The Times (U.K.) reports:
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.
The sums were done by Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. “Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” he said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.
“The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better.”
I have no idea whether Goodall is right or wrong. But there have been enough stories like this — about recycling, energy production generally, carbon emission, and more — that it seems clear that there are all sorts of hidden tradeoffs that both casual intuitive analysis (nuclear bad, driving bad, recycling good) and even published reports often miss. This in turn makes me skeptical about demands that we, either individually or through government action, change our lives to improve the environment.
Some such demands may indeed be quite sound, and there certainly are real environmental hazards. Poisoning our neighbors, and ourselves, is bad, if there are alternatives that poison less at acceptable cost. (Recall that some degree of environmental harm is inevitable to get important benefits; to give a simple analogy from the context of biological poisoning, we put our fellow citizens at risk of contagious disease whenever we walk near them, even when we seem asymptomatic, but we think the benefits of such interaction exceed the cost.) But I'm cautious about jumping on bandwagons in this field, and the more strident the bandwagoneers, the more I wonder whether they've really examined the tradeoffs dispassionately, carefully, and thoroughly.
Thanks to Victor Steinbok for the pointer.
1. You can save the planet from global warming by killing off a billion or so people. The Environmentalist whackos hate people any way and I have always suspected wanted to get rid of all of us (excepting only themselves or course). So maybe we need to keep an eye on whether Greenpeace is trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
2. New conservative save the planet from global warming slogan.
"Fight Global Warming - Kill An Environmentalist !"
LOL,
Says the "Dog"
(a) is faulty as people generally, walking or driving, eat the same (excessive) amount. (b) is faulty because in the suburbs most distances are just too far to walk, and on shorter distances walking takes up too little energy.
In short, this is using life-cycle analysis in an extremely sophistic and simplistic way.
Carbon in food, biologically based, is from above ground sources, and has been in circulation for millions of years. It actually does not add to the total carbon load, it just recycles it. Fossil fuels however introduce carbon that has not been in the carbon cycle (at least not for tens or hundreds of millions of years) so it is different.
Time to restart our nuclear programs.
The best solution is not driving to the store, but walking to the co-op or farmer's market.
This should be part of Thinking Globally, Acting Locally.
Also, walking is not the only alternative to driving. One could take a bicycle the three miles that Goodall supposes, and I imagine burn fewer calories that way. And, it strikes me as implausible that one would walk three miles as an alternative to driving anyway. How his numbers would shake out for a 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile trip I don't know.
And a population foregoing exercise as a response to global warming is soon obviously going to encounter a lot of other health problems. Maybe I'd rather have the warming. Finally, the start of the second sentence of the quoted passage, "Food production is now so energy-intensive . . . " seems to be a facile and unsupported way of making Goodall's larger point. I mean, so much more energy-intensive than 100 years ago? 50? 5? When did food production reach this level of energy cost?
I understand Eugene's point about tradeoffs in posting this, but Goodall's thesis just seems stupid.
Also, walking is not the only alternative to driving. One could take a bicycle the three miles that Goodall supposes, and I imagine burn fewer calories that way. And, it strikes me as implausible that one would walk three miles as an alternative to driving anyway. How his numbers would shake out for a 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile trip I don't know.
And a population foregoing exercise as a response to global warming is soon obviously going to encounter a lot of other health problems. Maybe I'd rather have the warming. Finally, the start of the second sentence of the quoted passage, "Food production is now so energy-intensive . . . " seems to be a facile and unsupported way of making Goodall's larger point. I mean, so much more energy-intensive than 100 years ago? 50? 5? When did food production reach this level of energy cost?
I understand Eugene's point about tradeoffs in posting this, but Goodall's thesis just seems stupid.
So, unless 100% of the extra carbon we breathe out while walking to the store has its origin in fossil fuels, walking will still have less of a climate impact than driving.
Unless the study took the source of the carbon in the food into account, which I don't know. I do know I've seen studies that clearly did not, and simply equated all carbon production with greenhouse gas. One in particular claimed earthworms are a major source of greenhouse gas production. Of course, all the earthworms are doing is breaking down the organic matter in the soil, organic matter which a) is going to break down anyway, and b)was likely just fixed by plants within the past couple of years anyway, using carbon that had previously been in the atmosphere. So earthworms really aren't increasing greenhouse gases at all. Earthworms don't cause pollution any more than redwoods do.
It is ironic that he carefully glosses over the larger conclusion that we should stop eating beef, buying over packaged food and wasting gas by driving short trips to the store in SUVs.
