Is running worse for the environment than driving?

Question

A DJ has run into controversy by claiming that running is worse for the environment than driving.

Campaigner Tommy Boyd has even started an organisation called Don't Jog, Drive, saying runners produced more carbon dioxide than the average car.

"We have done some research and found startling information about how bad running is for the environment. When we breathe we produce carbon dioxide (CO2).

An average adult breathing normally and at rest, creates 400 litres (approximately 1 kilo or 2lbs) of carbon dioxide per day. When exercising, our intake of oxygen and exhalation of carbon dioxide increases by up to 20 times.

"The rate of carbon emission for a typical runner is approximately 100 grams of CO2 per kilometre, this is greater than the rate of CO2 emission of, for example a Volkswagen Polo 1.4 which produces 99 grams per km."

Based on Tommy's calculations last week's London Marathon generated 72,000 kilos of carbon dioxide-the equivalent of 200 wide bodied jets taking off!!!

Answer 1

Well, I'm not sure about those calculations, but lets accept them as fact for a moment.



The vehicle emmisions don't stop a person exhaling CO2, the CO2 from the vehicle exhaust isnt the only CO2 the car creates - think oil refinery - plus all the machinery to make and develop the car it's self.



Now lets get to the nitty gritty - CO2 is not a bad thing, its a naturally occuring composite gas of our environment - governments have latched onto the whole CO2 'thing' recently because its relatively easy concept to explain and tax, and naturally is associated with Oil consumption.



Now lets just take it in a slightly different direction, although no idiot would agree that pumping tonnes and tonnes of anything into the environment is a good thing. Breathing is a natural process and certainly one with which our vast planet can happily self regulate.



This chap on te radio is obviously jsut in need of some debate, which is relativly fun... but lets not look past the core incentive relating to CO2 Emmisions and my stance on this, is to try not to be too wasteful - and to think about what you're doing and comsuming.



Cars arent the problem so much, its their production and the production of other items thats going to start causing severe problems in the future... start simple - and remember, buy cheap buy twice used to be the saying... now buy cheap, buy once a week has more of a ring...

Answer 2

Several key flaws here, the first being pointed out already. A person will produce 40g/hr of CO2 by these figures, while resting. Figure they drive at 60km/h, for convenience. Then they produce 4g of CO2 on top of the car. Since the claim was made on such a small difference, this makes the car-human system produce 103g/km at 60km/h in a VW Polo 1.4L versus 100g/km with human running.



Second, the 100g/km figure is not accurate enough. It implies 1 significant figure. It is accurate enough to say that a human runner should produce between 50 and 150g/km, but not exact enough to say it is 100, not 98, which would give the runner the advantage over the VW.



Third, the car chosen is an extremly low carbon output vehicle. I believe a Toyota Prius is a little higher, around 105g/km. If the US views that as a green car, then clearly the average US vehicle will produce far more. Some of our SUVs produce over 300g/km. Most cars are high 100s, low 200s. Further, only the newest vehicles can be under ~150. Anything more than say 6 years old will be far worse than these example vehicles. I'm sure my '95 with a 2.5L V6 produces far more carbon than the '08 2.5L Inline 5 my father has.



My general opinion of people in the news, celebrities, etc is usually true (hence why it's my "general" opinion). The vast majority of them are not experts in anything at all. Thus, you should treat what they say with as much respect as a stranger. You would not believe a 17 year old at Home Depot telling you about the latest Mars Rover photographs and its implication in the search for extraterrestrial life, would you? Why would it be believable if a DJ said what it implied? So basically, good idea asking in a forum that would be bound to have atleast a couple experts, or expert enough to answer correctly. People can't just bend science and math into their own wishes -- the math itself dictates what we can and can't do. And here, it says we should run. (BTW, I'm fairly sure walking would produce fewer kg/km CO2 and most of us are probably in better shape to walk 5 miles than run 5 miles).

