The Fuel Cost of Obesity 285
thecarchik writes "America loves to complain about gas mileage and the cost of gasoline. As it turns out, part of the problem is us. How much does it really matter? A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a 1.1 percent increase in self-reported obesity, which translates into extra weight that your vehicle has to haul around. The study estimates that 1 billion extra gallons of fuel were needed to compensate for passenger weight gained between 1960 and 2002."
Less than one percent... (Score:5, Insightful)
One key finding was that almost 1 billion gallons of gasoline per year can be attributed to passenger weight gain in non-commercial vehicles between 1960 and 2002--this translates to .7 percent of the total fuel used by passenger vehicles annually.
So they found it had nearly nothing to do with it. Spiffy.
How about (Score:5, Insightful)
offsetting this by the fuel savings coming from reduced family size. People simply have fewer children on average than they used to.
Wow you really can make numbers say anything you want. Remember that thanks to all the SUV's, the weight of the average car has increased since the 60's, not decreased as you would expect from losing the chassis and moving to a monocoque design.
But hey, let's bash fat people. How about that fat tax?
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:4, Insightful)
before SUV's and mini vans we had station wagons and muscle cars. generally cars are a lot more efficient today. my 4 cylinder 2009 Accord has as much horse power as my old 1992 V8 firebird. and it has a lot more electric gizmos for pollution control as well as comfort
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
They do need larger (wider, most importantly) car to feel comfortable...so yeah, it's not only weight increses of passangers, also cars; perhaps partly because the average comfortable size lies somewhat higher.
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:2, Insightful)
Reality Check (Score:4, Insightful)
Less than what the US could save by making sure their tires are properly inflated (1.25 billion [popularmechanics.com]). let alone what we could save by cleaning out our trunks, removing our winter bags of sand, or other weight just sitting around in the car. Both are much easier than getting people to lose weight, but I doubt if they are getting done. Good luck on getting people to stop being obese to save an non-detectable part of their gas bill. For that matter, it would probably be easier just to appeal to get them to keep from diving as much (which if they walk or bike would also cut into the obese issue).
I know something (Score:3, Insightful)
I know something that America loves to complain about more than fuel prices. Fat Americans. Get over yourself.
misleading (Score:1, Insightful)
This appears misleading at best. Here's why:
During the time frame from 1960 to now, the average weight of cars has been reduced by one to two TONS. Someone weighing more in a more fuel efficient car LOWERS the amount of fuel used during that same time period. Sure gas mileage took a nose dive when antipollution stuff was first added in the 1970's. But since then, average mileage has gone up. (with the exception of the moms who bought multi-ton SUV's to ferry to the nail salon and pickup kids, instead of letting them ride the bus. And, as to wasting fuel, how much fuel did we use when we allowed lower standards to be used in drilling for oil, resulting in how many millions of barrels lost forever to the US? I know a variety of people who carry their golf clubs ALL the time in their trunk. We don't discuss how much that costs us, or driving kids to numerous after school activities, instead of letting them walk or ride the bike, things which can very easily be changed, we just discuss how much a fat person costs us. I wonder why.
Further:
As the study says, it's self reported.
During that same time period, the definition of obesity has been dramatically changed by the government, lowering the weight levels at which one is considered obese. Therefore more people would self-report being obese. When they first lowered the "normal" weights, 55% of all Americans became overweight by definition. For many people who were not considered by the government to be obese prior to this changing of its weight standard, they became obese overnight. Weight loss programs and weight loss surgery fought to be reimbursable by health insurance, and all too often were successful, making more people use these methods which have less than a 10% success rate over a 5 year time frame.(higher success rates for very short terms are common, leading to weight yo-yo-ing, which has significant negative health impact.) Thus the combination of change of definition of obese, the covering of expensive surgery and expensive weight loss programs, and the resulting yo-yo-ing have led to some higher healthcare costs. Discontinue covering such items that lead to more damage from more weight yo-yoing, and healthcare costs are reduced.
