Touring - Green Touring: What is it?

I was under the impression this is what everyone does, but perhaps not.

I see bike riding as being green, that is doing something to save the resources of the planet. When I tour I choose to travel to my tour start/end point either by bike or public transport (including airplanes for inter-continental travel).

When I tour I choose to travel in a way that I cause the least damage to our planet. I stealth camp and follow Leave No Trace principles.

I’ve named my bike. It is called the Kyoto Accord.

On another thread on this forum I was accused of ‘hijacking’ the thread because of voicing these principles that I genuinely thought were universally held.

So, you tell me: Why do you use a bike to tour instead of an SUV? Do you believe that extensive automobile use is consistant with your eco comfort level?

As a pre-emptive strike I would ask those forum members who think jet travel to be against these ideals, keep in mind I travel on public transport, not my private jet. This is called “offsetting” and according to Sustrans

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/supporters/7.htm

“An offset is intended to be a counterbalance, in this instance to our own carbon dioxide emissions. The idea is that by calculating the CO2 produced as part of our own lifestyle we pay for the same amount of CO2 to be reduced somewhere else, thus neutralising our impact on the environment.”

You seem like a good guy... However, the problem with green, sustainable etc... is that while useful enough, it's all just a cover story for what a person wants to do anyway.

Air travel is not public transportation any more than a stretch limo is public trans because it is carrying more than one band member and groupie. We no longer have a national airline here in Canada, all planes flying in and out of here are privately operated. Even if they were public, that doesn't make them environmentally responsible/low impact. Overall your jet setting will, as someone pointed out, dump far more pollution than someone's fairly heavy use of "wasteful" things like an SUV, or a fishing boat, or a jet ski.

People who really swap a car lifestyle for a bike one are doing something to reduce polution. But a lot of it is life cycle related. If you are young enough, and I don't know your age, get back to me when you grow up, move to the suburbs, get kids etc... Everyone is an environmentalist who is too young or stupid to make money, but few people actually choose the restricted lifestyle, and if those "restrictions" lead one to a need to jet all over the place, then spare me the lecture. City living while virtuous enough in some respects does lead to a lot of waste also, like apartment living where individual apartments aren't metered for electricity, and you get your electricity from polluting plants in the sub-urbs, where you also dump your garbage.

I've been hearing green all my life, and what that means is that the younger generation protests something like MacDonald's wrappers being made of Styrofoam, while when I was a kid there was only one Macdonals in Toronto. Then they throw thousands of the new wrappers over schoolside properties after lunching at restaurants strategizing their end of term green living projects. Each generation is far heavier in footprint than the former one. Sometimes the reasons are weird, like parents too scared to let kids walk or ride bikes anywhere. Sometimes it's just that the expectation for everything has been ramped up to incredible levels. Houses 3 times the footprint, dispossable cameras, whatever.

Stealth camping is not low impact. It's just low impact if nobody else does it, but you promote it. The moment a lot of people do it, the impact would be far better if it was limited to certain prepared areas. At a more subtle level you (ridiculously in my view) seem to be very pro Kyoto, which is basically an agreement among nations to do something about carbon. Yet you seem to think that your breaking the law, stealth camping, is totaly fine. Really, if you are on the left, you are generally more invested in regulations than the next person. If you advocate lawlessness through a website, as you do, you seem to be undermining your strongest tactic. Same kind of thing for Che on your avitar who was an international terrorist gunned down when he tried to force feed a revolution. You don't get much more non-conforming with international treaties and even international movements than a one man invasion of a foreign country undermining local chapter's of your party, That's even more unilateralist than George Bush.

I don't cycle because it is low environmental impact, which is not always the case anyway, even if you don't fly places. I cycle because I like to, there are lots of reason to enjoy bikes, largely I like the fact they are efficient because they feel so wonderful to ride.

We all only get one kick at life. The stuff you want to do is what you are spending your only precious life on. Unless you are a megalomaniac like Sadam, you don't have to justify what you do with some ridiculous claim to saving the world. If it isn't worth it, don't do it. But if it is worth it be man enough to accept the cost.

I was under the impression this is what everyone does, but perhaps not.

I see bike riding as being green, that is doing something to save the resources of the planet. When I tour I choose to travel to my tour start/end point either by bike or public transport (including airplanes for inter-continental travel).

When I tour I choose to travel in a way that I cause the least damage to our planet. I stealth camp and follow Leave No Trace principles.

I’ve named my bike. It is called the Kyoto Accord.

On another thread on this forum I was accused of ‘hijacking’ the thread because of voicing these principles that I genuinely thought were universally held.

So, you tell me: Why do you use a bike to tour instead of an SUV? Do you believe that extensive automobile use is consistant with your eco comfort level?

As a pre-emptive strike I would ask those forum members who think jet travel to be against these ideals, keep in mind I travel on public transport, not my private jet. This is called “offsetting” and according to Sustrans

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/supporters/7.htm

“An offset is intended to be a counterbalance, in this instance to our own carbon dioxide emissions. The idea is that by calculating the CO2 produced as part of our own lifestyle we pay for the same amount of CO2 to be reduced somewhere else, thus neutralising our impact on the environment.”
Actually, Stokell, you have a point on the Airlines. If you compare fuel burn / occupants ratio, an airliner at capacity is burning proportionally, 1/20th the fuel of an SUV!

