This is curious. Greenpeace is giving away free pedometers at COP16 in Cancun. Watch the video below. I don’t really understand the point of all this, except maybe its some sort of guilt over the limousine largess from COP15 in Copenhagen, and they want people to walk to their hotels? Even so, they apparently are unaware of this Times Online article which points out, walking apparently produces more CO2 than driving:
Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’
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.
…
{Goodhall says] “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.”
Well, that’s inconvenient. Greenpeace says the opposite. They write on the Greenpeace More Walk Less Talk page:
COP 16 will be the seventh Conference of the Parties since the Kyoto Protocol entered into force in February 2005. That’s a lot of talking.
The physical layout of these meetings means there is a great deal of walking. Walking, as we all know is very good for you – it’s credited with helping breathing, improving circulation, bolstering the immune system, and helps people stay in shape.
It is also, of course, good for the climate. But, as international climate negotiations processes show, sadly so far – not enough governments are “Walking the Talk.”
So, in Cancun – Greenpeace is hosting “More Walk, Less Talk” – a competition to find the person and the country that covers the most ground in Cancun.
Yes, the race to the future starts here. Grab your step-counter and go!
Well I’ve got no beef with the “walking improves health” message. I wonder what the winning prize is? Watch the promotional video:
And the battle continues over the issue of walking versus driving, the Pacific Institute wrote a rebuttal to the walking is worse versus driving story.
As noted by Goodall, what really stands out in this comparison is the astoundingly high GHG values for walking when the calories come from beef or dairy. The idea that moving a 2,853 pound Nissan Sentra42 plus a 189-pound driver could possibly generate fewer GHGs than if that driver simply walked the same distance underscores the staggering carbon intensity of beef and dairy production. To be fair to Goodall, this was in fact his underlying message: meat-intensive diets are energy intensive and greenhouse gas intensive.
So obviously, the message missing from the Greenpeace Pedometer message at COP16 is “walk but don’t eat meat or dairy”.
So much for those fancy Cancun dinners on whomever is funding the attendee. Bean burrito for you!
Of course the whole “walking to save the planet” idea gets negated by the simple fact that none of these people arrived by sailboat in Cancun, but used some fossil fuel gussling airplane and then maybe a train or taxi.
But at least they’ll feel better about themselves walking around hungry, right?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Greenpeace nonsense is everywhere. In southern Philippines, Greenpeace campaigned hard to kill a coal power plant, when that part of the country is projected to have lots of power failure in the next few years. I challenge them to a debate here in Manila several times, they are all cowards, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/11/greenpeace-alarism-and-anti-coal.html
Bean burritos! And what will that do to methane gas production?
Ah the lament of the Climate puritans: “Damned if you do Damned if you don’t.”
This begs the question, “How dumb do you have to be to be a member of greenpeace?” Of course exercise produces more exhaled CO2 than talking! Who has a back of the envelope figure for carpooling to and from, versus everyone walking?
Political Theater – nothing more, nothing less.
While this is an interesting exercise in maths, it works on the assumption that a person will have to alter their intake of food because they walked to the store instead of driving. I think it’s pretty obvious that people don’t really do that. I don’t grab a steak on the way out the door if I’m riding to work instead of driving. The likely outcome of walking to the shops instead of driving is that they’ll lost a bit of weight and utltimately the amount of GHGs would drop by walking instead of driving.
As a runner that puts in 50-70 miles a week, watch what I eat (not much meat at all) and still apparently can’t reach my ideal weight, I find the whole argument beyond absurd.
Is any way to set the TSA on Greenpeace (or vice versa)? They might negate each other.
The part I don’t understand is why all these stray groups were allowed to attend a UN climate conference. Security at the conference is massive and they just make it more expensive.
Is this a climate conference or a trade show?
Here comes: The Food Crises of 2011
http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/10/27/the-food-crisis-of-2011/
The fact that we live in an Idiocracy explains a lot.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/12/perfect-metaphor.html
Reply: I fixed your link ~ ctm
Not to mention the increased exhalation of CO2 as a side effect of physical exercise.
John from CA says: “The part I don’t understand is why all these stray groups were allowed to attend a UN climate conference…Is this a climate conference or a trade show?”
Neither. It’s a circus.
It really is a Climate Comedy with all this “don’t do that” because it produces the evil nasty toxic gas & “don’t eat that” because it produces the nasty poisonous gas to make it
and the best one “raise the price”.
Oh.. And how much is the estimated carbon footprint to create one of those Pedometers and have them delivered?
My fav video game company Paradox Interactive published a game earlier in the year called Ship Simulator Extremes, where one of the 2 campaigns is a showcase for Greenpeace propaganda. You’re supposed to go out and find “illegal” whaling ships to harass and of course ships that dump toxic waste and oil (LOL! who would dump oil on purpose). Meanwhile your rewards for this are propaganda videos from the REAL! Greenpeace captains explaining how these real life scenarios went down! Other rewards are also newspapers that flash on the screen showing your “heroic” deeds. Its too bad really, the idea of a realistic simulation for other boats seemed cool, but due to this Greenpeace Propaganda bit, im obviously not gonna buy it.
Here is a video of it in action on youtube go to this link.
“More walk” might be quite difficult, since most of the Official COP16 Hotels are from 10 to 60 km distant from the main conference activities. See here:
http://www.cop16accommodation.com/
Fortunately a caravan of (carbon spewing?) shuttles will be operating “24 hours per day” between all of the lux beachside hotels and the COP 16 anti-carbon dioxide conference activities.
http://cc2010.mx/en/participants/transportforparticipants/
I wouldn’t call these people hypocrites. Would you?
One makes a mistake if they think these yahoos are primarily concerned about the environment, they’re not. Their concern is political and like most things political the profferred goal is never the real goal. Environmentalists (Not to be confused with us folk who merely strive for a nice environment) strive for a lofty utopia, where all of Earth’s creatures exist equally and harmoniously, no hunting, no fishing. Humanity and nature on an equal footing. We have ruined the pristine natural balance of the earth by our mere existence. There will never be the balance they seek, only atonement.
They’re not saying that driving is bad and walking is good, nor the opposite. We are the problem no matter what we do.
underscores the staggering carbon intensity of beef and dairy production
Rather, it shows the staggering inefficiency of European and US methods of dairy and beef production. They survive due to subsidies and import barriers, and would die in their current form if trade was freed up.
Cows raised in Argentina, Australia or New Zealand do not require remotely the same energy per kg produced. The meat is better tasting too. I bet African raised cows have an even lower carbon footprint.
Cows should not be raised indoors, and there are plenty of parts of the world where they can be raised with room to move all year round.
But that means defeating producer groups with political clout, and ignoring the greenies pleas to only eat local.
Thanks for fixing it CTM.
Thou Shalt Bee Humble and Modest!
this is what it is all about.
Mikeysan,
To paraphrase Frankie Goes to Hollywood… Are we living in a land, where GHG’S and horror are the new Gods, yeah ?
Ride a bike!
Hmm, I wonder how the making of the pedometer undoes any supposed saving due to walking?
The most interesting bit of the video though was the background – all those white bland ‘bare’ stands – I hope the video was shot during the set up day or thats the worlds most boring trade show. At least Greenpeace managed to bag a corner stand, great for handing out leaflets and pedometers…
P’raps if the delegates engaged in “assisted walking” to the conference halls? Rope them to the bumpers of the shuttle buses and they can jog along behind!
“Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than going by car’”
Since when is co2 harmfull to the planet? The headline is beyond stupid.
More walk and less talk sounds fine with me. Does that mean they’re going to stop talking at Con-con and go home?