Living Car Free - Even More Proof that Bikes=Good, Cars=Bad

http://www.dispatch.com/science/science.php?story=dispatch/2007/02/13/20070213-D6-00.html

From the Columbus Dispatch, 13 Feb, 2007

Excellent article, thanks for sharing. I'm going to have my co-workers read it, they can't seem to understand why I think it's a bad idea for one of the gals (who's getting re-married next month) to have yet another child. She has three already and just wants one more with her new hubby.

http://www.dispatch.com/science/science.php?story=dispatch/2007/02/13/20070213-D6-00.html

From the Columbus Dispatch, 13 Feb, 2007
Cars are certainly in the "very bad" category, while bikes are certainly much less of a problem. Beef eaters chew up more water and grain resources than vegetarians. Most of our energy consumption, however, goes up the chimney in our homes. So a vegetarian who rides a bike would be a great combination, as long as she can remember to turn the lights off.

Actually the US and most western countries can support populations much larger than they currently have. The overpopulation problem is limited to a few countries in Asia and Africa. We in the west have no reason to feel guilty about having lots of kids, it's the Indians and the Bangledeshis who need to stop.

The whole myth of the US being a paved country is nonsense. Only something like 10% of it is built up IIRC, the rest is empty. You could take the world's entire population and put them in Texas and it would have no higher a population density than New York City. And the world is overproducing food and most other resources too, the problem isn't a lack of resources it's that they're too unevenly distributed, a problem which is slowly but surely improving as the rest of the world gets wealthier.

reminds me of this clip....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFldLfx85DY

Hmmm...

Maybe we are "goats" of intergalactic travelers. I say lets kill each other so there will be nothing left when the come back to eat us.

Actually the US and most western countries can support populations much larger than they currently have. The overpopulation problem is limited to a few countries in Asia and Africa. We in the west have no reason to feel guilty about having lots of kids, it's the Indians and the Bangledeshis who need to stop.

The whole myth of the US being a paved country is nonsense. Only something like 10% of it is built up IIRC, the rest is empty. You could take the world's entire population and put them in Texas and it would have no higher a population density than New York City. And the world is overproducing food and most other resources too, the problem isn't a lack of resources it's that they're too unevenly distributed, a problem which is slowly but surely improving as the rest of the world gets wealthier.

I'm not sure that you understood the article. One point was that although the US has a lower population than India, we actually use more resources. So it isn't right to blame current problems on India and other less developed nations.

Overpopulation is actually not the only problem, or even the main problem. The squandering of resources by a few wealthy nations is a bigger piece of the problem.

Tom Waite, an Ohio State University ecologist, bikes to work to conserve energy. "Some days it’s stupid, but I do it anyway," he said.

What do y'all think Tom Waite meant by this?

What do y'all think Tom Waite meant by this?

Maybe that cycling past a certain point, i.e. consuming more food than is needed for the optimum level of exercise is nearly as bad as driving a fuel efficient car. O.k. Probably not. I'd wager he's talking about the weather/circumstances.... But it'd be neat to know how an ecologist views the fossil fuel energy needed to bring a calorie of food to the table. :D

Maybe that cycling past a certain point, i.e. consuming more food than is needed for the optimum level of exercise is nearly as bad as driving a fuel efficient car. O.k. Probably not. I'd wager he's talking about the weather/circumstances.... But it'd be neat to know how an ecologist views the fossil fuel energy needed to bring a calorie of food to the table. :D
He probably buys locally produced food, like I do. Or maybe, also like me, his body is well conditioned, he doesn't ride like every commute is a time trial, and he therefore doesn't even eat more than some fat cager.

O Rly? And this probably is based off of... ;)
Buying locally produced alone doesn't mean much. Just like buying based on the catchall phrase "organic" doesn't. Depending on the food in question, the fossil fuel inputs can be higher than other foods that aren't local. Unless you can detail what the fossil fuel inputs of your fuel consist of, any talk is just that. :D

O Rly? And this probably is based off of... ;)
Buying locally produced alone doesn't mean much. Just like buying based on the catchall phrase "organic" doesn't. Depending on the food in question, the fossil fuel inputs can be higher than other foods that aren't local. Unless you can detail what the fossil fuel inputs of your fuel consist of, any talk is just that. :D
A second advantage of locally grown is that you usually know the people who grow the food, and you can ask them questions about their fuel usage or anything else. Hell, you can even ride out there and observe the growing conditions, which I have done several times. And pick up 15 pounds of tomatoes and a bunch of basil while you're there.

