Climate change solves obesity problem?
 

There is an interesting juxtaposition of headlines at LiveScience.com:

Millions Face Hunger from Climate Change (http://www.livescience.com/environme...gw_hunger.html)

and

Severely Obese Are Fastest Growing Segment of Overweight Americans (http://www.livescience.com/healthday/603539.html)

It seems ironic that:
a) Americans (U.S.) constitute less than 5% of the world's population, but
b) Consume 25% of the world's oil (~20 million, out of 80 million, barrels per day), and
c) Probably won't be hurt as much by climate change as those countries whose contribution to the (supposed) problem is much smaller.

If there is a problem we must all look at our individual contributions to the problem.

But what if the climate is not changing, or if it is but not due to the actions of man? Or what if the change is beneficial to me (because all I care about is me). If we all switch to more fuel-efficient cars, reduce the number of miles we drive and fly, ride bikes and walk more, reduce, reuse, recycle, etc., what will be the unintended consequences of those actions? Will we look back in 50 years and say, "If only I'd used a little more oil! If only I'd driven that Hummer instead of that damn Prius!" ?

Can anybody honestly see any negative consequences to reducing energy consumption, reducing air emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants, reducing the number of vehicle miles driven, or reducing the earth's population?

What are the arguments against taking these actions? I'm really not trying to launch a new Cellar debate, I'm just trying to understand both sides of this argument. I'm looking for reasoned responses, not emotional calumny.

This belongs in the shit stirring thread....;)

My Big Mac would spoil before it made it over there.

Is that emotional calumny?

I need to change my user name. I believe it causes people to doubt my sincerity.

Maybe we'll regret global warming when the next ice age comes along.

We get more of a competitive edge as third world countries suffer from their own pollution and industrial accidents.

The more we eat, the longer we'll last when the famine hits.

Driving bigger cars allows us to run over poor starving foriegners in their tiny little fuel efficient cars.

It's exhillerating posting like a conservative!:D

It's interesting to note that, in that context, conservative means the opposite of conservative.

Yeah: reducing energy consumption and population means economies suffer. Suffering economies mean lost jobs and low wages. Lost jobs and low wages mean people can't afford as much as they once did. Not being able to afford much means eating on the cheap. Cheap food means fried food, empty calories, fillers, etc.

Eating healthy is expensive, especially in the US. Just look to the poor areas of the country to see the lack of the fit and trim.

There are ways to do it that aren't so painful. Someone's developing a hybrid car with better acceleration than traditional cars, for example. As energy becomes more expensive, more time and effort is put into making energy efficiency part of the overall scheme.

Kitsune, you make some good points. Not everyone has space for a garden, and many landlords won't allow you to keep a cow or a few chickens in your apartment, so most of us are dependent on others for food production. (Then again, in a few years, we might be eating Soylent Green.)

Here's an article addressing this point in Wired:
Rising Gas Prices Could Cure Obesity

Hmm.

I can agree that less dining out leads to fewer oversized portions. And, a lower food budget in general may also mean fewer snacks, processed foods, and meats in the groceries, which are all generally more expensive and more fattening.

But I don't know about the widespread walking/biking. People who already have the option to walk may do so when gas prices rise, but huge sections of our population do not have walking as a viable option because of the way suburbs are laid out. My nearest grocery store is 2 miles away. There is no public transportation in our area--it's about 5 miles from us to the closest major highway, and I'm only guessing that our intermittent and poorly-run bus system does go along that highway. We could certainly cut back all non-critical driving, but that would amount to not leaving the neighborhood, rather than walking/biking where we wanted to go.

In an utter nightmare scenario--we're talking gas so expensive it may as well not exist--I suppose it would be physically possible for Mr. Clod to bike the 16 miles to work, and I could get some sort of trailer that could pull two kids and groceries behind a bike. But before it ever got to that point, Mr. Clod's job would just let everyone telecommute, and our neighborhood busybodies (aka Homeowner's Association) would set up some sort of public transport, carpooling, or grocery-delivery-by-bike-messenger system. So we'd never see those exercise benefits.

A couple of years ago I considered converting my bike to an Xtracycle, but the reality is that a ride to the nearest grocery store is a sixteen mile trip (down a very curvy two lane road) and my job, at the time, was 20 miles away, so the people at the bike shop actually talked me out of spending the money. It seems more practical for people living in a town or city.

Here's a picture of an Xtracycle family vehicle

http://www.xtracycle.com/images/home_family.jpg

This Xtracycle is being used to take 120 lbs of stuff to the Goodwill:

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r...racycle010.jpg

A reduced US population would mean fewer young tax payers to pay for my social security benefits when I become an old crone. If Mexico reduced its population, it would mean fewer illegal workers to pick US crops, and the price of fresh produce would rise just when my check from Uncle Sam would be starting to shrink. Conservation of forests would lead to more forest fires, since, as we all know, trees cause fires. More alternative energy sources would mean more of those wind energy machines cluttering up thousands of miles of our landscape. This would not only be ugyly, but probably detrimental to any wildlife that managed to survive all the forest fires.

I live a block from a grocery store, and I already walk a lot. Can't see doing it much more than I already do.

If you walk to the grocery store more you'll be offsetting the effect of the additional exercise by eating more ice cream and Pop Tarts (TM).

How did you know that when I'm going to that particular crappy grocery store, it's as often as not to pick up a 1.5 quart (can't say half gallon any more) tub of ice cream?

