The debate on co2 emitted by cars is concerned only with what comes out of the exhaust pipe. Convenient because it allows Governments a simple means of taxing most cars more. Of more concern is the total carbon load imposed by a vehicle over say a 100,000 ten year life cycle. As far as I can see the only serious work on this aspect of the carbon footprint has been done in the USA. Intrestingly the Greens darling Toyota Prius Hybrid car comes out as many times more poluting than the mighty Hummer.

tony allen, mere, england

All these 'Myths' are designed to confuse people and encourge them to hide from making changes. The real facts are generally much more straightforward and easy to understand
-the EA nappy survey assumed anyone using terry nappies was ironing them (and tumble drying them too I think). The best advice is to use terries and wash them senisbly
- the dishwashers are best story apparently assumes that everyone washes up under a running tap, as it assume 15 l to wash in the machine and 150 l to wash up by hand!
- with the story above.. what about people who are simply vegetarian.. where does the balance lie then?

Katie Olivier, Croydon, UK

When talking about pollution from cars and trains one needs to look at the embodied energy used in the manufacture and disposal of both types of transport. Also in the energy used in the making and maintaining of roads and rail. When these are taken into account the train would usually win.
On another matter - food is generally imported by ship not plane. A boat gives far more mpg than a lorry, plane or train.
The EA nappy 'facts' used a model of the nappies not being cleaned in the home but rather being collected by a laundry service. If washed at home using 'green' cleaning products and dried in the sun it would creat less polllution.
Eating local sheep, rabbit and chicken does far less harm to the environment than beef or soya. This is because those foodstuffs travel a small way and have low imputs. Sheep and rabbits graze on grass and scrub and chickens have a good conversion rate from plants to meat. Soya is often grown on former tropical forest sites.

Ray Harrington-Vail, Newport, Isle of Wight

build stores in area that we could use for farming and bulilding it for no reason

kimmy, chester, u.s.a

Our poles are melting, temperature and weather patterns are changing. Those are facts. Whose fault it is, man made or natural is almost irrelevant. The important thing is that we take action to prepare for the unavoidable consequences of climate change NOW.

Past climate changes have happened quick, the most recent having taken only about a decade. We have seen weather patterns change over the last few years, lost a bunch of ice, witnessed massive amounts of species going extinct and see a slow-down of the ocean’s conveyor which regulates temperature patterns around the globe. My gut feeling is to say that we are in the midst of climate change. Whether it’s caused by CO2, an active sun or any other cause is not the issue. The issue is… we can’t change, avert or avoid it so we have to figure out how to deal with it and survive it’s effects.

Ron
http://moreron.wordpress.com

Ron Campbell, Larkspur, CO

Its a completely flawed arguement.
The author of this piece has decided to completely omit any details on exactly how much Co2 is created in the production of fuel for the 3 mile journey, never mind the actual harm that is being done to the environment by the mass production of Vehicle's in the first place - This , for me, once again highlights the facade of "Global warming" which is being rammed down our throats through poorly delivered statistic.
Its a nice piece in theory, but as has been stated before, communism works... in theory !

R.Delaney, London,

So the car driver is not driving to the shop to buy beef? If the car owner drives to the shop and then buys beef, the car CO2 and the beef CO2 have to be added together, so the walker wins. A large proportion of beef is protein, which is not "burnt" by the body as fuel. If the walker were to fuel him/herself up with a baked potato (high carbohydrate), the comparison would be different.
This kind of simplistic "scientific" comparison is utterly wrong and very misleading.
The real issue is about methods of intensive food production and distribution, and very high "food mileage" e.g. why are there imported apples from China in British shops (transported 15000 miles!) in December just after the height of the British apple harvest?

G J, Nantwich, England

Let’s get real for a minute. The Earth’s climate changes, ok?
Seas become deserts, mountains have sea shells, and places that were once warm tropical swamps become frozen tundra and lands that where frozen become warmer.
Always has, always will!
To think that we can change that or cause it is the same as saying the world is flat. Hey I am a big believer in think and believe in whatever you want but if you are going to say it do it.
So far all I have seen is all of the people that are saying we have to reduce our carbon footprint doing nothing to reduce their own. If you are going to believe that we can effect climate change by driving smaller cars or traveling less, having smaller homes, buying carbon credits http://www.liveneutral.org/
(Ok now that is funny…. I should have thought of that.), Buying local foods, and using less toilet paper.
THEN DO IT!
Look if we all turned off all our power, never started a car ever again, stayed right where we are this very minute sat on the ground and ate worms in the dark, while using leaves instead of toilet paper.
Global Climate Change would still happen!
Always has, always will!
ADAPT or DIE
We don’t need to be looking for ways to stop climate change (WE CAN’T STOP IT) so get over it.
Look instead for ways to ADAPT to this ever changing world that we live on.
That’s my opinion what’s yours???
MHunter@aninconvenientguilttrip.com

Michael Hunter, tampa, USA/FL

being a zombie may not be the solution either... a rotting corpse releases methane, one of the worst greenhouse gasses!

bio boy, Bergen, Norway

Walk more an eat less, we're all too fat anyway.

Vanessa, San Diego, CA

Very interesting and lively stuff about our energy intensive food economy, but it's a bit silly to turn it into an equation about walking to the shops. The reason the supermarkets have massive car parks is because if you bring your car you are likely to go home with loads of stuff you don't need and didn't come shopping for. If you walk you can only buy what you can carry. The extra that you can't carry represents a huge carbon saving.

BurbleBore, Leeds,

Obviously becoming a zombie is the way to go. Instantly reduces all food intake to one source, which is local and abundant. Zero carbon emissions in production as the food is pre made, and the food source consumed actually reduces the pesky emissions population. What are we waiting for.

And yes lets burn all the trees and use the remaining leafs for money.

Mr.Ironic, London,

Your arguments about food production and wasted energy and chemical emissions are good but are incomplete. Buying from local producers vs imported fruits and veggies is a great way to support your own economy and to cut down on costs. Though the problem isn't just that alone. If cutting back on chemical and energy emissions is going to be possible than we have to work on both the recycling and energy wastes realm. You have to look at how much energy is "wasted" on recycling paper bags vs the impact the non-recyclable plastic bags will have. It is true you may waste more energy on re-using the paper bag but you have kept a super slow to decompose plastic bag from being tossed away and potentially killing some hungry animal. But that also doesn't mean the high energy waste of re-using a paper bag is good too. For this method to be truly affective we need to find a way to recycle the bag at a low energy and transportation cost. There is always another way. There is always hope.

Simon, Brampton, Ontario

A reduced human population will always be the best way to save the environment.
It doesn't really matter if you drive, eat meat, or just eat altogether since it all has a source to trail back to its going to expand with a growing population.

drone87, Burns Lake, Canada / British Columbia

"Going vegetarian is still the most effective way to help the environment.

Mark, Washington, USA"

No! Surely going Vegan is more effective? Milk consumption is dependent on beef production which is energy intensive.

Robin Turner, Derby, England, UK

The walking vs driving argument is clearly flawed because it poses that people would eat more to replace the energy used when walking. There would be no mass increase in food consumption if people got off their duffs and walked more...we're already eating too much as it is.

James, New York, USA

No mention of how much energy is used to produce a bicycle and how long they last before being replaced.

Truth is it's an inexact science and therefore is used in equal measure to 'prove' the green lobby and to raise taxes without any apparent effect upon the production of CO2 i.e. we're taxing you more but doing nothing about reducing emissions. Unbelieveably the masses are falling for it.

Spence, Birmingham, England

Greywash!
The paper bag example is pathetic and unsupportable, paper bags take up more space! Obviously a huge emmition of Co2 compared to the non biodegradable and toxically produced plastic bag!

