An interview with a good friend of mine, Ashenafi Alemu, in the (otherwise rather dull) DJÃ˜F-magazine…
94 is the number of hours a Dane needs to jog to burn the calories he takes up when eating the 17.4 kg fruit gum, liquorice, or chocolate he consumes on average per year. It’s a 10 percent increase in 10 years; that’s what it says on the front page of my favourite newspaper today.
Maybe the increase is due to the fact that the sweetbags are getting bigger; today the standard size of bag of Matador Mix is 180 grams – not 85 as it used to be. It’s probably the same with soft drinks: today the bottles are 1/2 litres where the standard size was 1/4 litre 10-15 years age.
Moreover, how often don’t you take advantage of a fantastic “get three for the price of two” offers or buy a giant Marabou for the price of a normal? Probably there is some truth to the idea that when you buy more, you eat more.
But according to the manager of Haribo – one of the biggest Danish candy manufactures – he does not go to the loo more often even if he buys several rolls of toilet paper at a time…
Is there something wrong with that argument or is it just me?
Anyway, below you see a graph of the development in the average household spending on chocolate, candy, and softdrinks:
The UN has issued yet another bleak climate warning, but every now and then another “sceptical environmentalist” appears in a newspaper, on a blog, or in a movie (e.g. try to google “The Great Global Warming Swindle”).
Every time I read another argument in the never-ending dispute of whether the observed climate changes are man-made or not, I ponder whether it’s possible to prove the direction causality: the question we’re asking is (loosely formulated) “What would have happened to the climate if man had not omitted CO2?” To answer that question we need to now what would have happened if we were not omitting CO2, which is unobservable needs to be estimated. Whether or not this has been done correctly is probably what the scientists are arguing over.
But why is it that the world can’t agree – from a precautionary point-of-view – that it is better to reduce the emission now, than to find out in 20 years that that was the right thing to do? My point is: don’t we spend lots of money on things whose effect is undocumented or uncertain?
Any ideas or comments?