Is being fat green? The math behind a hilarious FAIL Blog post

December 15th, 2009

Put down those sprout burgers and sit your butt back on that couch — evidently, being fat and not exercising is better for the environment than staying thin and healthy. That is, according to the supposed eco-expert authors of a board game trivia question posted yesterday on the ever-hilarious FAIL Blog.

see more Epic Fails

In all seriousness though, it raises an interesting question: Is the up-to-a-decade shorter life expectancy of a seriously overweight person enough to offset a lifetime of consuming more of the world’s resources? (I’m not just talking about consuming as in eating; people who are heavier also place greater fossil fuel demands on their mode of transportation, whether it be by car or airplane.)

UK scientists estimate that a fat person is responsible for about 1 metric ton (1.1 US ton) more CO2 emissions a year than a fit person, so let’s do the math:

Average US life expectancy: 78 years
Average US life expectancy of an overweight person: 73 years
Average yearly CO2 footprint of an American: 27 tons
Average yearly CO2 footprint of an overweight American: [27 tons + 1.1 tons] = 28.1 tons
Lifetime CO2 emissions of an American [27 tons x 78 years] = 2,106 tons
Lifetime CO2 emissions of an overweight American [28.1 tons x 73 years] = 2,051 tons

Now obviously, this is a very rough estimate — especially considering that since one-third of Americans are obese, that segment of the population is figured into those baseline life expectancy and yearly CO2 emission estimates — but it looks like the trivia card is right: An overweight American will emit slightly less carbon over his lifetime — to the tune of 55 tons.

My guess, however, is that there’s probably not a person on earth who would want to meet an early grave in the name of reducing CO2 emissions.

–Jennifer Grayson