Trees and all plants absorb co2 and emit o2. The co2 imprint of veg and cereal is zero apart from inorganic fertilizers and transportation.
Obviously a local organic vegetarian diet is virtually zero carbon despite what the "industries" tell us.
Trees and plants store co2 in their structure.
All fossil fuels add co2 to the atmosphere by their combustion. Electric cars (Not hybrid) emit both the coal co2 in producing the electricity, and the lost electricity due to high innefficiencies bnetween coal burner and plug socket.
The latent co2 consumed in producing a new car of any type is 10-20,000 lb which should be considered in buying an eco vehicle or other goods.
The repair and maintenance of existing equipment comes top in the hierarchy of co2 reduction.
Wise up not dumb down

vic doyle, Ferndale, wales

This is such a blatent ATTEMPT to make us hippies & anyone with any SENSE appear to be stupid, when we increasingly scream at you from our bicycles just because you havnt bought a new worldview yet, you bought a new car... First of all ; seaspower.com - WE DONT NEED TO POLLUTE TO TRAVEL IN A VEICLE.... This is indirectly man-made global warming; but its the fault of the secret societies controlling our every move that keep propor technology & information from us... There is no appocalypse, if we just open our eyes, & realize that we must solve all these problems by finding the source of all the manipulation; - the reptilians that are here.... Go ahead, dont believe it before looking at the evidence yourself... - Thats just what we need! For them to win... I give up... its up to you.

WARRIOR, ML, CAN

No mention as to how much energy was used to produce the auto being driven to the store, including the tires.

skip smyth, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

High consumption of meat and its industrial production is environmentally damaging - nothing new here. So sad that it only makes the news when someone produces what appears to be a simplistic back-of-the-fag-packet type calculation that at face value suggests walking is some how worse than driving. If Mr Goodall's point was to highlight the greenhouse impact of industrial meat production and its excess consumption, I fear his message may be lost in the hype. Perhaps he could have made clearer that most people driving to the shops are eating excessive amounts of meat as well, that people walking may actually get their calories by other means and perhaps factor in the green house cost of extracting, processing and delivering the fuel prior to it being burned in their vehicles. Maybe the energy expended by the ill-health industry trying to keep sedentary and overweight people alive? Still, I am sure it sell a few extra books!

Bryan, Chester, UK

Perhaps scientist’s concerned with climate change should put their mind together and attempt to produced a solution, rather than wasting their time and producing extra CO2 on pointless calculations!

ben, Manchester,

The article is bogus because the author considers only the environmental cost of producing beef & ignores the environment cost of producing fuel.

Max, Portland, OR

Dominic Kennedy -

Please read the entire book before taking information out of context. I realize that this was an assignment for 'on-line' but really - you should at least go for a C effort. Even Bush can muster this apparently. Your facts are mis-quoted, and incorrect. Do not twist words to try and create a story where there is not one.

Eric, Cincinnati, Ohio

Not to mention that the calculation is based on the energy you'd need to walk that distance coming entirely from intense beef production - ridiculous. These 'myths busted' are based on incredibly superficial calculations. Could anyone really be stupid enough to think that it's better for the planet to drive your car than to walk? How about long-term health costs to society by having more inactive people? Stupid.

Jen, Seattle, WA, USA

We need to have these kind of conversations, and stop judging people for what kind of car they drive. Your car does'nt always reflect your entire lifestyle and how much energy you consume on a whole. We should be questioning big corporations and government before we lay guilt on the people!

An American, Salem, Oregon U.S.A.

How about I just sit in a corner and pick my nose? And what's all this about calories I have to regain after I go walking? That's the last thing I want to do after exercise.

Me, Des Moines, WA,

He takes into consideration the greenhouse gases emitted while driving the car, but what about those emitted during the PRODUCTION of the car? That should be factored in.

Also, why is he assuming that car drivers eat less? Maybe they don't need to eat as many calories because they're doing less activity, but the car drivers I know are overweight and consistently overeat more than the more active bicycling and walking folks I know.

jessica, elgin, USA

What this article points out is the need for every part of human activity, throughout the life cycle, to be analysed for its true energy content and environmental implications. In order to compare not-like with not-like (car with train or foot, for instance, or a dozen different production methods for solar panels) there would also have to be a set of global and independent standards for carrying these measurements out Only when this is carried out for all eventualities can a fair and truthful assessment of the least damaging alternatives be reached.

Hamish Cormack, Bristol, Avon

Please - Most people could stand to expend 180 calories and much more not have them replaced at all! Where did you get all this nonsense? And who says we would replace the calories with beef or milk? Your figures are off too.
What a joke this "story" is.

shirley, san francisco, ca. usa

The logic is flawed for the walking v. driving thing, because the assumption is that the calories are needed ONLY by those who walk to the store. If a social science survey showed that people who drove ate much less than people who walked to the store, with both their food weighted for the amount of emmissions used to produce and transport it, I would be less sceptical. I highly doubt it though.

Caro, Leiden,

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt"> Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt</a>

Roman Ženka, Rochester, MN

If you would have stopped at "we just need to take better care of our environment" I would have been with you. But now you enviromental type have become literally laughable as you follow like lemmings the leadership of a former vice president and a guy who got beat by George Bush! You have got to pick better people to get behind.

Toby, Minneapolis, USA, the most hated country..and I love it

The health benefits of people walking more must be a consideration. the less fit people are, the more likely it is that they will require medical intervention - perhaps even hospital stays. If the carbon emissions to produce their medication, operate hospital machinery and even transport visitors to their bedside is calculated, I am sure that the argument for taking the car in comparison with walking would pale into insignificance. Also, how many people are likely to eat less if they are taking the car - few I reckon.

Alison, Glasgow, UK

The whole premise of this article is absurd. Green house gas emissions with regard to walk is considered as an entire system starting from the production of the food used to power the walk, but when it comes to vehicle emissions only the emissions from the gasoline burning are considered. What about these equally significant uses of energy/causes of pollution related to that drive:

* Energy cost of drilling the oil and transporting it from the Middle East
* Energy required to refine it and transport it to the gas station
* Percentage of the car's useful life used in that trip as a percentage of all the emissions created in the act of building the car (I'm betting this is a big number considering all the metal refining, plastic production, rubber, glass, oil changes, etc)

There is no way driving the car is more efficient, and this isn't even considering the ridiculousness of an all meat diet. Try reporting on real science instead of articles with an obvious spin.

Lee Johnson, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

I'm sorry, but I am astonished that this article was ever written. What a ridiculous premise...whether we walk to the stores or drive, we are going to eat. All forms of life need to eat to live. If you want to criticize the methods by which our food is produced, do it in an intelligent and educated way. Don't make yourself look idiotic by making a statement that is patently ludicrous.

Neifer, Lake Ronkonkoma,

The #1 source of methane in the world comes from the digestion of wood by termites, not cattle production.

gary , smithville, tn usa

I dispute the *fact* that trees produce more mehane blah blah blah.
Also, yes it may well be more efficient to drive a car to the blah blah than walk... IF you decide to eat carrion.
If you get your protein from vegetable-sources, the results would be markedly different; also, mamy millions more people would be able to be fed using land that grows vegetable protein as opposed to animal protein.
We do not need animal proteins in our diet - however... i don't care what you choose to eat (-_o)

Martin, Gloucester, UK

First of all the calculations are wrong: a 4oz hamburger carries about 240 calories, which means 3oz will fuel the 180 calorie requirement. 1oz ~= 28g, so it only takes 84g of beef to replace them. That's not compelling though, so here's a better argument:

MY DIET CONSISTS OF THINGS OTHER THAN BEEF. Realistically, I get less than 10% of my weekly calories from cow. Beef isn't even the best source of calories out there: I'd say fish is. A 30g tin of tuna contains 30g of pure protein, which means 120 calories. 1.5 tins of tuna will replace the lost calories. Half a large chicken breast will do the same, or a thigh and drumstick.

