Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Fighting Fat and Climate Change

By Seth Borenstein, Huffington Post. Posted December 7, 2007.


We can attack both problems by cutting calories and carbon dioxide at the same time.
Advertisement

America's obesity epidemic and global warming might not seem to have much in common. But public health experts suggest people can attack them both by cutting calories and carbon dioxide at the same time.

How? Get out of your car and walk or bike half an hour a day instead of driving. And while you're at it, eat less red meat. That's how Americans can simultaneously save the planet and their health, say doctors and climate scientists.

The payoffs are huge, although unlikely to happen. One numbers-crunching scientist calculates that if all Americans between 10 and 74 walked just half an hour a day instead of driving, they would cut the annual U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by 64 million tons.

About 6.5 billion gallons of gasoline would be saved. And Americans would also shed more than 3 billion pounds overall, according to these calculations.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering public promotion of the "co-benefits" of fighting global warming and obesity-related illnesses through everyday exercise, like walking to school or work, said Dr. Howard Frumkin, director of the CDC's National Center for Environmental Health.

"A simple intervention like walking to school is a climate change intervention, an obesity intervention, a diabetes intervention, a safety intervention," Frumkin told The Associated Press. "That's the sweet spot."

Climate change is a deadly and worsening public health issue, said Frumkin and other experts. The World Health Organization estimated that 160,000 people died in 2000 from malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition and drownings from floods -- problems that public health and climate scientists contend were worsened by global warming. Officials predict that in the future those numbers will be higher.

The American Public Health Association, which will highlight the health problems of global warming in April, is seeking to connect obesity and climate change solutions, said executive director Dr. Georges Benjamin.

"This may present the greatest public health opportunity that we've had in a century," said University of Wisconsin health sciences professor Dr. Jonathan Patz, president of the International Association for Ecology and Health.

The key is getting people out of the car, Patz and Frumkin told the public health association at its annual convention. Reducing car travel in favor of biking or walking would not only cut obesity and greenhouse gases, they said, it would also mean less smog, fewer deaths from car crashes, less osteoporosis, and even less depression since exercise helps beat the blues.

In a little-noticed scientific paper in 2005, Paul Higgins, a scientist and policy fellow with the American Meteorological Society, calculated specific savings from adopting federal government recommendations for half an hour a day of exercise instead of driving.

The average person walking half an hour a day would lose about 13 pounds a year. And if everyone did that instead of driving the same distance, the nation would burn a total of 10.5 trillion calories, according to the scientist, formerly with the University of California at Berkeley. At the same time, that would cut carbon dioxide emissions by about the same amount New Mexico produces, he said.

"The real bang for the buck in reducing greenhouse gas emissions was from the avoided health expenses of a sedentary lifestyle," said Higgins.

But it's not just getting out of the car that's needed, said Dr. Robert Lawrence of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. A diet shift away from heavy meat consumption would also go far, he said, because it takes much more energy and land to produce meat than fruits, vegetables and grains.

Recent studies support that argument. Last year the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that the meat sector of the global economy is responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Much of that is indirect, including the fertilizer needed to grow massive amounts of feed for livestock, energy use in the whole growing process, methane released from fertilizer and animal manure, and transportation of the cattle and meat products.

Similar calculations were made in a study in September in the medical journal Lancet.

The average American man eats 1.6 times as much meat as the government recommends, Lawrence said. Some studies have shown eating a lot of red meat is linked to a higher risk for colon cancer.

As for fighting obesity and global warming by walking and cycling, don't expect people to do it easily, said Kristie Ebi. She's a Virginia public health consultant and one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

Citing the decades-long effort to curb smoking, she said, "It turns out changing people's habits is very hard."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fat, obesity, global warming, climate change

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
And the next step is to blame fat people....
Posted by: Gravitas on Dec 7, 2007 1:37 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a sociologist who has been researching the stigma of obesity for 25 years, it is beyond appalling that anyone would try to connect global warming with obesity. While it may sound like a good idea, simply giving up one's car will not make people thin. Nor will it address the major structural causes of global warming. So now the government has a scapegoat for its failure to act much quicker - fat people! So much the better that obesity is associated with already marginalized groups like women, minorities and the poor. Yes, they should take the brunt of the outrage when we finally come out of denial global warming is real. Lets let the thin rich power elite who manipulated the facts off the hook. Anyone who thinks this is farfetched should do some research. Some groups have already tried to blame fat people. They have also tried to blame the economy on fat people. And progressives are falling right into their hands!!!!!!

