Living Car Free - Burning Fuel Motor VS. Human

http://www.good.is/?p=12753

info graphic.

While it doesn't change the point or the reality, you're not going to be doing a whole lot of cycling on a 2000-calorie diet.

what about all the resources it took to get any of that food from point a to point b. or the materials for your bike, clothes, home, etc. car free isn't even close to being enough.

While it doesn't change the point or the reality, you're not going to be doing a whole lot of cycling on a 2000-calorie diet.

I consume about 2500 calories a day, maybe a bit more on weekends, and I ride and walk almost everywhere I go. My total walking/riding distance is about 80-100 miles/week. (In the summer it's a lot more.) So, it takes me about 12 days to use the same amount energy that's in a gallon of gas. I very much doubt that most drivers could get by on a single gallon of gas for almost two weeks. At let's not forget: while they're driving around, motorists are eating, too, and probably not that many fewer calories than a cyclist.

what about all the resources it took to get any of that food from point a to point b. or the materials for your bike, clothes, home, etc. car free isn't even close to being enough.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that car-free people are free of our industrial infrastructure, or even free of oil. Hell, even the roads we ride on are made of oil. It's a difference of degree, not of kind. If you're car-free and you live in North America, you still use a lot of resources, but you use a lot less than your neighbors do, so you get to feel smug and morally superior. :p And it's certainly a step in the right direction. Becoming car free has encouraged me to try to be a better citizen in other areas, as well.

Becoming car free has encouraged me to try to be a better citizen in other areas, as well.

It's the start of an eye-opening process. You start to see many aspects of your life. You of course see the wastefulness of most transportation methods, but you also get to see how much garbage you throw out each week, how many unnecessary kilowatts of power you consume. You start to consider where your food comes from and how its production might resemble driving a Hummer to work.

I would describe it as eye-opening.

While it doesn't change the point or the reality, you're not going to be doing a whole lot of cycling on a 2000-calorie diet.
Actually, I think you are overestimating the fuel consumption. You can bike a long distance after eating just a small bowl of oatmeal.

I say this because I know many cyclists who aren't particularly thin and don't seem to eat huge amounts of food.

I would guess a 3000 calorie diet would go a long way... do to speak.

For me, being a better citizen environmentally was never intentional, it was just a byproduct of trying to make my life style as economical as possible. With better "green" technology products emerging over the recent years, only goes to further complimenting my frugal ways.

1. A good rule of thumb is that a cyclist burns roughly 40 calories per mile. A typical carfree cyclist might ride about 100 miles per week, thus burning about 4,000 calories.

2. A gallon of gas is about 31,000 (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/calorie1.htm) calories. To travel 100 miles in a week, a typical motorist would burn about 4 gallons of gas. The total would be about 124,000 calories.

4,000 < 124,000

The remaining question is, how many calories does it take to produce and transport the 4,000 calories in food? I doubt if anybody has a good answer to this question. If you do, please post it.

1. A good rule of thumb is that a cyclist burns roughly 40 calories per mile. A typical carfree cyclist might ride about 100 miles per week, thus burning about 4,000 calories.

2. A gallon of gas is about 31,000 (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/calorie1.htm) calories. To travel 100 miles in a week, a typical motorist would burn about 4 gallons of gas. The total would be about 124,000 calories.

4,000 < 124,000

The remaining question is, how many calories does it take to produce and transport the 4,000 calories in food? I doubt if anybody has a good answer to this question. If you do, please post it.

This is definitely the biggest problem of the whole equation. I've seen estimations from 90mpg to 400mpg gas consumption equivalent based on what's required to bring food to your store. There's no way to account for every food as each item on the grocery aisle takes a COMPLETELY different path with a differing number of stops, packaging, and distribution methods. Even a reasonably accurate estimation would take a mountain of data and tons of research.

This would require researchers... who would probably drive to work anyway.