The point is there are other places to get calories than beef! If we were only capable of consuming cow, then this article would hold water. However, assuming most people are like me and get 25% or less of their calories from beef, that means 21g of beef to replace the beef portion of calories, which ends up being 0.756kg of emissions - 16% LESS than driving.

Chris, Richmond Hill, Canada

It's simple. We all become Ewoks and learn to live a less complicated rural lifestyle.

gary , smithville, tn usa

“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."

As an important health aside:
100-g of beef or any protein is around 400 calories. There are 4 calories in 1-g of protein. There are 9 calories in 1-g of a carbohydrate. Therefore, if you would like to replace calories lost by physical activity you should intake carbohydrates in conjunction with a small amount of protein. For instance, there are 100 calories in a common cup of yogurt (which contains naturally occuring protein). Add two raw apples at 35 to 40 calories a piece and you've not only replaced those calories, but replenished good bacteria and vitamins as well. No one should be eating 100-g of protein (especially animal derived) at a time. Also, diminishing animal derived protein cuts back 'carbon' use, but more importantly bad cholesterol.

Raime, Houston, Texas

Some of us have not eaten beef or ANY wastefull government pay ola "ranch" animals for decades.
Why in the world would you advise a nation of obese people to put it all back on and keep it on instead of trimming downand keeping fit by walking to the shops?! You must be mentilly ill.

Jason, Redwood Valley, fat U.S.A.

Typical asinine environmentalist. Any action you take leaves a carbon footprint. The solution? Cut back consumerism and materialism.

radtop, Portland, USA/Oregon

Surely intensively raised beef is bad for the environment, but I don't know anyone who eats only intensively raised beef. Rather unbalanced and misleading.

Gavin Hudson, Seattle, USA/WA

you say: “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."

How about being a vegan instead of eating beef? A vegan diet uses 1/16th the resources of a typical meat based diet.

Dave, Portland, Maine

I keep thinking this Global Warming scam can't get any more ridiculous and I am always proven wrong.

RJ, Harrisburg, PA USA

Are the environmentalists willing to give the use of computers and printers and paper? How about their wireless phones, their MP3s and iPods?

Bob, Lincoln, USA/Nebraska

This info just shows how absurd the whole "global warming" hysteria has become. It is the height of arrogance for mankind to think we can control the massively complex and unpredictable warming and cooling of our planet. As more and more scientists jump off the global warming crazy train, it becomes more absurd to see these examples of people wasting time trying to figure out some kind of mythical carbon footprint. You have no idea what your carbon footprint is, and you have no idea what effect YOU have on the wrming...or cooling of the planet. It would all be funny except that populist politicians create new restrictive laws to ensure their re-elections. To implement any kind of policy based upon such faulty cause & effect reasoning is ultimately immoral and just plain stupid. If the Greens cant even agree on whether SUVs or jogging damages the planet more, it is time to stop allowing them to make our laws and restrict our freedoms.

JW, Langley upon Eggham, UK

Maybe everyone should try reading the Bible, and you would see that the earth is God's to destroy in His own time. People did not create this planet, and we can not destroy it. We are giving ourselves far too much credit if we believe that we can. God will destroy it, and we don't know when that will be. Good thing for us the Bible also tells us how we can prepare for it! The answers have been there for thousands of years. People today are just too impatient to look for them.

Steve, Peru, Indiana, USA

There are many attacks, but the simplest one is to attack the carbon footprint of the driver's societal *health-care* costs. Just how much carbon does the driver use up in the surgery room getting a bypass surgery or having insulin delivered regularly? Care to estimate this?

Phillip Huggan, Wpg, Canada

Aberations by a british "leading environmentalist".
Questions:
1.If you're driving a car, you mustn't eat?
2.By making a car (how many people are involved in producing it), doesn't it result more CO2?
3. How much CO2 results from producing the petrol for running that car?

Liviu, Craiova, Romania

The logic is flawed. The author does not include how much energy it takes to produce the oil and transport it half way around the world. There is no mention of oil spills.

The German so called scientist has been completely discredited about his statement that trees give off methane.

Trains are far more fuel efficient than Land Rovers. While the author compares old trains engines with new SUVs, the old train engines can be upgraded to new technology. Plus, much energy is not wasted tearing up the countryside for new and large roads.

World oil production is going to peak in 2010. We need to get on with changing energy usage patterns and stop listening to right wing nuts.

Dan, Arnold, USA

Errr where do we begin.

If everyone walking drove then congestion would rocket as would demand for petrol. More cars, more congestion, longer journey times. Longer routes, parking more congested. More milage per year, more turnover of cars more demand... Did he factor in making the cars?

Then we have the health impact, more pollution, decreased excercise, more health problems, bigger hospitals, more ambulances...

The man would appear to not have engaged his brain, perhaps his car came up with the conclusion... Or he just wanted to sound a bit rad.

Tok, Boulder, Co

Blame the sun its getting brighter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/358953.stm

Charlotte Emma, London,

Because so few "environmentalists" have learned to think for themselves, they tend to believe anything they read, unless it disagrees with what their leaders like Al Gore say. In the case of anyone who disagrees with conventional environmental wisdom, all points raised by these heretics must be disregarded, because they obviously have been released by tools of the oil companies or some other disinformation boogieman.

Face the facts: the world is changing, and change is the only constant in the world. No matter how much we want to freeze time and stop further entropy and development, life continues to evolve. The law of unintended consequences will result in no good deed going entirely unpunished and people pursuing their own selfish desires doing good for others.

We live today in the best of all possible worlds, at least relative to all past possible worlds, but we will continue to move boldly into the future to our new best of all possible worlds.

Get a sense of humor.

Wes Schellenbaum, Manhattan Beach, California

In California, the wineries have already been attacked for the amount of "greenhouse gases" they produce. No call to shut them down yet, but how far off can that be. Nothing in our lives is safe anymore.

Cindy Youngblood, Palm Bay, Florida

Somebody mentioned population reduction. If we look at nature and the aminal kingdom, we'll see that there two method os population control.

Nature's method of keeping the population at sustainable levels. It's called disease. I wonder what the population of the world would be today had the black plauge not wiped out half (estimates very between a third to 2 thirds) Europe & Aisia's (west of China) population.

Of course the other form of population control is war.

Adam, New York (Leeds),

This shows how stupid the whole debate can become. Obviously we "create" issues for the planet when we do anything. So taking things to their logical conclusion we should all just top ourselves right now to "save the planet". Silly stuff like this just undermines the moderate solutions that governments are trying to put in place.

Andy, London,

Last night was pretty chilly for August, I had to close a window or two. I think all these people driving their cars around must be having the desired effect on combating global warming !!!

rikrok, London, UK

Well, off you go then Superfiend. Mind you, don't forget to choose a low carbon method of topping yourself.

Ed, Sydney, Australia

What about riding a bike rather than taking the car or walking?

Tim, Toronto,

I do not believe all the lies about global warming. It is provable that the earth goes through cycles. It is far more plausible that changes in the sun's characteristics are responsible for changes in the earth's climate. Besides, I know what I have experienced in during my lifetime and it isn't that the climate is getting hotter. If anything, it is getting cooler.

What this all boils down to is that there are deceitful, power hungry people who cannot leave others alone. They are control freaks who will use any excuse to lord themselves over others.

If they are so intent on the issue of global warming due to mankind's activities, then a simple solution is to reduce the population (another 'brilliant' idea of theirs) I suggest they commit suicide.

What -- no takers among the idiot global warming crowd? Of course not. As with the warmongers, it is always someone else who should suffer the penalty for their swollen heads and stupidity.

