The book makes an excellent point, namely that there is a nice commmon link between the problems facing our health and safety and global ecology at large. That link is how we use energy and how we (in many ways don't) use our rather efficient bodies. The idea is helpful, even for a short book, I found it got a little long. The general claims seem to be largely correct, but many of the examples are partially irrelevant or uselessly obvious and many of the vignettes are used as real evidence when they are in fact a weak emotional appeal, and some of the inferences don't follow clearly from the decontextualized data. All in all, these bits make the book feel much weaker, and I wouldn't feel comfortable lending it out to global warming dis-believer or anyone afraid of public transport. I would have recommended either a shorter work that simply strongly hints at the major link mentioned above, or a longer work with clearer data and less jabber. It's not a bad read, but you might get as much or more out of Unsafe At Any Speed and a few pamphlets about exercise and energy expenditure. ( )

I agree in most ways with the author's assessment of the connection between the petrochemical-transportation-food complex and rising levels of fatness and obesity. I am one of those people who has never had an easy time of keeping weight off and I refuse to fall into the trap of self-loathing or self-blame. I do not overeat. I have spent many years observing what others eat and know that my caloric intake is no different. Yet, I have a hard time exercising since it is so boring. The only time I was "fit" in the physical sense was when I lived in Japan and ate my fill of their diet--and rode a bicycle EVERYWHERE. I did not own a car. However, the structure of Japanese cities is such that cycling or walking is "do-able." Nothing is farther than a few kilometers away. In the US, that is not the case and owning a car to get around is next to mandatory--especially when jobs are hard to come by close to home.

I agree with Roberts that there must be a drastic change in the way we move and get around. However, I GOT IT THE FIRST TIME! He spends an inordinate amount of the book simply restating what he laid claim to previously, and after a while the repetition just got annoying. I also question how "democratic" the reality of his idea of Contraction and Convergence would play out in our corporate-owned/controlled global economy, especially when the mindset is to sock it to the poor, working and middle classes so that the wealthy can "have it all". It would be ideal if the weathiest had to pay the poorest for the carbon they produce, but I don't think this will be the practice. Instead, the wealthy will simply cloister themselves in gated (or perhaps bubbled) communities where they can live out their lives safely while the rest of use grow fatter on our all-petrol diet and breath chunky air that is polluted by the very same people who live so well.

I'd like to see some of Roberts' vision become a reality, but I'm very cynical about getting most Americans to re-create their lifestyles in order to get rid of their SUVs. The most I think we can hope for is a shift toward smarter cars, like hybrids, electric cars and such. It's unrealistic to trade in the automobile for a bicycle when so many of us must travel long distances just to buy food. Much of what Roberts proposes necessitates a complete restructuring of urban infrastructure and community neighborhoods--and I just don't see the possibility of this occurring in the near future--especially in an economic atmosphere of more austerity, increasing poverty and joblessness and mortgage failures. ( )

Interesting theory on how public health and the petro industry (transportation and agribusiness combined) are linked. The author, a trauma doctor, began his research into this subject after witnessing how increases in car usage caused an increase in traffic accidents/fatalities (particularly when pedestrians were involved). While this may seem like a no-brainer, the hidden impact was that people moved less physically due to the car usage; not because the mechanized transport was easier but because it became much more dangerous to be outside and moving. This then starts a vicious cycle of more cars, more access for cars,and less human powered movement. Add to this mix the energy/calorie dense foods that agribusiness provides and the cycle completes itself with obesity and its accompanying health problems. Ian Roberts maintains that this is not a self-discipline issue but rather a political one. Humans are meant to move/have a right to move and calorie rich foods provide the fuel to do so - remove one part of this equation and the balance of health tips. Roberts also maintains there has been a concerted effort to put people into this position and then to blame them for failing to balance the equation themselves. His solution for this problem is for people to take back the streets by returning to more human powered transport with bicycles being the main form of transport.

Roberts builds his argument on a sound premise - the recent deaths of Marie Wooten (Auburn University dean of sciences/math) and Jigme Norbu (nephew of the Dali Lama) are evidence of the problem. This book saddened me; while the argument and solution are sound and viable, the implementation would require a complete reconstruction of American culture. Never mind the effect the solution would have on the economy (severe and profound), the effect on the American psyche would be the more formidable hurdle. Until cars are no longer the method to "keep score" a change will not be possible. And until the public wakes up to the fact that everyone is complicit in the "obesity epidemic" and stops conveniently placing the blame on the victim (who, more often than not, is poor), the solution will be nothing but a dream.

Important book, interesting reading, great take on the problem. There was no bio on the author included (I would have liked to check his credentials) but, in this case the references spoke for themselves. ( )

This book lays out its main premise early on: “If you think that obesity and climate change are unrelated, you are wrong. The human race is getting fatter and the planet is getting hotter, and fossil fuels are the cause of both” (p. 3). Roberts connects different offshoots of our dependence on fossil fuels: He shows the chain of influence between an increasing number of cars leading to increased traffic accidents, which then leads to less walking and cycling. This in turn leads to an overall fattening of humans. At the same time, use of fossil fuels also allows easier and greater food production through increased farming and increased reliance on car-accessible supermarkets, which also leads to an overall fattening of humans.

