General Cycling Discussion - Cycling is BAD for the environment? (CNBC)

Right now, there is a guy on CNBC who claims that cycling is BAD for
the environment.

Get this, he says since the rider is likely to live longer and thus, use
more resources over time.

Carl Owen (Orwell?) was the guy's name.

I am presently hoping for a punchline. Either that or buy a H1 and
help save the world :rolleyes:

CE

(my head hurts)

But if the rider is using far less resources overall... how does that equate?

I think the Carl guy is trying to use any excuse for an H1.

When you bike, you breathe heavily and give off more CO2. :rolleyes:

Are you sure it wasn't Skip Clueless who made the comment?

one of the primary goals of humanity from the very beginning is to prolong life expectancy. so, if cycling is "bad" in terms of resource use, then so is all modern medicine and all health organizations and everyone who works to save people's lives. what a ridiculous point to make.

The elimination of all humans (cyclist or not) would likely be great for the environment, but I don't know that it is a good argument for not riding to work. By that logic exercise, walking, breathing, healthy meals, vitamins, etc. are also bad for the environment but heroin and WMDs are good.

one of the primary goals of humanity from the very beginning is to prolong life expectancy. so, if cycling is "bad" in terms of resource use, then so is all modern medicine and all health organizations and everyone who works to save people's lives. what a ridiculous point to make.

humanity has goals? Who knew?

humanity has goals? Who knew?

i know, it's amazing. sometimes we take, like, 10 steps backward though.

If cycling is bad, then smoking must be good. ;)

And last week I saw a cyclist riding and smoking at the same time. Unclear on concept. But at least he was a good cyclist according to that author.

i dont want goals. I think we'd be happier as unhairy chimps.

humanity has goals? Who knew?

I was pretty sure they were eating, sleeping, drinking and f__ing...no different from the goals of anything else that lives.

avoiding pain...that's a good 5th one.

If cycling is bad, then smoking must be good. ;)

And last week I saw a cyclist riding and smoking at the same time. Unclear on concept. But at least he was a good cyclist according to that author.

I guess he was breaking even

What all of these liberal eniro-nazi factinistas don't realize is that he probably means the FINANCIAL environment. Ok, look;

It's the perfect cycle. Use more fuel...earth gets warmer...therefore we need to use more air conditioning...therefore puling on power plants more...you see, it's the perfect endless cycle of profit!

And besides, the only way you're going to get your so-called "alternative fuels" is if the Almighty free market provides it! So, you have a duty as an environmentalist to buy an SUV and burn fossil fuels even faster! Then you'll get your alternative fuels. In fact, I highly recommend the H3...it's the worlds first hybrid automobile (runs on gasoline and the blood of patriots.)

So get off your bicycles, and start burning gas like there's no tomorrow.

Who knows...there may not be.

And that's the word.

but heroin and WMDs are good.

No no no, only WMDs like neutron bombs or bioweapons, things that kill humans without messing everything else up too bad.

Silly.

When you bike, you breathe heavily and give off more CO2. :rolleyes:

True, but plants inhale the co2 and convert it to oxygen.

What all of these liberal eniro-nazi factinistas don't realize is that he probably means the FINANCIAL environment.

Hmmm... if you could see my credit card bills attributed to everything cycling related, you'd realise that I'm circulating more money by cycling than I am by driving. ;)

Ain't gonna argue with that, khuon.

Hmmm... if you could see my credit card bills attributed to everything cycling related, you'd realise that I'm circulating more money by cycling than I am by driving. ;)

That may be true for you and I applaud you, but does the supply company for your bicycle related purchases have higher profits than Microsoft? And how many millions does the CEO earn each year?

My thoughts on this person's reasoning is some people are so narrow minded they do not realize the full scope of what they say. In Chris Rock's voice, "Does he understand the words that are coming out of his mouth!"

Maybe it's the romantic environment.

They say Venice is the city of love, with all of those canals and gondolas and whatnot. If sea levels rise enough, you can have the same thing in New York City!

Are you telling me that you hate New York so much that you don't want it to have romantic canals?

And think of the parks. Were you ever bitten as a child by a Canadian goose whilst trying to feed bread to the cute little ducks? Now, the geese won't migrate south to the US, and will just stay north where they belong...thus exhausting their food supply and dying out.

So; romantic canals and safe parks.

And that's the word.

The source for the article on bicycling is bad for the environment is a bike friendly professor and entrepreneur called Karl Ulrich (http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/) who is a founder of Xootr scooters and a CO2 trading program called Terrapass. The article is here (http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/documents/ulrich-cycling-enviro-jul06.pdf). You can all read it yourselves and critique it if you can.
His argument boils down to this. We all use a lot of energy every day in our lives through the energy costs of our homes and offices, food production, goods consumed etc. Transportation energy is only a small part of that. If a sedentary driver takes up biking for part of his transportation, gets healthier and lives longer, his lifetime energy usage will increase, because the energy saved in transport will be overshadowed by the energy used in living longer.

Can anyone say "troll"? Seems to me that a lot of people wanting to attract attention to their tabloid journals lately have targetted cyclists, probably because they expect to receive a billion angry e-mails and/or letters in reply. I can only assume from the fact that they are persisting with this troll that it must be working.

If a sedentary driver takes up biking for part of his transportation, gets healthier and lives longer, his lifetime energy usage will increase, because the energy saved in transport will be overshadowed by the energy used in living longer. We should all go shoot ourselves then. Saves up a lot of energy... :rolleyes:

P.S. No wait... strangling ourselves with bare hands is preferable: think of all the resources used to manufacture guns and bullets...