Obviously, if two stalks of celery were grown under the same organic conditions, but one stalk was shipped by refrigerated diesel truck from California to Michigan, while the second was shipped by van or even bicycle from a farm 10 miles away.... Well, you do the math.

I'm not sure that you understood the article. One point was that although the US has a lower population than India, we actually use more resources. So it isn't right to blame current problems on India and other less developed nations.

Overpopulation is actually not the only problem, or even the main problem. The squandering of resources by a few wealthy nations is a bigger piece of the problem.

Well said, Roody. AND governments of less-industrialised nations have bought completely into the Western capitalist schema of hyper-consumption, which means that countries like India & the PRC will be coming on line as major resource destroyers, as we already have. (And without pesky environmental laws or labor rights, in line with the doctrine of "Free Trade", a euphemism for a free hand for the exploiters.)

A second advantage of locally grown is that you usually know the people who grow the food, and you can ask them questions about their fuel usage or anything else. Hell, you can even ride out there and observe the growing conditions, which I have done several times. And pick up 15 pounds of tomatoes and a bunch of basil while you're there.

Unless you can detail what the fossil fuel inputs of your fuel consist of, any talk is just that. :D
:p

One point was that although the US has a lower population than India, we actually use more resources.
For now... Wait 20 or 30 years and India will catch up.

Now don't shoot the messenger, but I did read somewhere that cycling was actually bad for the environment, as it does you such good that you survive so much longer that you go on to consume much more resources in your life than a non-cyclist that you actually negate the good you do.
Like I said, don;t shoot the messanger. I just read it somewhere, and am just passing it on, and indeed would advise everyone to cycle and recycle and all the other things that are god for the planet.

Ah, jes, this has been mentioned before. And there very well may be confounds, such as a tendency of a stereotypical bicyclist to use fewer resources in the first place. Etc... Which is probably true to an extent, but imo the point of that article was that single variable studies are limited.

but I did read somewhere that cycling was actually bad for the environment, as it does you such good that you survive so much longer that you go on to consume much more resources in your life than a non-cyclist that you actually negate the good you do.

I highly doubt that someone who cycles their entire life would use more resources than someone who drives their entire life.

(using info from terrapass.com)
Let's say the average person's housing creates 25,000 lbs of CO2 per year

Now, let's say the bicyclist and the cager start living by themselves, and transporting themselves. when they turn 20.

Using the figures for the 2007 Honda Civic automatic (a rather average car), the driver would create aprx. 6,700 lbs of CO2 waste per year.

Now, let's assume they both live until 50. Again, assuming they both have average housing, and the only difference in their lives is their means of transport:

The cyclist has created: 750,000 lbs of CO2
The driver has created: 951,000 lbs of CO2

Using this, the cyclist could continue living for over 8 years longer than the driver without having more of a negative effect than the driver.

Now, assuming they live to 60 years:

Cyclist: 1,000,000 lbs of CO2
Driver: 1,268,000 lbs of CO2

This is enough for the cyclist to live nearly 11 years longer

Using the current world average (according to wikipedia) of 66 years,

Cyclist: 1,150,000 lbs of CO2
Driver: 1,458,200

Which would allow the cyclist to live 12 years longer than the driver

at 70 years:

Cyclist: 1,250,000
Driver: 1,585,000

Allowing the cyclist to live an additional 13 years

Using the US average of 77 years:

Cyclist: 1,425,000
Driver: 1,806,900

Allowing the cyclist to live an additional 15 years past the US life expectancy without more of an impact than the driver

i'm going to skip 80, since I think you're getting the point. The highest life expectancy in the world, in Andorra, is 83, which would probably be 16-17 years longer.