Finally:
Discussing weight has become a national pastime, especially for women. It's rare that I have a conversation longer than a half hour in which an American woman won't tell me how much she has lost, how much she has gained, and how much she had done attempting to lose weight. What a waste of human potential to spend so much time focused on something that contributes nothing to society, other than to help enrich the bank accounts of those selling get skinny quick solutions. When someone espouses waif like existence, watch what their connection to the finances of weight loss is. And notice how many of those waifs are eating disordered. The very thin have significantly increased weight related costs to society.
soapbox off
I'm sequestering carbon (Score:5, Insightful)
What about laziness (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:5, Insightful)
methinks the fuel that went into the growing, processing and shipping of all the extra food obese americans stuff down their pieholes is gonna account for a more substantive share than this.
american fuel prices (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:american fuel prices (Score:4, Insightful)
That'd be because you tax the hell out of it.
Extra Extra, read all about it! (Score:2, Insightful)
The Cost of Cheap Gasoline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:1, Insightful)
Thanking the NHTSA for ever-increasing safety requirements adding more and more weight to the vehicles?
Re:american fuel prices (Score:3, Insightful)
America has one of the cheapest fuel prices in the world.
That's bull and you know it. Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela all pay less than $1 per gallon. [cnn.com]*
*Based on some really old CNN Money article. Prices may have changed, but I doubt very much.
Here is a modest proposal! (Score:4, Insightful)
We can melt down all the fatties and use them as bio-diesel.
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
Plenty of people are still buying SUVs... and when the economy recovers, I think we'll see SUVs make a bigger comeback.
Probably not. The *only* reason oil prices are low now ($70-$80/barrel) is because of the global recession. As soon as thinks pick back up, expect to see oil at $100/barrel *at least*.
And ??? (Score:1, Insightful)
I dont give a rats ass what the study says , I for one am sick and tired of all of these "studies". All it is a way to try to tax us even more. Or a bunch of busy bodies trying to control other peaople and what they can / cant and have to do.
Am I overweight ? None of your damn business.
Do I smoke ? None of your damn business.
Do I eat red meat ? None of your damn business.
Do I drink soda pops ? None of your damn business.
What are my sexual preferences ? None of your damn business.
Did I eat my veggies ? None of your damn business.
Do I exercise ? None of your damn business.
Do I go to church ? None of your damn business.
Do I believe in God ? None of your damn business.
Do I use more internet bandwidth than you do ? None of your damn business.
Do I watch Porn ? None of your damn business.
America used to be a place where you were free to live your life however you wanted to as long as you did not directly interfere with the rights of others.
Now America is a place where your free to live your life however you want as long as it does not some how offend some idiot, no matter how stupid that idiot may be.
Re:american fuel prices (Score:2, Insightful)
America has one of the cheapest fuel prices in the world. Stop complaining. it's about 6-7$ a gallon here.
Cheapest? Hardly. Venezuela sells gas for 12 cents a gallon, it's cheaper than water. Each country imposes different taxes on fuel, some countries (like Venezuela) will even subsidize it. Just because our fuel is cheaper than yours doesn't mean it's some of the "cheapest in the world", far from it.
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:3, Insightful)
??!? Huh?
Let's see.. 1975 :
VW bug 40mpg :23 mpg
Pinto : 34mpg
Plymouth Duster
3 of the MOST POPULAR cars in 1975. I.E. there was a crapload of them on the road, more than the SuperBee and Charger musclecars by a 60 to 1 ratio.
Sorry but fuel economy has went NOWHERE over the past 35 years. we had cars getting 20-s to 40mpg forever here in the usa and the bulk of people did not drive Musclecars and the Land-Yacht station wagons with giant big block V8's with 6 pack carbeurators.
