May 20 2008
Fat People Cause Global Warming?
The full article from The Lancet is reproduced below. It’s an open access journal, so I assume that’s allowed. This story has been picked up by others such as Slashdot and the New York Times. I am not overwhelmed by the article.
Transport policy is food policy
We endorse the call for fair and sustainable solutions to tackle the causes of global food insecurity (April 26, p 1389),1 but argue for greater recognition of the importance of reducing the demand for transportation fuel in resolving the struggle for energy between people and cars.
Petrol tanks and stomachs were competing well before biofuels were proposed to tackle climate change. Motorised transport is more than 95% oil-dependent and accounts for almost half of world oil use.2 Because oil is a key agricultural input, demand for transportation fuel affects food prices. Increased car use also contributes to rising food prices by promoting obesity which, for the reasons outlined below, increases the global demand for food.
We estimate that a population of 1 billion people with a stable mean body-mass index (BMI) of 24·5 kg/m² consumes an average 6·5 MJ of food energy per person per day to maintain basal metabolic rate, and a further 4 MJ per person per day for activities of daily living. An obese population of 1 billion people with a stable mean BMI of 29·0 kg/m² would require an average 7 MJ of food energy per person per day to maintain basal metabolic rate, and 5·4 MJ per person per day for activities of daily living (calculations available from the authors). Compared with the normal weight population, the obese population consumes 18% more food energy. Additionally, more transportation fuel energy will be used to transport the increased mass of the obese population, which will increase even further if, as is likely, the overweight people in response to their increased body mass choose to walk less and drive more.3
Urban transport policies that promote walking and cycling would reduce food prices by reducing the global demand for oil, and promotion of a normal distribution of BMI would reduce the global demand for, and thus the price of, food. Decreased car use would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus the need for biofuels, and increased physical activity levels, would reduce injury risk and air pollution, improving population health.
Transport policy is food policy and the importance of sustainable transport must not be overlooked.
1 The Lancet. Finding long-term solutions to the world food crisis. Lancet 2008; 371: 1389.
2 Woodcock J, Banister D, Edwards P, Prentice A, Roberts I. Energy and transport. Lancet 2007; 370: 1078–88.
3 Swinburn B, Egger G. The runaway weight gain train: too many accelerators not enough brakes. BMJ 2004; 329: 736–39.
(1 votes, average: 1 out of 5)
Loading ...Related Posts:
18 Responses to “Fat People Cause Global Warming?”
To reduce spam, comments are automatically closed 30 days after the last comment. If you would like to comment on any closed thread, please use the contact form at the top of this page.
The publicized “consequences” of climate change — from the ridiculous to the more ridiculous. Do you remain surprised that the number of skeptics is increasing?
It seems like it was years ago when “fat people” were indirectly linked to global warming…all these beef-eaters out there mean lots of methane output from cows, with veggie diets being far more AGW friendly.
We now have a competition in places like the US between the “fat people” who want corn to be used to animal feed and keep food prices down vs the alt energy folks who want corn-based ethanol.
What it all seems to boil down to is that people can find links suggesting that (1) global warming is bad for most everything and (2) most everything you do that is bad causes global warming.
Aw, Mr. Jankowski, I thought you were above making statements like, “the alt energy folks who want corn-based ethanol.”
Do you remain surprised that the number of skeptics is increasing?
I don’t think they are increasing at all.
Rather, they are getting more strident, shrill, and finding more time to ululate and write Letters to the Editor.
The rest of us have moved on and are engaging with the vast majority of society to discuss adaptation and mitigation.
Best,
D
Dano,
The number of skeptics as a function of time seems to be increasing, at least from my vantage point. I could be wrong.
In any event, the extent to which human activity affects the climate is still an open question. Several years ago, a spokesperson from Hadley announced in no uncertain terms that the “human” signal was so large as to swamp natural variation. Now we hear from Hadley that the recent “pause” is caused by natural variation, from which one may logically conclude that this implies a weaker “human” signal than the signal implied in the earlier announcement.
