Fat People Should Pay More to Fly on Airplanes and to Use Mass Transit

Firstly, I'd like to reframe this argument in the context of the debate topic; I'll then take each of Pro's arguments one by one.Pro is proposing that obese people should be charged more for flying airplanes and using public transportation. Many of Pro's arguments attempt to demonstrate that obese people are completely responsible for their own obesity, hence this form of economic punishment is justified.Number 1Firstly, in his refutation of a genetic link to obesity, Pro claims “If genetic factors were the primary cause of obesity, we'd see a more or less even distribution of obesity around the world”. This doesn't make sense – genes vary from country, and are responsible for things as diverse as skin colour or race (which certainly differ primarily country to country). We don't all share the same set of genes globally, and the fact that specific regions are experiencing higher rates of obesity doesn't rule out genetic factors increasing susceptibility to obesity.Furthermore, the fact that obesity rates are increasing in several industrialized regions, which share many environmental factors, simultaneously could imply environmental factors are at play. If this an issue of individual self-control, then how is it possible that so many people globally are being affected? That environmental factors are at play is also supported by the evidence I provided that many species are increasing in body weight – this isn't just an issue about individual humans lacking self-control, but is instead a more systemic problem that isn't any one individual's fault.For Pro's other comments in this section, I'm limited in the length of my response, so I'll focus on clarifying the World Health Organization's position on obesity, since the WHO is the most credible source that Pro uses in his response. The WHO acknowledges that “genes are important in determining a person's susceptible to weight gain,”[1] and that other environmental factors play a significant role, including, “economic growth, modernization, urbanization, globalization of food marketings”. The WHO report that Pro references simply suggests that industrialized nations are consuming a larger number of calories than sub-Saharan countries – it makes no claim that industrialized nations are partaking in the “unhealthy lifestyle”, nor makes any attempt to link that to obesity. In fact, the report acknowledges that “poor countries continue to face food shortages and nutrient inadequacies,”[2] making them an unsuitable benchmark despite Pro's use of them as such.The same WHO report from Pro claims that the amount of fat consumed (grams per capita/day) in China has increased by 55% between 1967 and 1999 – the highest change experienced in any region, yet their obesity levels haven't increased anywhere near the rate of some other nations (their current obesity rate is under 5% according to the WHO [3]). Clearly, other than caloric intake is affecting obesity.I'm not claiming that lifestyle choices aren't a factor; rather, I'm saying the evidence I provided in Round I indicates lifestyle choices don't explain everything, and that both environmental and genetic factors play a role in increasing obesity in our society. Therefore, before implementing such a pricing policy, we should recognize that there are significant factors at play in developing obesity that are of an individual's control. Implementing such a policy would simply be punishing many people for being born in the wrong region, or being born with the wrong set of genes – both factors out of their control. Number 2Since obesity is not completely in control of individuals, such a pricing policy would amount to price discrimination. Pro suggests we should punish them because they cost our healthcare system so much. I'm not sure what transportation has to do with healthcare, and that's probably out of scope for any policy or regulation; regardless, such a policy would be analogous to charging cancer patients or end-of-life senior citizens higher prices when providing public services – both groups also incur larges costs to our healthcare system, yet we certainly don't target them.Furthermore, obesity doesn't just affect the poor disproportionately. Across many nations, the incidence for obese women was larger than that for men[4]. Obesity is also affects a large number of children[5], and will probably continue to do so in the future. Such a pricing policy would then disproportionately punish a) the poor, b) women, and c) children – as a society, would we really be comfortable with such a policy? Unless we start charging different ticket prices for different races and sexual orientations, I honestly couldn't think of a policy that would send a worse message about our society.Number 3Pro supports regulation that would make airlines 'right-size' seating. We're both in agreement that our society is increasing in size, so in response to Pro's argument, it does make sense that airlines should respond appropriately to accommodate passengers comfort. If as a society our shoulders were getting wider, would we try to hold those wider people accountable, or would we find fault with airlines for not responding to a changing demographic? Holding airlines is the sensible solution, and we have every right to expect they dynamically adjust, both now and in the future. Instead, airlines have a history of implementing policies and forcing customers to adjust (for example, charging for checked bags), so they can pad their bottom line.Number 4There are several reasons why Pro's estimate for total fuel costs are too low. Firstly, Webber was referring to an Airbus A380, which carries 50% more fuel than an A340[6]; so it's not logical for Pro to use an A340 as reference point. Secondly, the cost of aviation-grade kerosene is significantly more than standard automobile fuel; this is even acknowledged in the source Pro uses[7]. The rest of the credibility of this report is suspect; for example, it doesn't have a valid link to the Bureau of Transportation for some of its figures.Nevertheless, even $470 out of the $190,600 figure that Pro calculates is still only about 2%. Again, my main point is that economically, the costs of transporting the obese are not significant for the airline industry, and probably even less so for other forms of public transportation. As an industry, airlines have not embraced such a pricing policy (despite being quick to impose other fees that anger customers, such as charging for checked bags or snacks). This is backed up directly by the most reliable source for this topic – the airlines themselves. For three major U.S. Airlines (Delta, United, American), no where in any of their recent 10-K filings[8] do they talk about obesity affecting their cost structure, though they freely discuss other insights and risks for their operations in these filings.ConclusionI agree with Pro that this is a modern phenomenon, but the causes are certainly not limited to lifestyle choices. Given that, punishing individuals for a consequence that's out of their control, is both unfair (for individuals and certain marginalized demographic groups) and economically unjustified for transportation companies, and so shouldn't supported by charging the obese higher prices.References[1] http://www.who.int... [2] http://www.who.int... [3] http://www.who.int...[4] http://www.aeonmagazine.com...[5] http://www.cdc.gov...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://elliott.org...[8] http://www.sec.gov...