Log in

No account? Create an account


"Thinner is better to curb global warming."

« previous entry | next entry »
Apr. 20th, 2009 | 01:50 pm
posted by: themadmyth in kissmyassvogue

Sigh, CNN.

"Researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine published a study showing that, because of food production and transportation factors, a population of heavier people contributes more harmful gases to the planet than a population of thin people.

Given that it takes more energy to move heavier people, transportation of heavier people requires more fuel, which creates more greenhouse gas emissions, the authors write."


Yes, because, obviously all fat people eat non stop.  And of course, all of them drive, too.  *rolls eyes*

You know what?  I'm a size US18.  I bike for my commute.  And most of the food I eat?  Comes from the ground.  Not MY fault that they're producing artificial and processed foods.  Not MY fault that the by product of those production plants fucks up the environment.  In fact, if I had it my way, we'd all be eating organic.

Why don't these people start looking at the real problem - the fact that we still burn up oil for fuel.  The fact that in America (and starting to spread around the world), food is being pumped with chemicals and artificial crap.  Why are they simply blaming fat people rather than asking why it's really necessary to create processed foods in the first place?

I am very disappointed.


Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {6}

(no subject)

from: devi42
date: Apr. 21st, 2009 02:16 am (UTC)

Does it take more energy to move a fat person? Of course it does. It's simple logic.

Here's the thing: Why highlight a study which draws a logical conclusion that anyone with a basic grasp pf math can arrive at?

I could also say that, on average, it likely takes less energy to move a short person than a tall person or a teenager than a middle-aged housewife. Both statements have a high probability of being true. If you look at the data, we're not just getting larger. We're also getting taller and living longer.

Once you get past the fact that they're even treating this study as newsworthy, you then have the following gems:

Thinner people contribute less to global warming, according to a new study.

Sorry. That's a dangerously generalized tidbit to lead off with. All you have proven is that it takes more energy to move a fat person from location A to location B. A person's contribution to global warming far exceeds this one factor. The OP mentioned that she bikes for her commute. I drive a small car and combine trips to use fewer gas. I also rarely eat red meat (beef production and shipment is also a significant global warming factor).

The study offers this novel approach to the global warming problem as U.S. lawmakers discuss the future of climate change legislation.

Novel approach? Why have they just mentioned U.S. lawmakers? Is there an implication that lawmakers should be doing more to help stem the obesity epidemic? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, kids.

Using statistical models, the authors compared the distribution of BMI in the United Kingdom in the 1970s -- when 3.5 percent of the population was obese -- with a prediction for the country's BMI distribution in 2010, reflecting 40 percent obesity.

I don't know what the BMI charts are like in the UK BUT in the United States and Canada, the definitions of "obesity" and "overweight" changed in the 1990's. Overnight, millions of people found themselves in a new category.

And why are they using predictions for 2010 instead of data from a few years ago. Obesity rates have actually started to stabilize in some countries so using a prediction seems somewhat risky.

In terms of energy expenditure, the average food product travels 1,500 miles to get to your table, he said.

Interesting. Do you know what I eat when dieting? Lots of fruit and vegetables that are not grown in Canada. Food which has to travel a greater distance to get to my kitchen table. Does anyone remember the Aitkins craze? Lots of people losing weight while eating a whole lot of red meat (see earlier point about beef production).

There are a few other points I take issue with as well but I'm tired.

Reply | Parent | Thread


(no subject)

from: themadmyth
date: Apr. 21st, 2009 06:16 am (UTC)


and, i just bought a couple of apple trees today - to go with my first apple tree, three pear trees, a plum tree, grapes, strawberries, blueberries, pumpkin, squash, peppers, spinach - not to mention all of the medicinal herbs and culinary herbs i am growing.

this whole article is only focusing on one aspect of global warming. there are a whole lot more things contributing to it at a much faster rate. there are fixes to a lot of the problems, but the food and oil industries don't want to hear it and the government isn't ready to make them, either.

solution? buy local. buy organic. grow your own food. ride a bike. be your own powerhouse. doesn't matter how big or small you are, you can do a lot to lessen your carbon footprint, which should be considered as the first step if they really think this is a serious problem. if, for example, we made laws to stop the food industry from producing artificial foods, we could bypass the mess that comes from production and transportation, and meanwhile, make a healthier country.

this is a problem that we created, it's deeper than a lot of people seem to pay attention to, but the people sitting pretty on all of this have enough money to make sure it doesn't stop. so what are they going to do? point the finger at the fat people, meanwhile grossly overgeneralizing their whole article.

Reply | Parent | Thread