Walking has a More Negative Impact on the Environment than Driving

For clarification, I'll re-cap my opponent's argument simplistically: He claims that because one burns calories while walking, in order for them to sustain their calorie in-take they will be forced to eat food whose production and transportation emits more carbon than the fuel from the individual car itself. Indeed, Pro's first source where the large majority of his information comes from notes, "Eating less and driving to save energy would be better" [1]. The article aims to educate on how there is not enough media attention surrounding the food industry and its negative impact on environment; instead all of the focus is on transportation. It states, "We need to become accustomed to the idea that our food production systems are equally damaging... The food industry is estimated to be responsible for a sixth of an individual's carbon emissions." As you can see, the focus of this article isn't to demonize the act of walking (or any other physical activity) but rather to draw attention to a growing problem - the negative impacts that the food industry has on the environment compared to transportation. Now, had the resolution read, "Food Production Has a More Negative Impact on the Environment than Driving" then Pro would have had a case. Instead, the resolution specifically states that WALKING is more negative. On the contrary, Pro's entire argument rests on the problems specifically related to food production - not walking. Con's final 3 sources simply clarify that carbon is bad for the environment which is obvious. In that case Pro would have had to prove that walking contributes more carbon to the environment than driving which it does not. So, in short, walking is not more negative -- the way food is produced is more negative. A further way to demonstrate the correlation is to acknowledge that people would still have to eat (and replenish calories) even if they did not walk and drove instead. The calories expended from walking could have easily been expended elsewhere. So again, walking itself is not more negative on the environment. So now let's look at the negative impact that driving has on the environment. Well, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes, "Driving a private car is probably a typical citizen's most 'polluting' daily activity" [2]. Additionally, cars and light trucks consume about 16% of the total energy used in the U.S [3]. Well, if cars consume 4/25 of the energy, then it becomes about equal to the 1/6 mentioned in Pro's article regarding carbon emissions. In that case, my opponent's point is further invalidated by noting that the negative impact would be about the SAME (even if we were to do food production vs. transport instead of walking vs. transport) - not more negative. So what else does driving do to the environment? Well, there's water pollution, noise pollution, solid waste and huge negative impacts on wildlife. Additionally Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Particulate Matter (PM10) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - all produced from automobiles - is responsible for respiratory damage in humans and animals; injures plants; causes smog; can be poisonous and of course may contribute to global warming [3]. Again, walking has none of these effects, and the carbon emitted from food production is not because of walking but machinery. Pro also noted transport as a problem; in other words the DRIVING of food from one place to another is damaging - not walking. If Pro wants to talk about carbon emissions from food production, let's talk about it. A website dedicated to encouraging others to reduce their 'carbon foot print' notes - regarding food production - "Anthropogenic carbon emissions come primarily from burning of fossil fuels in industry, homes and cars, trucks planes and trains... Modern processes such as use of machinary over man and animal power, global trading and increased use of fertilizers and other so called agro-chemicals has already made agriculture an energy intesive process in the developed world" [4]. So, it turns out that *walking* and burning calories again isn't the problem - it's the driving and use of machinery that is the problem, which ironically is what Pro suggests as a solution or positive alternative. Thanks for this debate, Pro, and good luck. [1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk... [2] http://www.epa.gov... [3] http://www.bikesatwork.com... [4] http://www.foodcarbon.co.uk...