James Radcliffe, Phoenix, AZ USA

We should listen to this man...
If the world decided to take Goodall's system of logic seriously and apply it to our lives, the world would be better off. Of course, such steps would have to be implemented gradually; perhaps we should use cows to pull wagons (instead of buses) and see how that works. If the cow-buses work, we can eventually make rotes for them, and the inevitable arrive of modernized donkey carts (turn-signals, lights etc.)
Eventually, lawnmowers could be easily replaces with goats, or the donkeys (from the carts). Each neighborhood could have a lawn maintenance animal - or two that could be killed before winter, eaten and replaced with fresher stock in the spring.
Think of the jobs that would be created to care for these animals, not to mention the environmental saving and increase in meat exports, all pluses for the economy.
Any economy.

Ryan McAuliffe, London, Canada

He also assumes that people who exercise more eat more. I don't know if you've looked around, but most people take in way more calories than they need period. I ride my bike everywhere, I burn a lot of calories, I don't eat an equal amount of calories to those I burn on the bike more than your average lazy person. Exercise can actually result in eating less; I've found that the more I work out, the more what I eat corresponds to the energy I actually need. As for claiming that trains are more efficient than SUV's... sure, if you put 10 people on the whole train... how often does that happen? Ridiculous. This kind of fluff makes it clear that the paper either doesn't care about accuracy or has no interest in hiring writers who have a grasp of the topic they're writing about.

Jim, berkeley, California, USA

This is scientific nonsense. Nobody's diet is 100% beef and nobody does zero exercise. Walking 3 miles instead of driving to the gym would be a good example of how to reduce your carbon footprint.

The idea that it's more environmentally frienldy for a family of four to drive than go by train is also wrong. If you choose to take the train then the incremental increase in carbon emissions is zero, since the train runs anyway. These calculations are flawed because they assume a low level of train occupancy. If everyone took the train instead of driving, carbon emissions would fall because the train occupancy would have to increase to over 100% before more trains were needed. If no trains ran at all then everyone would be forced to drive, whether sharing lifts or not, and carbon emissions would increase.

Catharine Gregory, Bristol,

This article seems to be a pit of a panicked reaction to our problem. We've established as incontrovertible the fact that the greenhouse effect is out of control, and we know we have to do something about it. But now that we have this enormous, daunting problem to solve, we're looking at every aspect of our lives and how we consumer energy. It's therefore natural, with the sheer scale of this issue, that we're finding culprits everywhere. Not that these aren't claims with logical backing, but it may also have a touch too much sensationalism.

Shane, Point Edward,

Am I the only one who thinks that this is all getting a bit ridiculous?

John, Banard Castle, UK

The airlines,transport companies,food producers etc have all come under the hammer of the Green Fools.The essential step in the production of wine and beer is the conversion of sugars into alcohol annnnnd the dreaded CO2.How long before these Green Fools turn to the wineries and brewerys and start to advocate the elimination of wine and beer production as an essential step in saving the planet?

michael condron, Montreal, Canada

I guess driving my Dodge Ram 1500 HEMI with a dual exhuast isn't so bad anymore!

Rick, Loxahatchee, Florida, USA

I think the term "good for the environment" is pretty myopic. Take the paper v. plastic bag example. Maybe paper takes more "energy" to produce, but it is a natural product...not a synthetic petro-chemical derivative that won't bio-degrade. Wood is a natural renewable resource that we should be happy to put energy towards sustainably utilizing. Add in the political factor of instability of / excessive reliance on oil producing regions and I think the plastic fare far worse.

Plastic bags end up circling the in the Pacific ocean choking large birds. Paper bags do not. I would gladly spend the energy for this and the above mentioned reasons.

This article is really missing the boat if you ask me and using very narrow definitions of "good" and "bad." Maybe good for shock value; bad for substantive policy debate.

Proventlogger, Washington DC, USA

May be a shorter lifetime will save some calories because we are unfit but has any of these trivia seekers worked out the cost of a population of ill people vs a population of healthy people who regularly exercise.
If we went back to the caves, our early relatives were actually fond of meat.
Lots of people, including me are actually allergic to many of the cereals.

Jean Cannon, Adelaide, Australia

when you do the calculation it's actually about 22 lbs

CO2 is mostly oxygen by weight so 12 lbs of carbon gives you 44 lbs of CO2

Robert Cartwright, Wallington, NJ

Why did this story's author think Chris Goodall deserves the moniker "leading environmentalist?" You would think that a "leading environmentalist" would have a Wikipedia page, would have published more than one book, or would have some high-ranking Google hits that have nothing to do with the book. Calling Goodall a leading environmentalist is like calling me a leading blogger. But I suppose calling him a "leading environmentalist" makes this story more seem more notable than if you'd said "random guy says something inflammatory to sell books". Several places in your article, you cite the dangers of methane. While methane does trap much more heat than the equivalent amount of CO2, it is eventually broken down. Despite the eight billion cows belching methane into the atmosphere, methane concentrations have flatlined. http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html So maybe trees and organic dairy cows don't deserve such a quick dismissal.

Bryce Anderson, SLC, UT, USA

The problem with Mr. Goodall's analysis is that he omits the amount of carbon required to build the car.

Don Stoneberger, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Faulty Logic.

He's assuming that people who drive everywhere eat less food. T\ake it from an ex coach potato, people who drive everywhere and sit around all day will eat more than anyone else because they're greedy and bored!

Zan, Numpty,

QUOTE: "If there's one thing an article on climate change is good for it's identifying all the cranks who write off global warming theories as arrogant or welcome the arrival of climate change because plants thrive on CO2 and we can all enjoy sunnier weather." - Andy, Liverpool.

Andy, as I said earlier. Human produced CO2 is so too minute to affect global warming. This is not to say that humans are not part or all of the problem that is global warming. Bu not via CO2. (research the issue yourself) Human produced CO2 isn't the cause of global warming.

Adam, New York (Leeds), US/UK

So are any of these eco-nuts going to give up eating to save the planet?
Bottom line - everything has a trade off.

Artie Curtis, Fredericksburg, US/Virginia

I Love this guy.... Hey buddy? What if i DONT eat beef today. Or drink milk. Alex From Glasgow is right. These ppl are simply the lucky crazies in your local cardboard box that got media attention. The world is not going to end. And while yes, we DO do bad things to the Earth, just because i ate some beef does not make a whit off difference. Life still goes on. We still Pollute. And guess what. In another 10 years noone is going to remeber Mr. Goodall. Why? Becuase the global warming fad will have dissapeared, and the media will pay attention to something else. I tip my hat to you Mr.Goodall, and hope you dont give up the day Job >.<

Mike , Amherst, Ohio

As Mr. Goodall himself suggests the answer is not to drive the car to the shops but to develop less energy intensive forms of food production. A good starting point is to move to organic production systems. They are at least a third more energy efficient than conventional production because they do not use synthetically manufactured fertilisers. They sequester carbon in the form of humus in the soil and in the case of livestock, methane emissions are lower because of greater pasture diversity. As a bonus organically produced food is more nutritious and healthy.

Derek Broadmore, Wellington, New Zealand

Why does anyone listen to what these hate filled psycopaths have to say? All of these global warming arguments are incoherent and one contradicts. All these so called theroies have in common is the desire to prevent the developing people of the world or the poor people of the world the chance to live in a modren society. Its also set out to devprive people of a decent living, because you need to punish people by limiting so called green house gas. Science is a joke these days because no one pratices the principles of science any more. These science is nothing but twisting your data to support your hypothesis. Just do a google search on the 'Hockey Stick' climate map hoax as an example of a researcher fudging the data to support his hypothisis. God has utlimate domionion over the tempature of the Earth, so you little burps and farts mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Adam, Baltimore, Maryland

I know the article is trying to make a point that our food production is energy intensive and something we should think about. But to say that it's more damaging for the planet to drive as to walk is a bit extreme. You have to account for all the air pollutants emitted as well and not just in terms of the CO2.