I've used my web spider monkey to compile a detailed dossier of everyone on the Cellar.

Absolutely not. But not at the expense of one countries gain and anothers demise.

If the US becomes the world leader in alternative clean energy, even if the transition is a costly one, won't that dominance in a new area of technology be worth it?

I have no problem with that either. It would be a great thing. So why have we not done it? IMHO it is simply the strength of active lobbying and the failure of Congress to make it happen. I have a problem with us entering global treaties which mandate benchmarks we have to achieve while other countries get a pass. We could have raised cafe standards years ago. Why can my friends in the UK (other personal friends not on the cellar) drive small desiel cars made by Ford and other major car manufactures that get 50 or miles per gallon? That is just stupid. Europeans have been driving fuel efficient cars for years. We should as well. I love my big trucks but I am currently looking for a commuter to add to the fleet. There is much we can do on our own as a country and as individuals.

It amazes me that you don't see the inherent contradiction here. You think the government should have forced you, who "love your big trucks," to buy a super-fuel-efficient small diesel car, when you wouldn't purchase the somewhat-fuel-efficient midsize cars that were already available on the US market? Yeah, it's all Congress' fault you haven't been buying more efficient vehicles. :rolleyes:

And still even now, your solution is to add a fuel-efficient car to your "fleet." Obviously you can afford that solution, so more power to you--but fer Chrissake, don't try and convince yourself that it's the government's fault you drive big trucks.

When you really need a truck, little else will do. I missed having a truck three weeks after I went to a car. "Let's see, how are we gonna get this done?"

There really is no contradiction. I need the truck to haul a large boat and a number of trailers. I never said the government should have FORCED me to buy anything. Simply that they should have required the manufactures of said vehicles to raise the gas milage set point for cars and trucks a long time ago. The technology exists. The lobbying prevented it. I have 5 vehicles. One, for each person in the family. Two trucks, one of which is hitting the market for sale this month and that will be replaced by a fuel efficient car. The others are an SUV, which we want to replace with the Mini, and a car that was given to us (my daughter thinks she owns it, she does not) right before her grandmother died, she drives it 14 miles a day to and from school or church. And the oldest drives a small fuel efficient car. So how is making these changes a bad thing? I feel I am doing my part now. Who cares what happened before now, that is really not relevant at this point other than for a historical discussion. No where did I blame the govenment for the fact that I drive a large pick up truck. Hell, at least I sold the damm H2, now that was a gas hog, but gas was also well below $2.

Yea, once you own one there are just so many things that you can do with them that can never be done by a car. I doubt I will ever be without one.

I'm not questioning your need for a truck. I myself have a truck. What I'm saying is, requiring the manufacturers to meet stringent efficiency standards would basically take big trucks out of the market. Perhaps things have changed in recent years, but I don't believe the technology exists to make big trucks just as fuel-efficient as the little diesel Fords that get 50 mpg. You don't see trucks in the UK at all, not like Americans drive. Part of the reason those fuel-efficient cars are so efficient is because they're small. The reason Americans don't drive super-fuel-efficient cars is because we can afford not to. Not because lobbying has prevented them from existing.

I believe that is true about big trucks. There is no way that they will be as fuel efficient as a little car, but they could improve. And there is technology to make better engines that are more fuel efficient and until now there just has not been a reason to retool and re-engineer to make it happen. Smaller trucks with more torque to pull larger loads when they need to do so may be possible. Now it is to late. The big three will loose billions, I would not be surprised to see one or any of them closing doors for good if the price of gas does not go down. Maybe we can just get Congress to print more money so we all have some more to pay for gas. I am better prepared than most to absorb my personal costs and I may have ways to make changes in what we own and drive but most people do not have that ability and it is going to be painful. I understand that.

The cafe standards debate, lobbyist's have a huge influence on why things have not changed:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/
4217776.html

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/20...x_vs_cafe.html

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/05/11/cafe/

I think the reason more Americans don't drive the little fuel efficient cars is they're afraid they'll get run over by TheMercenary in his H2.

At one time that would have been a true statement. Actually my wife drove it more than I did because I didn't want to spend the money it cost to drive it. We only had it from 2004 to 2006 less than 2 years. Took a 5K hit when we traded it in for something better.

I was thinking about this yesterday when we went to the grocery store. We went to a new grocery store to the south, which turned out to be a little closer than the one to the north.

Round trip distance was 14.1 miles, at 86.7 mpg. That means we used 0.16 gallons of gasoline (~$0.64) and took about 30 minutes of driving for the round trip. I'm not sure how to compare that to riding an Xtracycle. It would have taken at least twice as long, but if I was enjoying the ride that would be irrelevant. Would I have eaten an additional amount of food that would take more than 0.16 gallons of gasoline to produce? Perhaps.

I hope you know I was just :stickpoke.

HLJ, no, not at first. All is good.

Watching Washington "handle" the morgage crisis, I think we can safely assume that major businesses are no longer allowed to fail. Jim Walsh has an article in the current Liberty titled Privatize the Profit, Socialize the Loss. I think that's where we are now.

I'm thinking a home wind turbine and electric vehicle may be the way to go.

i'm thinking the nutjob survivalists from the late '80's might have been right all along. i need to start thinking about my secret, self contained, fully armed sanctuary now.

Yeah, they won't let them fade away, just shift major obligations. like pensions, to the taxpayers.:mad: