While I was getting all smarty pants with Cycleman over in Random Thoughts, I stumbled across this: Shattering the great green myths — 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 — Diesel trains in rural Britain are more polluting than 4x4 vehicles. Douglas Alexander, when Transport Secretary, said: “If ten or fewer people travel in a Sprinter [train], it would be less environmentally damaging to give them each a Land Rover Freelander and tell them to drive” — Burning wood for fuel is better for the environment than recycling it, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discovered — Organic dairy cows are worse for the climate. They produce less milk so their methane emissions per litre are higher — 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 — Trees, regarded as shields against global warming because they absorb carbon, were found by German scientists to be major producers of methane, a much more harmful greenhouse gas Sources: Defra; How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, by Chris Goodall; Absorbent Hygiene Products Manufacturers Association; The Times; BBC I found it here (there is an article there you masterdebaters could chat over. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
Most of this flies in the face of conventional wisdom and it really bothers me when this kind of 'spin' is applied to issues around the environment. I can see why 'spin' is applied to other issues in politics or whatever, but the environment is something that we are linked to and depend on for our ultimate well being. I assume nappies are diapers in which case the amount of fossil fuels to create disposable, plastic diapers outweighs the conservational impact of clean water and detergent. Even after a cloth diaper runs its course it can still be used to wash a car, or clean up your workshop making its lifespan considerably longer and when it's done it'll rot. If the landfill occupancy figure is correct it may seem low now, but this will continue to grow as disposables are not biodegradable and every day this number will go higher. The difference in the amount of fuel used to transport enough bags to supply a grocery store will be negligible when considering storage vs. the fossil fuels used to create plastic bags. Again the issue of biodegrability is at the forefront here, both for landfills and wildlife. Most paper bags are created from post consumer content and many of the newer, more durable paper bags can be reused more times and for more things than the thin plastic bags. This would be true, but we all know if a train sees that little ridership it will not be profitable to run and will be taken off the schedule. Most trains carry far more than 10 people. This guy astounds me with his overwhelming grasp on simple math. What? Wood is a long term renewable resource with a finite lifespan due to soil depletion. If you can recycle wood (paper, chips, pulp, etc.) using little energy why wouldn't you? If you burn it you will get some energy, but you'll waste just as much harvesting and transporting more wood to burn. And wood takes a long time to renew itself, while in the meantime you have reduced wildlife habitat. Wood is horrible source of energy for the masses. Maybe so, but there are no pesticides or fertilizer involved, both of which are tied to cancer. Fertilizer also is created from petroleum at a factory, which probably emits pollutants more than a cow fart. This is a ginormous leap. To assume that someone who buys a green light bulb also buys only imported vegetables is incredibly unscientific. For one, they have nothing to do with eachother. Secondly, the person who buys the green ligh bulb is probably more likley to give a damn and shop at the farmers market. Interesting. I read more about this and found that they did isolate this to the plants themselves and not the soils or decaying matter around them. However, the large plumes of methane around the tropics are most likely due to the large amounts of decaying bio-mass. Not to mention there is plenty of articles disputing or refuting this new theory as well...http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-6kzjp7
It was published in a Murdoch rag. Most of it doesn't even make sense. I love this part: How many of us only eat enough food to support our current level of activity? Most of us could use a little more exercise, and we already eat enough food, we would not need to increase our intake. And his nutrition figures are way off, so much so that I don't trust any of his other calculations either. He says you'd need 100 grams of beef to replace 180 calories? 100 grams of beef with no fat would contain 400 calories; if it were 20% fat it would be 500 calories. I think the guy is just a crackpot.
I have some friends who have to wake up at 2 or 3 in the morning to have a full meal. They already eat 6 times a day.
tis true...I swear. Their metabolism is so fast right now they have to eat this much. The caloric intake is around 7k to 8K a day.
Actually when I was in the military I was on a weight program where I ate 4 meals a day and would take in a total of 8k-10k in calories a day depending on how my work out routine was. BTW...this was while I was in England. When I arrived there I weighed 138 lbs. after 2.5 years of being on the program and taking in 8-10k in calories a day when I left England I weighed in at a whole 143 lbs. 14 years later I now weigh a whole 158lbs. fully clothed. And have gone from taking in good calories to eating good home style food and drinking lots of beer. Craig
As this was written in England and unless things have changed there they will run a train between two points even if their is just one person on the train to keep the schedule. I can see how driving would be better. Craig
Right, but the added weight of one more person on the train will have less impact than one person driving a car the same distance.
When I'm working out good I will get up in the 5 or 6 in the morning and drink a protein shake I get so hungry and go back to bed. I've even heard of guys getting up in the morning and getting on the treadmill and eating a chicken breast and going back to bed to keep their metabolism up. Pre-contest stuff.
Now you're taking the opposite side from me just for the sake of argument. Craig said they will run a train even if only one passenger is riding it. That is the comment I was responding to. Surely adding passengers to a nearly empty train can only improve efficiency per passenger mile. I have not seen any recent studies, and automobile efficiency may have improved at a faster rate than train efficiency, but I do know that several years ago, trains were vastly more efficient than cars per passenger mile if both were filled to capacity. They same is true of freight, that's why you see so many "piggy-back" trailers.
