If I had a bent toward conspiracy, I would believe that the oversight was intentional, and that scientists don't like fat people. I can see what is coming: taxes on weight and per capita consumption, and punitive parking permits forcing fat people to park in the back of lots. Maybe fat people will have to pay for more of their health costs. In short, public policy will be designed to make their life a living hell.Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a tonne more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one. It means an extra BILLION TONNES of CO2 a year is created, according to World Health Organisation estimates of overweight people.
The scientists say providing extra grub for them to guzzle adds to carbon emissions that heat up the world, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels and killing rain forests. The environmental impact of fat humans is made even worse because they are more likely to travel by car — another major cause of carbon emissions.
Let's assume that scientists are really concerned with fat people's health, and more importantly to them, carbon emissions. In that case, scientists missed the BIG picture. Athletes and big people emit more carbon than couch potatoes and small people. Take Michael Phelps for example. He is a big person who consumes 12,000 calories per day. He swims in pools from the USA to China. I wonder if he buys carbon offsets for all the miles he flies. How many calories does Shaq consume each day? How many miles does Tiger fly?
We should do all we can to make people smaller starting with a tax on big people. Let's measure big by weight. It doesn't maker if a 250 pound person has 6% or 60% body fat; they are big. They emit more carbon. We could tax size at a progressive rate. People who weigh less than average pay no tax. Those who weigh less than 75% of average pay a $1,000 more in taxes. The top 10% of weight would pay $5,000 more, and the top 1%, $25,000. This would be hard on big poor people, but it would increase incentives to shrink.
This may not be enough. We may need to limit the rights of big people to reproduce. Only the bottom 90% of the population would be permitted to breed. Only the bottom 50% could have more than one child. Big people who want children could adopt. The effects would be immediate and measurable within one year of birth. In 21 months, we could check the growth charts to see if the policy was working.
We could reduce average size by 20% 20 years, and 50% in three generations! Mankind's carbon footprint would be cut in half. Not only would we eat less, our houses would be half as big. A compact car would seat nine. Smaller cars would mean narrower lanes. Narrower lanes would translate to more lanes on existing streets. Congestion and its carbon imprint would decline. Our carbon footprint would decline with our stature.
Posts
I think the scientist blaming fat people for being more harmful to the enviroment is just another way for them to make up excuses for global warming. Instead of blaming everyone, and telling us who and why the earth is warming up, shouldn't they try to figure out ways to combat it?
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should tax by weight either, because as it is, people are complaining about taxes already. We should follow Pres. Obama's tax plan, and stick with it. Yes, theoretically taxing "big" people would work, but the poor "big" people aren't going to loose weight anyway because the poorer you are, the less healthy food you eat, because let's face it, McDonalds is alot cheaper and easier to eat than organic, and healthy green food.
Dustin Pierce
Chilton ISD
Wow! That is so mean!! Just because a person is a little over weight doesnt mean that its okay to call them fat. Scientist may not like fat people but it's not the fat persons fault. Some people are born big boned and some just eat a lot more than they should. It is not their fault therefore, taxing will only add to the list of problems and complaints. However, if you are fat and you do want to lose weight I think it would be wonderful to park in the back (you know like at the end of the parking lot....way way in the back) and walk. It would do you some good and the world too. I believe that we should never be able to take the right of child birth away from anyone, because it is not our decision wheather or not to allow life to be given. That is in gods hands.
ReplyDeleteBernice Vessells
From Chilton
Just because someone is big or small doesn't mean it's their fault for global warming. This is just another excuse they have come up with because wasn't it a few years or so ago that they blamed it on the sun getting hotter, automobiles, and the ozone layer just being destroyed? In my opinion they can't decide who's overweight and who isn't. They aren't being fair to those people because we are already having problems with people thinking they are fat when they aren't. Most people can't help that they are bigger than others, they could have a thyroid problems, be big boned, eat a lil more than others, or maybe it just runs in the family. You can't tell people that they can't have children. If they want children let them, plus accidents do happen to everyone. With this economy it wouldn't really matter if you put a tax for them or not because they are already eating what's cheap and let's face it now it's almost cheaper to eat fast food like mcdonald's and the healthy food costs too much already. Since the food costs and consumers don't have the money to buy their products the producers are losing money and some are going to be forced to close or drop prices, which are not good for business. Most of the population are overweight anyway so that would put an increase tax on almost everyone and wouldn't help our economy in any way!!!