There are a few counterarguments. One is that if a fit driver (say she also works out in a gym) switches to biking, that will save a lot of energy, because there won't be the same longevity effect. So his argument only applies to people who go from no exercise, to regular bicycle commuting. Ulrich also didn't take into account that bikers may own fewer cars (so less energy for manufacturing) and require less roadspace to be built for them (so less construction energy spent on their behalf). When I emailed him about those last two points he sent a very polite reply trying to estimate what the effects would be.

the sad part is... somebody (or bodies, as the case may be) out there bought it :( I'm going to cry myself to sleep now; I weep for humanity.

So I guess birth control pills and condoms are good for the envrioment because they prevent births which lead to human lives that leave a path of destruction to the planet.

So I guess birth control pills and condoms are good for the envrioment because they prevent births which lead to human lives that leave a path of destruction to the planet.

Actually, that is true. Overpopulation is a huge threat to the earth.

one of the primary goals of humanity from the very beginning is to prolong life expectancy. so, if cycling is "bad" in terms of resource use, then so is all modern medicine and all health organizations and everyone who works to save people's lives. what a ridiculous point to make.

Agreed.

According to this guy, we should go back to 1920's vehicle safety standards, drunk driving, and what the hell ... lets get another WW1 (not 2) going with machetes and peanut butter sammichs (cheap weapons and food)

So I guess birth control pills and condoms are good for the envrioment because they prevent births which lead to human lives that leave a path of destruction to the planet.
... yes! ... that or abstinence.

Geez ... we need to get lazier .... screw industry....

Are you sure it wasn't Skip Clueless who made the comment?
They are all clueless on cnbc.

Still haven't heard anyone actually refute the claim.

Actually, that is true. Overpopulation is a huge threat to the earth.

Sad but true. The earth cannot support the current human population indefinitely. And it *really* can't support projected future populations. Something's gonna have to give sooner or later. Short of killing ourselves now, the best thing we can do for the earth is to only have one kid instead of two or three (or more.) Having ONE kid causes way more resource usage over time than living an extra 5 years would - because that one kid will use resources for the next 75 years.

Where i work,they keep having babies until the body says no more.

Sad but true. The earth cannot support the current human population indefinitely. And it *really* can't support projected future populations. Something's gonna have to give sooner or later. Short of killing ourselves now, the best thing we can do for the earth is to only have one kid instead of two or three (or more.) Having ONE kid causes way more resource usage over time than living an extra 5 years would - because that one kid will use resources for the next 75 years.


I don't necessarily agree with that but would agree that with the way we distribute resources as a species the earth cannot sustain us (The US throws enough food away to feed many nations with poverty problems and I am not even including farming subsidies just consumer waste). Although i suppose indefinitely is a pretty general word. I mean the sun will eventually go out of course and the earth will likely be toast long before then.

Anyway, regarding cycling I guarantee I don't breathe 16 lbs of carbon dioxide like my car does between home and work.

Still haven't heard anyone actually refute the claim.It's as pointless as refuting the claim that living is bad for the environment. Yes, the environment would not be affected by humans if there were no humans. So what?...

It's as pointless as refuting the claim that living is bad for the environment. Yes, the environment would not be affected by humans if there were no humans. So what?...


So, in estimating what steps humans can take to improve the environment, we need to fully understand and deal with unexpected consequences of our actions. If Ulrich is right, ignoring his claims because they're counterintuitive or unwelcome is not very enlightened. Better to use the information wisely. Getting a bunch of obese, unhealthy people to start bike commuting, on its own, won't help the environment, because they're still going to be using air conditioners and eating beef and engaging in other environmentally unfriendly activities, only now they'll be doing it for a few years longer. So, you'd also have to get them to reduce their day-to-day environmental footprint in other ways too. And, you'd also want to convert some healthier car drivers to biking,because they can use it to replace driving and the gym, without necessarily increasing their life expectancy. They're the ones where you'll get the biggest energy savings.

Bikes are GREAT for the environment. On a bike it takes longer to get where you are going so you have less time for scr3wing. There are studys that show excessive bike riding results in erectile disfunction, also a plus. The only possible problem is it makes for great legs. If the percentages of men and women riding was equal this might overcome the other 2 effects. But since more men ride than women this is not a problem at this time.

Getting a bunch of obese, unhealthy people to start bike commuting, on its own, won't help the environment, because they're still going to be using air conditioners and eating beef and engaging in other environmentally unfriendly activities, only now they'll be doing it for a few years longer. So, you'd also have to get them to reduce their day-to-day environmental footprint in other ways too. Well, I wasn't even aware that anybody in his right mind thought that the switch from car to bike alone is going to do wonders for the environment. Except maybe for the local envirnoment (say, air quality in a big city). Of course improved air quailty means fewer people die from asthma attacks, hence will use up resources... I think we should encourage everyone to drive an 18-wheeler everywhere to shorten everyone's life expectancy - that'll be good for the environment overall (and don't forget to run over those environmentally unfriendly cyclists on the road!) Except that I always naively thought that the ultimate goal of the humankind was achieving happiness, not saving the environment per se. 'Cause if we just wanted to save the environment, we should just all kill ourselves (after we properly dismantle and bury things like nuclear plants).

So whether the bikes are actually good or bad for the environment is pretty much irrelevant. They are clearly a step in the right direction, just like good healthcare or clean drinking water.

Actually, that is true. Overpopulation is a huge threat to the earth.
So why wasn't the story about overpopulation? Why anti bike?

ahem....that's chris tucker.