||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOMINIC KENNEDY, TIMES UK - 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."
Mr Goodall, Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford West &
Abingdon, is the latest serious thinker to turn popular myths about the
environment on their head. Catching a diesel train is now twice as
polluting as travelling by car for an average family, the Rail Safety
and Standards Board admitted recently. Paper bags are worse for the
environment than plastic because of the extra energy needed to
manufacture and transport them, the Government says. . .
What if, instead of beef, the walker drank a glass of milk? The average
person would need to drink 420ml - three quarters of a pint - to recover
the calories used in the walk. Modern dairy farming emits the equivalent
of 1.2kg of CO2 to produce the milk, still more pollution than the car
journey. . .
Traditional nappies are as bad as disposables, a study by the
Environment Agency found. While throwaway nappies make up 0.1 per cent
of landfill waste, the cloth variety are a waste of energy, clean water
and detergent
Paper bags cause more global warming than plastic. They need much more
space to store so require extra energy to transport them from
manufacturers to shops
Burning wood for fuel is better for the environment than recycling it,
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered
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
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
GEORGE MONBIOT, THE GUARDIAN, UK - Green consumerism is becoming a pox
on the planet. If it merely swapped the damaging goods we buy for less
damaging ones, I would champion it. But two parallel markets are
developing: one for unethical products and one for ethical products, and
the expansion of the second does little to hinder the growth of the
first. I am now drowning in a tide of eco junk. Over the past six
months, our coat pegs have become clogged with organic cotton bags,
which - filled with packets of ginseng tea and jojoba oil bath salts -
are now the obligatory gift at every environmental event. I have several
lifetimes' supply of ballpoint pens made with recycled paper and about
half a dozen miniature solar chargers for gadgets I don't possess.
Last week the Telegraph told its readers not to abandon the fight to
save the planet. "There is still hope, and the middle classes, with
their composters and eco-gadgets, will be leading the way."(3) It made
some helpful suggestions, such as a "hydrogen-powered model racing car",
which, for £74.99, comes with a solar panel, an electrolyser and a fuel
cell(4). God knows what rare metals and energy-intensive processes were
used to manufacture it. In the name of environmental consciousness, we
have simply created new opportunities for surplus capital.
Ethical shopping is in danger of becoming another signifier of social
status. I have met people who have bought solar panels and mini-wind
turbines before they have insulated their lofts: partly because they
love gadgets, but partly, I suspect, because everyone can then see how
conscientious (and how rich) they are. We are often told that buying
such products encourages us to think more widely about environmental
challenges, but it is just as likely to be depoliticizing. Green
consumerism is another form of atomization - a substitute for collective
action. No political challenge can be met by shopping.
The middle classes rebrand their lives, congratulate themselves on going
green, and carry on buying and flying as much as ever before. It is easy
to picture a situation in which the whole world religiously buys green
products, and its carbon emissions continue to soar.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/07/24/eco-junk/
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DOMINIC KENNEDY, TIMES UK - 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."
Mr Goodall, Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford West &
Abingdon, is the latest serious thinker to turn popular myths about the
environment on their head. Catching a diesel train is now twice as
polluting as travelling by car for an average family, the Rail Safety
and Standards Board admitted recently. Paper bags are worse for the
environment than plastic because of the extra energy needed to
manufacture and transport them, the Government says. . .
What if, instead of beef, the walker drank a glass of milk? The average
person would need to drink 420ml - three quarters of a pint - to recover
the calories used in the walk. Modern dairy farming emits the equivalent
of 1.2kg of CO2 to produce the milk, still more pollution than the car
journey. . .
Traditional nappies are as bad as disposables, a study by the
Environment Agency found. While throwaway nappies make up 0.1 per cent
of landfill waste, the cloth variety are a waste of energy, clean water
and detergent
Paper bags cause more global warming than plastic. They need much more
space to store so require extra energy to transport them from
manufacturers to shops
Burning wood for fuel is better for the environment than recycling it,
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered
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
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
GEORGE MONBIOT, THE GUARDIAN, UK - Green consumerism is becoming a pox
on the planet. If it merely swapped the damaging goods we buy for less
damaging ones, I would champion it. But two parallel markets are
developing: one for unethical products and one for ethical products, and
the expansion of the second does little to hinder the growth of the
first. I am now drowning in a tide of eco junk. Over the past six
months, our coat pegs have become clogged with organic cotton bags,
which - filled with packets of ginseng tea and jojoba oil bath salts -
are now the obligatory gift at every environmental event. I have several
lifetimes' supply of ballpoint pens made with recycled paper and about
half a dozen miniature solar chargers for gadgets I don't possess.
Last week the Telegraph told its readers not to abandon the fight to
save the planet. "There is still hope, and the middle classes, with
their composters and eco-gadgets, will be leading the way."(3) It made
some helpful suggestions, such as a "hydrogen-powered model racing car",
which, for £74.99, comes with a solar panel, an electrolyser and a fuel
cell(4). God knows what rare metals and energy-intensive processes were
used to manufacture it. In the name of environmental consciousness, we
have simply created new opportunities for surplus capital.
Ethical shopping is in danger of becoming another signifier of social
status. I have met people who have bought solar panels and mini-wind
turbines before they have insulated their lofts: partly because they
love gadgets, but partly, I suspect, because everyone can then see how
conscientious (and how rich) they are. We are often told that buying
such products encourages us to think more widely about environmental
challenges, but it is just as likely to be depoliticizing. Green
consumerism is another form of atomization - a substitute for collective
action. No political challenge can be met by shopping.
The middle classes rebrand their lives, congratulate themselves on going
green, and carry on buying and flying as much as ever before. It is easy
to picture a situation in which the whole world religiously buys green
products, and its carbon emissions continue to soar.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/07/24/eco-junk/
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment