> On 21 Jul., 18:25, "R.C. Payne" nospam.ac.uk> wrote:
>

>> The arguement is built upon the relative inefficiency of getting a
>> quantity of energy into your body, compared with getting energy into
>> your car. It surmises that the energy cost of producing food for me to
>> eat to power my walk or cycle journey would exceed the energy cost of me
>> driving my car. The flaw to that argument is that were I not to walk, I
>> would probably eat the same amount and just get fatter, until the
>> increased energy requirement for me to maintain my extra bulk matched
>> the energy I don't expend by driving instead (ie I move to a fatter
>> equilibrium).

>
> yes, and obese SUV-driving Americans will be required to donate their
> bodies to be processed into biofuels after death. This would offset
> the balance somewhat. Better still, they will be required to come and
> die in the processing plant to cut down on the carbon footprint of
> moving their dead bodies.