The way the typical Westerner (I count myself in that group) eats and thinks about food and diet, it's madness to assume that what we eat correlates as directly to the calories we burn as this guy's assumption implies.
I mean, if you're planning a dinner and you walk ten or fifteen minutes to the store, when you get home, do you consciously think about the need to prepare more food for yourself because you walked ten or fifteen minutes? Or does the amount you normally eat on any given evening provide you with enough calories that you've got some left over for a little stroll? The latter describes me and just about everybody I know.
Sure, it may be more energy efficient, technically (and reeeeeaally relying on semantics, purposefully avoiding practicality), to drive, but it certainly does not "damage the planet more" to walk.
It's something interesting to think about, though.
Wow, that was an eye-opener. What an article! I had the same thoughts as jjackson, Americans eat way more than we need so a simple stroll to the store should not require even more calories. I believe the walk is better for the planet than the drive.
Interesting concepts about cows as well. He's probably right about cows and methane production, and the organic method of farming cows is even worse. I don't think we should shoot all the cows but I do think we would be better off if we didn't eat so much red meat. Maybe cut down on beef production over time.....
Being green and living a healthy life is more than just about cutting down on carbon emissions. Organic cows may be do more damage to the planet, but they do a lot more for the health of humans. It's great to have all this information, but we have to weed out what is realistic and what is just poking holes in a movement that is trying to help the planet. I don't believe that if you exercise you are going to eat more. I think the opposite. When I exercise, I actually eat less. There are many articles that support that as well.
This is not mentioned in the article. It comes across that everyday you drive to get your food on a seperate trip from all the other times your in your car.Many stop off on their way home from work. Also they don't mention how much you would save in emissions by making ONE trip a week.
The way the typical Westerner (I count myself in that group) eats and thinks about food and diet, it's madness to assume that what we eat correlates as directly to the calories we burn as this guy's assumption implies.
I mean, if you're planning a dinner and you walk ten or fifteen minutes to the store, when you get home, do you consciously think about the need to prepare more food for yourself because you walked ten or fifteen minutes? Or does the amount you normally eat on any given evening provide you with enough calories that you've got some left over for a little stroll? The latter describes me and just about everybody I know.
Sure, it may be more energy efficient, technically (and reeeeeaally relying on semantics, purposefully avoiding practicality), to drive, but it certainly does not "damage the planet more" to walk.
It's something interesting to think about, though.
Interesting concepts about cows as well. He's probably right about cows and methane production, and the organic method of farming cows is even worse. I don't think we should shoot all the cows but I do think we would be better off if we didn't eat so much red meat. Maybe cut down on beef production over time.....
As my we would say in the UK!
"PUSH OFF! BLOKE!"
The letter "B" and the letter "S" come to mind.