ReplyDeleteAmber Hensley-Chilton
Instead of blaming global warming on people who are over-weight, maybe the scientists should be spending their time finding a reliable alternative energy source. I do believe a healthy lifestyle should be promoted, but not forced upon us. Taxing people until they're skinny could possibly improve the environment, but it would diminish the quality of life of those who are living in it. The article makes it seem like every skinny person in the world is out there walking to every single place they go, while fatter people drive. This is not true at all. Tell everyone to buy smaller, fuel-efficient cars instead of chastising people for being big. This article is using overweight individuals as scapegoats for the bigger problems facing our environment.
ReplyDeleteTalk about bullies! These days it seems like scientists are finding every excuse for global warming. They should just focus on finding more efficient energy sources. I don't think that they are spending their time wisely by figuring out who is to blame. With all of the blaming, I just don't really care who is doing it. I just want to know how we are going to fix it.
ReplyDeleteBella
MHS
I think it's a)mean to label fat people as the cause for global warming (as i sit here eating pizza while i type this) and b)funny that it's cheaper to be fat than healthy. So, in saying that, shouldn't fat people be the ones driving luxury cars and living in elaborate houses? I think that this article is more concerned with the nation's eating disorder than it is with global warming. Granted, I think the idea of taxing people by weight class is highly original. On the plus side (no pun intended), the Wii industry's stock market would skyrocket due to the sudden increase in purchase of the WiiFit game. The idea itself isn't illogical. I personally would rather see a more direct way of approaching the global warming crisis.
ReplyDeleteSarah K. G.
Well everyone is entitled to their own option, and this option is particularly mean....There is an old saying that goes something like this, "If you can't say anything good about people then don't say anything at all". This was one of those time when the scientist should have kept quite..
ReplyDeleteReading some of the blogs already you have to look at both sides of the story. The taxation on bigger people may emit less debt into peoples lives and increase the growth rate of America. Many people that are larger than average consume almost double of what people consumed years earlier. Putting a tax on people's weight will one make our country more prosperous and two provide money to pay back war debts and nation debts that we have from people not having the income to spend on "Extra" food. Although the scientist believe it is the extra carbon that these big people have that are causing global warming putting a tax on body weight will increase money revenue and help the growth rate.
ReplyDeleteGwen Doyen
Bruceville-Eddy
This is just silly. This tax on fat people could never be fairly worked out. There are just to many things to consider on this sort of issue. I may be that overweight people may emit more carbon dioxide than a average size person but what about a average person that drives a huge gas guzzling truck and polluting and smoking and doing a number of harmful things to our enviroment when a overweight person at the same time could be driving a small economic friendly car, recycling and doing charities. I think the only people who would ever agree on this as a solution would be an extremely foolish and ignorant person. I think that maybe this could just be a jab at Americans. I mean obviously an English scientist would come up with this. There is a significant diffrence in populations when it comes to weights. Wow... This just proves how desperate people are to put the blame on someone else. Watch this would turn into- overweight people, more overweight people in america, its american society making people gain weight, america is the cause of global warming. AND THAT, is just as stupid to say that we should consider taxing "fat people".
ReplyDeleteThis is just ridiculous. I don't see how anyone could actually blame people because of "being fat". It doesn't matter if it is fat or muscle. You might as well blame athletes and people that keep their self in good shape, such as myself. I work out ritually and play sports and I am a pretty good sized guy, although it is nearly all muscle. Let's blame the 200+ pound athlete in the NFL getting paid millions of dollars because the people want to see a sport. Lets blame someone for having muscle and being healthy. This is just another excuse that gives some people something else to worry about while scientist struggle to find a real solution.
ReplyDeleteI will admit that I laughed about this at first and thought it was funny. However, it is a ridiculous idea and it would never work. Imagine how much extra money the government would spend trying to enforce this and hiring people to do so. Time and money would be wasted to slightly help the environment when scientists and the government should be working towards a better solution.