While this assumes they both take the same amount of air travel and public transportation (putting it in the bicyclists favor), it also assumes the driver uses a car which, on average, has the same efficiency as a Civic, which as a small sedan, puts it in the driver's favor, at least for the present terms. This also doesn't consider if the bicyclist eats more food, uses rental or friend's cars at any time, or if the driver gets a more fuel efficient car over time (i'm assuming your study was based on present or past figures.) or drives less than average.

Basically, bicycling would have to increase life expectancy by 15 years for the average person in the US to be more harmful by biking than driving. In addition, this would assume that the biker makes no considerations to the enviroment in their home, which seems to be contrary to most Life Cyclists, that the cyclist and driver do not use green energy sources in their home, and in general that the average now is the average of their entire lives (so basically, they're probably porn sometime from the 1950s to 70s for this to be accurate)

While it might not be totally concrete, as an overall, I think it's safe to say that cyclists do NOT harm the enviroment more than drivers, especially drivers in anything that gets less than about 30 MPG (which includes most non-sedans, and many sedans)

Now don't shoot the messenger, but I did read somewhere that cycling was actually bad for the environment, as it does you such good that you survive so much longer that you go on to consume much more resources in your life than a non-cyclist that you actually negate the good you do.
Like I said, don;t shoot the messanger. I just read it somewhere, and am just passing it on, and indeed would advise everyone to cycle and recycle and all the other things that are god for the planet.

Really? My Trek 1000 ebike conversion will get something on the order of 20 watt-hours/mile at full throttle with very modest rider input averaging something like 25mph. If one is serious about his environmental "foot-print" then one cannot do much better than that.

I highly doubt that someone who cycles their entire life would use more resources than someone who drives their entire life.

Interesting analysis feba! I think we should also consider this:
Over the span of 80 years the driver is going to have to replace their automobile several times. If they do so every 10 years then what environmental cost must we add to the driver's side of the ledger?

True, true, if you place the comparison of a car every 10 years (I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who's driven the same car over 12k miles per year for 10 years, or owns a car with a similar level of use), compared to someone buying a bike every 20-25 years (which i've seen someone post on here as being the average life of a well maintained good quality bike), the car definitely uses more resources

However, cyclists are more likely to own multiple bikes for different usages. Even if we assume that on average a cyclist buys one bike per year, this still would seem to put them well below the materials and labour involved in getting a car every 4-5 years (or even every 10 years). Add in that an old bike will get practically the same fuel efficiency as a new one(assuming the new one is lighter, easier to pedal, etc) , so a cyclist has little reason to update to save fuel costs.

Let's also look at the cost to the person. Let's say the driver buys that same civic today:

15,000$ for a Honda Civic
10000$ on Gas (Aprx, times ten years fromfrom http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm)
7500$ Yearly maintainance x10, no idea if this is average, but it doesn't seem too far off
?$ for insurance (no idea, never owned a car or got a quote)
______
Over 32,500 in ten years, not counting insurance, tickets, or anything extra the driver might have

Now let's see a biker, who buys a new bike every other year

2000$ (Average, 400$ per bike. Would be higher or lower depending on how they shopped)
500$ Bike Accesories (Helmet, panniers, lights, etc. This is probably on the high side)
250$ Tools and materials (for fixing and general maintenence, seems kinda low, but this is assuming you maintain the bike yourself)
1000$ "Fuel" (Probably way on the high side for additional food needed, assuming the cyclist doesn't spend a ton on energy bars)
________
3,750$ - nearly a TENTH of the cost of owning a car, assuming the cyclist is on the cheap side. Even with a cyclist who spends more on their bikes, I can't imagine spending more than 10,000$ on them in ten years unless you race professionally or such. And of course, a truly frugal cyclist could go for well under this, if they rely on one or two bikes

If one is serious about his environmental "foot-print" then one cannot do much better than that.
Sure they can. Most electric velos should be around 5-10wh/mile at the same speed. :D

I highly doubt that someone who cycles their entire life would use more resources than someone who drives their entire life.

(using info from terrapass.com)
Let's say the average person's housing creates 25,000 lbs of CO2 per year

Now, let's say the bicyclist and the cager start living by themselves, and transporting themselves. when they turn 20.