1. A good rule of thumb is that a cyclist burns roughly 40 calories per mile. A typical carfree cyclist might ride about 100 miles per week, thus burning about 4,000 calories.

2. A gallon of gas is about 31,000 (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/calorie1.htm) calories. To travel 100 miles in a week, a typical motorist would burn about 4 gallons of gas. The total would be about 124,000 calories.

4,000 < 124,000

The remaining question is, how many calories does it take to produce and transport the 4,000 calories in food? I doubt if anybody has a good answer to this question. If you do, please post it.

This is a very good question; I'm pretty sure the answer won't be reassuring. Another question is: How many calories does it take to search for and extract oil, protect the supply lines, transport it to the refinery, refine it into a gallon of gasoline, and then transport the refined fuel to a gas station?

At any rate, this doesn't change the OP's point: using an ICE to get yourself from point A to point B is a lot less efficient than walking or riding a bike, or even using public transit.

Another question is: How many calories does it take to search for and extract oil, protect the supply lines, transport it to the refinery, refine it into a gallon of gasoline, and then transport the refined fuel to a gas station?


Then there's the calories needed to extract the raw materials for the car, process them and ship them to the auto assembly plant, actually build the car, transport the car to the dealership, and then ultimately strip, salvage and dispose of the car's carcass.....

Also, food calories are usually carbon-neutral (although the same can't be said of the calories used in fertilizer, production and transport of the food.)

Anyhoo, it should be obvious (to all but the most idiotic car apologist) that autos use a lot more calories--and calories of a more destructive form--compared to bikes.

This is definitely the biggest problem of the whole equation. I've seen estimations from 90mpg to 400mpg gas consumption equivalent based on what's required to bring food to your store. There's no way to account for every food as each item on the grocery aisle takes a COMPLETELY different path with a differing number of stops, packaging, and distribution methods. Even a reasonably accurate estimation would take a mountain of data and tons of research.

This would require researchers... who would probably drive to work anyway.

I think you are over-estimating the difficulty of answering this question. I think there's reason to be pretty confident that 90mpg to 400mpg is close, if not completely correct.

People who try to emphasize eco-friendly foods (that is, less use of: long distance transportation/meat/animal products/non-organic fertilizer and pesticides and packaging) will be closer to the eco-impact of a 400mpg vehicle or better.

(((A 2002 study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that, using our current system, three calories of energy were needed to create one calorie of edible food. And that was on average. Some foods take far more, for instance grain-fed beef, which requires thirty-five calories for every calorie of beef produced. ))) source:
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/energy/
(referencing http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p445-456horrigan/EHP110p445PDF.PDF )

1. A good rule of thumb is that a cyclist burns roughly 40 calories per mile. A typical carfree cyclist might ride about 100 miles per week, thus burning about 4,000 calories.

2. A gallon of gas is about 31,000 (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/calorie1.htm) calories. To travel 100 miles in a week, a typical motorist would burn about 4 gallons of gas. The total would be about 124,000 calories.

4,000 < 124,000

The remaining question is, how many calories does it take to produce and transport the 4,000 calories in food? I doubt if anybody has a good answer to this question. If you do, please post it.


I think you are over-estimating the difficulty of answering this question. I think there's reason to be pretty confident that 90mpg to 400mpg is close, if not completely correct.

People who try to emphasize eco-friendly foods (that is, less use of: long distance transportation/meat/animal products/non-organic fertilizer and pesticides and packaging) will be closer to the eco-impact of a 400mpg vehicle or better.

(((A 2002 study from the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that, using our current system, three calories of energy were needed to create one calorie of edible food. And that was on average. Some foods take far more, for instance grain-fed beef, which requires thirty-five calories for every calorie of beef produced. ))) source:
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/energy/
(referencing http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p445-456horrigan/EHP110p445PDF.PDF )


OK then. If every food calorie on average requires three calories of additional energy inputs, then we'll quadruple my estimates for Cycling 100 miles vs. driving 100 miles:

1. A good rule of thumb is that a cyclist burns roughly 40 calories per mile. An additional 120 calories per mile are required as energy inputs to grow the food and bring it market. A typical carfree cyclist might ride about 100 miles per week, thus burning about 16,000 calories.

