On the flip side, they are big contributors to the junk food industry, who are among the biggest polluters on the planet, along with cow or pig farmers. I don't think the role of food choices is given nearly enough time in the media when we talk about solutions for the environment. Sure, I drive a car that gets shitty gas mileage, but its a rare day when I eat a steak or a bag of Doritos. That's a point well taken about new vs. used cars. Remember the hilarity of '08 when they were pushing "cash for clunkers" as an "environmental" strategy?Teenagers of today are radically better for the environment than teenagers of 20 years ago, for example, for the simple reason that they drive a hell of a lot less to hang out (thanks to Facebook et. al.).
Junk food does not make the following list: http://www.environment911.org/164.The_Worlds_5_Biggest_Pollu... Further, teenagers are generally not responsible for their family's purchases, they are merely influencers. Even if teenagers ran on coal and wood pulp you can't hold them responsible unless they're the ones cutting the checks. "Cash for clunkers" was an economic strategy couched in environmental terms. The most common durable goods purchased by consumers are automobiles and appliances and all the appliances are made in China. Considering the automotive industry in the United States was heading the way of British Leyland, a boondoggle to get everyone buying cars wasn't a bad play. You get to soothe the oil independence libertarians through raising the fleet fuel economy. You get to soothe the hippies by getting a bunch of gas guzzlers off the road. You get to sop the midwest with red meat by aiding the auto industry through good old-fashioned capitalism (sorta). And you inject a bunch of money into the economy in a vein NOT controlled by the banking industry, everyone's favorite villain.
Cash for clunkers was a good program for its time and place (economically speaking); I just thought it was sold dishonestly. I understand they were towing a political line and trying to please multiple interested parties, but that doesn't mean we don't get to call bullshit when they spout things that are verifiably false (e.g. this program is good for the environment). And the junk food thing I was kind of wrapping into agribusiness. Junk food is obviously only one component of a much larger problem.