Exercise is bad for the environment
According to analyses such as this one, of which I’ve seen several, exercise has a negative impact on your carbon footprint.
The actor Ed Begley Jr. has a widely-circulated OpEd piece touting his eco-friendly activities, featuring a proud announcement that his exercise on his stationary bicycle generates the electricity he uses to toast two pieces of bread.
Now those two pieces give him 200 calories, but he burns at least 100 calories on the bike. So half of his eco-friendly exercise is lost because he needs to obtain additional food from elsewhere to maintain his weight — food whose growth and distribution have environmental consequences too, as does the manufacture of his bicycle.
This illustrates the general equilibrium difficulties of so many pro-environmental activities about which the rich and famous boast.
For example, instead of walking to the store, driving to the store may be more green because you burn fewer calories.
This is a classic example of people applying the Law of Unintended Consequences, a concept of which I am a fan. However, applying the Law even further along these lines, people who exercise regularly are generally healthier and need less medical care. Does this reduce their carbon footprint? By how much? And do we even know how to calculate by how much?
And what about people who overeat instead of exercise? Why not go after them?
Or, should we just tax athletes?
Virtually anything you do has a carbon impact.