Walking has a More Negative Impact on the Environment than Driving

Con's entire argument is built on the basis that the food production industry and related enterprises that allow for its processing and transport is what causes the carbon emissions. Con states that because these emissions are the product of the food industry and not the physical act of walking, I am incorrect in stating that walking has a more negative impact on the environment than driving. However, an argument such as this is equivalent to prosecuting a cutlery production company for a murder committed by a woman who did the deed by her own malevolent intentions. While the company that produced the murder weapon enabled the act, the woman made the choice to stab the victim. The analogy is simplistic, but fitting. The food industry allows its consumers to make the choice of whether or not they choose to walk or drive to a given destination. If the consumer chooses to walk, it is not the food corporations fault, but the consumers. The actions enable by the food corporation allow for the excess emission of carbon so long as the consumer chooses to walk and not drive. Under the scenario I have presented in round one, it is inevitable that the food industry and the act of walking become intermingled. Ergo, my argument does in fact rest on the problems as walking, as they are undeniably intertwined with the food industry in the scenario I had presented. My opponent states that the calories expended from walking could easily be expended doing other activities. However, based on the scenario presented in round one, this is not possible. We are assuming that both the walker and driver are not doing any physical activities, with the exception of those related to walking or driving. Therefore, with the exception of the two previous activities, the only calories being burned are being expended at their BMR, or Basal Metabolic Rate. For those who do not know what this is, it is the amount of calories you burn doing absolutely nothing, which both the walker and the driver are doing. In the scenario, we also assume that both the walker and the driver eat 2000 calories a day, due to the energy being expended by their BMR's. However, they will eat more if they expend more calories doing a physical activities. As stated, these are limited to walking or driving. Ergo, the calories burned walking can not be expended doing other activities. Con has made the grave error of comparing apples to oranges. Con assumes that because driving uses 4/25ths of the energy in the US, it becomes equivalent to contributing to 4/25ths of the carbon emissions in the US. Obviously, this is not the case, as energy and pounds of carbon are two completely different units. X percentage energy expended is not equal to X percentage of carbon emissions produced. Therefore, driving does not contribute the same amount of carbon as the food industry does. Con further states that driving leads to a large amount of consequences, such as carbon monoxide expulsion. However, Con fails to state how much these substances contribute to global warming in comparison to carbon emissions. Therefore, it is unfair to compare without understanding how much each contributes to make a mathematical calculation of who harms the environment more. In conclusion, walking does contribute to carbon emissions, and my original arguments from round one stand.