Saw this story over on digg, and I am really interested to hear what community members think of it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
Interests: Parenting (Jack 5yrs and Owen 3yrs), Human Growth and Development, Evolving Consciousness, Integral Life Practice, Coaching, Change Management, Creativity, and Freedom.
Inspiration: Witnessing my sons discovering the world and themselves, watching someone overcome all odds, listening to someone's deep dark secrets (and telling someone mine), a fully expressed performer, art, the rawness of humanity, and unconditional love.
The way the typical Westerner (I count myself in that group) eats and thinks about food and diet, it's madness to assume that what we eat correlates as directly to the calories we burn as this guy's assumption implies.
I mean, if you're planning a dinner and you walk ten or fifteen minutes to the store, when you get home, do you consciously think about the need to prepare more food for yourself because you walked ten or fifteen minutes? Or does the amount you normally eat on any given evening provide you with enough calories that you've got some left over for a little stroll? The latter describes me and just about everybody I know.
Sure, it may be more energy efficient, technically (and reeeeeaally relying on semantics, purposefully avoiding practicality), to drive, but it certainly does not "damage the planet more" to walk.
It's something interesting to think about, though.
Interesting concepts about cows as well. He's probably right about cows and methane production, and the organic method of farming cows is even worse. I don't think we should shoot all the cows but I do think we would be better off if we didn't eat so much red meat. Maybe cut down on beef production over time.....
As my we would say in the UK!
"PUSH OFF! BLOKE!"
The letter "B" and the letter "S" come to mind.