2. A gallon of gas is about 31,000 (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/calorie1.htm) calories. To travel 100 miles in a week, a typical motorist would burn about 4 gallons of gas. The total would be about 124,000 calories.

16,000 < 124,000

The conclusion is that driving requires about 7.75 times more in calories, compared to cycling.

This is for operating expenses only, and doesn't include calories used to produce and ultimately dispose of the car or the bike.

^So 8 people in a minivan produce less carbon than 8 cyclists?
I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. Did you forget to carry the Y?

^So 8 people in a minivan produce less carbon than 8 cyclists?
I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. Did you forget to carry the Y?

The average occupancy of an American car of any size is 1.9. Factor that in, and cars still use more than 4 times the calories of bikes.

So wrap your head around that.

^I think you just blew my mind.

But no way do 8X150lb riders on 8X25lb bikes have a larger footprint than 1200lbs of flesh in a 4000lb Dodge Caravan.

One cannot include the food delivery impact and then omit so many factors on the other side of the equation. Bragi's point about the additional inputs of the delivery of fuel is a good one.
The enormous vehicle's manufacturing also needs to be factored in. So too the colossal needs of the road building industry, who would use a tiny fraction of current resources if they only needed to build sufficiently for bikes. The list goes on and on.

I know you're just trying to show that bikes are good, but they're far better than your math says.

Also note that:
most minivans seat 7, not 8
minivans with all seats filled usually do not get 25mpg as assumed in prior posts. I think 18-20 mpg is more normal.

Metzinger, you have good points about the large indirect energy use involved in car travel.

Roody - just FYI, you added calories-burned-by-cyclist to calories-burned-producing-cyclist's-food, but did not add processing&transportation of cyclist's food. In the end, it may make no difference. Calories directly burned by cyclist are "carbon neutral" calories, in the sense that their source is sunlight captured by plants (and then sometimes eaten/processed by animals). Since plants capture carbon that can then be released by cyclists' metabolism, the burning of the plant/animal calories has no _direct_ carbon output, although it involves indirect carbon output (fertilizer, planting machines, etc.).

^I think you just blew my mind.

But no way do 8X150lb riders on 8X25lb bikes have a larger footprint than 1200lbs of flesh in a 4000lb Dodge Caravan.

One cannot include the food delivery impact and then omit so many factors on the other side of the equation. Bragi's point about the additional inputs of the delivery of fuel is a good one.
The enormous vehicle's manufacturing also needs to be factored in. So too the colossal needs of the road building industry, who would use a tiny fraction of current resources if they only needed to build sufficiently for bikes. The list goes on and on.

I know you're just trying to show that bikes are good, but they're far better than your math says.You have to account for the efficiencies of the machines. Biological machines (like human beings on bikes) seem to become less efficient as you add larger loads. Mechanical machines (like cars) seem to become more eficient as you add loads.

Any way, we either included everything you say, or else we explained why we didn't include it. If you have data (even inexact but believable figures) related to manufacturing and disposal and other fixed calorie costs of a car, please let us know and we can try to work them into the equations.

Also note that:
most minivans seat 7, not 8
minivans with all seats filled usually do not get 25mpg as assumed in prior posts. I think 18-20 mpg is more normal.

Metzinger, you have good points about the large indirect energy use involved in car travel.

Roody - just FYI, you added calories-burned-by-cyclist to calories-burned-producing-cyclist's-food, but did not add processing&transportation of cyclist's food. In the end, it may make no difference. Calories directly burned by cyclist are "carbon neutral" calories, in the sense that their source is sunlight captured by plants (and then sometimes eaten/processed by animals). Since plants capture carbon that can then be released by cyclists' metabolism, the burning of the plant/animal calories has no _direct_ carbon output, although it involves indirect carbon output (fertilizer, planting machines, etc.).

