An article in the Times over the weekend claims that walking to the shops emits more CO2 than driving. It’s a sensationalist claim (even if they can back it up with calcs) that doesn’t help anyone except Daily Mail readers desperate to shore up their view that anyone who thinks about energy or the environment is a commie pinko control freak determined to spoil everyone’s fun. Chris Goodall, the man behind the claim, should have known better and is clearly more interested in headlines than making a genuine difference.
Every little helps. But all things being equal, the fight to alleviate the effects of global warming isn’t going to be won between your house and the shops. It’s much more useful to keep your eye on the crucial issues rather than handing ammunition to the folks who like nothing better than a bit of obfuscation.
carbon limited 
what an arse. I think the guy has missed an important point. that many of our obese population are driving their enormous fat stores around in their cars, and that in reality they would not need to eat more to fuel the walk. or to put it another way, they are driving and eating the beef, so its a double impact. git.
I am tempted to calculate the embodied energy in our obese population. I am sure all those fat stores could keep the lights burning. I wonder what the carbon savings would be from rationing people to their 2000 calories a day from local, non-intensive food food. Indeed, if it is true that the majority throw away 30% of the food they buy, then there is a huge saving to be made here.
Arrggggghhhh.
That’s an excellent idea Sunnyboy. For the really shocking stat you could do it from the US perspective where they throw away at least 25% of their food.
Thats even discounting the reckoning that the supermarkets throw away an estimated 30% of their fresh produce. I make it that for every 100 units of food delivered by the farmer, 51 units go in the bin!
Would we have to dessicate fat people in order to burn them? Rather like seasoning timber
If you (average UK punter) limit yourself to 2000 calories a day without changing where your food comes from or how it’s transported, you save over 200kg of CO2 – enough carbon to drive your car the equivalent of 1100km. That’s a lot of trips to the corner shop.
So I can see the point Chris Goodall was probably trying to make: food is responsible for a hell of a lot of emissions and we can make significant reductions by reducing the quantity / energy intensity of our food. It’s just a shame that he chose to make the point in a way that muddied the waters. Poor choice.
I see the embryo of a campaign here; Eat less to save the world. There are some interesting parallels here to the idea of global carbon rationing. If there was a balanced distribution of food consumption across the globe, we could hope for less wastage perhaps.
All we need are some benign fascist overlords to re-distribute the common wealth. Lets hear it for the appropriately fed prol…
I want to be a prol when I grow up. 🙂 For if there is any hope… it lies with the prols.