Quote:
Originally Posted by The Yen Man
They're comparing how much energy each consumes, not whether we grow this energy or not. We might grow the food for dogs, but it still costs us non-renewable energy to process it into dog food.
|
Okay, I realize that, but they're expressing it as an area.
For the dog that makes sesnse as you can approximate how much land it takes to grow the grain in the food, and the grain to feed the cows in the food.
For a car it doesn't make much sense. What are they basing this area on? The same density of crops as would be used for the dog food? And in what proprtion of meat and grains?
There just isn't enough information in the article to make a good judgement.
What I want to see is the total energy requirements of the car vs the energy requirments of the dog. As well as the requirments to produce, transport and distribute the fuel/food.
I'm guessing when that's all added in, then the dog won't look so bad.
And if all of this is the case, then doesn't it make a VERY STRONG argument in favour of using cars?
If a dog uses twice as much energy as a big SUV, then imagine how much a horse would use? By replacing horses with cars, we've not only greatly improved our mobility, we've also greatly helped the environment.