I believe that somebody pointed out that food calories are largely carbon-neutral, but the transport and fertilizer (etc.) calories are net carbon emitters. Also, I thought that the figure of three calories of petro-fuel per one calorie of supermarket food did include processing and delivery costs?

I think we are not including the calories used to cook, chill and heat the cyclist's food in the home or restaurant.

Don't forget the people in the minivan went through the drive thru at MickeyD's:thumb::roflmao2:

You also have to factor in the food the driver/passengers of the vehicles eat too. They don't magically stop eating just because they are driving a car. They probably consume at least the national average of 2,000 or so, and I would we be willing to wager it is not in a good form either. So the bike probably gets even better mileage than first suspected.

Aaron:)

OK then. If every food calorie on average requires three calories of additional energy inputs, then we'll quadruple my estimates for Cycling 100 miles vs. driving 100 miles:

1. A good rule of thumb is that a cyclist burns roughly 40 calories per mile. An additional 120 calories per mile are required as energy inputs to grow the food and bring it market. A typical carfree cyclist might ride about 100 miles per week, thus burning about 16,000 calories.

2. A gallon of gas is about 31,000 (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/calorie1.htm) calories. To travel 100 miles in a week, a typical motorist would burn about 4 gallons of gas. The total would be about 124,000 calories.

16,000 < 124,000

The conclusion is that driving requires about 7.75 times more in calories, compared to cycling.

This is for operating expenses only, and doesn't include calories used to produce and ultimately dispose of the car or the bike.

I think you're being far too conservative; once again, drivers eat, too, in addition to using the fossilized energy to drive the car. It's not A vs B; it's (A+B) vs B. If you're car-free, you use a certain number of calories. If you're car-centric, you use almost the same number of calories as a car-free weirdo, plus you consume a lot of other energy to move yourself from point A to point B using a machine that weighs a few thousand pounds and uses 31000 kc of energy to go 25 miles, if you're not driving a pickup or SUV.

Drivers presumably don't eat extra calories to support their driving. Cyclists do.

Drivers presumably don't eat extra calories to support their driving. Cyclists do.

Speak for yourself:lol:

I have maintained a fairly steady calorie intake over the past few years ~2200 a day. (I know my wife counts them for me;)) The only difference in my case is when the cycling slows down; like right now when I am stuck behind the desk for a few weeks, my weight goes up a bit, once I get back out in the field and get active again it will go back down. I try and cut back to ~1800 or so in the winter months when I am not as active, but with the holidays and all the great cooks in the family:notamused:

When I was a young punk and racing regularly I could put down something approaching 6,000 a day with no ill effects.:D

Aaron:)

I believe that somebody pointed out that food calories are largely carbon-neutral, but the transport and fertilizer (etc.) calories are net carbon emitters. Also, I thought that the figure of three calories of petro-fuel per one calorie of supermarket food did include processing and delivery costs?
.
It of course depends on the source of the calories. If you ate a potato you grew in the back yard, fertilizer and transportation would be minimal. If you are extra beef protein calories to get your bicycle to work, Roody's concerns are huge. In both cases, carbon neutrality is one thing, but other resources (like water...) also factor in. You need 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat—2,500 gallons to generate a pound of meat.

Drivers presumably don't eat extra calories to support their driving. Cyclists do.

Even when I ride 50-100 miles in a day, I don't eat much more than I normally do. Not all cyclists eat like they're training for the Tour de France. But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that cyclists do, in fact, consume significantly more calories than drivers of vans, your calculations are still too conservative; you compare the calories consumed by the car's engine vs. calories consumed by the person riding a bike, as if the drivers and passengers, by virtue of not having to exert themselves, eat nothing at all during the course of the day. Judging by the appearance of many drivers of vans, I'd have to say that they do not, in fact, restrict their caloric intake to 2000 calories/day....

