikes).

What might not be so stupid is using the energy from people exercising an hour a day to stay in shape.

Another factor is if everyone spent 3 hours a day walking to work and back, productivity would go down and we'd have a harder time creating more efficient systems.  But wait!  Many people spend 3 hours a day driving to work and back.  Most walkers/bikers spend less time.

In terms of productivity, public transportation is near the top.  10 minute walk/bike ride commutes can compete, but I can read on the bus even if it's 20 or 30 minutes.

It's an odd vision, but I have one idea that maximizes all those concerns.  First, get an automated personal transportation system.  Second put a bike in each "pod".  Then you can read, exercise, generate power and get to work all at once.

Alas, it's a doomed idea because the cyclists will hate it because it won't give the exhilaration of biking, the drivers will be afraid they'll have to bike, and the environmental purists will dislike it because it doesn't require enough personal sacrifice.

]]> Comment #7 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/ Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:31:23 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/7 You got that right, neduod

"Alas, it's a doomed idea because the cyclists will hate it because it won't give the exhilaration of biking, the drivers will be afraid they'll have to bike, and the environmental purists will dislike it because it doesn't require enough personal sacrifice."

Consensus among homo sapiens is lost the instant a second person enters a room.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world


]]> You got that right, neduod

"Alas, it's a doomed idea because the cyclists will hate it because it won't give the exhilaration of biking, the drivers will be afraid they'll have to bike, and the environmental purists will dislike it because it doesn't require enough personal sacrifice."

Consensus among homo sapiens is lost the instant a second person enters a room.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world


]]> Comment #8 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/ Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:15:10 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-mile-in-my-shoes/8 Population growth

Smoking, excessive eating, and no exersize all contribute to shorter life spans.  That is great for the living planet because it results in fewer humans.

The next time you see a person who is obviously helping the planet in this way.  Sincerely thanks them.  But don't tell them why you are thanking them.  Shhhhhh...

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Population growth

Smoking, excessive eating, and no exersize all contribute to shorter life spans.  That is great for the living planet because it results in fewer humans.

The next time you see a person who is obviously helping the planet in this way.  Sincerely thanks them.  But don't tell them why you are thanking them.  Shhhhhh...

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]>