The meat industry is one of the most un-environmental. Not only is it a polluter of green house gases, it also discharges lots of polluted water and requires vast farm lands to grow food just to feed the animals. I think one of the best ways to tackle this problem is moderation. If we can all reduce the amount of meat that we consume, we'll be helping the environment and ourselves a big favor. Somewhere down the road in these past 30 years meat just became so cheap and so abundant and eating less, which was the norm in the past, would been seen as a crime.

Wilson, Hong Kong,

This article fails to note the contribution to global warming is only one factor to consider when making an environmental decision. For example, in the case of plastic vs. paper bags, one should also consider the fact that plastic will not readily degrade.

David, Washington, USA

I’m sorry, I don’t agree with this at all. The article talks about “turning environmental ideas on their heads” - but I think it's really just a case of poor understanding or poor journalism.

It says that diesel trains can be more polluting than driving. However if you look at the facts stated in the article itself, that that is only the case if ten or fewer people travel on a train - then you can see tthat it's a very poor argument. It's rare that so few people travel on a diesel train.

The same with the argument about walking vs. driving. People don't just eat meat and dairy - which are the most environmentally damaging of all food stuffs. They get a lot of energy from rice, bread, pasta, and vegetables, which produce far less carbon for the energy they give you, and would make walking much less carbon intensive than driving.

Peter Robinson, London,

What about the energy that is needed to produce the car in the first place? To transport them from the factory to the shop? To build and maintain the roads? Are these activities carbon-neutral? And if not, if you factor in all that CO2, is driving still better than walking? Especially if you get your calories mostly from fruits and veggies as you should and not from beef or milk?

Probably not.

The author is right that modern food production uses way to much energy. About the rest... not so much.

Viktor, Berlin, Germany

It's like Rush Limbaugh said recently "why don't we just ban ourselves?"

Greg, Lancashire, England

We need to stop listening to these nutcases. The global warming fanatics have gone over the edge. Live your life, exercise moderately, eat a well-balanced diet and don't worry about what global warming fanatics say.
DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY!
Next year they will be on to something else for us to worry about.

R. Turner, Hayward, USA/CA

Very astute observations, and largely correct even if somewhat incomplete (viz some of the analysis of fossil fuels, which of course would not apply when we switch to biofuels).

This raises the thorny issue of the Olympics. If so much damage to the earth is caused by the simple act of shopping, should we really be promoting such a venture with its potential damage to the planet?

Mark Williams, Hurstbourne Priors, Hampshire

i quite think this is rubbish. and anyways, there is no better way to help the environment than by going vegan. cut out the meat and dairy from your diet, and you've reduced the demand for such products, thereby reducing the amount of pollution caused by the production of them.

christopher bird, Norfolk, Virginia

Where Political and Religious ideologies of the past have mainly failed in their attempts to control the masses, Global Warming, if we let it, will triumph.

It is the ultimate 'catch all' Dooms day scenerio, to put our planet in peril. People should read a good encyclopedia, learn about the Carbon cycle and how the atmosphere is made up, before entering into this hysterical 'the sky is falling' Global Warming debate. It is not just cars and chimneys that exhale CO2, all life on Earth does too.

Andy Fleming, Liverpool, UK

Duma Duke, opinionated 'Chaircat" has this to add:
All this talk about the effects of global warming clearly demonstrates that there are too many of you. Yes you humans, (and the cows that feed you according to Goodall).
For those that want to turn us all green I say: the fault is certainly not ours...Cheetahs and the few Gazelles we are lucky enough to catch.
Now, if there were more Cheetahs, say hundreds of millions of us, there would not be so many of you right?
But I'm only a Cheetah, what do I know...
www.animalorphanagekenya.org/blog

Duma Duke, Nanyuki 10400, Kenya

I think the article hightlights the absurdity of the current environmental obsession that we have. Society has evolved to its current form because it is broadly effective and efficient.

The price of goods and services (including adjustments by the authorities, acting as Company Directors of UK plc) is a good indicator of the cost to humans and the planet. Only prices will significantly affect our behavour.

So stop worrying and don't allow yourself to be manipulated by people with their own agendas and live your life following the well hackneyed phase of 'everything in moderation'.

Paul, London,

I've got it. We've to stop eating meat, growing food, driving cars, flying planes, using electricity, wearing clothes or washing them, making paper, using trains, using water and pretty much just live in a cave doing nothing except pay more taxes. Didn't we do that about 40,000 years ago? The truth is every living thing pollutes, some of them even kill each other, it how the elements and energy flow, it's what living things are supposed to do. One ecosytems pollutant is anothers essential requirement. The only tuly "globally cool" "carbon neutral" human is a dead one.

One thing we should do is forget about all the panic merchants and professional campaigners, Trying to make us feel guilty for just existing, and stop paying their wages or agreeing to pay their new tax or voting for them. We should just be sensible.

alex, Glasgow, UK

But anyone who read the Environment Agency's nappy report could tell it was full of holes and their research was seriously flawed. Are all these other "scientific findings" based on spurious research too?

Jude, Perthshire,

I have an idea - why don't we just all kill ourselves and save the planet? Ecomentalists should lead the way.

LS, Toronto, Canada

I feel that I have more science than most of the science of climate change. Once they started blaming the farts of animals, rotting vegetation in hydro lakes and now waking you KNOW the science has hit a new low. There is more skill in playing chess than in being a climate, save the plant, we are all going to die science that we are being spoon fed everyday. And what’s the outcome MORE TAXES.

Tim, Liverpool,

Kinda funny considering the researcher ASSUMES that just by walking that people will eat more. More likely people will eat the same amount if they are walking or driving, so technically NOT driving helps the environment more than driving. His point is well taken on the beef production however, it is just delivered poorly.

J Elie, Michigan, USA

I think this research represents a real breakthrough in understanding the causes of global warming. The real global warming culprit is the growth of professional sports and the accompanying exercise industry. Just think about it. Two hundred years ago there were no professional sports and gratuitous exercise was unheard of. So was global warming. Now professional sports are a major industry and sportsmen grow ever larger, faster and more powerful on the back of demanding exercise regimes and greater food consumption. Worldwide sporting competitions grow ever more frequent and bigger in scale. Clearly if we plot the growth in the exercise industry and professional sports over the last one hundred years we will see a close correlation with the changes in global CO2 levels. The solution is clear - we must ban all professional sports and competitions and all forms of exercise as they lead to widespread over consumption of food. The link is inescapable.

Kevin, Kent, Tonbridge,

This is absurd. Helping our fellow creatures is a noble thing. We should cultivate gardens, treat animals humanely, and be kind to one another. But obsessing over how much carbon dioxide and methane we expel into the atmosphere is neurotic and counterproductive.

Gaddy Bergmann, Denver, Colorado, USA

The mass media has stopped talking about global "warming" because of the ubusually cool weather experienced by many this summer across Britain and Canada and elsewhere, instead they talk about climate "change". So which is it? The science is so shaky and no legs to stand on, it is well known that for years governments have conducted research on the weather including normal flow of moisture, cloud seeding and rain making, creations of droughts and floods, fog and hurricane steering, and affecting air pressure -- this is all well patented research if anyone cares to look. But the aim of Defra is what exactly? Who do they serve? The IPCC fails to point out that before the mini ice age (1500-1800AD) the earth experienced 150 years (1000-1150AD) of very warm weather much warmer than it is now -- that was not caused by cars or walking to the shops or leaving the TV on standby. We are in fact still coming out of the mini ice age. Is CO2 (read: life itself) to blame for climate change?

sal, london, uk

I came across this article when deciding whether to buy Goodall's book, "How to Live a Low-Carbon Life". If you look at Goodall's website www.lowcarbonlife.net/default.asp?page=93 you'll see he adds the qualifier, "if walking means you need to eat more to replace the energy lost." This qualifier does not appear in the article above.
This is a piece of lazy journalism, a copy-and-paste from a Goodall press release designed to punt more copies of his book. Assuming the deeply flawed methodology exhibited above is typical of that which appears in the book, I will now be avoiding it.
There is NO debate in academic circles nor has there been for quite some time; man-made climate change IS happening and we must mitigate its effects - www.ipcc.ch/
It is imperative that everyone gets a grasp of the facts and takes personal responsibility and ACTION; I recommend George Monbiot's website www.turnuptheheat.org/ and his excellent book full of solutions, "Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning".