But we're just counting angels on heads of pins at this point, aren't we? It's almost too bad that a really car-centric bike-hater isn't participating in this thread. Sometimes I just want to go to a 4 x 4 vehicle forum or something, and spread the car-free gospel, just to see what happens.

It of course depends on the source of the calories. If you ate a potato you grew in the back yard, fertilizer and transportation would be minimal. If you are extra beef protein calories to get your bicycle to work, Roody's concerns are huge. In both cases, carbon neutrality is one thing, but other resources (like water...) also factor in. You need 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat—2,500 gallons to generate a pound of meat.

But that applies equally across the board, whether a cyclist or a driver, so it doesn't really affect the overall equation. In my case I attempt to purchase local grown items as much as possible. I do eat meat but in fairly small quantities compared to the average American.

Aaron:)

What a fascinating conversation. I think I burned some extra calories trying to process all the information. I like the 16,000 to 124,000 analogy.

I consume about 2500 calories a day, maybe a bit more on weekends, and I ride and walk almost everywhere I go. My total walking/riding distance is about 80-100 miles/week. (In the summer it's a lot more.) So, it takes me about 12 days to use the same amount energy that's in a gallon of gas. I very much doubt that most drivers could get by on a single gallon of gas for almost two weeks. At let's not forget: while they're driving around, motorists are eating, too, and probably not that many fewer calories than a cyclist.If we're talking about equivalent energy, and we must be since a cyclist can't drink a gallon of gas, then that comparison depends on the driver/vehicle in question. At 80-100 miles/week, from a BF search, we're looking at ~40 calories per mile at 20mph, so ~3200-4000 calories per week of food. We've gotta grow the food, which requires ~7 calories of energy per calorie of food on average , so that's ~22400-28000 calories of total energy per week. Motorized bicycles seem to be capable of ~100-150mpg at the same speed of 20mph, so we're looking at ~20800-31500 calories per week initially, and after we toss in refining/extraction/transportation for gas we're at ~26000-39000 calories per week. So, while there is an advantage when comparing a human powered bike to a gas powered bike, it isn't a whole lot. It swings much farther in favor of the human powered bike if the human eats only calorie rich unprepared (from the store) basics like potatoes, rice, oats, and so on, and takes a vitamin supplement to avoid the costly, but delicious veggies and so on that don't provide much in the way of calories. On the flip side, the gap narrows if the person eats a lot of prepared food and/or meat, so it really depends.

A cyclist on an electric bicycle that's using solar power, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 calories per week at 20mph, which beats the pants off of both the traditional and infernal combustion engine powered setups. That isn't to say people shouldn't cycle, just that using the energy consumption as a reason specifically to isn't valid given alternatives, which isn't a big deal since there are plenty of other reasons to cycle, like everything else, in moderation, such as health, recreation, and so on. Ironically enough, even a much larger vehicle like an Aptera 2e only requires ~25600 calories per week at ~50-60mph as opposed to ~20mph when powered by renewables, and, surprise surprise, the NRELs goal of 20% wind power would more than cover the electricity requirements of an entire American vehicle fleet of that type of vehicle, not that it would be practical for everyone, since some people actually need room for 4-8 or lots of towing/hauling capacity, just that it would be practical for 90+% of the population 90+% of the time.

Even when I ride 50-100 miles in a day, I don't eat much more than I normally do. Not all cyclists eat like they're training for the Tour de France. But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that cyclists do, in fact, consume significantly more calories than drivers of vans, your calculations are still too conservative; you compare the calories consumed by the car's engine vs. calories consumed by the person riding a bike, as if the drivers and passengers, by virtue of not having to exert themselves, eat nothing at all during the course of the day. Judging by the appearance of many drivers of vans, I'd have to say that they do not, in fact, restrict their caloric intake to 2000 calories/day....
I think it's pretty easy for cyclists (or anybody) to consume extra calories without being aware of it. In any case, it's a basic fact of biology (not to mention chemistry and physics) that if a body does more work, it needs more energy. And it clearly takes more work to ride a bike than to drive a car. Therefore it takes more food, and I'm afraid there's no room for argument here.