Using the figures for the 2007 Honda Civic automatic (a rather average car), the driver would create aprx. 6,700 lbs of CO2 waste per year.

Now, let's assume they both live until 50. Again, assuming they both have average housing, and the only difference in their lives is their means of transport:

The cyclist has created: 750,000 lbs of CO2
The driver has created: 951,000 lbs of CO2

Using this, the cyclist could continue living for over 8 years longer than the driver without having more of a negative effect than the driver.

Now, assuming they live to 60 years:

Cyclist: 1,000,000 lbs of CO2
Driver: 1,268,000 lbs of CO2

This is enough for the cyclist to live nearly 11 years longer

Using the current world average (according to wikipedia) of 66 years,

Cyclist: 1,150,000 lbs of CO2
Driver: 1,458,200

Which would allow the cyclist to live 12 years longer than the driver

at 70 years:

Cyclist: 1,250,000
Driver: 1,585,000

Allowing the cyclist to live an additional 13 years

Using the US average of 77 years:

Cyclist: 1,425,000
Driver: 1,806,900

Allowing the cyclist to live an additional 15 years past the US life expectancy without more of an impact than the driver

i'm going to skip 80, since I think you're getting the point. The highest life expectancy in the world, in Andorra, is 83, which would probably be 16-17 years longer.

While this assumes they both take the same amount of air travel and public transportation (putting it in the bicyclists favor), it also assumes the driver uses a car which, on average, has the same efficiency as a Civic, which as a small sedan, puts it in the driver's favor, at least for the present terms. This also doesn't consider if the bicyclist eats more food, uses rental or friend's cars at any time, or if the driver gets a more fuel efficient car over time (i'm assuming your study was based on present or past figures.) or drives less than average.

Basically, bicycling would have to increase life expectancy by 15 years for the average person in the US to be more harmful by biking than driving. In addition, this would assume that the biker makes no considerations to the enviroment in their home, which seems to be contrary to most Life Cyclists, that the cyclist and driver do not use green energy sources in their home, and in general that the average now is the average of their entire lives (so basically, they're probably porn sometime from the 1950s to 70s for this to be accurate)

While it might not be totally concrete, as an overall, I think it's safe to say that cyclists do NOT harm the enviroment more than drivers, especially drivers in anything that gets less than about 30 MPG (which includes most non-sedans, and many sedans)


Nice analysis. Now when my driver friends try and hit me with the lifespan arguement, I can do something more than mumble a "hmm, well, maybe".

One question though, how does it stack up with a European model where the cars are smaller and more fuel efficient? or does the fact that Europeans tend to recycle more and, well, consume less balance it out, do you think?

absolutely, viva la velo!

For now... Wait 20 or 30 years and India will catch up.
No. They will never catch up because we have already used up half the oil.

Excellent article, thanks for sharing. I'm going to have my co-workers read it, they can't seem to understand why I think it's a bad idea for one of the gals (who's getting re-married next month) to have yet another child. She has three already and just wants one more with her new hubby.

Yep, the problem is too many babies. If we drop the population, most of the other problems can be worked out.

For now... Wait 20 or 30 years and India will catch up.

I'm not so sure that's true. India, and China too, have huge environmental problems, the most serious being their dwindling supplies of water, which will eventually put huge brakes on their economic development. Their economic elites may be driving cars all over town as if they lived in LA, but the masses will be looking for rice. The main problem for us, of course, will be that these two huge countries will have to go to international markets to find food for their people, bidding up the price of bread for everyone. (The total area of arable farmland isn't increasing, in fact it's decreasing, but the population is increasing exponentially; it doesn't take a genius to see what's coming.)

One point was that although the US has a lower population than India, we actually use more resources.
That can be interpreted in the opposite way: I could argue that since we (the west) have more resource at our disposal, that gives us the right to have more kids than someone who lives somewhere where resources are scarcer.


(The total area of arable farmland isn't increasing, in fact it's decreasing, but the population is increasing exponentially; it doesn't take a genius to see what's coming.)
True, but as technology improves, it in turn increases the amount of resources we can get from a piece of land.

