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).