Re; Kyoto: Here is where we disagree, as new technology will offset emission just like it did with earlier pollutant scrubbing. Rather than reducing production, for example, DuPont actually made money recovering and recycling chemicals through scrubbing plant stack output. I genuinely believe that rather than cripple ourselves economically, start looking for new ideas and technologies to recover the greenhouse gases and actually make it econimically feasible. One example might be methanogen digesters on an industrial scale to produce biogas. This would kill a couple of birds with one stone. Offset of natural gas use, production of fertilizers from biomass, production of building materials (Like Osaka, Japan from their sewage and biomass digester) through incinerating, forming and firing the slurry left over in a kiln to make ceramic bricks. Technology might not solve all of our problems, but it certainly has a better chance than stepping down to third world status!

"Actually, Stokell, you have a point on the Airlines. If you compare fuel burn / occupants ratio, an airliner at capacity is burning proportionally, 1/20th the fuel of an SUV!"

Even in that case only if you drive your SUV 3000 miles, and arrange for 500 of your friends to do the same. Doesn't compare well to staying home and watching TV or meditating if you want to . And I don't even want to get into comparisons like what is required to build planes in terms of everything from military budgets to the aircraft industry, airports, etc... I mean I am not against planes, that ought to be Stokels job... Is he for the Toronto Island airport? Or only if they are dropped from a height on surrounding suburbs?

Why do I tour? Cause I like it.
Basically because its slower, gets you closer to people, and to stroke my ego (people are always impressed).
Though doing an extended tour this summer, I will enjoy mocking gas prices ;)
/As long as lube and grease prices stay ok

I must confess that I have been corrupted by bicycles! ;)

I am fortunate to live in a place where I can leave my car parked most of the year and ride a bike instead. I have been doing this for over thirty-five years. The pleasures of doing errands and shoppping while bike commuting to work have proven a long term health/mental health benefit for me and the planet I suppose. Bike used changed how and what I ate as well.

Bike touring was a natural extension of the daily bike use. The simplification required for touring carried over to other parts of my life so the accumulated load and burden of
things has been reduced. A small house has felt larger with each reduction of things over the years.

Financial benefits turned out to be large as well. Even today as over the years I notice that I refill my car every four Months or more. I have saved enough each year to afford the best custom bike, panniers, camping equipment or clothing IF I wanted it and pay for touring costs at any level. Quality costs more but I have found that it lasts a long time unless you are seduced by the latest and greatest. I learned that from my grandfather.

I am still using freewheels [if you know what they are?];) and the original WTB greaseguard hubs on my 17 year old Bruce Gordon Ti RNR and our 1988 Fat Chance Mountain Tandem. You get the idea.

Green living [if that is the term] has grown gradually over time through the corrupting influence of bicycles. Just a warning!

Freewheels are great. I didn't even know they had changed the technology until I needed a new bike!

Re; Kyoto: Here is where we disagree, as new technology will offset emission just like it did with earlier pollutant scrubbing. Rather than reducing production, for example, DuPont actually made money recovering and recycling chemicals through scrubbing plant stack output. I genuinely believe that rather than cripple ourselves economically, start looking for new ideas and technologies to recover the greenhouse gases and actually make it econimically feasible. One example might be methanogen digesters on an industrial scale to produce biogas. This would kill a couple of birds with one stone. Offset of natural gas use, production of fertilizers from biomass, production of building materials (Like Osaka, Japan from their sewage and biomass digester) through incinerating, forming and firing the slurry left over in a kiln to make ceramic bricks. Technology might not solve all of our problems, but it certainly has a better chance than stepping down to third world status!

One problem with this comparison. Earlier reductions in pollution came as a result of government standards that forced industrial and automobile manufacturers to reduce their emissions, within a "level playing field" that created competition and creativity in solving the problem. In the current situation (CO2 emissions), the government is abdicating their responsibility to take a leadership role and set standards for industry to meet. In fact, they have refused to do so, stating that "voluntary action" will work better, despite many industry leaders joining the call for action. Well voluntary action has accomplished nothing, as witnessed by continuing increases in US CO2 emissions (1.7% in 2004 alone). People need incentives.

It is left to our states and cities to pick up the slack, which they are doing, by suing the federal government in order to get standards into place. The Kyoto Accord may have been flawed, but it was at least an attempt to set a framework for cooperation. You are absolutely correct that there is a lot of technology and potential solutions out there, but it takes government leadership to set the guidelins within which the market system can operate. Left on it's own, the market does not recognize health problems and long-term environmental issues like climate change, so it needs help. Countries like Japan and others, especially in the EU have set the necessary standards, then promoted and subsidized these emerging technologies you mention.

With respect to Stokell's original post, I admire his commitment to environmentally-conscious living and willingness to do something about it. I think ultimately we all are at different places on the "green" spectrum, depending on our personal awareness, commitment, ability to make changes, etc, and have to make our own choices within what our conscience dictates and means allow. Personally, I still own and drive a car sometimes but I ride a bike much more than I used to. It is a slow process for those of us who started late. I stopped commuting by car and most air travel five years ago, when I also chose to leave the corporate world. I live in an apartment now, have cut my carbon footprint by 10-20% each year and am planning to build a solar home for myself eventually (I already own the land). Fortunately, I absolutely love bicycling, to the extent that I recently gave up my motorcycle and will take tours on the bike from now on when possible. It was easy for me, but I don't expect that most people would want to do this, nor can many do it for health or other reasons. These changes will take time.

Even in that case only if you drive your SUV 3000 miles, and arrange for 500 of your friends to do the same. Doesn't compare well to staying home and watching TV or meditating if you want to . And I don't even want to get into comparisons like what is required to build planes in terms of everything from military budgets to the aircraft industry, airports, etc... I mean I am not against planes, that ought to be Stokels job... Is he for the Toronto Island airport? Or only if they are dropped from a height on surrounding suburbs?