But we're just counting angels on heads of pins at this point, aren't we? It's almost too bad that a really car-centric bike-hater isn't participating in this thread. Sometimes I just want to go to a 4 x 4 vehicle forum or something, and spread the car-free gospel, just to see what happens.


Go ahead and do it! They have no qualms about trolling here from time to time, which we enjoy. So you might as well give them a little pleasure also!

If we're talking about equivalent energy, and we must be since a cyclist can't drink a gallon of gas, then that comparison depends on the driver/vehicle in question. At 80-100 miles/week, from a BF search, we're looking at ~40 calories per mile at 20mph, so ~3200-4000 calories per week of food. We've gotta grow the food, which requires ~7 calories of energy per calorie of food on average , so that's ~22400-28000 calories of total energy per week. Motorized bicycles seem to be capable of ~100-150mpg at the same speed of 20mph, so we're looking at ~20800-31500 calories per week initially, and after we toss in refining/extraction/transportation for gas we're at ~26000-39000 calories per week. So, while there is an advantage when comparing a human powered bike to a gas powered bike, it isn't a whole lot. It swings much farther in favor of the human powered bike if the human eats only calorie rich unprepared (from the store) basics like potatoes, rice, oats, and so on, and takes a vitamin supplement to avoid the costly, but delicious veggies and so on that don't provide much in the way of calories. On the flip side, the gap narrows if the person eats a lot of prepared food and/or meat, so it really depends.

A cyclist on an electric bicycle that's using solar power, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000 calories per week at 20mph, which beats the pants off of both the traditional and infernal combustion engine powered setups. That isn't to say people shouldn't cycle, just that using the energy consumption as a reason specifically to isn't valid given alternatives, which isn't a big deal since there are plenty of other reasons to cycle, like everything else, in moderation, such as health, recreation, and so on. Ironically enough, even a much larger vehicle like an Aptera 2e only requires ~25600 calories per week at ~50-60mph as opposed to ~20mph when powered by renewables, and, surprise surprise, the NRELs goal of 20% wind power would more than cover the electricity requirements of an entire American vehicle fleet of that type of vehicle, not that it would be practical for everyone, since some people actually need room for 4-8 or lots of towing/hauling capacity, just that it would be practical for 90+% of the population 90+% of the time.

Glad to see you back here, Lyeinyoureye; I always found your posts to be interesting and challenging.

I still have to disagree, again because people operating powered vehicles eat food, too, sometimes a great deal of food. I work with several people who eat much more than I do at lunch, and who also drive SUVs and vans pretty much everywhere they go. I'm reasonably certain that their total energy consumption, measured in Kcal, is many times greater than my own. Multiply this by a couple of hundred million people, and a clear picture emerges: car-free cyclists, on the whole, consume a much smaller slice of the total resource pie than almost all of their non-cycling neighbors, especially if they don't eat red meat. Even if the neighbors switched to small electric vehicles, the bicyclist would still consume less (Though I agree that the difference would be much smaller, and that this solution is vastly more likely than persuading people to ride bikes.) People who aren't getting a lot of exercise aren't getting by on 1200 cal diets.

Glad to see you back here, Lyeinyoureye; I always found your posts to be interesting and challenging.

