Is Obesity Bad For The Environment?

abcnews.com:

Obesity experts overwhelmingly condemned a letter in the medical journal the Lancet Thursday that suggested growing rates of obesity pose a threat to the environment.

The letter, submitted by researchers from the United Kingdom, implicates the rising tide of obesity in greater oil consumption, more food production -- and, ultimately, in an increase in the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"It is a significant contribution," said Phil Edwards, co-author of the letter and senior statistician at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the United Kingdom.

"Eighteen percent more food energy is required in many populations where there is a large prevalence of obesity," he said, citing a 460-calorie increase in daily food intake for an obese individual. "There is a clear impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in order to grow that food."

Read the whole story: abcnews.com

Comments

[avicenna]

I think the bigger point - that is surprisingly overlooked or not being emphasized - is the fact that obese people also release more greenhouse gases through there much greater surface area and consumptive metabolism. People release CO2 through their skin as well as their lungs, and the bigger you are and the more inches of skin folds cover your mass, the more pollution you produce. So it really does add up - through greater consumption needs (i.e. more food), greater need for using energy to move (i.e. cars, elevators etc), to more production of metabolic waste - pound for pound, obesity is really a heavy burden on the environment.

[TimmySlagle]

Here's the flaw in the logic: It takes just as much gas to haul around a 240 pound football player as it does to haul around a 240 pound slob. So what does it matter whether the person is obese, or in excellent shape? Perhaps we should starve everybody, so that no human is allowed to weigh more than a hundred pounds.

This should illustrate to everyone, the true motivation behind the whole Global Warming scam;

It isn't really about the Planet,

it's all about control.

[RTIII]

Well, TimmySlagle,

you do appear to be illiterate - under the new definition that an illiterate is someone who DOESN'T read.

The article clearly stated the primary issue isn't toting extra mass around transporting said person, it's in the extra food production.

You continually try to deny global climate change; you'll be singing a different tune in a few years if/when humanity doesn't solve this. It'll be partly YOUR FAULT, but it'll be too late for blame. You know, you could just close your yap. After all, you aren't a scientist working in ANY related field, now are you. It happens that I am and I _know_ what I'm talking about.

RT

[TimmySlagle]

"the primary issue isn't toting extra mass around transporting said person, it's in the extra food production."

Are you telling me that a 240 lb. football player doesn't eat as much as a 240 lb. couch potato?

And before you go tossing out the ad hominem, you might try reading a little bit yourself. In the actual article (which you obviously failed to read) you will find this remark: "more transportation fuel energy will be used to transport the increased mass of the obese population,"

Finally, I have never denied Global Climate Change.

I deny that it's a problem.

[ThirdSection]

Really, it's the behaviors that lead to obesity that are to blame. If you eat more than your fill and drive places you could have walked to, you're going to get fat and hurt the environment.

[RTIII]

Obesity experts may be upset about the research but it's a pretty obvious truth. And, all too often, the truth hurts.

The only question is "how significant" is it? The answer, apparently, is "eighteen percent" in "many populations" - presumably including the USA, already responsible for the greatest per-capita green-house gas emission. Now, that's 18% added on to the ENTIRE food production, packaging, processing, transport, warehousing and retail energy expenditures.

I'm not sure what fraction of the green-house gas emissions (and otherwise energy consumption) the food industry is responsible for, but it's arguably large, especially when you consider the carbon-sinks that have been destroyed for food production (rain forests, etc). I'm sure that somewhere, this has already been quantified.

Look at it this way, with 18% less of what constitutes a large fraction of the total, clearly "cutting out the fat" is a great goal, health issues aside.

I guess it's added incentive for the obese to do something about their obesity, but many of these people are obese due to depression and surely laying a guilt trip on them won't be productive for most. I'd recommend laying off the "fat people are responsible for global warming" jokes. ...Fewer people overall would be a more laudable - and hopefully better received - goal.

[Beachrunner]

Of course it results in more global warming! It takes much more gas to move a fat person around than a thin one.

I hope Obama institutes a "fat tax." Anyone who is obese should have to pay 50% more for Big Macs, Whoppers, fires, sodas, etc. And give them a break on salads (as long as they go with the no-fat dressing.)

[ThirdSection]

...Not to mention the extra methane emissions!