I wonder what the actual numbers of miles per person for a gallon would be for each. Of course, a jet consumes a massive amount of fuel (an expensive sort of fuel even among petroleum products). Passenger jets make money for the airline only when they are flying, so the airlines are very careful to minimize the time spent on the ground and maximizing the number of people in the plane. The planes are built for 30 years of takeoffs, flying, landings with as few breaks as possible. Compared to that, the average car is built like a toy.

A lot of cars spend a lot of time parked. An airline probably gets a lot of mileage out of the investment in a plane compared to one person and his/her car.

I wonder what the actual numbers of miles per person for a gallon would be for each. Of course, a jet consumes a massive amount of fuel (an expensive sort of fuel even among petroleum products). Passenger jets make money for the airline only when they are flying, so the airlines are very careful to minimize the time spent on the ground and maximizing the number of people in the plane. The planes are built for 30 years of takeoffs, flying, landings with as few breaks as possible. Compared to that, the average car is built like a toy.

A lot of cars spend a lot of time parked. An airline probably gets a lot of mileage out of the investment in a plane compared to one person and his/her car.
Not to mention that gallons per seat mile IS the defining factor (combined with a few other factors) in nearly all purchase decisions. Low fuel consumption is the most important goal for Boeing and Airbus, while car manufacturers only sort of think about it.

green touring is much different from ecotourism, thas' for sure!

most americans contribution to the enviromental movement- choosing 'paper or plastic?'

americans sloth and waste is reprehensible and i am guilty in the social complicity. I have to bring home rice from the store in some kind of container. plastic bags eventually wear out once you resuse them so many times.

my environmental ethic shapes my approach to life; it does not affect its quality or richess of enjoyment. by keeping my ecological footprint small, i live more in solidarity with my fellow humans not as fortunate to live in such a materially wealthy society. Living simply gives me much more satisfaction than a new television set.


i think keeping integrity to ones' values will lead a rational man to a materially conservative lifestyle. Leading an examined life will not allow squander and squalor for the sake of self fufillment. Maybe it does, but not in my examination of values and personal consumption.

Airports and airlines emissions are a bit of a mystery since they don't fall under the same rules as "ground based" industries... at least in the USA. One difference is that at least every car since 1981 has had a catalytic converter. Jets on the other hand burn fuel directly into the atmosphere.

There are a lot of things we do that aren't 100% "green." The problem is where does one draw the line? What's reasonable? Who's to judge, and based on what? Bicycle tires, oil goes into that. Steel? Some mountain got mined for that iron. The energy used by a steel mill probably came from a coal fired plant, and a steel mill's electric arc furnace uses more electricity to melt iron than you'd ever imagine. Synthetic clothing normally has some sort of oil base. Is flying somewhere to tour a good alternative, or is it really just somewhat less bad than driving to a touring starting point? Sound a little extreme? Maybe to some people, but others may not think so.

I don't begrudge anyone for living a car-free lifestyle, and I don't think anyone should be hostile to someone because they choose to own a car.

That said, I ride bicycles for many reasons. A lot of the time I use an SUV to get to my biking destinations. Flying into Moab, UT to mountain bike isn't really an option. Taking a bus when you have 1 week of vacation isn't practical either. The cost of shipping our bicycles back and forth would be half the cost of our fuel bills, and we can't even guarantee their condition or arrival. When I drive my car to a destination, I know our bicycles will arrive, in one piece, at the same time we do, and I didn't have to waste any packing resources or UPS or FedEx gas to do so. We road the Maah Daah Hey trail in western North Dakota over several days. How else would I get to western North Dakota from Illinois without a car hauling our bikes? I get 2 weeks of vacation per year. I can't just start riding that direction. I like to see different parts of the country. A car will get me to different parts of the country, and bicycles will get me to the places otherwise missed in those parts. And no, I don't want to be cooped up in a car all vacation, that's why else we have the bicycles. Finally, there are a lot of places I want to see in this short life, and my two legs aren't going to get me to all of them in this brief lifetime. But if I can drive to different areas of the country that I want to see, then set out for a slower pace and the connection with the outdoors on my bicycle, then that's what I'm going to do.

I am not against cars at all, but only one example.
There are two capitals in Karelia: Finnish Joensuu and Russian Petrozavodsk. Climate is the same.
Cyclists are everywhere in Joensuu, they are bike commuters mainly. Bike parkings are everywhere near to shops as well. Motorists are minority on the streets. Though, perhaps almost every cyclist has got a car.
Russian Petrozavodsk: heavy traffic is everywhere and almost no one cycle on the streets. Though, perhaps almost every motorist has got a bicycle.
What is the reason of difference? I think the main reason is in mentality.

One problem with this comparison. Earlier reductions in pollution came as a result of government standards that forced industrial and automobile manufacturers to reduce their emissions, within a "level playing field" that created competition and creativity in solving the problem. In the current situation (CO2 emissions), the government is abdicating their responsibility to take a leadership role and set standards for industry to meet. In fact, they have refused to do so, stating that "voluntary action" will work better, despite many industry leaders joining the call for action. Well voluntary action has accomplished nothing, as witnessed by continuing increases in US CO2 emissions (1.7% in 2004 alone). People need incentives.

It is left to our states and cities to pick up the slack, which they are doing, by suing the federal government in order to get standards into place. The Kyoto Accord may have been flawed, but it was at least an attempt to set a framework for cooperation. You are absolutely correct that there is a lot of technology and potential solutions out there, but it takes government leadership to set the guidelins within which the market system can operate. Left on it's own, the market does not recognize health problems and long-term environmental issues like climate change, so it needs help. Countries like Japan and others, especially in the EU have set the necessary standards, then promoted and subsidized these emerging technologies you mention.

