As Global Warming (Praise Gaia and her anointed profits (get it?) the Goreacle and Tom Brokaw! Hah-men!) moves more and more into a mainstream religion, we in the West are rapidly created a CO2 emission-based morality. We are expected to make choices based on how much CO2 those choices add to the atmosphere. (Global Warming concerts around the world excepted, of course. CO2 emitted to stop CO2 emissions are holy.)

We're told that if we recycle, we save the planet.

It's not true, of course. Recycling plastic uses more energy than it takes to manufacture new plastic. Recycling paper uses more energy than it takes to turn a tree into paper. Making biofuels takes more energy to create that it will produce. (The only thing biofuels are doing are making ADM rich beyond the dreams of avarice. We're talking Exxon-type profits here, folks.) Uses paper bags at the market contributes more CO2 to the atmosphere because they are heavier, and thus take fuel to ship than plastic bags.

The latest CO2 calculations involve exercise. A British environmentalist has used math to prove that walking to the store contributes more CO2 to the atmosphere than driving, because food production is so energy intensive. Don't believe me? Here's a quote:

“Driving a typical UK car for 3 miles [4.8km] adds about 0.9 kg [2lb] of CO2 to the atmosphere,” [Chris Goodall, campaigning author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life] said, a calculation based on the Government’s official fuel emission figures. “If you walked instead, it would use about 180 calories. You’d need about 100g of beef to replace those calories, resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving.

“The troubling fact is that taking a lot of exercise and then eating a bit more food is not good for the global atmosphere. Eating less and driving to save energy would be better.”

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.