ReplyDelete-Bryan E.
Scientists blaming overweight individuals as the prime cause of global warming is not right at all. This is a rude and demeaning form of discrimination for obese people. A tax on fat people would be useless. We should not try to blame others for global warming but instead try to find a way to repair this issue.
ReplyDeleteRaven Lewis
Connally High School
I think scientists are blaming fat people for global warming simply because they do not want to work hard to really correct what is causing it. Cars and factories produce much more carbon dioxide and other toxic materials that hurt our ozone layer than fat people. Maybe fat people do emit more carbons than others, but their emissions are nothing compared to the other things that big factories are putting in the air.
ReplyDelete-Monica Pantea
Connally HS
So scientist would be taxing famous sports players of all time. For example, America's favorite past time, baseball, would have every player on the team taxed because they have to be big to play. Not fat, but big. I see that as unpatriotic.
ReplyDelete-Jen Lavallee
I think that is absurd. How can someone blame a fat person for global warming. We all have our own ways of putting out CO2 to contribute to the global warming effects on our earth. Having scientist say that the more fat you are the more you put out I think is just really out there. If they can come up with genuine proof then I will believe it. Until then I think they are just trying to get the attention.
ReplyDeleteInspect away Congestion! The city should toughen inspections for medical, psychiatric and vehicle reasons to cut down the number of congestion. This way, we will also get the voters against congestion pricing, who live in Bayside and Staten Island, to move away. Free health care means psychiatric care for all those angry talk radio white males!
ReplyDeleteI find that this is a very rude way to try and help global warming. If you are going to tax all over weight people, who do not fit in the weight for their height whether it be because they are just big or actually over weight, then you must tax over half of the world. There is more than just fat people that are over weight. A bunch of the star athletes today weigh more than they are suppose to due to the fact that they are athletes and are big. I believe by scientist taxing over weight people that just makes them look good so that they can say that they are trying to fix global warming. So in this case why dont they tax all factiories because with their production they are causing more harm than over weight people are.
ReplyDeleteI find that this is a very rude way to try and help global warming. If you are going to tax all over weight people, who do not fit in the weight for their height whether it be because they are just big or actually over weight, then you must tax over half of the world. There is more than just fat people that are over weight. A bunch of the star athletes today weigh more than they are suppose to due to the fact that they are athletes and are big. I believe by scientist taxing over weight people that just makes them look good so that they can say that they are trying to fix global warming. So in this case why dont they tax all factiories because with their production they are causing more harm than over weight people are.
ReplyDeleteWhitney Richter-CHS
This way of thinking is crazy. To even say that this could be the result of someone who overeats is assinine. There are many contributers to global warming but the consumption of a group of people is not. This food is already produced to all not individually labeled for obese people.
ReplyDeleteJennie Bryant MCC
I think that it would be crazy for someone to believe that obese people should be blamed for some part of global warming. But I believe that it would give some obese people a wake up call to start working out because if they keep it up there will be no more beautiful earth and especially no more food for them to consume.
ReplyDeleteThis post made me laugh! It also made me think that we should tax people with big hair- they are, after all, using more hair products, maybe some aerosol hairspray? Bald people would get a tax break! :)
ReplyDeleteYou could use this argument for anyone! Smaller people should pay less for their clothes because they are using less clothing material, and less worker's labor, and the factory that produces the clothes uses less emissions on the smaller clothes than the bigger ones. It seems only fair that if society were silly enough to tax bigger people, that they would also let the price of healthy foods decrease. How many times have I seen the price of pork-rines 1/4 of the price as baked lays?
It's true that no matter who you are, you contribute to global warming in your own special way- either with eating more food or using more hairspray. An incentive for people with a higher % of fat content could be a higher tax on health insurance because of the higher risk of future health problems, however.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone here who thinks the tax on fat people is silly, but from an economic standpoint it may actually solve two major issues in our society; obesity and carbon emissions. There is a price to pay for everything. I am little heavier than an average person my height. I wouldn’t mind paying the tax. It could be an incentive for me to lose the weight I can't seem to shed. There would have to be a time limit 3, 6 9 12 months..... The should aslo be a tax on smoking.
ReplyDelete