Whoever wrote this article is absolutely clueless! Not just to the dynamics of stigma, but natural diversity in body size. Walking does not cause everyone to lose weight, let alone become thin. I gave up my car 3 years ago (because of gw) and didn't lose an ounce. I was also forced to cut down on my consumption because I must carry everything I buy (and haul it up 3 flights of stairs!) Now, I don't want to diminish myself, I love my abundant curves. But the point is when people realize walking more will make them slightly thinner at best, they will just see it as another fad diet and move on! And fighting global warming itself will be forgotten.

I will do everything possible to stop them from scapegoating fat people. When I was 9 they blamed fat people for the energy crises. I felt more guilty than the oil compnay executives! What kind of sick society does that to a child? If I have to put my naked 220lb, 50ish body on the internet to show people walking will not make them thinner I will do it. I left CA because I stumbled on secrets. If I have to go public, I will do it! Enough is enough! Shame on the government for trying to exploit glabal warming and obesity. Shame on everyone who goes along with it. You are heartless monsters. By all means we all should walk! But progress should be measured in a lighter carbon footprint, not a tape measure or scale!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fruits to fight obesity
Posted by: tubarc on Dec 8, 2007 3:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fruits vs. Obesity

Fruits are low in calories and highly nutritional already grown on public places at increasing ratios to face obesity trends. Tree climbing also can be a body exercise for children harvesting fruits.

Fruits also have around four times more water content than cookies or any dry processed food. It easily satisfies our hunger letting us take less overall energy. Just keep your refrigerator full of fruits and you and your kids will likely get fit.

In Brazil we are suggesting to increase fruit trees in the public areas changing our country to a large tropical orchard. Then, sidewalks, squares, parks, roadsides will be plenty of free fruits bearing the most delicious and appropriate food to fight obesity, also protected from a wild economic system.

Other countries can join us on a fight against global obesity.

We believe Brazil as a tropical country can tackle obesity and be the leader on such fight. We intend the rural area conquer the cities make it full of fruits.
http://revver.com/watch/225528

Even carnivores can be convinced to eat more fruits:
http://revver.com/watch/218695

Why not humans can eat fruits for their own good?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fruits to fight obesity Posted by: davidcockrell_tx
Fight both.
Posted by: socialscientist on Dec 12, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
fight the fat:
kevin trudeau

fight the auto:
freepublictransit

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Needs more than a simple "walk more" imperative
Posted by: janakiblum on Dec 16, 2007 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Walking 30 minutes a day is good for health, but it cannot by itself deal with the carbon emission issue. The US is currently planned and built around car use, with the resources of the car/oil industry employed in lobbying & advertising to keep it that way. This means that, unless you live in a pre-WWII city, it is difficult to run the simplest errands without using a car. In addition, not owning/using a car carries the stigma of poverty, so that people in urban areas will buy them even it makes no logistical or economic sense. Reducing emissions will require a much larger investment in changing US planning and transportation culture, than a simple "walk more" directive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What if you don't live in a city?
Posted by: Luther Blissett on Dec 18, 2007 7:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Walking makes a lot of sense for people in urban areas. If I still lived in New York, I wouldn't own a car. Everything I needed was within walking distance, and if I had to go more than a few miles from home, well, that's what buses and trains are for. But I can't afford to live in a city like that.

But what about people who live in rural areas? I once lived so far out in the middle of nowhere that I had to drive ten minutes to get to the nearest convenience store.

And what about the suburbs? The only places within walking distance of my house are fast food restaurants. In the suburbs, you have residential developments with one road leading out to a major road. Those major roads lead to malls and shopping centers. How are you supposed to walk anywhere? With no sidewalks, crosswalks, or bike lanes, it's really not safe.

For most of us, it's not a question of just walking to work or school when work and school are 5-10 miles down the road.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]