J W Leitch, Falkirk, Scotland

Why use meat as the main calculation factor? We all know the global meat industry has major problems with waste and emission. Walking to the store may "burn" more calories, but food is a renewable resource, petroleum is not. Local growing supports healthy, renewable farming and cuts down on transportation costs.

Matthew Pelham, Boston, USA / Massachusetts

Im going to print this out and pin it to every noticeboard I can find!

This is too entertaining to let go!

Zak Larue-Buckley, Leicester, Leicestershire

Well, if you don't beleive in the whole Global Warming bunk like myself and millions of others, none of this matters. In the 70's there were scares of a global cooling coming on (Newsweek April 25, 1975 -The cooling world). In fact, the earth has gone through 75 Major temperature swings in the last 4,500 years. Wise up people. Ignorance is not bliss.

Samuel Walters, San Luis Obispo, CA

Anyone want to install pipes in the rear end of cows to catch the methane?

Will, Huntingdon, Cambs

If we had less people in the world, there woudl be less of a need to transport so much of our modern day luxuries, inlcuding food from other countries.
Transport systems would carry more people per unit as there woudl be less units to support 'predicted' levels of use.
Everything we take for granted in todays society woudl be reduced and a lot more products would become "home grown" again. Not just food stuffs but raw materials that we now import. Steel is a great example.
Luckily with less people globaly, these factors would effect all countries and eventually reduce all these nasty gases per person.
Jock has a very valid point, however we haven't helped add to a natural process. In fact our position in the natural eb and flow of the planet has increased. Every little helps Jock, so in fact we have done damage.
Surely you know that 1 degree change in your own body temperature can determine if you have a fever or not. With an eco system as big as earths, it's the same.

Jason, Godalming,

Ban jogging and save the planet!

Jock, Edinburgh,

It's an interesting perspective, for climate campaigners at least, but this is where the general public get disillusioned in trying to make a difference. I believe our focus has to be on carbon neutrality, through innovative energy production, linked to a bit of self-restraint. Oh, and nuclear.

But to call it a lie, is to defie the evidence for the sake of convenience. There are billions of us burning fossil fuels now, and in 40 years we have released carbon accumulated in deposits over 2000 million. The fact is that we have fundamentally changed the balance of atmospheric gases and there is a long term correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.

I too was once on the sceptical side, mainly because its easiest to do nothing and be self-righteous. But if you look at the science as objectively as possible, the balance of evidence comes down on the side of climate change being a reality.

Gus Swan, London, UK,

Does Mr Goodall really think that not exercising leads to people eating less? Has he looked around himself lately?

VT Thinblot, London,

Once again proving that "the truth" that keeps getting all of the media attention is not as accurate a predictor of reality as they would have us believe. Any time you analyze anything, the assumptions made and scope of the analysis will obviously affect the results.

Remember, science once "knew" the earth was the center of the solar system, & the earth was flat. Now we get weekly contradictions about previous studies that show "conclusively" that this or that is good/bad for your health, or does / does not contribute to global warming, etc. Think of all the harmful things there are now laws or regulations concerning that were not in effect when you & I were growing up - yet here we are!

Sadly, I suspect "let common sense prevail" is asking too much...

John, Virginia Beach, USA

Our very existence endangers our fragile and innocent planet, depending on whom you ask. So heat up a Hot Pocket and go for a drive, if we're all doomed anyway, and tell these idiots with nothing but greenspace between their ears to bugger off.

Joe Day, Portland, OR USA

If we had less people in the world, there woudl be less of a need to transport so much of our modern day luxuries, inlcuding food from other countries.

Transport systems would carry more people per unit as there woudl be less units to support 'predicted' levels of use.

Everything we take for granted in todays society woudl be reduced and a lot more products would become "home grown" again. Not just food stuffs but raw materials that we now import. Steel is a great example.

Luckily with less people globaly, these factors would effect all countries and eventually reduce all these nasty gases per person.

Jason, Godalming,

I agree, We all get too caught up in 'marketing' claims about how green a company's products are (Toyota Prius, anyone? you planet damaging hooligans!!). This report highlights the amazingly bold claims made against our sacred road network are untrue and frankly, a bit OTT. Yes, cars, and drivers attitudes need to change, but more importantly, our food and power sources need to be kicked into touch!!!!

Tim Necklen, Leicester, England

To Ken Ferguson, Knoxville, Tennessee/USA UNQUOTE

fink of de children Ken fink of de children

I am afraid your comment is far too sage for this audience. Are you related to the trees in Lord of the Rings? The odd meteor or two will undoubtedly agree with you not to mention solar flares. 42 - thats the answer.

I cannot help but think what mischief this article was aimed to incite.

Doubters doubters everywhere but not a drop to think

Arthur, Morristown, galaxy

What about the energy used to make a bike or the tuck to transport the meat? Richard you’re not making sense

But is global warming making sense? I hope all of you on mars and other planets are cutting back on the meat and veg and air travel as it seems that your planets are warming around the same as ours.

Can no one see this is a way not just for more taxes but to keep the class of the poor where they are with out the poor who could be considered as rich? AL gore has a company you can buy green credits from so who can afford them credits? not me but sure as hell the rich can buy the credits then go to work in there 911 or 360 and carry on there life style in Spain usa where ever they want really to fly without needing to cut back on there eco crimes

So to sum it up global warming is about class not about CO2. CO2 is the building blocks of life not the cause of death.

To build a hydro dam costs more in energy than you would get back from it in 100 years .

, Manchester, UK

Yet again, people are on the wrong track in saying that the "problem" facing humanity is an excess of it. This just isn't true, an excess of humanity living in poverty maybe, but a high population per-se, isn't a problem.

Rich, industrialised Countries have proven this to be the case. The UK, indeed, is one of the most heavily populated Countries in the World and we manage just fine. Japan is intensely populated and is also fine.

People seem to want to find this ticking, self inflicted time-bomb that will some day wipe us all out but it really dosen't exist. Sure, there are some problems in the World - usually to do with poverty, but they aren't anything we can't deal with.

Global warming due to human produced C02 is a lie. The Earth was a lot hotter only 2,000 years ago. The Romans grew grape vines as far north as York - no one is seriously arguing that that was due to all the cars they drove! The sun is undergoing a period of greater activity - live with it!

JonathanL, Newcastle, UK

This article shows just what a farce the whole AGW scam really is. Many pro-AGW believers condemn this article as unscientific (which it appears to be even to this sceptic), yet quite happily accept the IPCC's unscientific contribution to the GW debate where facts and figures have been manipulated and selectively used to make their 'political' point.

I read an article recently that listed the great climate debate since 1895 and it goes like this:

1895 - 1924 : Global cooling predicted
1925 - 1969: Global warming predicted.
1970 - 1976: Global cooling predicted.
1981 - Today: Global warming predicted.

As scientists are now starting to predict an on coming cooling period it looks like the cycle is about to begin again.

CO2 is not the major cause of GW the real cause is still unknown. The only real human contribution to GW is virtual, done by the IPCC and computer models that sex up the facts and do not reflect reality.

