4 ms·

> it takes more energy and more carbon emissions to walk a mile than it takes to drive a vehicle a mile Do you have a source for this? Sounds questionable.

fnord123 3y ago
It's false. People will not go into suspend mode when not walking; they still burn calories. A very large person would burn about 130 calories walking a mile. i.e. one large latte. And most people who are this large are not at risk of a caloric deficit by burning an extra 130 calories.
- ramblenode 3y ago
  I agree that OP's assertion sounds dubious (especially considering the entire supply chain) but calories are a measure of energy, not CO2. You need to know the rate of CO2 emitted per kcal.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    I'm not claiming that the CO2 exhaled by people is relevant. I'm claiming that growing food requires significant energy inputs unless you want to go back to the world where most human labor went into growing food.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  A single mile, no. 100 miles? That seems very likely. That happens far quicker for the energy leaking heat machine sitting in the seat. So, while maybe the theme of the statement is correct?
  - scott_w 3y ago
    It's simply not.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Humans are INSANELY efficient at walking. That's why walking and running are terrible ways to lose weight.
  - itishappy 3y ago
    About 2x as efficient as a Model 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Yeah well I'm not exactly 4000 pounds or going 60mph hah
resonantjacket5 3y ago
The problem that this is the wrong measure to use emissions per mile, when it's really about emissions per trip. A car flying down the freeway uses less emissions per mile, but if one is traveling 50 miles versus just walking to down the block the former is using a lot more emissions even if it is more efficient per mile.

fnord123 3y ago

It's false. People will not go into suspend mode when not walking; they still burn calories. A very large person would burn about 130 calories walking a mile. i.e. one large latte. And most people who are this large are not at risk of a caloric deficit by burning an extra 130 calories.

ramblenode 3y ago
I agree that OP's assertion sounds dubious (especially considering the entire supply chain) but calories are a measure of energy, not CO2. You need to know the rate of CO2 emitted per kcal.
- hollerith 3y ago
  I'm not claiming that the CO2 exhaled by people is relevant. I'm claiming that growing food requires significant energy inputs unless you want to go back to the world where most human labor went into growing food.
SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
A single mile, no. 100 miles? That seems very likely. That happens far quicker for the energy leaking heat machine sitting in the seat. So, while maybe the theme of the statement is correct?
- scott_w 3y ago
  It's simply not.
mrguyorama 3y ago
Humans are INSANELY efficient at walking. That's why walking and running are terrible ways to lose weight.
- itishappy 3y ago
  About 2x as efficient as a Model 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Yeah well I'm not exactly 4000 pounds or going 60mph hah

resonantjacket5 3y ago

The problem that this is the wrong measure to use emissions per mile, when it's really about emissions per trip. A car flying down the freeway uses less emissions per mile, but if one is traveling 50 miles versus just walking to down the block the former is using a lot more emissions even if it is more efficient per mile.