In addition, he assumes a diet of 100% beef and factors green house gasses for the cow. What he doesn't do is factor the greenhouse gasses given off in the production of the gas (exploration, drilling, pumping, crude oil transport, refining, shipping to the retailer.)
...and of course, one wonders about the accuracy and assumptions of his calculations...
Amen. This would be what James Kunstler likes to call "making other arrangements."
Doesn't the difficulty of performing that analysis actually suggest that government rather than individual action is warranted? (Specifically, in this example, a carbon tax?)
I would suggest though that ETOH should be used until some fuel (other than nuke) is perfected that does not release CO2 or water vapor. True, ethanol releases CO2/H20 when burned, but as you say, that CO2 was already in the atmosphere when captured by a plant.
I would have man halt all extraction of fossil fuels--leave the fossil dead in their greasy stinky graves where they belong.
You should. On an issues of this level of importance, pleading ignorance is no defense. Particularly when, as here, the story has enough information in it that one can easily spot the unrealistic assumptions, as many of the previous commenters have.
where's "whit," the expert on the beef vs. milk subject?
Aren't all vacations involving travel an indulgence we could give up for global warming. If we limited calorie intake, we would be healthier as well.
Almost every environmentally friendly suggestion I have seen falls into the hair shirt category.
The expectation for government action is against governmental self-interest. Can anyone imagine The Florida Bar imposing the enormous carbon tax on itself the assn would incur under the current Bar President's policy announced at TFB June 28, 2007 Annual Meeting of unfettered vehicle trips and paper usage because he "just doesn't feel comfortable using computers or the Internet?" It would never happen.
Individual action is warranted, e.g., a critical mass of legal profession computer-Internet users finally out-voting the old high carbon emission traditions.
This is a very good question, but one I though was even more unpopular than the solutions I have proposed. However, personally, I cannot imagine what it might be like to have to give up vacations, since the last vacation I was able to afford was when my parents took me to Cape Hatteras at age 10.
Explain to me why we're led to believe that greenhouse gases are The Ultimate Evil, but that nuclear is not an important solution? I think that with this throwaway line you've marked yourself as non-serious.
I have an idea. Let's site lots of nuclear power plants in the areas that supposedly will be submurged if the worst predictions of global warming come to pass. With global warming, we lose all such areas, according to the GW folks. With a bad nuclear accident, we might lose one of them [although we didn't lose any land ara in the Three Mile Island accident].
-dk
-dk
See, and here is yet another reason my computer-Internet proposal is quite beneficial. HL, has anyone seen those new floor diagrams used to operate computer games lately, the ones that require teenagers to exercise to play the computer game? If expanded to adult Americans, the computer-internet idea could also promote weight loss in a very large population of incresingly overweight people, further reducing carbon emissions.
Another benefit of my computer-Internet proposal, is the ready training for the military of millions of people with available skills to operate all those new remote operated computerized army gizmos.
And, just think, the idea of enhanced computer-Internet telecommuting may also eliminate numerous vehicle trips over bridges that may be structurally deficient, thereby having the potential to save many lives while we undertake a National effort to repair America's crumbling highway-bridge-tunnel infrustructure.
Not autistics, can't eat much wheat. But myself, I have trouble giving up milk. And I know I would eat beef if I got the opportunity for a good Lobster-Filet Minon dinner.
I hope the skeptisim of some in this regard does not stop the "really examin[ing] the tradeoffs dispassionately, carefully, and thoroughly" part of the carbon emission equation. Otherwise, the first statement is remarkably reminiscent of the rhetoric of big Tobacco, who make profits off addicting and poisoning millions of people with a product that has no social value.
Indeed. And nobody has to fill up the gas tank because he drove three miles. But that misses the point. Either way, energy is used to make the trip, and the production and use of the energy releases carbon into the atmosphere. The rest of your post only narrows the potential application of the author's thesis, but you don't disprove it. And I think that the way in which this posting has been attacked only strengthens EV's point in posting it.
Is this true? You now have to transport the weight of the bicycle, so you should have to burn more calories, not less.
Unless you were going downhill on a bicycle. But then you would have to burn the calories on the return trip.
"The natural extension of this finding is that:
1. You can save the planet from global warming by killing off a billion or so people. The Environmentalist whackos hate people any way and I have always suspected wanted to get rid of all of us (excepting only themselves or course).
2. New conservative save the planet from global warming slogan.
'Fight Global Warming - Kill An Environmentalist !"
LOL,
Says the 'Dog'"
I wouldn't really call myself an "environmentalist." I am more of an advocate for enhancing the use of the computer-Internet superhighway, and eliminating all that unnecessary use of vehicle trips and paper. Such promotes a great deal of efficiency.
