Resize Font Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Reset Font Size

printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


Paternalism Goes “Green”

Paternalism Goes “Green”

Clearly there is no shortage of tactics in the “we know what’s best for you” playbook: bans, lawsuits, junk science—even phony health scares. But the guilt maneuver seems to be especially popular lately, and signs are beginning to emerge that some pseudo do-gooders are taking things a bit too far. The common denominator seems to be global warming. Take, for instance, one fed-up economics professor’s op-ed in today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

While weighing in on the novel and untested argument that overweight Americans are especially to blame for global warming, author Dwight R. Lee makes one important point about how our waistlines could fit into a plan to save the planet:

Individual behavior is important, and though no one does all she can to reduce pollution, most of us make small contributions to the environment in our own ways…

Maintaining my weight, however, is not what I consider my most important contribution to the environment.

There’s nothing wrong with encouraging a healthy lifestyle, but we seriously doubt that pinning the world’s environmental woes on our extra flab is the way to go. Not only is this approach unlikely to motivate anyone to get healthy, it’s also a laughable plan for solving the climate change issue. 

The global-warming blame game seems to be gaining influence in other corners of the self-righteous activist world too. For a perfect example, look no further than PETA’s Earth Day efforts to brand meat-eaters as the odious culprits of climate change. Or the recent phony Letter to the Editor campaign by animal rights activists at the Farm Animal Rights Movement (check out a CCF response here).

As we’ve pointed out before, these “green” guilt tactics are simply anti-consumer-choice arguments in disguise. Only this time, the usual suspects are telling us how to “save” ourselves and how to save the planet. Like Lee, we’re not buying it:

You may disagree with my views on how best to protect the environment, but please don't assume that this means I am less concerned about improving environmental quality than you are.

email us comments



printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list
Headlines


Michael vs. Michael (Fitness vs. Food)
Posted On: Thursday 8/14/2008

Fitness, Fatness, And Half-Baked Schemes
Posted On: Wednesday 8/13/2008

Do The (Obesity) Math
Posted On: Thursday 8/7/2008

100 Percent Fat, 100 Percent False
Posted On: Wednesday 7/30/2008

Same Old, Same Old ...
Posted On: Thursday 7/24/2008

Fried Foods Take The Blame For Obesity Bump
Posted On: Friday 7/18/2008

Regulation By Speculation
Posted On: Tuesday 7/15/2008

Countless Causes Of Obesity
Posted On: Monday 7/14/2008

Food Cops Get An 'F' For False
Posted On: Monday 6/30/2008


ActivistCash.com

Center for Science in the Public Interest
Background | Quotes | Financials
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is the undisputed leader among America’s “food police.” CSPI’s joyless eating club has issued hundreds of high-profile — and highly questionable — reports condemning soft drinks, fat substitutes, irradiated meat, biotech food crops, French fries, and just about anything that tastes good. read more here »

Op-Eds

Food only part of obesity problem
The cause of obesity isn't what you think. read more here »

Leave calorie counts off the menu; Nutrition is more complex than a few figures can convey.
Although The Times’ editorial was right that "laws that protect consumers from their own unhealthful habits have more than a whiff of the nanny state about them," its support for menu labeling is wrong. read more here »


About Us | Contact Us | Please Help Us | Site Map
Ad Campaigns | Press Center | Daily News Archive | Email Subscription | Op-Eds | Cartoons | Games | Link To Us
Copyright © 1997-2008 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.