Andy, Leeds, UK

Hang on, in the glorious old days before nasty man invented burning things like wood and coal, weren't there LOADS more cows and stuff? How much methane did a Tyrannosaurus Rex produce? Loads, I reckon.

And if trees produce methane as well, at 21 times the effect of CO2 that means there must have been far more of a threat prehistorically than now, as the earth would have been covered with huge methane producing dinosaurs and vast, continent-sized, methane-producing forests. God, it must have smelled like Northampton.

chris, , england

The science is flawed alright. Unless you're Arnold Schwarzenegger, there is no way you can carry as much shopping in one trip as your car can. The correct comparison is between one car journey and ten or twelve journeys on foot, not one for one. This would put the car even further ahead.

The emissions given off in building the car are irrelevant because the car already exists (to recruit Robert Thoburn's argument).

@ David Bond in NZ: "...efficient, well-filled trains emptied out, making them less efficient to run." LOL you kill me man. Please post more often. Have you ever seen a European commuter train? "Emptied out"??



There must be a way to generate electricity from liberal hand-wringing.

John R, finchley,

The article is full of miscalculations and dubious assumptions:
First : Why should a grown up person cover her extra energy required for walking to the shop with meat?!! Nutritional advice tells us to cover our energy needs by eating vegetables and rice or bread. These food items cause only a fraction of the CO2 burden compared with meat. When as person gets the extra energy for walking from such food –or from lemonade – then using the car would be much more environmentally costly!
Second: There are other environmental impacts than greenhouse gases which are important: Driving a car emits smog and unhealthy particles and other pollutants.
Third: Meat creates high environmental costs producing it. However, seldom as high as stated in the article. Several European studies estimate the CO2 emissions from meat production to be 3-4 kg CO2 units per kg meat.
So even when using meat for human "petrol" it is still better for the environment to walk than to drive a car.

Niels Halberg, Viborg, Denmark

There are too many humans on Earth... quite simply that is the problem. On one side of the equation you have human rights and on the other side you have the needs of the environment.
Suggest ways of controlling the human population and you'd be arrested or branded a lunatic ... tough call :)

DF, Hong Kong, China

"— Someone who installs a “green” lightbulb undoes a year’s worth of energy-saving by buying two bags of imported veg, as so much carbon is wasted flying the food to Britain" I'm not so sure about that. Here's a rebuttal. http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/5111.html "If the shipment goes by rail, the TPG number will be much higher. The rail haul will consume only 2 gallons of fuel per ton, but I’ll assume 100 miles of truck shipment to get the fruit to and from the railheads, adding 1 more gallon. We’re now up to more than 2600 tangerines per gallon. For West Coast tangerines, I calculate 266 TPG by truck and 941 TPG by rail (to the east coast)... If the tangerines are raised by a farmer 60 miles away, and he brings 500 lb of them to market in a pickup truck getting 20 mpg, then he is using 3 gallons of fuel each way–6 for the round trip–which equates to 333 tangerines per gallon. ... worse than truck from Florida, worse than rail from California, and worse than ship from Spain. "

mishu, Grayslake,

To Anthony Box: 32/44 of the weight of CO2 emissions comes from the air burned, not the petrol.

BrionCherock, Liverpool, US

We should always consider what assumptions have been used in creating these reports! Take the 1st of 'shattering of great green myths'... traditional nappies are as bad as disposables. It was based on a report by the large disposable nappy makes (some bias I think) and is based on traditional nappies being washed at high temps (not neccessary), tumble dried (not neccessary) and only being used for 1 child (also not necessary). Never believe anything you read in the press without research.

Richard , Bracknell, UK

So when should we expect a pedestrian tax? That's how we fight global warming isn't it?

Paul Mahalo, Hull,

An enjoyable debate. But the genesis of measures to be taken to control unwanted gases or expenditure of natural resources will be economics-based long term profit focused and initiated by corporations. Meanwhile we can debate ad absurdum.

Sir Chiffley Lockhart, Auckland, New Zealand

This article made me laugh as its simply measuring apples with pears and playing with numbers and statistics.

People in general are only out for themselves and businesses only out for profit so the only solutions are let nature take its course or start culling people - nothing else will have a lasting effect.

Enjoy life while you can.

Charlotte Emma, London,

Walking burns 130 calories per hour. Sleeping burns 60. The difference is 70 calories per hour. Therefore, if you got out of your bed to walk 3K to the store and used up 180 calories it took 2 hours and 35 minutes to walk 3K? Bad math I think. If you went from dead to walking to the store and used 180 calories (at 130 calories per hour) it took you an hour and 20 minutes. Still bad math, plus bad logic. Someone may want to rethink this.

KLC, Toronto, Canada

Has Mr. Goodall calculated amount of calories spent by a person while driving 3 miles? In general, majority of food is used by body for living itself - hearth beats, breathing, growing nails, hairs, producing blood cells, ...
I would be interested how much calories you need to drive 1 mile and how much calories you need to walk 1 mile. I write 1 mile because nobody would walk 3 miles to a shop nowadays.

The truth of Mr. Goodall is fact that food supply chain needs to much energy. If you eat locally produced food your carbon-dioxide footprint wouldn't be so big. But can you do it in the time of Wallmart, Tesco and urbanized world?

Petr, Prague, Czech republic

Has the the "Carbon Cycle" that I was taught for "O" level been discredited as some new world Gaia mumbo jumbo? Is it me?

Earnest Wellbeloved, Suburbiton, Middle England

Faulty Logic.

He's assuming that people who drive everywhere eat less food. Take it from an ex coach potato, people who drive everywhere and sit around all day will eat more than anyone else because they're greedy and bored!

Zan, Numpty,

If driving 3 miles produces 2lb of CO2 a thirsty car burning fuel at a rate of 30 miles per gallon would give 20lbs of CO2. Petrol being lighter than water and water weighing 10lb per gallon. Where is the CO2 coming from?

Anthony Box, Wretton, Norfolk GB

Foot & Mouth is a blessing in disguise then? Solve that beef problem!

James, Norwich,

You forgot to include the M-6 expansion at 1000 gbp per inch of roadway!

Greg Miller, Chico, California / USA

THe safest route is to, broadly speaking, carry on what you are doing - driving, flying and the like but do it less and try to do it more responsibly. Fit an ethical filter! One thing is for certain we have to stop throwing so much away - for example about a thrid of all produce purchased from supermarkets is tipped unopened

jeremy, caversham ,

This article and the book that data come from are no more than lies and twisted facts as other people making comments suggest. Take for example the very simplistic view that walking uses up more calories than does driving a car. Driving a car down the street takes a lot more energy than just the fuel required to get you there; what about the energy required to build the car, to maintain it, etc.; what about the energy required to build the gas station to house the gas; etc. etc. And for the other side, is the caloric energy cost associated with walking to the supermarket counter-balanced by the energy saved by healthier people (i.e. less medications, doctor visits, etc). Life is much more complex than simple calculations try to describe them by and this is one example of that.

Brock Adam McCarty, Boulder, CO, USA

Graham and Ken are right with this:

the only viable way to sustain our way of living is to reduce the population. There is no free or inconsequential means of creating the energy we need to keep up the way we go about our lives. No natural gas, hydroelectric, solar powered or wind generated solutions can change this.

The solution is that there is no solution. This is how far we've progressed, and things are going to keep evolving. The Earth is not going to blow up or get Orwellian on us anytime soon, it'll just be different. We are all a product of the Earth, and therefore all we do is also a product of the Earth itself.

I think most of us are afraid that our grandkids won't be able to enjoy the same fossil-fuelled conveniences that created this massive population boom. You know what? They won't know any better.

Alex, Montreal, Canada

Why does nobody ever get down to the real reason for the problems we have - too many people on the planet? If we didn't have to deal with the population growing from 6 to 10 billion in the next 50 years then none of this would be an issue - you don't need the intensive farming, extra mass transport, etc., etc. Of couse, reduce the population and the planet is even better off - but nobody is prepared to accept population reduction as an alternative. Even if it would solve every resource and pollution problem we have.