"with meaningless rituals like recycling, and with adherents who are impervious to reasoned argument. Goodall's particular argument doesn't strike me as convincing, but the idea that recycling paper will lead to an increase in the number of trees in the world is so self-evidently silly that I believe Landsburg is on to something."
I agree the whole idea of recycling is silly, sort of misses the whole carbon emission problem by seeing only the trees, rather than the entire forest. Obviously recycling can never be as good a solution as simply eliminating all the unnecessary vehicle trips, paper usage, and pulp and paper mill operations (which cut down entire forests to make paper).
"Unless the law of demand has been repealed, reducing the demand for products made from trees is unlikely to cause people to plant more trees."
That is exactly what my computer-Internet idea proposes, reducing carbon emissions by eliminating the demand for paper products made from trees. But I do still think trees will be cut down for lumber to build housing.
I am no fan of tobacco or smokers, but your statement seems to be self refuting - since the said millions of people continue to buy this product, it must have social value to THEM. It may not have social value to you or me, but that it not the same as having no social value.
Unless your definition of social value is superior to the definition used by others. Is it?
Strengthens which part of EV's post? The part about remaining a skeptic so we should all do nothing, even as the sea levels rise? Or the part about "really examin[ing] the tradeoffs dispassionately, carefully, and thoroughly?"
I would observe, being an advocate of computer-Internet usage, that EV's part of the post about "really examin[ing] the tradeoffs dispassionately, carefully, and thoroughly" would likely require use of the world's biggest supercomputer to crunch all the input data and arrive at the exact tradeoffs in reaching conclusions, or at least that seems readily evident considering "the way in which this posting has been attacked."
Millions of people continue to buy tobacco products and smoke because of the addictive agents big Tobacco adds to the product; it has nothing to do with social value. It is all about addiction, and I would not regard addiction as a social value. Do you? If so, then why should we pick on all the heroin junkies lying around ino the gutters? Is that a social value?
"Unless your definition of social value is superior to the definition used by others. Is it?"
You make unwarranted assumptions about me that are uncalled for in assessing the though process of someone with autism. I think I made my point above. How do you define "social value?" Increasing the size of government expenditures to pay for all the sick people tobacco products cause? Heroin junkies cause?
But at some point, as the sea levels rise, and a mass exodus of panicked refugees flee Florida crossing the borders of more Northern states, the social value of reducing the excessive carbon emissions causing the problems will, on balance, very liekly outweight some addict's addicted-feelings that smoking or heroin has any individual merit.
Second, you folks that say you eat less or won't eat more if you walk/exercise: irrelevant. The whole point is efficiency of energy conversion from some sort of chemical energy (carbs or hydrocarbons) to transportation of some set mass; not energy efficiency, but emitted CO2 per unit of transportation.
Please remember your basic phsyics and thermo here -- you are expending energy to get from point A to point B. That energy came from the food you ate. End of story.
We don't need to debate what happens to the carbon cycle if you avoided burning another 200 calories per day over your life, ate the same, and died 100kg heavier than you would have otherwise. Yes, an interesting idea for sequestering carbon (die fat and get buried), but beyond the scope.
What is important from this whole discussion is an amazing subscription to the "______ locally". (eat, act, whatever). For a group of highly educated folks who know how to spell "comparative advantage," this is appalling.
Without even doing the calcs, I'm sure that moving 100 kg of stuff (e.g., a large sack of dried legumes) one mile by hand or bicycle emits more CO2 than shipping it by ocean liner 10 miles. By truck, not even close. Rail vs. ocean liner, that might be an interesting race.
Of course, if your legumes are grown in an especially efficient manner on the other side of the globe, you might come out ahead (emissions-wise) even after shipping them. I'd hazard a guess that the picturesque 1952 Ford pickup lumbering into downtown Urbia, carrying Farmer John and his legumes to the "farmer's market" is NOT the best way to transport goods. Just a dozen or so miles kills any benefit, and that's before we look at energy/labor intensive farming practices. Remember, those big corporate farms *really* care about efficiency, that's how they killed off the family farm.
How do we know what are the best (most carbon-efficient) goods? Crazy folks try to nail down every variable and soon get swamped. They end up in an endless sea of arguments over the effects such as whether the farm labor commutes by foot, goat, boat, or Chevy, and how is the fertilizer manufactured, where does the water come from, and so on.
A somewhat more sane person might figure that the cost to get the legume to his door (F.O.B My House!) might serve as a more accurate (albeit certainly flawed) proxy for energy consumption and thus CO2 "footprint". Of course, if the powers that be would get all Pigouvian on us and tax per BTU, the proxy would improve drastically!
