"Fat is a personal problem, a planetary health problem and a political health problem," Roberts said. Thus, Roberts prescribes structural changes to the world in addition to diet and exercise. He noted that the economic and societal incentives that push for overconsumption lead to national debts, environmental harm and health problems. "It's the same problem that's killing kids, making us fat and contributing to global climate change," he said.
The researchers are now looking into how obesity will change in the future. "The next step is to try and predict future trends in terms of body mass increases," Walpole said. "We really expect resource use to go up with body weight."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentJunk science writing has reached its zenith with this article. SI should be ashamed to have such poorly written dribble on its site. Global warming is serious and needs serious solutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaha, wow this is a good one. So being fat is now one of the causes of climate change. Easy to predict that after these warmists finally find a way to tax breathing in the name of climate change, they will add a tax for being too fat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if the article was about how there are 7 billion people on the planet needing heat and this will increase to 14 billion some day, which doubles the heat maybe they would have an article. But the warmists wont do this because then they would have to admit the 4 billion people who are not part of the industrialized world are also contributing just as much to heat by their existence, just like everyone else as well as burning wood and coal for heat and cooking and everything else.
It is amazing how the warmists have taken what is potentially a real contributor to warming, humans existing and added a bogus concept of being fat, to ensure only the evil industrialized world can be blamed.
My favorite is the so called lightweight countries, like north korea, which has pollution equal to that of the former soviet union, yeah that is a model to follow and they leave out china who's 1.2 billion people, most of which are not part of the industrialized china, put out more ash, dust and heat than anyone else and they are not fat.
Thanks SA for publishing, it is a good example on how warmists cherry pick and rig data to make what they want to believe seem true.
The fact is ALL humans are contributing to heat put into the atmosphere and it has NOTHING to do with CO2. This heat alone is likely enough to contribute to the natural global warming and also coincides with the so called data. The population has been growing far beyond normal over the same timeframe as the industrial age but then warmists tend to ignore any data or possible cause that is not CO2 produced by industry.
Whatever...we can all reduce some fat mass and be better off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI watched a ...person at Costcos eat two hot dogs and two slices of pizza with everything on it and two drinks. I ate one hot dog, I'm 130 lbs. It was so gross, it made me feel sick.
See for yourself, 80% of the people in Costcos, Walmart and PriceRight are fat, "NO cherry picking" what's good about that.
Whatever, fat people have more health issues, it's a fact.
What part of common sense says obese is not a problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe childless can only hope to be the second most environmentally friendly. First place belongs to those who commit immediate suicide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot an appealing solution, but nevertheless, absolutely true.
5 words: High Fructose Corn Syrup Subsidies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObese may be a problem but it is not a cause of climate change. Though I agree with the concept that the larger population on the planet is the major human contribution to climate change. BUT this is factor is from the number of people, not just the obese people. Every single person produces heat from a variety of sources from body heat, cooking, to heating the home. Even in the most remote village we have that going on. Worse, the more remote the more likely the humans are just burning raw wood or something to cook with, which reduces the number of trees available to help control CO2 for example, since you warmists want to control it. The 7 billion humans simply being alive , living and eating is enough extra heat. Also, include the livestock, the factories that produce heat to make metals or plastics, even the actual heat produced by car engines or oxen used to plow a field all contribute heat and when this is multiplied by factors determined from a population of 7 billion, you have a lot of heat. The article attempts to completely place the blame of human heat generation squarely on the US by claiming somehow Obese is the factor and if you are not Obese, then somehow the skinny humans are not a factor. Considering China became the largest CO2 polluter in the world, the warmists clearly need some way to shift the blame back to the US and this apparently is one of the methods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnlike a bunch of the commenters I liked the article, the research and numbers look solid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@oldvic - "The childless can only hope to be the second most environmentally friendly. First place belongs to those who commit immediate suicide.
Not an appealing solution, but nevertheless, absolutely true."
I guess an even more environmentally friendly person would be infanticiders who then do them themselves. Also, not very appealing.
Let's face it serious decreases in global warming due to emmisions etc will never occur. There is a direct coorelation between a states economic income and emissions, so gov't entities stand to make far more $ with emmissions than without or even reducing them (which also costs $ in cleanup or reduced volume).
I guess that leaves warmists with the best alternative of trying to get off earth ASAP, no matter the emissions costs. Since controlling gov'ts and corp's is obviously impossible since they have all the power and parrallel goals - all they want is more money, realty, and control of the populace (hence most republicans wanting to make birth control, etc illegal. They want more people to keep their pyramid schemes as stable for as long as possible. Turns out religion is just the card they play to get the masses to agree with such idioticy.)
Me too, I agree this is an interesting article. It has some interesting correlations to how the fattening world is adding to the problems of global warming. To the detractors...you may not like the science but it is real...get over your denial. If you don't like science don't read science. Simple really. I don't like most of religion so I don't read their material or go near their churches. They have their beliefs I have mine, I don't have a problem with peoples beliefs as long as they can support them with evidence and they don't force it on me. So you guys do the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a textbook example of fat-phobia, right down to the dehumanizing picture of a headless fat person. It's really pretty deplorable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about runners? Body builders? Pregnant women? Fire fighters? Navy SEALS? I can think of plenty of people who consume more than 2000 calories a day, and yet I don't see them being blamed for climate change.
This article (and study) blame people for what is 1) a complex process (weight is much more complex than calories in - calories out), 2) linked to many other factors like poverty and the availability of food. What about the carbon footprint of wine? Or other specialty foods, consumed by middle and upper class?
If people stopped thinking about obesity as a moral crisis, we might be able to make real progress.
This is one of the most horriffic aticles I have ever read. There is no true scientiffic basis for this "study". Just because someone is heavier than another does not mean that they are an enviormental problem. This article is all about blame. These lame scientists apparently cannot find the scientiffic reason for the planet warming up so they assign blame to a group of people who have been the target of ridicule and prejudice. [I am a part of that group.] Not all of us eat all the time. Not all of us eat fast food. Not all of us drink sodas or a lot of sugar-filled beverages. Not all of us drive to the store that is 5 minutes away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAssuming Global Warming is a major human-caused pandemic, lets point the fingers at the people who would not benefit from the change to a greener enviorment. The Oil Companies would colapse if a 100% alternate fuel were created. Sure we have ethonol, but that is only at 1:9. What about the factories of major power companies that run this nation behind the scenes? Car companies who are in the employ of the Oil Companies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about the natural factors such as volcanoes? Gysers? The Sun going through a solar phase? Solar flares? There are too many factors involved to just pin it on one group of people.