With respect to Stokell's original post, I admire his commitment to environmentally-conscious living and willingness to do something about it. I think ultimately we all are at different places on the "green" spectrum, depending on our personal awareness, commitment, ability to make changes, etc, and have to make our own choices within what our conscience dictates and means allow. Personally, I still own and drive a car sometimes but I ride a bike much more than I used to. It is a slow process for those of us who started late. I stopped commuting by car and most air travel five years ago, when I also chose to leave the corporate world. I live in an apartment now, have cut my carbon footprint by 10-20% each year and am planning to build a solar home for myself eventually (I already own the land). Fortunately, I absolutely love bicycling, to the extent that I recently gave up my motorcycle and will take tours on the bike from now on when possible. It was easy for me, but I don't expect that most people would want to do this, nor can many do it for health or other reasons. These changes will take time.
OK, I do agree with you re: Governmental failure to do anything meaningful toward changing the status quo. I also agree that I admire Stokells intent and commitment. I don't always agree with his percieved positions, but admit he is at least consistent as far as I can see with applying his standard to himself...before trying to apply them to others (Yuppers, Stokell, that's a compliment! :D ) Most cyclists have a bit o' the green at the core at least.

As far as health issues precluding cycling.....I understand that better than most. A bit over a year ago I was still wheelchair bound due to weight gain brought about by a metabolic disease. Not going to hijack this thread with that though. Essentially, all I've been saying is that technology and Biotechnology offer us our best possibility of a solution rather than deprivation on a societal level. A good portion of what allows us the luxury of being the types of cyclists we are is the very high energy, high consumption society we are. The technology that manufactures our bicycles, The chemical industry that manufactures our tires and tubes, the distribution system on a global level, the equipment that makes our roads, without this, we'd be lost and limited to short route bicycling on goat paths basically. I think they call that mountainbiking nowadays :eek:

If you are young enough, and I don't know your age, get back to me when you grow up, move to the suburbs, get kids etc... Everyone is an environmentalist who is too young or stupid to make money.



Wow, it's good to see there are ageist pricks in every activity group on the planet. Not everyone is going to "grow up and move to the suburbs." Sounds like maybe someone is a bit bitter about the way his life turned out. I, for one, am glad that I'm "too young and stupid to make money." I hope someone throws a stick in your spokes.

**edit** And for the record, I was making $1500/week over summer vacation programming for the company my dad worked for from ages 12-15. Age has nothing to do with income potential.

I don't know your age, get back to me when you grow up, move to the suburbs, get kids etc... Everyone is an environmentalist who is too young or stupid to make money, but few people actually choose the restricted lifestyle, and if those "restrictions" lead one to a need to jet all over the place, then spare me the lecture. City living while virtuous enough in some respects does lead to a lot of waste also, like apartment living where individual apartments aren't metered for electricity, and you get your electricity from polluting plants in the sub-urbs, where you also dump your garbage.


Peterpan1: One member called you an ageist for this comment. It is ageism, but I consider it a compliment. I'm 60 and already raised a family. Yes I've seen my friends move to the suburbs and buy big houses and SUVs and slowly kill themselves with their unsustainable lifestyles. I was always that funny little guy swimming in the opposite direction of all the big fish. Strangely, now my job is in the suburbs and I have a 42 km bike commute 5 times a week. I could never do that if I wasn't strong and healthy and that is just what my friends gave up for the big house, car and family. Sadly, I've been to many of their funerals.

About the garbage comment: The City of Toronto does not have a garbage dump. We closed our last one about 5 years ago. We recycle everything including diapers and table scraps. The few things that are not recyclable are shipped by truck to Michigan where they end up in a land fill.

I tour so I can eat like a pig.

About the garbage comment: The City of Toronto does not have a garbage dump. We closed our last one about 5 years ago. We recycle everything including diapers and table scraps. The few things that are not recyclable are shipped by truck to Michigan where they end up in a land fill.

http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/facts.htm
"In 2004, multi-unit dwellings (apartments) recycled only 12% of their garbage. "
"Currently Toronto ships 111 trucks of waste per day to Michigan landfill"

Not exactly a few things.

You seem like a good guy... However, the problem with green, sustainable etc... is that while useful enough, it's all just a cover story for what a person wants to do anyway.

Air travel is not public transportation any more than a stretch limo is public trans because it is carrying more than one band member and groupie. We no longer have a national airline here in Canada, all planes flying in and out of here are privately operated. Even if they were public, that doesn't make them environmentally responsible/low impact. Overall your jet setting will, as someone pointed out, dump far more pollution than someone's fairly heavy use of "wasteful" things like an SUV, or a fishing boat, or a jet ski.

People who really swap a car lifestyle for a bike one are doing something to reduce polution. But a lot of it is life cycle related. If you are young enough, and I don't know your age, get back to me when you grow up, move to the suburbs, get kids etc... Everyone is an environmentalist who is too young or stupid to make money, but few people actually choose the restricted lifestyle, and if those "restrictions" lead one to a need to jet all over the place, then spare me the lecture. City living while virtuous enough in some respects does lead to a lot of waste also, like apartment living where individual apartments aren't metered for electricity, and you get your electricity from polluting plants in the sub-urbs, where you also dump your garbage.

I've been hearing green all my life, and what that means is that the younger generation protests something like MacDonald's wrappers being made of Styrofoam, while when I was a kid there was only one Macdonals in Toronto. Then they throw thousands of the new wrappers over schoolside properties after lunching at restaurants strategizing their end of term green living projects. Each generation is far heavier in footprint than the former one. Sometimes the reasons are weird, like parents too scared to let kids walk or ride bikes anywhere. Sometimes it's just that the expectation for everything has been ramped up to incredible levels. Houses 3 times the footprint, dispossable cameras, whatever.