Bottom line: cheapest cost delivered to your door is pretty likely to be the best from a CO2 standpoint.
That this post is supposed to exhort skepticism (of all things!) is icing on the cake. EV's lecturing on healthy skepticism and anti-backwagonism might pack a bit more "omph" if he wasn't so willing to swallow any ole B.S. just because it told him what he wanted to hear.
Physician, heal thyself and all that...
So I think 100g of beef for 180 calorie expenditure is way off..
This reminds me of something Brit Hume said when it was shown that he had made a false claim about the relative safety of Iraq "Well, it may not be accurate, but it's indicative of something." EV seems to be citing the Times article using the same mentality, implying "it may not be accurate, but it's indicative of something."
It seems odd to say that the veracity of an article is completely unknown to you and then cite the abundance of similar articles, also of unknown veracity, as reason to doubt the government.
More data isn't better data. A few bits of relevant and accurate data can be useful, whereas data of unknown accuracy is, without additional knowledge, functionally the same as inaccurate data and is completely useless.
Good catch, good point. Goodall is truly out to lunch.
http://www.dietbites.com/CalorieIndexBeef.html
3 oz of lean beef is a bit over 180 calories.
3 oz = 85 grams.
True that. For a very rough estimate, divide by 10 (i.e. an order of magnitude) for a vegetarian diet.
IIRC, overweight people use more fuel when they drive; obese Americans use an extra 938,000 gallons of gasoline every year.
Humans, when they live, convert oxygen to CO2. Why did Goodall fail to account for the extra CO2 production of exercising v. sedentary humans?
Some have already pointed out that it is silly to assume that 100% of the calories used to walk 3 miles come exclusively from beef. How many beefatarians are out there?
Without seeing the analysis which resulted in 3.6 kg of CO2 per 100g of beef, I didn't really know whether to accept this figure or not.
But what about for corn, itself a much-maligned fertilizer and energy intensive crop? Corn has less fat than beef, so let's say it takes 250 g of corn to replentish yourself after a 3 mile run. This in itself seems suspect, as I ran three miles this morning, and did not feel compelled to eat half a pound *more* breakfast than I do on a usual day. But nonetheless, let's go with it.
I can say with confidence that emissions produced in delivering 250 g of corn to replace the calories spent walking are far below 3.6 kg of CO2:
A colleague of mine recently estimated that corn production requires between 22 (mean) and 32 (upper bound of 95% conf. interval) gigajoules (GJ) per hectare of energy inputs, accounting for all fertilizers (nitrogen as well as P and K), lime, seeds, pesticides, machinery, and fuel for tractors/other equipment. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's FAOSTAT database says average corn yield in the US in 2004 was about 10,000 kg per hectare.
Assuming i) that ALL the energy in corn production comes from coal (the most carbon-intensive fuel), ii) a coal heating value of about 28 megajoules per kg, and iii) 32 GJ / ha as a liberal estimate of corn production energy intensity, it is easy to calculate that each kg of corn production would require about 0.1 kg of coal, which would correspond to about 0.35 kg of CO2 emssions.
That's ~90 g of CO2 emissions for each 250 g of corn. The study Prof. Volokh linked reported 3600 g per 100 g of beef. Why the factor of 40 difference?
Some of the difference is attributable to the choice of food type, but numbers I have seen for the energy intensity of beef production are not 100-fold greater than for corn. I can't recall exactly but I do not think they came close to exceeding 20-fold.
I don't have time to examine the linked study in detail, but common mistakes in such studies are simple attribution errors: authors frequently embed all the energy required for a given process production in only the product that interests them. For example, filets mignon do NOT carry all the energy required for beef production. Other things do in fact come out of the slaughterhouse (yellow grease, etc).
In any case, Mr. Goodall's analysis seems highly questionable to me.
Neither do these studies take into account the fact that farm subsidies, not beef production, drives corn production.
The people who push the idea of not eating beef as a method for improving the environment don't understand what drives corn production.
They miss the fastest, easiest way to reduce the negative environmental impact of farming which would be end the subsidies for corn production.
You are wrong on both counts: I do understand what drives corn production, and nonetheless, I believe that eating beef is more energy-intensive than eating cereals, regardless of whether the beef is corn-fed or fed other less energy-intensive crops.
I also haven't missed how good an idea it is to end subsidies for corn production. It is a good idea and I agree with it. I picked corn in my analysis above just because i) I had numbers for it, and ii) it is sort of a "worst case" for cereals production, useful for baseline comparisons with e.g. beef production.