A number of the statistical points made here have been published before but overlooked or poorly explained in the popular press. For example, the way that news coverage is focused on the most overweight members of each population rather than the weight gain going on by all populations across the planet is well explained as a consequence of the distribution curve passing through the line demarcating obesity. This information should help lessen the attention and blame placed on weight gain as an individual failing, and instead focus attention on the more systemic reasons that we are all less active.

Several international examples are included: comparison case studies of western support for development in Africa focusing misleadingly on road building, a study of how Cuba mitigated the affects of an oil embargo by investing in bicycles for its citizens, discussions of medical trials in Colombia of a treatment to reduce bleeding for crash victims, and examples of why many corporations would want to focus their support on changes by individuals rather than change their corporate input to a system that requires whole societies to rely on more and more petroleum and road use.

The book suggests as a general goal that people find ways to stop needing to do mindless and expensive pastime exercise and instead start doing more travel by body-driven movement in everyday life. The final chapters present recommendations for both communities and individuals to help bring this about. These include working to have residential street speeds reduced to 20 mph, increasing bicycle access to local retailers, emphasizing schooling plans that encourage children to attend schools close to home, planting more trees in cities, encouraging walking to do the grocery shopping, cooking at home, and even using smaller plates and bowls to encourage eating smaller portions.

This short book is based on data from numerous scholarly reports mixed with illustrative anecdotes. Unfortunately there is also a reliance on hyperbolic metaphor that sometimes makes the information feel rhetorically overblown. This often ends up making striking facts harder to swallow, since they are presented so swathed in fervor. Nonetheless, the book’s ideas deserve to be widely read and discussed. Roberts makes a good case for global fatness, global warming, and increased traffic fatalities all being tied to the eagerness of markets and governments to maintain steady profits from people pumping oil.

Roberts' manifesto on the over-consumption of energy and its correlation to physical health is certainly compelling and eye-opening; however, it suffers from serious flaws and fails to present a practical solution to the problem.

The engaging parts of this book are ripe with statistical correlations of the use of fossil fuels in cars linked with life-threatening behaviors, such as human inertia and car accidents. The chapters that go in depth about car accidents are particularly fascinating. Roberts has done a lot of homework in this field and presents plenty of examples of the adolescent death by vehicle rates increasing as global car usage increases. This sounds pretty obvious, but the picture is painted for us complete with corrupt political systems blaming the victim pretty consistently, and pointing toward statistically ineffective driver education programs as a solution.

If the entire book was about this single aspect of the subject, I'd be satisfied. Perhaps Roberts could have come up with some practical solutions had this been the case. Unfortunately, his solution involves an overhaul of the entire modern world, forcing virtually all global citizens to turn toward cycling to make their commutes. If this happens, jobs would be more centralized and people wouldn't have to make long commutes.

Don't get me wrong--if I could ride a bike to work, I would. I'd even do it if my job was within five miles of my house, but it's not. Additionally, I go from one job on the east side of Pittsburgh, to another one on the west side, on an almost daily basis. Also, I'm a certified teacher. If everyone deciding to cycle to work brought jobs "to them" rather than vice versa, I'd probably still be out of luck, because only so many schools can service a local area.

Roberts even suggests a sin tax be placed on gasoline, much like the one placed on cigarettes. According to him, every time we fill up our gas tank, we make the decision continue a gruesome cycle of road deaths.

I understand that when I start my truck down the road I stand a chance of killing someone. I also understand that when I light up a cigarette, I stand a chance of developing life-threatening ailments in my future. The difference is that I don't need to smoke a cigarette in order to survive financially. Do I have a choice in filling up my tank? Sure, I don't have to do it. Unless, that is, I want to keep my jobs and survive financially.

The worst part about this book is that I can see gaping holes that Roberts could have filled with more practical solutions than the nonsense he presents. Why not strengthen the public transportation system in a manner that works side-by-side with cyclists? I'll cycle to work if a bus can take me part of the way there. I might never use my car again if it takes up the lengthy part of my trip. Wouldn't it be possible to create certain kinds of buses that help transport bicycles?

Perhaps this is a ludicrous idea as well. Would it work? Probably not. But it's a lot more foreseeable than Roberts' nonsense. The only way I see Roberts' so-called solutions ever being put into place is if the use of fossil fuels is so depleted and the world is in such a state of anarchy that this is forced into place. There isn't a butterfly's chance in hell that the industrialized side of the world would ever allow something like this to work as a practical alternative to the laziness of everyday life. Would it be nice if it did? Sure, it would. But, as they say, wish in one hand and you know what to do in the other. See which fills up first.

If you're looking for something to solve global warming, don't look here if you want real world solutions. That being said, the book is not completely lost on the world. If you liked Freakonomics, the statistical correlations presented here can be quite fascinating (there are a lot more than what I've made light of previously). If you decide to read it for that, ignore the "solutions" as best as you can. ( )