I still have to disagree, again because people operating powered vehicles eat food, too, sometimes a great deal of food. I work with several people who eat much more than I do at lunch, and who also drive SUVs and vans pretty much everywhere they go. I'm reasonably certain that their total energy consumption, measured in Kcal, is many times greater than my own. Multiply this by a couple of hundred million people, and a clear picture emerges: car-free cyclists, on the whole, consume a much smaller slice of the total resource pie than almost all of their non-cycling neighbors, especially if they don't eat red meat. Even if the neighbors switched to small electric vehicles, the bicyclist would still consume less (Though I agree that the difference would be much smaller, and that this solution is vastly more likely than persuading people to ride bikes.) People who aren't getting a lot of exercise aren't getting by on 1200 cal diets.

But we're not really talking about food. We're talking about fuel. We're comparing the fuel expenditures of cars vs. bikes.

People eating on bikes are using food as fuel. People eating in cars are using food as something other than fuel, since they're using gasoline as fuel. A person eating a Moonpie in a bucket seat is not consuming any more calories than if he was home eating the Moonpie on the couch.

And yes--cyclists are using less fuel than motorists. I think there are two basic reasons for this:


Bikes are lighter than cars
Bikes are narrower than cars, so they have less drag in the atmosphere.
As for fuel consumed on e-bikes vs. regular bikes--I think lye's argument (what I could understand of it) is MUCH more persuasive than yours. :p

But we're not really talking about food. We're talking about fuel. We're comparing the fuel expenditures of cars vs. bikes.

People eating on bikes are using food as fuel. People eating in cars are using food as something other than fuel, since they're using gasoline as fuel. A person eating a Moonpie in a bucket seat is not consuming any more calories than if he was home eating the Moonpie on the couch.

And yes--cyclists are using less fuel than motorists. I think there are two basic reasons for this:


Bikes are lighter than cars
Bikes are narrower than cars, so they have less drag in the atmosphere.
As for fuel consumed on e-bikes vs. regular bikes--I think lye's argument (what I could understand of it) is MUCH more persuasive than yours. :p



I don't quite know what a Moonpie is, but let's say I eat one, and my car-driving partner at work eats one. I then get on my bike and ride 5 miles. My coworker finishes her Moonpie and drives a 3000 lbs Eurovan the same 5 miles. Which one consumed less energy?

BTW, we need to be pretty careful about e-vehicles. If everyone suddenly switched to e-vehicles in a very small span of time, our power grid would be overwhelmed. If we supplied the necessary extra wattage via coal fired power plants, the benefits of e-vehicles would be completely negated. among other things, we'd have a collective carbon footprint much larger than the one we have now.

BTW, I like e-bikes; I test-rode one last summer, and liked the idea of being able to go 25 mph all over town and not getting sweaty; it would be like having a moped, only quieter and greener. I'm sure they'll be really popular once oil goes up again. I decided against getting one myself mostly because of the exercise benefits of riding a regular bicycle. I work 60-70 hours/week, and finding the time to work out is difficult; if you have a bike and no car, it's a lot less challenging to stay in shape.

I don't quite know what a Moonpie is, but let's say I eat one, and my car-driving partner at work eats one. I then get on my bike and ride 5 miles. My coworker finishes her Moonpie and drives a 3000 lbs Eurovan the same 5 miles. Which one consumed less energy?


In one sense, you both consumed the same amount of energy, since all Moonpies are equal.

But if you're talking about fuel consumed to travel 5 miles, you can only count the calories in the cyclist's Moonpie and the calories in the driver's gasoline. You can't count the calories in the driver's Moonpie, since they weren't used in traveling the 5 miles.




http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:AP-W5E9JReedtM:http://foodmuseum.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c696953ef0105369f4923970b-800wihttp://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:3Ok-mx1prYFTmM:http://www.moonpie.com/images/single.gifhttp://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:3-wqqmbQpVM3xM:http://bp2.blogger.com/_cd5GxlWjfGA/R8LZixBz5kI/AAAAAAAAA1M/AlsgQ3I1lTk/s400/moonpie.jpg

I have gotten around this argument by dumpster diving for 98% of my food. I saw some well researched article that placed a cyclists mpg at 250. So you are doing way better than a car, about the same as a four stroke motorized bike. The thing is that I find that a bunch of shorter trips don't make much of a difference to what I eat, big rides do. For me. Maybe cyclists should re-use our food, in the form of toilets hooked up to methane digesters :) Oh, I have a headache from this debate, again ! Too many numbers....