Answer 3

They also said overweight people were the cause/aid for/to global warming. They'll say anything to make certain people look bad. What I really think is bad for the environment is all those industrial companies that take over small unpolluted places and give out harmful gasses to the environment.That's what I think the problem is. But the world is corrupt and they'd never admit to this because it's better to pull the wool over our eyes and keep us spending.



We're lied to every day by the media and what we know and what info we are given is always filtered, that basically says it all.



All these celebs flying here and there and WE'RE not aloud to fly more than once a year!? (It was a rule they were going to impose). It's BS. Maybe if ordinary people who were born the same way as everyone else weren't put on pedestals we could somehow change certain habits of consumerism.



But hey, it's 'The generation of destruction' and we just have to ride it out and conform to the stupid things we are told. Then we can get blamed for doing something else wrong. Like, for example, not driving the car in the RIGHT way and that's why it's all gone wrong..



But for a simple answer to your question NO. You breathe when you drive which means the great amount of CO2 with your breathing. Now even if you breathe twice as much it will never amount to the amount of CO2 as breathing.



Why it's all gone wrong is a mixture of it ALL. It can't be put down to ONE cause because it's lifestyle. And all of it has taken it's toll. It was ignored years ago, and that's why we're hearing about it now. Come to think of it though, the media never thought it was RELEVANT to broadcast decades ago..

Answer 4

The car has to be manufactured, so this involves oil, mining of ores and a lot of electricity, so not environmentally friendly to start with, which is the way for most manufactured goods, even down to food production. If you can run a conventionally powered car on used vegetable oil, bio-diesel or ethanol or you power an electric car by using 100% renewable energy, then the driving is not so bad environmentally. Hybrid cars use a battery pack, which contains far more in the way of chemicals and other components (like plastic), that a standard petrol/diesel car has.When these wear out, it needs replacing and the old one disposing of safely.Without the pack, you may not even be able to start the engine of a hybrid.These can cost a few thousand dollars, so you negate some of the benefits of a hybrid's cheaper running costs. I live in the UK, with good (although very expensive) local public transport and I also don't drive.Either walking or taking public transport (for a longer distance) are my only alternatives. Outside of cities, I understand that a car is almost mandatory in some places in the US, as things are spread out. That is to do with the lack of urban planning and cheap fuel, so not your fault if you need to drive. I would suggest the following: 1) Buy a diesel car. These are much more efficient/economical than gasoline and emit little or no carbon dioxide.The engines are also heavier duty and are more reliable than petrol/gas ones.VW diesels are the benchmark. Reliable, very economical and good quality. No diesel 'clatter' like the olden days, very smooth and refined.70-80% of new cars sold in Europe are diesel. In the UK, we pay about US$8.25 for a US gallon of unleaded and around US$8.50 ditto for diesel(!). £1.41 and £1.37 a litre respectively.You get around 30-40% (or more) extra to the gallon when using diesel, which is a denser fuel than gasoline, so you go further on the same amount. 2) You could have a (diesel) car converted to run on vegetable oil (means an extra fuel tank, usually where the spare wheel goes), plus some minor work under the hood/bonnet for valves, fuel line heater and some extra tubing.Probably US$1,000 or two for the work, plenty of places will do that. You may qualify for a one-off income tax credit for doing this.There must be some fast food places near you, that will gladly give you their used cooking oil for free. Check this out, before you go for this option. 3) Buy the smallest car possible, don't buy an SUV or 4X4. 4) Don't run things like the air conditioning and use the cruise control (if fitted) to increase your mpg. Hope this helps.

Answer 5

what, so if we are in a car we some how stop breathing?!

what are you on about- there is NO WAY a human being can reproduce as much carbon dioxide as a car, a car weight alot more for a start. Then theres all the carbon monoxides and other chemicals in the petrol, the carrying the petrol over to the petrol stations- that costs carbon, and the getting it all in the first palce, that uses carbon...



get your facts right mate!!

Answer 6

You should look into and check the accuracy of DJ Tommy's research, or at least that which he is using. Then compare that to scientists' research, I know who I would trust.

Answer 7

If it was global warming would have been here a lot sooner.

Answer 8

well...it's certainly worse for MY personal environment.