Todays cars are more complex. they are NOT more efficient. In fact if you are trying to build yourself a high gas mileage car in the garage you will have a easier time of it if you go carbeurator instead of fuel injection.
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your 2007 mustang is made from tinfoil and packing tape. the 1970 mustang was made from 3/4" plate steel, concrete, and lead. PLUS the engine was intentionally detuned. Those engines can be easily woke up to do 1HP per CuInch, your 2007 mustang is at the top of it's horsepower capabilities without adding a supercharger or turbo. a 1970 458 big block can easily reach 1000HP with a supercharger.
big difference.
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:3, Insightful)
and it has a lot more electric gizmos for pollution control as well as comfort
More gizmos to cause problems and break, you mean.
Re:So now we know. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the government subsidizes corn, so it's cheaper to use than cane/beat sugar... I'm sure there's more than enough politics behind it (and now a national dependence) that it's not going to go away anytime soon.
We've all been forced(?) into consuming HFCS in just about everything from soft drinks to breads. Recently McDs has been selling sweet tea with sugar in it and I've found that if I drink one without eating I tend to get what I can only describe as light headed and I have to eat something to calm it down. I'm sure I have diabetes creeping up on me though. Of course, that's a lot of sugar for one drink so I don't have them often. ;)
Enjoy what you have!
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
You said the magic word, and made it a "safety" issue. Bravo.
Re:american fuel prices (Score:3, Insightful)
If we (Americans) were to internalize all the negative externalities into the price of gasoline, how much would it cost? Add $20 per ton of CO2 [forbes.com], which comes to 19 cents per gallon, for global warming. Add in the cost of air pollution, up to $1600 per person annually [foxnews.com]. Because gas taxes and user fees only make up 65% of the cost of the roads [subsidyscope.com], add the other 35% into the cost of gasoline. And so on.
With all the externalities added to the price of gasoline, I think we would see gas prices similar to Europe's, and we would find that their gas taxes are more fair than ours.
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh? Are you kidding? No, cars are not more efficient today. Since the mid-80s, average fuel economy of cars in the united states has increased by about 1 mpg. Is 1 mpg what you call "a lot"?
Seriously. How does stuff like this getted modded up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy [wikipedia.org]
Re:Let's have Fair Flying (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fat People burn less fuel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Although 1B gals sounds like a lot, consider that Wiki says the US alone used 138B of gas in 2006. So saving 1B gals over the course of 20 years globally is a relative drop in the bucket.
Yeah I probably could cycle to work every day for the rest of my life, but I won't since it's just a relative drop in the bucket.
I could replaceall the halogens in my house with energy saving bulbs, but I only use 4kWh which in terms of the entire suburb is just a relative drop in the bucket.
Australia could build a new Nuclear power stations instead of Brown Coal power stations, but with China on the rise it's just a relative drop in the bucket.
Every time I read a comment like yours I realise that people don't get it. There's a finite number of drops in the bucket. Removing one alone does nothing appreciable. But if you start removing many of these tiny drops pretty soon you'll find the bucket is starting to empty. This isn't a 1B saving over 20 years. This is an ADDITIONAL 1B saving over 20 years.
Though admittedly fat people die younger, and may have difficulty breeding so that's probably good for the environment.
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:4, Insightful)
The old Mustang might be made from 3/4" (whatever that is in real unites) steel, but it's a fucking deathtrap compared to any relatively modern car, including the 2007 mustang. Also, the old, especially pre-'72, HP measurements were pretty much bullshit.
Re:Let's have Fair Flying (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bicycle (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent, grandparent up. Over the entire US, sure, 1% amounts to a lot of gas, but 1% is nothing compared with what you can save on a bike. I put 2500 miles/year on mine, displacing about 25-30% of what would ordinarily be driving (and crappy, city-ish driving, too). 1/3 of us live in communities at least as dense as Dutch towns (with 40% ride share), WTF is wrong with us?
Helps with flaky joints, helps with flexibility, too.