If you walk 1.5 miles, Mr. Goodall calculates, and replace those calories by drinking about a cup of milk, the greenhouse emissions connected with that milk (like methane from the dairy farm and carbon dioxide from the delivery truck) are just about equal to the emissions from a typical car making the same trip. And if there were two of you making the trip, then the car would definitely be the more planet-friendly way to go.I agree wholeheartedly. Walking and drinking milk is bad for the environment! Clearly, people should be walking and drinking soy milk. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all those nasty negative externalities associated with regular milk. I'm glad you raised our awareness of the benefits of soy and the dangers of lactose, Mr. Goodall. You earn the coveted Accidental Environmentalist of the Week award. Enjoy.
Oh, and on a (semi)related note, here's a great webcomic from xkcd.
2 comments:
Wait. Did he just compare drinking milk to driving a car?
I mean, I'm all about soy milk and all, but seriously. Nobody needs to drink a glass of milk to walk 1.5 miles.
And while driving the car is bad for the environment and your health, milk is actually pretty good for you. They're completely unrelated.
"Awwww man! I only had energy to walk 1 mile! I should have had that glass of milk! Now I'm stranded without any energy!"
First, I hope you understood that I was being sarcastic in my treatment of Goodall's assessment.
Second, drinking milk and driving a car are actually not as unrelated as you may first think. They both concern fuel: one is fuel for the body (milk) and the other is fuel for our car (gas). His point, I think, is the common economist battle cry: "There's no such thing as a free lunch!" Basically, even if we give up our polluting cars, there is still an impact to the environment. He has a point that in order to sustain ourselves, we need energy, and if that energy comes in the form of, say, milk, then there are negative externalities associated with drinking a glass of milk.
HOWEVER...
You are also completely correct in pointing out that we do not need to replenish our bodies every time we exert ourselves somewhat. Marginal activity does not necessarily increase food consumption. It's the reason we (should) eat right all day long, so that our bodies can have enough energy to sustain ourselves. It's like saying for every pushup I do, I need a cracker, and oops! that cracker has negative externalities associated with its production, so all exercise is bad for the environment. No, I don't buy that argument.
You are also correct to point out that there are positive externalities associated with exercise and eating right. So I would be willing to bet that any negative externalities from walking and drinking milk are cancelled out by positive effects such as better health and stronger bones...hehe And that's assuming we buy the whole "expend this energy, replenish the energy" argument. Which I don't.
Post a Comment