Why Walking to Work Can Be More Polluting Than Driving to Work | Hacker News Reader

Why Walking to Work Can Be More Polluting Than Driving to Work

econlib.org

6 pointsanonporridge9 comments

I don't think the analysis went far enough. Consider this:

What happens if you don't walk enough to maintain your health, say, heart health? What's the CO2 footprint of all the imaginable health interventions you might need?

Seems to me the linked analysis is far too weak to be of much value.

> Seems to me the linked analysis is far too weak to be of much value.

That's putting it far too mildly.

And if you walk you maintain health and live longer which means you are making even worse for the environment. Cars mean dying earlier which is better. Unsafe cars are even better. We should get rid of seatbelts and bollards. /snark

> What happens if you don't walk enough to maintain your health, say, heart health?

An ambulance will drive you to the hospital, don't worry, it is a very ecological thing. A burial in a wooden coffin will remove further carbon from the atmosphere.

It's the people who go to the gym after work, and inefficiently burn calories there, who are the true monsters destroying the environment.

Don't forget that the petrol, methane or coal that powered your car, or even the construction of your car, released net-new carbon.

Brake pads and tire wear against shoe tread. I think the shoe treads are less polluting per unit mass, but I don't get 30,000 miles from my walking shoes either.

What's the carbon and pollution footprint of getting that gallon of petrol to my car? Or the amortized cost of getting 10KW-H into my car battery?

Good to think holistically, but there's a long way to go. The city bus or light rail is looking better.

If there's food waste wouldn't increasing the amount of walking make up for that by making people hungry which would waste less food? If food is wasted before it's sold wouldn't it be better to target the overproduction of food rather than the consumption? Wouldn't a comprehensive electrified railway system on its own make the supply chain sustainable by replacing all the diesel guzzling shipping trucks that destroy the road surface, throw microplastics from their tires, and consume a ton of fuel? Why would we trust anything that takes Bjorn Lomborg seriously after he invented climate change denial?

> If food is wasted before it's sold wouldn't it be better to target the overproduction of food rather than the consumption?

At least some amount of overproduction is absolutely required as an insurance against harvest failures and other similar issues affecting food production.

Now I've got no idea how much overproduction is really required for that and how it compares to the current state of our food production, but I hazard a guess that zero is almost certainly not the right answer.

"The 1.3 percent was obtain by reducing the energy produced (1.4 quads) by a third, or to .91 quads and then multiplying .91 quads by the energy efficiency of the human body, 15 percent, which gives .137 quads, the amount of energy extracted from food. The .137 quads is then divided by the total energy that goes into food production, 10.4 quads."

This is the crux of his bad argument. Not going to waste my time proving why its wrong. Maybe someone else feels up to it.

Great analysis, I'm glad I live in a world where everyone eats just enough to maintain their minimal weight and uses 100% of the food they obtain with no waste.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com