John Thorpe, Gloucestershire, UK

What nonsense. This person drving the car also has to eat food so they would be producing greenhouse gasses from the fuel and from food (+ all the other by products of vehicle use-production of tyres, spare parts, road infrastructure etc). Car drivers are also more likely to travel much longer distances to get to the shops (the average supermarket generates 1,000,000 miles of car traffic per week) + no-one gets 100% of their calories from beef.

Judging by the realtive proportion of fat drivers compared to pedestrains I would suspect that many of them eat more calories and more intensviely produced food than their healthier self-propelled counterparts.

Matt Barrett, Bristol, England

Mr. Goodall's calculation only works if one assumes that people consume only the minimum number of calories they require for their daily lives and that they must consume additional calories to compensate for extra work. In fact, most people - witness the obesity epidemic in the West - over-consume food. Therefore, they require no additional calories - and no additional food consumption - in order to walk to the shops.

Ron, Toronto, Canada

well said N. Waters, Mississauga, Canada. the only logical solution to the global warming problem is to eliminate the ever growing cause - man!

Superfiend, Fiendoland,

Re Django's comment.
You say this is a lousy debate and then claim importing food from Africa is the best thing you can do?!! If the trade was fair and the local people actually got the benefit of exporting their food then maybe you have a point. I'm still trying to get my head round the comment Millions are going to get poorer if we don't take their food?! Yes poverty leads to environmental pressures, but are you seriously saying that mass agriculture is the answer? Agriculture is just as much an environmental pressure. How much rainforest has this planet lost to agriculture, because the palm oil industry has never cut any down has it?! We need responsible agriculture. Does responsible tourism have a part to play? Using your own reasoning of poverty being the problem, then yes, as responsible tourism puts the money into the pockets of the locals.
One last comment ... there are only a finite set of resources, the planet cannot sustain everyone living at 1st world level

Graham Racher, London, UK

The calculations here seem to be faulty on two fronts, the first being that the estimate for the cars is based only on the carbon emissions created by the burning of the fuel, and does not include the emissions created by extracting the crude, refining the crude, and transporting both the crude and the refined gas. The second argument implies that the amount of beef consumed is a variable, whereas if calories are needed, a simple starch, such as potatoes or apples, would replace the same calorie loss as beef, and do so without adding as much in carbon emissions.

Chris, rochester,

And what about carbon emissions during fuel production, transportation and so on?

Javi, Barcelona, Spain

There are major flaws in the suggestion that driving to the shops produces less carbon than walking.

Driving to the shops does not genrerate carbon solely from burning fuel in your tank. What about the emissions generated in producign and transporting the fuel? If you are driving you are still metabolising food. So the carbon produced by your body when sitting in your car needs to be factored in too. Your metabolic rate may well be much higher when getting red faced sat in a traffic jam rather than it would be when walking. Reducing use of motorised transport whilst also selecting locally produced food is the way to go.

Karl Evans, Sheffield,

It's interesting to see how different the reality of what's more environmentally damaging is sometimes at odds with common perceptions, or what intuitively sounds like it would be worse.

But the premise of this article, that it's important to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, is faulty. That's because CO2 has not been shown to be the cause of warming, which is increasingly believed to be primarily driven by solar activity.

The documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is very informative in this regard, and I highly recommend checking it out if you get a chance.

Starchild, San Francisco, USA / California

What a load of nonsense. There are a few things this article seems to be implying:

People subsist entirely off of beef and milk. Taking the most polluting animals second to human seems more than a little deliberate.

Apparantly people who don't drive don't eat... yeah, I didn't get that either.

Elizabeth, Redruth, UK

I do think we should all be really concerned about emissions - the truly corrosive ones that rain down upon us daily from assorted "experts", lobbyists, single-issue groups, eco warriors, opportunist politicians and so on. There is rather too much "information" and not enough real knowledge being applied to this debate. The only observable and uncontestable fact is that the climate changes. Always has and always will. We adapt or die - its what animals do. What's so hard to understand about this.

Tom, Kinsgton,

Fine, so the vegetarian can get out and walk and the meat eater can stay home. Its just a food choice, why do you have to make it seem so difficult to change. Vegetarianism is the most profound impact you can have on the health of the planet but everyone dances around talking about its potential because they know they can't live up to the challenge. Look at even worthless Al Gore. PETA has been hounding him for months over this and he refuses to even comment - all while flying all over the world wasting fuel, promoting curly lightbulbs that pollute the planet with mercury.

David Sarosi, Tucker, Georgia, USA

Responding to articles such as this are contributing to global warming.

Oh well, there goes another 5 ounces of CO2.

Richard , Jersey,

This article clearly demonstrates the danger of a little learning. A bit more thinking would conclude:

- that there is no significant correlation between driving and eating less
- there is no significant relationship between the choice to drive/walk and the choice between eating meat/being a vegetarian.

Clearly it would be better if we drove less and consumed less. Or would we conclude that the world would be better off if aboriginal people all started driving to save energy....?

Paul, London, UK

All very selective and not very convincing.
It is NOT true that "farming techniques are similar throughout the West". The research quoted by New Scientist applies only the very most intensive cattle production, feeding cattle on grain instead of their natural food, grass. What it really shows is that intensive agriculture is very costly to the environment, not meat production itself.
Most cattle production in the UK is grass-based, and much (including my own) uses almost no grain-based feed or other inputs and so cannot be blamed for CO2 emissions. Meat production should be done on land which cannot be used for other food: rough pasture, flood-meadow, heathland and moorland. Then it is low-input and of minimal cost to the environment -- in fact it often also maintains natural habitats.
All the other examples given fall in much the same way. Full trains are of course far cheaper in energy than cars, and just don't boil-wash those terry nappies every time!

Richard Collingridge, Ringwood, Hampshire

I have it ! How to become eco friendly!
Stop eating, stop walking, dont use mechanized transport of any type, dont drink or use water, be naked and just sit down, breath less and wait to die. All living things cause something that could be called pollution when they live, it's what they are meant to do, cycle elements and energy. There are just too many of us.
We should ignore these idiots, be sensible and dont waste resources needlessly. They don't know what they are talking about and thank god people are starting to realise. If we listened to them, millions will die and in a couple of thousand years an archaeologist will be digging up our bones and call us the civilisation that starved itself to death because of guilt.
As a final note CO2 may warm the planet but it also helps us grow more food, NO2 causes acid rain but without it plants would not grow, SO2 - acid rain but it cools the planet, clouds cause 90% of warming CO2 far less than 10% -etc etc - got the point yet?

alex, Glasgow, UK

What is wrong with carbon?

Our bodies are made of carbon. The whole basis of life on earth is carbon. "Organic chemistry" is the study of carbon compounds, and is the basis of life itself.

Why is everyone suddenly talking as if life itself is in some way evil? Without carbon we would be dead.

Steve Hayes, Tshwane, South Africa

If the environmental cultists really believe the science (fiction?) of global warming, why don't they campaign for day light saving hours - we could then close at least one power station.

Paul, Eastleigh, UK

And to think that i thought people were chumps for driving to recycling points. (Okay, sometimes there really is no choice.) Now it would seem they're doing the planet a bigger favour than me, and i should take the couch-potato route. Crazy.

Peter Koeb, Geneva, Switzerland

This is a very interesting article and really shows up the way arguments can be made to sound convincing by ignoring most of the relevant facts.
For me, I bike everywhere I can and the car, a hybrid, stays in the garage as much as possible. My wife & I have for years biked to work almost every day. And we walk plenty for exercise and companionship. We recycle and compost, live in a super insulated house that's double glazed and heated with hea