I cannot follow your argument. I do not think Mr. Fischer was arguing that corn was better than beef, but rather that beef is probably less carbon-intensive than the original article stated.
Moreover, those of us, myself included, who think reducing beef consumption would result in a better environment would not really ground that argument primarily in a climate change framework, but rather in a land use and efficiency framework. In this case, I was simply saying that the author's assumption that a person would use one of the most carbon-intensive sources of food to replace burnt calories is suspicious. Also, I wouldn't argue that corn is a good substitute for beef (for many reasons, it is not).
How much CO2 was emitted in the manufacture of the typical UK car? How much CO2 was emitted in the construction and maintenance of the roads? In the operation of the traffic signals?
How much CO2 was emitted in the transport of food stuffs to the store?
Who eats beef, at the margin, to replace calories consumed?
Why even the question of walk or drive? Everyone should produce their own food on their own farm, self-sufficiently.
An entirely foolish column that does not turn popular myths on their head. Let's all return to that bygone era of several centuries ago, where the standard of living was so much worse.
Did you take that corn out of the fields, knock it off the cob, transport it to the Frito-Lay's plant, dry it, grind it, bake/fry it, put it into bags, transport it to the supermarket, account for lights/heating/air conditioning, etc. at the supermarket, run it through a cash register, bring it home, etc.?
The silliness of carbon "footprint" never ends.
The point of the article was to criticize beef eating, not walking. Goodale's wanted to show that eating 100 calories of beef hurt the environment more than driving three miles. He even conceded that milk would have one thirtieth the impact of beef. Presumably rice, grains or vegetables would be even more environmentally friendly
I don't take Goodale's figures as Gospel, but his point was not that we should stop walking and start driving more. It's pretty clear that the author understands that.
Of course, EV is entitled to comment about only a small part of an article, but the excerpt he printed was not an accurate representation of the whole article.
But many of the commentators did prove EV's point--it's important to look behind a claim before buying into it.
Assuming i) that ALL the energy in corn production comes from coal (the most carbon-intensive fuel), ii) a coal heating value of about 28 megajoules per kg, and iii) 32 GJ / ha as a liberal estimate of corn production energy intensity, it is easy to calculate that each kg of corn production would require about 0.1 kg of coal, which would correspond to about 0.35 kg of CO2 emssions.
Did you assume a single Carnot efficiency for the coal plant(s) generating electricity and transportation (among other things), or did you magically transform coal heat to corn-making energy?
It might be fair to use around 33% efficiency across the board to fudge together everything from superheated steam plants makin' electricity to a fair value for internal combustion-powered tractors, etc. But whatever you use, it ain't 1.00.
All these calculations are silly. All this stuff gets wrapped up in the price to the consumer.
Try the calculation with some potatoes instead and see how it goes.
Cars also require rather more space than people going to a shop, adding to the fallacy.
The real problem is newspapers publishing as fact arguments which can be trivially undermined, whichever side of the debate they are on.
Presumably, not eating at all would eliminate our carbon footprint - and our existence.
Public Defender: yes, I guess one could say that the "entire purpose" of the article is to criticise beef-eating. However, it's more accurate to say that it criticised British food production. Actually, it criticised everything that produces methane - cows, trees, etc.
So your theory is that the people who today grow trees that are cut down to make paper will continue to plant and care for those trees once you've eliminated paper? That strikes me as being unlikely. If you want more trees, you should encourage people to use things that are made from trees, like paper. If you want land now used to grow trees paved, and strip malls built on it, work to reduce paper use.
Landsburg puts it nicely: If environmentalists were really interested in seeing more trees, they'd look at the long-term effects of recycling. He then says, "I suspect that they don't want to do that because their real concern is with the ritual of recycling itself, not with its consequences. The underlying need to sacrifice, and to compel others to sacrifice, is a fundamentally religious impulse."
Did you read the article? That's basically the author's point.
my ears were ringin!!!
aint no expert, but i loves my beef, and i loves my milk.
you can take this carbon thing to ridiculous extremes. heavily training weightlifters (myself included) have been known to eat upwards of 5000 kcals a day just to MAINTAIN bodyweight, whereas I could maintain bw on sedentary lifestyle with FAR FAR less.
so, i guess we would have less of a carbon footprint if we sat on our butts everyday.
I believe my figure included delivery of corn grain to the plant. It does not include baking, frying, or transport to the retail outlet. However, these activities are unlikely to require large amounts of energy compared to the things I did include.
Neither. You can read the thesis I referenced if you want more information on the figure of 32 GJ / ha I used in my analysis.
