Originally Posted by chephy
It's as pointless as refuting the claim that living is bad for the environment. Yes, the environment would not be affected by humans if there were no humans. So what?...
So, in estimating what steps humans can take to improve the environment, we need to fully understand and deal with unexpected consequences of our actions. If Ulrich is right, ignoring his claims because they're counterintuitive or unwelcome is not very enlightened. Better to use the information wisely. Getting a bunch of obese, unhealthy people to start bike commuting, on its own, won't help the environment, because they're still going to be using air conditioners and eating beef and engaging in other environmentally unfriendly activities, only now they'll be doing it for a few years longer. So, you'd
also have to get them to reduce their day-to-day environmental footprint in other ways too. And, you'd also want to convert some healthier car drivers to biking,because they can use it to replace driving
and the gym, without necessarily increasing their life expectancy. They're the ones where you'll get the biggest energy savings.