Stealth camping is not low impact. It's just low impact if nobody else does it, but you promote it. The moment a lot of people do it, the impact would be far better if it was limited to certain prepared areas. At a more subtle level you (ridiculously in my view) seem to be very pro Kyoto, which is basically an agreement among nations to do something about carbon. Yet you seem to think that your breaking the law, stealth camping, is totaly fine. Really, if you are on the left, you are generally more invested in regulations than the next person. If you advocate lawlessness through a website, as you do, you seem to be undermining your strongest tactic. Same kind of thing for Che on your avitar who was an international terrorist gunned down when he tried to force feed a revolution. You don't get much more non-conforming with international treaties and even international movements than a one man invasion of a foreign country undermining local chapter's of your party, That's even more unilateralist than George Bush.

I don't cycle because it is low environmental impact, which is not always the case anyway, even if you don't fly places. I cycle because I like to, there are lots of reason to enjoy bikes, largely I like the fact they are efficient because they feel so wonderful to ride.

We all only get one kick at life. The stuff you want to do is what you are spending your only precious life on. Unless you are a megalomaniac like Sadam, you don't have to justify what you do with some ridiculous claim to saving the world. If it isn't worth it, don't do it. But if it is worth it be man enough to accept the cost.

First thread ever to work age discrimination, Sadam, Bush, Kyoto, Che, McDonalds, terrorism, and stealth camping into one reply.
Impressive. You missed the Bin-Laden refence, which would have made this complete.

I disagree on the footprint issues. The last few have been heavier by far, but this I think is whats at stake, and if you take the life energy equation and look at all the "stuff" you end up with, I ask "was it all worth it?" Reducing your footprint does not have to mean living in poverty, living in some sort of monastic lifestyle. Reducing your footprint can mean rejecting the status quo of what is "valued" by society (refering here to pop and consumer culture, advertising, consumption, etc.) and finding values that may align with less advertised, bought, sold, and used up ideas, places, and pastimes.

Work more to pay for more toys / trips / happy meals / cars / etc - drive up your footprint, so you can work more to pay for the fuel, insurance, credit card bills, etc. to fund it all.

Work less or at a simpler lifestlye for more time to enjoy life.
Of course, "life" varies by definition.

"In 2004, multi-unit dwellings (apartments) recycled only 12% of their garbage. "
"Currently Toronto ships 111 trucks of waste per day to Michigan landfill"

Not exactly a few things.
I stand by my facts. I recycle everything. Toronto doesn't have a garbage dump.

Toronto is a very big city. I don't live in an apartment. Chill.

"Wow, it's good to see there are ageist pricks in every activity group on the planet. Not everyone is going to "grow up and move to the suburbs." Sounds like maybe someone is a bit bitter about the way his life turned out"

It's just a demographic reality. I know toronto pretty well having lived and worked here so far. I know the truth is inconvenient but I see you have your slogans to fall back on. I retired at 44, I'm not taking credit for it, sorta a happy accident. I'm not that bitter. I don't drive an SUV, but I do get ticked off at a lot of the talk against them, governments keep building schools, hospitals, etc... further appart, our municipality doesn't even have sidewalks in many of the commercial areas. We just had another kid, and the old car seats are no longer legal, and the new ones don't fit in our car. The car lifestyle is shoved down our throats, and this area would be about as wealthy as Bangladesh without cars. Other alternatives are worth dicussing but unproven.


"I, for one, am glad that I'm "too young and stupid to make money."

Suit yourself I said young OR stupid.

"I hope someone throws a stick in your spokes."

No chance, it's called "Toronto the good"

"**edit** And for the record, I was making $1500/week over summer vacation programming for the company my dad worked for from ages 12-15."

Daddy's little man, that's so cute.

"Age has nothing to do with income potential."

It has a lot to do with distribution.

"I'm 60 and already raised a family. "

Alright the last hippy, you're cool by me. You always were. You may also be right about where we stand on Kyoto, seems the government hasn't actually eightballed it.

On michigan bumping, we will stop sending the garbage if they divert the Detroit air polution at the border. Maybe a better solution for our garbage problem would be just to put it in trucks and keep driving it back and forth along the 401. More trucks, more gas, more jobs.

"I disagree on the footprint issues. The last few have been heavier by far, but this I think is whats at stake, and if you take the life energy equation and look at all the "stuff" you end up with, I ask "was it all worth it?" Reducing your footprint does not have to mean living in poverty, living in some sort of monastic lifestyle. Reducing your footprint can mean rejecting the status quo of what is "valued" by society (refering here to pop and consumer culture, advertising, consumption, etc.) and finding values that may align with less advertised, bought, sold, and used up ideas, places, and pastimes."

I agree with pretty much all of that, the changes required for the individual are not that great, society wide is a different thing.

Generalization is not necessarily discrimination, but hey it's the English language, it's just on loan.

I stand by my facts. I recycle everything. Toronto doesn't have a garbage dump.

Toronto is a very big city. I don't live in an apartment. Chill.

Semantics. They don't have their own local dump, they just use someone else's dump. :rolleyes: You can stand by your facts, but the fact is you went from saying "we" to "I."

To stick to your original question, I use a bike to tour because it wouldn't be bike touring if I did it in an SUV. I bike tour because I enjoy it, it's an adventure and it's good for my health. I drive an SUV with 2,3 or 4 other guys in it with me when we go somewhere to bike tour (from Denver to Montana, Arizona, New Mexico & Missouri so far). I ride my bike to run errands sometimes because it's good for my health and it saves me money, not because it saves the environment (that's just a small side benefit to me). I work from home so I am not commuting in a car but that's just the way it worked out, not because I wanted to save emissions. I do pay a little extra to have most of my trash recycled. Do they really recycle everything I put into this "single stream" recycling bin??