Say you work at a company that takes supplies A, B, and C and manufactures products X and Y. Your boss reads a story in the New York Times that says Congress may enact carbon cap-and-trade legislation, possibly as soon as 2009. He asks you, "how will this carbon legislation affect the company's costs and revenues?" Your answer would apparently be the non-responsive dictum that "this stuff gets wrapped up in the price to the consumer".
I, on the other hand, would estimate the carbon embedded in the production of X and Y as best I could, and if possible, A, B, and C as well. Of course these estimates would be imperfect. But compared to your non-starter of an answer they are of immeasurably more value to the company.
Thus, you are wrong that these calculations are manifestly silly.
What is a "Pigouvian?" (I am truly asking the definition, it is one of those things that goes way over the head of a person with autism).
"So your theory is that the people who today grow trees that are cut down to make paper will continue to plant and care for those trees once you've eliminated paper? That strikes me as being unlikely."
I am supposed to agree with this?
First, if paper were eliminated, trees to make paper would not be cut down; therefore, there would be no need to be "plant[ing]or "car[ing] for" the new trees the argument assumes. Unless we all want to live in a very shady place.
Second, where did you go to forestry school? I rode a lot of trails by horseback on the Georgia-Pacific lumber land in Northern Calif. (Ft. Bragg area), and never once did I see people out there in that big expanse of lumber land weeding, watering, or tending to little treelets. At least in my personal experience, where I did see a new tree planted in place of tree cuttings, once the little ones took root, they sort of just grew up and survived all on their own, watered by the naturally falling rain -- no human helpers needed. If anything struck you as "unlikely," it was probably the faux conclusion you reached by posing the above faux-argument. But a good try.
"If you want more trees, you should encourage people to use things that are made from trees, like paper."
Hummmmm, a little demand-side economics attached to a radical theory. The hundreds of years of tree growth in the Amazon that occurred well before humans stepped in and started cutting down all the trees, and well before the advent of the print press, xerox machine, and pulp and paper mills, demonstrates the fallacy of this proposition.
In order to ascertain whether your radical economic theory of encouraging use of products made from trees (e.g., paper) might result in more of a net gain in trees than that which occurred naturally before the tree-cutting era, you need to provide us some tree gain &tree loss numbers to enable verification of your calculations and comparisons.
"If you want land now used to grow trees paved, and strip malls built on it, work to reduce paper use."
Is there some causal relationship between the two? Reduction of paper usage causes the paving of land and building of strip malls? Huh??! How so? Are you proposing we should all go live in caves? And we would be using all that paper there in the dark?
I think you leave a lot of other possibilities out, like paving land to make roads for vehicle traffic, to build housing developments, make the public safe from lurking gators, etc., that do not have any cause-effect relationship with usage of paper. Paper is an outdated mode of communication, like stone tablets, but life will go on without paper just as it did without etchings on stone, and more efficiently and less costly.
Paving land and building strip malls would still occur if our paper-based systems were eliminated and the unfettered computer-internet superhighway prevailed. People don't use their computers with wireless Internet out in the rain! In Florida, that would pose an incredible risk of suffering a lightening strike! People often use their computers in houses and buildings, just as they eat and sleep and dwell there.
"Landsburg puts it nicely: If environmentalists were really interested in seeing more trees, they'd look at the long-term effects of recycling."
There you go, when you can't answer a question, change the subject. Please refer to my previous comment: I do not regard myself as an "environmentalist," just an advocate for enhancing the use of the computer-Internet superhighway, and eliminating all that unnecessary use of vehicle trips and paper, and thereby promote a great deal of efficiency.
I have a pretty fair belief there are many people who would hop on the Internet to eliminate unnecessarily standing in long lines, gridlocked traffic trips in 94 degree temperatures, or the arduous task of printing duplicate paper copies, addressing envelopes, traveling to a post office, licking stamps, and mailing -- including almost all the bloggers who are using computers over the internet right now to comment on this thread.
On another note, I am also amazed no one caught the fact of EV's posting a carbon emission article about the UK, when the UK vs. United States have two different economies and very likely quite different carbon emission variables and outputs. Even an analysis of Florida vs. California would be completely different given the California vehicle emission controls vs. Florida having virtually none. And let's not forget the amoount of walking people must do in London due to the ban on the majority of cars.
I am all for skepticism but doesn't this post boil down to a homily that we should be rigorous, thoughtful and thorough in our analyses of public policy? Is there anything that I am missing? I am taking your use of the term skepticism literally and not interpreting it as veiled anti-environmentalism.
