The following news release from the Pacific Institute is regarding a case study conducted as a response to one carried out by environmentalist Chris Goodall in his book for his book How to Live a Low-Carbon Life. Goodall examines the emissions of driving versus walking for a 1.5 mile roundtrip and discovers that for a meat intensive diet, emissions from driving this short distance are similar or less than those created from the consumption of beef and dairy to replace calories burned in walking.
(OAKLAND, Calif.) Despite recent, high-profile media claims that walking is worse for the planet than driving, a Pacific Institute analysis shows that when it comes to your carbon footprint, results vary significantly based on the factors assumed. The environmental impacts of our choices require a discerning look.
Looking at the numbers behind the surprising assertion, the Institute’s calculations find driving generates less lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions only when the food used to fuel walking the same distance is extremely greenhouse-gas-intensive—like all beef. When more realistic assumptions about the walker’s varied diet are taken into consideration, the conclusion is actually reversed. If an average American diet is used, walking—even for a group of four—makes more sense for the environment than driving.
In addition to diet, the analysis shows that other factors, such as a car’s fuel economy, affect the comparison’s outcome.
“While we commend growing efforts to understand the complex implications our purchases, choices, and activities have on the climate, we caution against making hasty behavioral changes based on analyses and comparisons that may be faulty or rely on unrealistic assumptions,” said Michael Cohen, Senior Research Associate at the Pacific Institute.
This analysis also compares the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with driving, bicycling, and walking a given distance, each fueled by steak, ground beef, 2% milk, nonfat milk, an American vegan’s diet, and a typical American’s diet.
“Driving vs. Walking: Cows, Climate Change, and Choice” is part of the Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science initiative, which responds to and counters the abuse and misuse of science and scientific integrity in the media and public policy arenas. The report, authored by Cohen and Research Associate Matthew Heberger, compares how the energy required to produce the food with which we fuel our bodies, as well as the fuel with which we power our vehicles, has a lasting impact on our environment, measured through greenhouse gas emissions, or “carbon footprint.”
Based in Oakland, California, the Pacific Institute is a nonpartisan research institute that works to create a healthier planet and sustainable communities. Through interdisciplinary research and partnering with stakeholders, the Institute produces solutions that advance environmental protection, economic development, and social equity—in California, nationally, and internationally. www.pacinst.org