I bike tour for the experience, not for any green aspects, or economic reasons. My cross country was one of the best experiences of my life.
Bike touring is certainly not an economical way to travel, it's actually way more expensive than going by car, but it's the experience that makes it worth the extra money.
(I can drive the transam and drive back the northern tier for less money than cycling the transam and flying back. If you take into account the lost days at work, car travel blows away cycling from sheer economic stand point.)

This whole deal about how "green" some action is, is similar to figuring out how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. Its a joke. Those earth, wood, and grain-heads are great about trying to apply "soul salve" to themselves.

Some folks want to highlight how ecologically prudent they are about one particular part of their life, usually having to do with cars, while completely ignoring everything else. By that I mean the electicity they use, the fuel they burn for food, the petroleum asphalt they drive or ride upon, and everything they use that was manufactured using oil or gas, which is practically everything.

I tour so I can eat like a pig.

Amen, brother!!! :D

Originally Posted by Bikepacker67 I tour so I can eat like a pig.


Amen, brother!!!


Some day I will write a best seller.......How to Lose Weight on 10,000 Calories A Day

This whole deal about how "green" some action is, is similar to figuring out how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. Its a joke. Those earth, wood, and grain-heads are great about trying to apply "soul salve" to themselves.

Some folks want to highlight how ecologically prudent they are about one particular part of their life, usually having to do with cars, while completely ignoring everything else. By that I mean the electicity they use, the fuel they burn for food, the petroleum asphalt they drive or ride upon, and everything they use that was manufactured using oil or gas, which is practically everything.

Agree on the theory here - my life is completely dependent upon cheap energy, oil, all the systems in place that let me post to the bike forums, etc.

I think there is a huge difference in the embodied energy of a bike and that of a car, and the upkeep of that bike requires far less energy than that of a motorcycle, car, or truck - even if the tires, tubes, steel, titanium, etc. were created with said energy.

Food is a huge consumer of energy. If you don't eat local (which is nearly impossible in most communities) your embodied energy in food consumption, even if you walk or bike everywhere is very high. Note that the nice thing about riding and walking for transportation / touring is that alot of that energy that was spent growing and shipping your food turns into miles down the road, as opposed to someone who may drive. Seems to balance the books just a bit, IMHO.

I've never quite firgured out why I (or anyone else) needs to drive to pick up groceries. The act and actual energy / logistic needs of carrying your food home seems simple enough. That said, add in all the poor design that we live with - as mentioned in other posts (schools far apart with no sidewalks, giant mega stores with huge parking lots in commercial developments, etc) and the logistics for running to the grocery store (or cycling) change drastically, and often times the only "answer" seems to be a car.

Life to me is one big design problem that I'm constantly solving. How / where / why / etc. of my own lifestyle and fitting it into my world view. "Soul salve" to some - moral, ethical, and lifestyle choice for others.

(Note, I drive, alot. I love bikes. I have too many bikes for 1 person. I live in small town and shop locally whenever I can, but alot of my food comes from far far away - even at the co-op. I recycle only a small percentage of what I could. I drive, alot. I fly for work. I love the internet and my laptop which are plugged into a vast network of energy using computers and machines... etc. I strive to balance my life with that of my local community and an even bigger world - but that is difficult in this interconnected top down design flawed reality we live. Choosing to take steps (however small) is a huge act, and this "soul salve" should be applauded in anyone thinking about effective living.)

Green touring also involves low impact. You have to live the green as well. If you buy all your food that has been trucked for 1,000 miles, that isnt relaly low impact. If your food comes in huge plastic packaging, then that isnt really green. There are hundreds of choices that you can make on a day to day basis that change the world around you. So eat fruit, nuts out of the shell, and dont bother with hydroginated oils, because, it just isnt natural.

I've never quite firgured out why I (or anyone else) needs to drive to pick up groceries. The act and actual energy / logistic needs of carrying your food home seems simple enough. That said, add in all the poor design that we live with - as mentioned in other posts (schools far apart with no sidewalks, giant mega stores with huge parking lots in commercial developments, etc) and the logistics for running to the grocery store (or cycling) change drastically, and often times the only "answer" seems to be a car.
I've tried it. If you want to buy in bulk (saving quite a bit of money in the long term), there;s really no way to do it. Unless you want to shop every two days or so, you just can't pull it off.
I've lived without a car twice. The first was in a college dorm, where all meals were done in the cafeteria. It was easy.
When i was in london, I shopped ever 2-4 days and was fine, but the store was only 2 blocks away. In the US, the grocery store is often much further.
I've tried biking to the store here, but I worry about putting that much weight in the panners. Also, groceries in the US are not easy to lock up in front of. Its a problem of urban design. I miss London, where everything was within walking distance (you also never needed a Designated driver because the pub's within stumbling distance ;)). Even living in one of the larger cities in the US, its hard to pull off. Heck, if the bike's broken, i need to drive to the bike shop to get a new part unless I have 30minutes to kill walking.
The US needs better public transit, yes, but it also needs to put shopping area closer to where we live.

The US needs better public transit, yes, but it also needs to put shopping area closer to where we live.

The problem is that's not where businesses want to locate. Most cities in the US are so deperate for development, that they'll take what a business offers, otherwise, the business will locate down the road where another city will offer them what they want. Only the fastest growing areas can come close to dictating how business will develop.

Locating a business is almost as much science as it is art these days. Education levels, earnings, ages, traffic counts, existing businesses all enter into equations that determine where a business will next open their business.