So I would hope that you would agree with the following statement:
"This in turn makes me skeptical about demands that we, either individually or through government action, do nothing to improve the environment."
Aaargh,
I assume the next step is government quotas on beef consumption, followed in a few years or decades by outright bans on eating beef... for our own good, of course, and for the planet, and the children.
Saving the environment is now the justification for every type of intrusive governmental meddling and regulation of all details of life. In that sense, environmentalism is like a religion: adherents use "the Faith" as the justification for any measure, no matter how over the top.
*** END RANT ***
Of course, many on the conservative and libertarian side take an equally extreme view--all arguments to protect the environment are wrong. Essentially, they argue, "When all life on the planet is dead, then, maybe, maybe, there will be sufficient evidence to start talking about possible changes in government policy."
The trick is to pay the right amount of attention to real environmental problems.
Is this true? You now have to transport the weight of the bicycle, so you should have to burn more calories, not less.
Merely carrying a bicycle on your shoulders while you walk to the market will take more effort than leaving it home.
If you ride the bicycle you will get there more efficiently. It's the wheels. Same reason the wheelchair racers finish the marathon first.
Those doing long bicycle tours (100 miles per day at a steady 15 mph) burn lots of calories and eat lots of bananas. Most of us can ride at jogging speed without breaking a sweat.
Does the analysis include the calories burned and carbon emitted by the driver sitting in the car, including during the time he saved because grocery shopping took shorter? If driving to the market gives him more time to go to the gym and work out, he's still emitting lots of CO2.
This is not entirely facetious -- I've talked to bicycle commuters who've told me "Yes, it takes longer to get to work by bicycle than driving, but I'm also getting in my daily exercise. If I drove to work I'd want to work out when I got home." (Most people are probably about as likely to exercise if they drive to the store instead of walking as they are to eat more cow because they walked.)
There is nothing wrong with CO2 per se. What's better: healthy and a fraction of a degree warmer, or obese and a smaller fraction of a degree warmer than now?
The idea that reducing the demand for something (wood) will increase the amount of that something that's produced is "radical"? Paper isn't made from trees that grew up in parks, it's made (largely) from trees that people plant for that very purpose; eliminate the purpose and the incentive to plant the trees goes down, so the land gets used for other things.
Another Landsburg example--suppose that we somehow found a way to get people to stop eating beef. Would the number of cattle in the world increase or decrease?
Assuming that the generation of greenhouse gasses does accelerate climate change, the only reason that humans think that is a bad thing is that they believe it will lead to a world that is less hospitable or less aesthetically pleasing to humans. BTW, just because humans may be accelerating climate change by their global activities over a couple of hundred years, that doesn't mean we can slow down the process voluntarily in just a few decades.
For instance, walking 3 miles to the store has many health benefits, while increasing the risk of serious injury or death due to collision. Since medical care accounts for a good chunk of GDP, even in Britain, the carbon contribution of the healthcare sector must be considered, as well as the carbon contribution of the economic activities displaced by health expenditures. Walking instead of driving may also cause cultural changes, which in turn affect development patterns, with potentially large changes in carbon emissions.
A realistic carbon analysis of a 3 mile walk-vs-drive requires detailed forecasting in economics, sociology, and medicine; the uncertainties will probably preclude any meaningful result. Therefore, let us leave that analysis to others, and examine how the two transport methods affect a person's looks. My research in this area uses a highly reliable type of data called anecdotal evidence. I had a coworker who walked nearly 2 miles each way to work in any weather. The mean estimate of her age was 12.7 years younger than actual. Armed with this knowledge, each VC reader can now make an informed choice of grocery transport method.
A-A-R-R-R-R-R-GH!!
And double A-A-R-R-R-R-R-GH. The demonization of carbon -- an element essential to all life on Earth, both plant and animal -- continues via the wacked-out Gorebot's insane propaganda.
For some science in this emotional discussion, please follow along:
This is one of my favorite charts, because it completely deconstructs the ''CO2 causes global warming'' conjecture. I have similar charts that track only the past millenium or so, but I like this one because it covers the entire history of the Earth. [data source: the AAAS journal, Science.]
Looking at the chart, you can clearly see that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. None. Pick any time frame you like; there is no correlation.
For instance, between 65 million years ago and 25 million years ago, note that global temperatures remained rock steady for 40 million years. Yet during this time, CO2 levels fluctuated wildly, from under 300 ppm [parts per million], up to an extremely high level of thousands of ppm. Despite these huge fluctuations in CO2 levels, global temps didn't change at all.
