Burger joints are destroying the planet, apparently

James May

As a general rule, I avoid reading the New Scientist. It's an excellent and very authoritative journal, but the work of its young,
dedicated and largely self-effacing contributors always makes me feel like a rank under-achiever.
These people are so focused.
I know quite a bit about the history and development of special-bodied Bentleys of the 1950s and 1960s, which to my mind is
a speciality, but there are people in the New Scientist who have devoted their lives to one molecule.

The other reason for sticking with Zoo or Classic Car is that New Scientist will inevitably throw up something disturbing.
This week, on its website, I discovered some research that says the production of one kilogram of beef does as much
environmental damage as a journey of 150 miles in a typical family car. A kilogram of beef will make nine Quarter Pounder
burgers for McDonald's, although if we factor in the environmental impact of making cheese from polythene and bread from
expanded polystyrene, our 150-mile journey probably equates to more like five burgers.

Even so, if you're a car enthusiast who also likes a happy meal, and you like to think you have an ecological conscience,
you should probably give up one or the other, and the obvious course of action is to forego the burgers.

But hang on.

I'd find all of this a bit difficult. Despite my enthusiasm for processed foods, which any honest man will share, I never really think
about McDonald's burgers during day-to-day life.

But as we know, in the car the rules are different.

The car is where you put your finger up your nose, listen to AC/DC and do other things you wouldn't do at home.
And on long journeys, when I'm alone, I am often suddenly and inexplicably consumed by a craving for a Mickey D's
Quarter Pounder with cheese. It must be exactly that; not a bacon sandwich or a pastry from the gas station or a chicken caesar,
it must be the real McD proffered through a small window by the flaccid arm of a Latvian "student".

I like a pan-fried day-boat scallop as much as the next ponce, but not at 11.30pm and only halfway to Toronto.

I like tepid finger food I can eat while steering with my knees. Or did, before I realised I was destroying the world.

And it gets worse, of course, if you keep reading the New Scientist. It also transpires that the production of beef is
depleting the planet of precious water needed for irrigation. It takes 3,500 litres of water to produce a kilogram of chicken,
but about 100,000 litres to produce the same amount of beef.

To put that in more comprehensible terms, the production of my cheeseburger requires a quantity of water roughly equal to
the volume of my small downstairs lavatory. Vegans would no doubt like to point out how that would make 20kg of spuds.

So now it looks as though my innocently stolen roadside snack item is a triple whammy supersized climate crime with extra
global misery and a free plastic toy.

Salvation has come, however, by following a link to the website of America's National Academy of Engineering.
This lot are engaged in something much more upbeat - trying to identify the greatest engineering challenges of the 21st century.
One of them is "to restore and improve urban infrastructure".

The real issue here, apparently, is "engineering integrated transportation systems, making individual vehicle travel, mass transit,
bicycling and walking all as easy and efficient as possible". Now I always assumed we'd pretty much sorted the ease and efficiency
of walking back when we were little more than apes, but I realised, thanks to the Yankee boffins, how I could enjoy a crafty burger
and my car without guilt.

One cheeseburger, as we saw earlier, is the equivalent of a 30-mile car journey.

So if I caught a bus into town, ate a McDonald's Quarter Pounder, but then walked home, thereby offsetting the ecological impact
of the beef production through self denial. And then, having effectively earned a green credit, I went out for a 30-mile thrash in the
old 911, arriving back home with the environmental account perfectly in balance.

See?

All that was required was, as usual, a little more thought and, most importantly, some proper research.