I am still convinced that if the human race survives long enough, we will have no choice but to colonize other planets.

I am still convinced that if the human race survives long enough, we will have no choice but to colonize other planets.

Or blast ourselves back to the Stone Age and start over.

Yep, the problem is too many babies. If we drop the population, most of the other problems can be worked out.

I don't agree, simply because our way of life is so destructive. If we cut our population in half, I see no reason to think we wouldn't continue increasing our impact on the Earth's NPP. The problem isn't how many, but how we live.

I don't agree, simply because our way of life is so destructive. If we cut our population in half, I see no reason to think we wouldn't continue increasing our impact on the Earth's NPP. The problem isn't how many, but how we live.
I totally agree.

Another consideration is that many of the resources we use come from third world countries, and we have never compensated them fairly. Tolstoy wrote that "behind every great fortune there is a great crime." This is true for nations as well as families.

reminds me of this clip....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFldLfx85DY

now you know the basis of the old sying, "the barbarians always win in the end."

Or blast ourselves back to the Stone Age and start over.

The problem with that is merely reducing our technology back to Stone Age levels won't replace the oil and coal we've removed and used. Though I guess if we stayed Stone Age long enough new deposits would form.

The problem with that is merely reducing our technology back to Stone Age levels won't replace the oil and coal we've removed and used. Though I guess if we stayed Stone Age long enough new deposits would form.
A biology prof. I had in college once told us that it was the unique make-up of the now-extinct primordial vegetation that gave us the fossil energy we've nearly used up. He seemed to imply that unless extinct plants magically reappeared along with identical primordial conditions, this was a one-time gift from the universe to humanity. Angiosperms and existing gymnosperms just wouldn't produce the same stuff after millions of years. :(

A point was made:

I am interested in knowing what the impact of a cyclist needing to eat more has overall environmentally. I'm taking a course in personal training and my instructor told us that a person cycling should consume an additional 1,000 kcals of carbohydrates for every hour cycled. Looking at oatmeal, that would require about 3-4 cups of dry grain to compensate for each hour. I've yet to research what kind of intensity that hour of cycling has to be, though.

I'm just curious to know what anyone else may say on this particular issue. The more we cycle, the more we eat.

A point was made:

I am interested in knowing what the impact of a cyclist needing to eat more has overall environmentally. I'm taking a course in personal training and my instructor told us that a person cycling should consume an additional 1,000 kcals of carbohydrates for every hour cycled. Looking at oatmeal, that would require about 3-4 cups of dry grain to compensate for each hour. I've yet to research what kind of intensity that hour of cycling has to be, though.

I'm just curious to know what anyone else may say on this particular issue. The more we cycle, the more we eat.
Well, some people will have a lot to say. However, moderate cycling burns closer to 600 Calories/hour. An easier way to guesstimate is 40cals per MILE, regardless of intensity. (Hills and strong winds would increase this expenditure of course.)

Buy locally grown organic food as much as possible. this minimizes (but does not eliminate) the fossil fuel expenditure for your groceries. I keep in mind that every organism (even bacteria) leaves some ecological footprint. (or pseudopod-print in the bacterium's case. :))

A point was made:

I am interested in knowing what the impact of a cyclist needing to eat more has overall environmentally. I'm taking a course in personal training and my instructor told us that a person cycling should consume an additional 1,000 kcals of carbohydrates for every hour cycled. Looking at oatmeal, that would require about 3-4 cups of dry grain to compensate for each hour. I've yet to research what kind of intensity that hour of cycling has to be, though.

I'm just curious to know what anyone else may say on this particular issue. The more we cycle, the more we eat.

judging from my personal experience, to burn 1000 cals of carbs in an hour would require me to get above 155-160 heartrate and stay there. considering i'm ready to puke at about 168, i don't see that happening. but i'm good to go at 150.

Ok, thanks guys.

I will go with Roody's calorie burn rate....:D My typical weekend rambles are usually 15-20 miles unless I get way off track. Average speed is 10-12mph;) I quit worrying about heart rate 15 years ago. I am just glad it is still beating:p

Aaron:)