And look at the Jurassic: as CO2 was ramping way up -- global temperatures were falling! And not for just a short time; for fifty million years. That fact totally punctures Fat Albert's CO2/globaloney balloon.
Also note the Ordovician period, when atmospheric CO2 was at 355 ppm [almost the same level as today's CO2 level]. Yet, global temperatures kept falling -- until the Earth entered a severe and prolonged Ice Age! That fact alone drives a stake through the heart of the main conjecture of the Gorebot: the claim that CO2 causes global warming.
In fact, there has been no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures for at least the past half-billion years. NO correlation. None. Zip. Nada. NONE.
The climate record is clear: the conjecture that CO2 causes global warming has been falsified. The conjecture is not true.
The geologic record has destroyed the central pillar of Al Gore's anthropogenic global warming conjecture. CO2 does not cause runaway global warming, or global warming of any kind for that matter. It just is not true, as the climate record proves. But the religious true believers won't be convinced by facts, because...
''The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.''
~ H. L. Mencken
It is astonishing that the falsified CO2/global warming conjecture has gained such traction, that otherwise intelligent people discuss ''carbon'' as if it were some kind of poison that will get us if we don't do something.
We are carbon-based life. Carbon dioxide is a beneficial plant food that exists in extremely tiny concentrations in the atmosphere. It promotes plant growth and harms absolutely no one. And it has been proven beyond doubt that any effect that CO2 has on the climate is literally unmeasurable -- if it exists at all.
Of course, there is a reason for the anti-CO2 propaganda. There is always a reason. In this particular case, the reason is money. Big money.
Watch your wallets. That's what this is all about.
How do we square your lengthy analysis of that chart with the following chart from the same web site, by the same author, purporting to show the same data?
http://biocab.org/CO2-Geological_Timescale.jpg
Actually, no. The Pagani article from Science magazine cited in the caption to your chart only discusses proposed CO2 concentrations during the Paleocene, Eocene and Oligocene eras. There is nothing remotely resembling your chart in that article. What is the source of the rest of the data on that chart, and how can you vouch for its accuracy?
"First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. THESE CLAIMS ARE TRUE."
(emphasis mine)
Apart from your erstwhile buddies in the lab, I'd be interested to see you provide some actual support for your contention. I'd be happy with even a handful of respectable scientists who agree with you. I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think they're out there.
Three posts, birddogging my explanation! Wow. Got a life?Grover was so much in a hurry to take the Gorebot's side that he glossed right over ''data source,'' and mixed it up with the chart -- which was created from the data. Sloppy reading gives sloppy results; GIGO.
Since I've provided a clear chart showing the non-correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, it is up to others to prove the chart is wrong; not me. Yapping at my heels demonstrates impotence in the face of fact.
Grover's desperate attempt to argue away the clear non-correlation between CO2 and global temperatures over the time frame provided doesn't fly, of course, as anyone viewing the data can readily see.
Nice try, though.
Uh, no, the data for the entire CO2 timeline as plotted in that chart is nowhere in that article. Only the data for the three eras I mentioned. Those were the subject of the article. And there's no way to check the temperature data on the chart--unless you have your own source for that.
"Since I've provided a clear chart showing the non-correlation between CO2 and global temperatures..." it is up to others to prove the chart is wrong..."
No, you've provided an unverified chart that contradicts another chart from the same web site, plotted by the same guy, purporting to show the same thing--which it doesn't.
"...it is up to others to prove the chart is wrong..."
If "unverifiable," "undocumented" and "contradictory" add up to wrong, I think we're there, bud--or at least darn close.
"...as anyone viewing the data can readily see."
What data?
Sure I can refute the chart, with another chart from your own authority. Here, I'll post the link again:
http://biocab.org/CO2-Geological_Timescale.jpg
According to that chart, your chart is way off. Are you saying that the guy you chose as your go-to authority on global climate change is wrong?
And congrats on only birddogging with only two responses to my post this time. Glad you're not getting quite so wound up.
Let me give you some well-meaning advice: instead of desperately trying to refute the posts of other people, which we can see isn't working, try to make your own arguments. Your blood pressure will benefit. I'm not your enemy, much as you act like it. I am simply clearing the air of the incessant globaloney propaganda.
I'm on to other things, Grover. You're welcome to have the last word.
How observant of you! Even though a source for temp data is listed in the caption, it appears to have been left off the chart. Amazing! And let's not forget the CO2 data that contradicts your own chart. The least you could do is link to the guy's updated work--even if it tells us absolutely nothing about the correlation between CO2 and historical climate change.
"I'm on to other things, Grover."
Oh, but you'll be back, Smokey, you'll be back. :-)