As for closer to where we live, everyone likes to throw America under the bus for its sprawling development then herald old world cities. Fact is most of America grew up during the age of the automobile, and Europe and Asia did not. The proverbial genie is out of the bottle, and frankly, most Americans are used to their cars. I'm not sure how one changes the tide, but I know most cities aren't willing, or even able, to forego a new business in town just to change the mentality of an entire area. It's going to have to happen one neighborhood at a time, and it's going to have to work its way down from the largest cities.

People will walk 200 yards across a retail parking lot, but they won't walk 1 block downtown. People are funny, and businesses respond to people, people don't respond to business.

I don't know if this qualifies as being "green", but I thought I had something to share. I guess I am in a unique situation because I own a piece of land that is very secluded in the forest, yet is relatively close to civilization. For the past 15 years, I have ran my own business gardening, and usually spend 6 months a year working hard alternating with 6 months off. I live in a yurt with a wood stove, and I have a well on my land (run with a generator), but no electricity. I have constructed my own composting toilet out of a 5 gallon plastic bucket, and I have a solar shower that I can fill with water that I heat on the stove during the winter months. My eating habits have simplified over the years, and during the spring and summer months, I can eat almost entirely from what I grow in the garden. I have an old Toyota truck that I use for haulin' work, but bikes are my favorite way to get around. Why did I decide to live this way, and what does this have to do with bicycle touring? I originally started living this way so that I could travel extensively during the off-season. I probably won't end up retiring like my grandfather who worked his whole life and now lives in a gated retirement community, but hopefully my social security (if there'll be any) will be enough to get by on with help of my garden. If any major medical problems come up in old age, well I'll probably ride of one of the nearby cliffs....

I've tried it. If you want to buy in bulk (saving quite a bit of money in the long term), there;s really no way to do it. Unless you want to shop every two days or so, you just can't pull it off.
I've lived without a car twice. The first was in a college dorm, where all meals were done in the cafeteria. It was easy.
When i was in london, I shopped ever 2-4 days and was fine, but the store was only 2 blocks away. In the US, the grocery store is often much further.
I've tried biking to the store here, but I worry about putting that much weight in the panners. Also, groceries in the US are not easy to lock up in front of. Its a problem of urban design. I miss London, where everything was within walking distance (you also never needed a Designated driver because the pub's within stumbling distance ;)). Even living in one of the larger cities in the US, its hard to pull off. Heck, if the bike's broken, i need to drive to the bike shop to get a new part unless I have 30minutes to kill walking.
The US needs better public transit, yes, but it also needs to put shopping area closer to where we live.

Exactly, a design problem, centered on sprawl and "convenience". I've never been car-free, but I've been car lite recently, and I managed groceries by shopping at my co-op on the way home from work. I'd stop in twice a week and buy fresh veggies and such... but I don't need bulk, as I'm single and shop for myself.

I also don't need to lock the bike. I can ride the the co-op for lunch, a coffee, whatever and feel confident I'm going to find my bike safe and sound outside when I return. Now, on the few occasions I've gone into the "big" town nearby, I have locked up, as you park your bike in front of a store with acres of parking, practically out of site of anyone....


It is sad that most "cities" are really becoming long suburbs, and that "urban" design doesn't really apply in the age of mega stores and super centers....

I never thought about 'touring' and 'green' at the same time until I read this post. I like to bike tour because its a nice way to see things and also somewhat of a challange. I have also enjoyed touring by car with my wife.

But you know, even Che Guevarra toured on a motorcycle, and a not very green one at that. This was before he went on to be the chief exicutioner for the Cuban Revolution.

Thank you everyone for responding, even those who feel it necessary to attack someone with new ideas. I realise that many forum members must feel threatened because of their political situation and the current cost of fossil fuels. I especially enjoy how some members view Che. You may notice that I never attack other members or their avitars. Everyone has an opinion and each one is as valid as the others. Attacking people or their ideas, no matter how radical you view them, does not help in the communication process. I suggest open-ended questions. This thread has got off topic. That’s okay because sometimes people’s ideas flow like water. I like to let them follow the path of least resistance.

High fuel prices are nothing new to Europeans. They have already got over the denial stage and are willing now to look for sustainable answers. Petrol is almost £1 per litre in Europe
http://www.whatprice.co.uk/car/petrol-prices.html#petrol
(that’s just under $7.00 a U-S gallon).

Such is true with travel. As others have asked; is it necessary to drive everywhere? If you can walk to the corner store for a litre of milk, can’t you bike or take public transport to your start/end?

Can we consider moderation?

I simply LOVE how contentious this post has become. I'm a drama-..um...king, so I like a little debate.

It's too funny how we must debate the "green-ness" of cycle touring, as if not burning gas, littering, and destroying sensitve wilderness wasn't enough, we need to be concerned about the long term effects of all things- STEALTH CAMPING.

When does it end? Why must we be "green" to the point of inactivity? Cycle touring best represents the ethos of ecology, connectivity with our environment, and conciousness of our general impact on the world around us. The subject of this post beats us with the stick we wield. Lame.

"You may notice that I never attack other members or their avitars"

I never noticed that. I expect no less from my elders and betters.

I don't think it's an attack to say the guy in your avitar was a nutbar, well it is a personal attack on him, but not you. And I have no idea why you put him there it doesn't have to be admiration, it could be anything. I just happened to have been reading some declassified documents about how he was killed that were pretty interesting, though not particularly damning of him, so the Che angle occured to me. What's the problem with saying "hey look there is the guy with the uber-terrorist on his avitar talking about the sanctity of the global accord on hot air". Try it with your OBL T-shirts some day. There are terrorists, and there are diplomats, sadly for Che he didn't make the transition when he had the opportunity. I have no idea about your personal views so don't take it personally. That's not how I mean it even if I goof up from time to time.

