>
> "Once, getting a car felt like a massive surge in freedom, and
> mobility, too. Not any more, not in London. Only a bike gives that
> sensation now.
>
> So it isn't just that cycling is cheaper, healthier, often quicker,
> non-polluting, all that. It's joyful, too, in a way that has been
> quite a surprise to me. No surprise to other cyclists, I'm sure."
>
> (David Sexton - Evening Standard 18/07/08)
>
> See:-
> http://tinyurl.com/5rup7k
>
> No surprise to me. (Smug cheesy grin.)
>

> In article > 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
>
>
>

>> "Once, getting a car felt like a massive surge in freedom, and
>> mobility, too. Not any more, not in London. Only a bike gives that
>> sensation now.

>

>> So it isn't just that cycling is cheaper, healthier, often quicker,
>> non-polluting, all that. It's joyful, too, in a way that has been
>> quite a surprise to me. No surprise to other cyclists, I'm sure."

>

>> (David Sexton - Evening Standard 18/07/08)

>

>> See:-
>>http://tinyurl.com/5rup7k

>

>> No surprise to me. (Smug cheesy grin.) ...

> "Once, getting a car felt like a massive surge in freedom, and
> mobility, too. Not any more, not in London. Only a bike gives that
> sensation now.
>
> So it isn't just that cycling is cheaper, healthier, often quicker,
> non-polluting, all that. It's joyful, too, in a way that has been
> quite a surprise to me. No surprise to other cyclists, I'm sure."
>
> (David Sexton - Evening Standard 18/07/08)
>
> See:-
> http://tinyurl.com/5rup7k
>
> No surprise to me. (Smug cheesy grin.)

> On 19 Jul, 00:55, Conor hotmail.com> wrote:

>> In article >> 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
>>
>>
>>

>>> "Once, getting a car felt like a massive surge in freedom, and
>>> mobility, too. Not any more, not in London. Only a bike gives that
>>> sensation now.
>>> So it isn't just that cycling is cheaper, healthier, often quicker,
>>> non-polluting, all that. It's joyful, too, in a way that has been
>>> quite a surprise to me. No surprise to other cyclists, I'm sure."
>>> (David Sexton - Evening Standard 18/07/08)
>>> See:-
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5rup7k
>>> No surprise to me. (Smug cheesy grin.)

>> Walking has been proven to be more polluting than using a car so I
>> suspect cycling has....
>> ...

> On 19 Jul, 00:55, Conor hotmail.com> wrote:

>> In article >> 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Squashme says...
>>
>>
>>

>>> "Once, getting a car felt like a massive surge in freedom, and
>>> mobility, too. Not any more, not in London. Only a bike gives that
>>> sensation now.

>>

>>> So it isn't just that cycling is cheaper, healthier, often quicker,
>>> non-polluting, all that. It's joyful, too, in a way that has been
>>> quite a surprise to me. No surprise to other cyclists, I'm sure."

>>

>>> (David Sexton - Evening Standard 18/07/08)

>>

>>> See:-
>>>http://tinyurl.com/5rup7k ...

>> See:-
>> http://tinyurl.com/5rup7k
>>
>> No surprise to me. (Smug cheesy grin.)
>>

> Walking has been proven to be more polluting than using a car so I
> suspect cycling has....
>
> "Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted
> providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car
> would emit over the same distance. "
>

>
> You are ignoring the salient point of the argument, which is that producing
> the burger has used significant amounts of energy. To create the bun,
> tractors would have had to plough, then harrow...

> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:41:13 +0100, nightjar wrote
> (in article giganews.com>):
>

>>
>> You are ignoring the salient point of the argument, which is that
>> producing the burger has used significant amounts of energy. To
>> create the bun, tractors would have had to plough, then harrow a
>> field, before going in again to plant the wheat seed. The field
>> would also need applications fertilizer and weedkiller, before
>> another large machine comes in to harvest the grain. The grain will
>> have to be transported to a mill, where energy is used to covert it
>> to flour, before the bun is baked, using more energy. Most of the
>> vegetable components will have needed just as intensive cultivation
>> as the wheat and were probably either flown in from abroad or raised
>> in heated greenhouses, possibly both. Meat production is relatively
>> energy efficient, so you probably only have to factor in the energy
>> used to transport and cook the burger itself. You can't simply
>> compare the energy yield of two different sources without taking
>> into account how much energy was required to produce that source in ...

> "Conor" hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6ecoqqF6h7hlU5@mid.individual.net...

>>> See:-
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5rup7k
>>>
>>> No surprise to me. (Smug cheesy grin.)
>>>

>> Walking has been proven to be more polluting than using a car so I
>> suspect cycling has....
>>
>> "Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is
>> emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops
>> than a car would emit over the same distance. "
>>

> That assumes that the car driver must eat less than the walker
> because he expends fewer calories go places. Wrong! Just look at
> the large number of lard arses in cars who eat far more than they
> expend.