Today I read on WorldChanging this post about the debacle concerning the climate impacts of walking vs. driving.
John Tierney writes:
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.
Now, Karl Schroeder in the WorldChanging post linked above already scores a few points back to the walking practice but I think he’s missing the major one: where does your food come from? I don’t have any number here but I’ve this very strong feeling that practices like the 100 miles diet can help reduce our impact quite considerably, together with possibly tightening a bit our ever-loosing bound with the local territory.
Of course this is not applicable everywhere, as I guess harvesting food in antartica would be quite troublesome, and similarly growing bananas in the uk I think (again, just guessing) would be far from eco-efficient: but do we need bananas in the uk? maybe the same principles could be found in other local products, that we could produce and consume in a shorter timespan, thus saving chemical treatments, freezing, and so on.