My wife worked for polution probe, so I know most of the arguments. I just don't see any improvement in my lifetime. No doubt bike tourism is green if all that requires is to choose something that is less destructive than another option, a slower firing machine gun. But I don't see it as net green. For instance since the gas prices doubled, I have simply reduced my car use to about 1/4. I now pay a lot less per week for gas than I did a year ago. I reduced net comsumption by restricting my use. Since I started bike touring again last fall, my related consumption has net increased, mostly in terms of bikes, and one return trip by train. I don't think there is any offset, it isn't as though I stopped drag racing to take up touring. It's just another marketed consumptive lifestyle.

Stokell,

Yes, I mocked Che in my post. I don't think I attacked you for doing that. But you know the guy was the cheif exicutioner for the Cuban Revolution, there is no getting away from that. I too have the pic on a tee shirt, then I rented Motorcycle Diaries, and it was like, wow, what a cool guy, idealism and a love for the common people. Then I read up on him and found out that he kind of turned out to be a murderer, and now you have him for your avitar. Maybe to the people that just have seen the tee shirt and know the guy's name, and thing 'Che, wow cool', thats fine. But to me I see it as having John Wayne Gacy (sp?), or another mid-level mass murderer as an avitar. But then I saw someone has george bush as an avitar, which I think is just as bad, and just as politically nieve, unless it is for joking purposes.

As far as the whole green touring, whatever as we say in California. I commute to work on a bike everyday. I walk to the store to buy my newspaper on Sunday. But I also own a car, a subcompact, but it is still a car. And at times I even drive my car. But even if I drove my car to work every day and drove it to the store, and drove it 100,000 miles every year, it would not change at all the total output of pollution for the US. So yes I feel better about myself for doing a bit for mother earth, yet at the same time I realise my contribution means nothing in the whole sceme of things.

I did see the preview for the new movie coming out with Al Gore, it seemed quite scarry, and after I see that maybe I will feel different, but for now ignorance is bliss.

The world is a complex place. I hope all of us try our best to live our lives with least damage done. Some people have no choice but to live in giant s***hole cities that dump mountains of turd into the ocean and fumes into the sky.

That being said, may I take this opportunity to ask all the old geezers driving SUVs around to hurry up and die already so the earth may be spared of your stupidity? I fart in your general directions...

Could someone please kill this thread? The negativity is just too much of a downer.

Could someone please kill this thread? The negativity is just too much of a downer.

If Che was still alive, I'm sure he'd be willing to kill the thread, then overthrow the board, kill the owners and redivide the ownership between all of us and run the place into the ground. :D

Get real. I have to make a living and everything in this society is attached to oil. You can't have it all. I wouldn't want to eat rabbit food and ride a bike all of the time anyway. How do you think the bike was made? All attached to oil.

we live in an oil economy; some of us try to minimize our complicit involvement in it, but modern man, our world civilization, has developed dependence on fossil fuels.

Our personal choices assuage our guilt to whatever level we each find necessary. revolution and foment are the order of modern man. Regardless of personal ethos, a parthenon of admirable heroes or gallery of despicable rouges, what has driven modern man? And how did we get here?

oil.

there is no escaping our complicity with oil.

sure, we can't easily escape our complicity in the petro-plunder. But, if you drive an SUV, you are not even trying. So, again, I fart in your general directions.

But to be fair, the commercial trucking industry is the biggest culprit. So one thing anybody can do is buy as local as you can, and buy organic food (synthetic fertilizers are made of hydrocarbon). Or try putting pressure on the government to build a viable rail transport system. The days of oil are numbered, so for better or worse, the oil based economy will be halted.

Or do nothing, in which case you will so soon be accompanied by the sweet aroma of my flatulance. You need not think these to be empty threats. Stink WILL be visited upon YOU...

may this thread and all the negativity it encompasses live on in you're hippy positive vibration hearts forever and ruin your buzz.

http://www.postcarbon.org/

The SUV is just this whole argument taken to a different level, which is significant, but only by degree. One guy's 2000 dollar bike is modest even if it's incomprehensible to most of the world's population and dependant on the military industrial complex for it's, Ti, CNC, and carbon, not to mention the blanket of freedom to enjoy it in. If you don't own a luxury car (I don't) then these 6 liter engines are insane too. But so is everything else from the house of more than 800 square feet, on out there. If you want to live in a mud cave fine, everything else is just a delicate balance between where your lifestyle runs out and your sense of moral superiority kicks in.

sure, we can't easily escape our complicity in the petro-plunder. But, if you drive an SUV, you are not even trying. So, again, I fart in your general directions.

But to be fair, the commercial trucking industry is the biggest culprit. So one thing anybody can do is buy as local as you can, and buy organic food (synthetic fertilizers are made of hydrocarbon). Or try putting pressure on the government to build a viable rail transport system. The days of oil are numbered, so for better or worse, the oil based economy will be halted.

Or do nothing, in which case you will so soon be accompanied by the sweet aroma of my flatulance. You need not think these to be empty threats. Stink WILL be visited upon YOU...
Flatulence produces Methane, a Greenhouse gas! Farting in his direction just contributes to Global Warming.....How "Green" is that?:D You should feel shame in such a flagrant environmental abuse!:p

Its not about being one up on anybody on the moral todem pole. SUVs are just an example of excessive life styles.

Nobody is perfect, especially me, but most people are decent. we need to start calling eachother out and have a little concern for others in later generations.

Gimme a break the military does'nt give us freedom, it restricts it. A long history of people struggling and often dying, in the name of resisting concentrations of power gave us freedom.By the way, for the record I'm no che worshipping commie, so don't go there.

Besides, I can fart on people without being morally superior. Fair warning. I farted, Jesus wept. Thats my only emmission.

and since you mentioned mud caves...

http://www.cobcottage.com/