Cheers,
Tony
In any event, the extent to which human activity affects the climate is still an open question.
Only to the folk who don’t want to believe in scientific findings. Messes with their self-identity or something, I hear.
But you could be wrong.
Say, you know your meds were tested by the same methods as the findings in climate science. Is their efficacy an open question in your mind too? Yet you continue pay for them - odd how the human mind works, no?
Best,
D
Is your last missive an attempt at a principled argument? I guess “my meds” were tested by parametized models rather than by empirical studies.
Cheers,
Tony
Dano,
I don’t take meds. Are you saying this is an issue in the warmer community??
I guess “my meds” were tested by parametized models rather than by empirical studies.
Much evidence for the anthropogenic component of climate change was obtained via the same method as your meds.
There was no parameterization involved. That is: there is a mountain of evidence for detection and testing of both man-made climate change and medicine that does not involve modeling.
Best,
D
Please cite some of this unambiguous “mountain of evidence”.
Cheers,
Tony
That’s enough. I’m closing comments on this thread because it’s way off topic. If anyone has anything additional to offer related to the topic at hand please use the contact form.
I made no such claim for unambiguousness.
That is your attempt to have play.
Nonetheless, Tony, the compilation of such evidence has been listed in many places: IPCC reports, NAS report, footnotes in the statements by the numerous scientific organizations across the planet, Arctic assessment, Oreskes paper, and so on.
I find it hard to believe someone living on this planet is unaware of the evidence, and rather think that someone making such a request doesn’t wish to see, or perhaps is looking for an opening to yet another wish fulfillment that it isn’t true, or vague hope of delay or something.
The rest of the planet is discussing adaptation and mitigation, not where the evidence is located. I will discuss adaptation and mitigation in a warming/changing world, not things put to bed, not things asked and answered long ago, not lather-rinse-repeat delaying tactics.
HTH.
Best,
D
If it is not “unambiguous”, then it must, perforce, be ambiguous.
Ah. We don’t know science. We can’t speak to the issue.
[ignore]
To the topic at hand:
This is a typical high-level analysis done by public health folk. Is it a decent high-level, general statement regarding how dependent we are on transport? Yes it is.
Does it scale down to the individual? Maybe. Just as in BMI, you have to look at the scale of the problem it is addressing. In my mind it is perfectly adequate to inform decision-makers at scales such as national, regional, state and county. Local? maybe not. Household, likely not.
Best,
D
One issue this study blatantly blew off is that someone walking and bicycling raises their base metabolic rate and BURNS MORE ENERGY!!!
A sedentary person, though obese, will not burn a lot of calories just sitting around reading, talking, watching tv, sitting in a car or bus…
OTH, a person walking, bicycling, skating to work burns a heck of a lot more!! They are also more likely to have a more active life style that burns more calories on a daily basis.
An obese person may very well consume food that is not required to maintain their metabolic rate. This can be recovered by recycling their sewage and having their fat vacuumed regularly! Consider them a biological converter!!
Steve L,
Maybe I didn’t word things as precisely as I should have. I didn’t mean to polarize things to such a degree. I don’t have a problem (as most people don’t seem to) with corn-based ethanol being part of the solution of weeding us off of fossil fuels.
The “the alt energy folks who want corn-based ethanol” statement I made would refer to the people who think that is viable and productive on a large scale without considering the impacts elsewhere.
I favor the development and use of “alt energy,” but I am not part of the “alt energy folks”…just like I favor the use of oil and other fossil fuels necessary in our current society (as I demonstrate every day) but am not “oil (or other fossil fuel) folk.”
Sorry for the apparent confusion.
I agree with the statements that say that global warming is caused by obese people. Because they are fat, when they shower they take up a lot of WATER!!! Also when they need to do their business in the toilet, their sh!t come s out in big chunks which means more water is needed to flush.
Haha. Zola Mapela… you are absolutely right!