Glad to see you back here, Lyeinyoureye; I always found your posts to be interesting and challenging.

I still have to disagree, again because people operating powered vehicles eat food, too, sometimes a great deal of food. I work with several people who eat much more than I do at lunch, and who also drive SUVs and vans pretty much everywhere they go. I'm reasonably certain that their total energy consumption, measured in Kcal, is many times greater than my own. Multiply this by a couple of hundred million people, and a clear picture emerges: car-free cyclists, on the whole, consume a much smaller slice of the total resource pie than almost all of their non-cycling neighbors, especially if they don't eat red meat. Even if the neighbors switched to small electric vehicles, the bicyclist would still consume less (Though I agree that the difference would be much smaller, and that this solution is vastly more likely than persuading people to ride bikes.) People who aren't getting a lot of exercise aren't getting by on 1200 cal diets.While it's true that quite a few people in the U.S. overeat, including myself, like Roody said, if we're looking at it from the context of the energy consumption of different modes of transportation, then we wouldn't include that. People would definitely be healthier and slimmer if they cycled off those extra calories, and while I think it would be true if you stated that as a whole, cycling is good because given people's habits, it tends to result in less energy consumed since the excess people will consume would be pt to use and they wouldn't be driving, if we're going to look at it as a whole we can't just stop there.

For instance they may even use less energy at home (climate control/electricity) since they could spend more time on the road cycling, cutting into their at home time, but otoh they'll also live longer, which means that even though they're using less energy per year, they're living more years, which offsets using more energy for a shorter time period, although I don't know by how much. I know that sounds cynical, but IIRC someone actually did a study in Europe comparing the lifetime energy use of cyclists to drivers and found that the gap narrowed significantly because the cyclists lived for decades longer, I think it was pretty close to a draw, since transportation accounts for ~15-20% of our FF emissions and cyclists tended to live ~15-20% longer, but don't quote me on it. Of course that doesn't mean that cycling is bad in this context, just that as a whole if we want to reduce energy consumption significantly we need to look at reducing it in all arenas.

Anyway, going back to what I said, I disagree because we were talking about the energy consumption of transportation specifically AFAIK, but overall I agree because of most people's habits, although even in that case they end up using more energy than we would expect so we would need to look for lower energy methods of producing the same result, for instance passive buildings and so on, as well as more renewable and low Carbon energy like nuclear power. Anyway, thanks for the compliments, it's nice to have intelligent discussions w/ people on here w/o anyone resorting to ISSs (I Say So's), and for what it's worth, one of my friends was a bit under 500lbs and went on a ~1200+ calorie/day diet for six months, no exercise. Dropped ~150lbs before he knew what hit 'em, and while I know that's the exception as opposed to the rule, it's certainly possible to regulate our own diet

BTW, we need to be pretty careful about e-vehicles. If everyone suddenly switched to e-vehicles in a very small span of time, our power grid would be overwhelmed. If we supplied the necessary extra wattage via coal fired power plants, the benefits of e-vehicles would be completely negated. among other things, we'd have a collective carbon footprint much larger than the one we have now.That is false AFAIK. A typical vehicle averages ~15+% efficiency and with gasoline produced at ~80% efficiency we're looking at ~12% well to wheels efficiency. Assuming that extracting coal has the same efficiency of 80%, then a coal power plant at 35% efficiency with an EV at 75% efficiency (transmission/charger/motor) would be at ~21%, so we would get more energy to the wheels. Of course coal has more Carbon per kWh than gas does, so overall Carbon emissions only drop by ~25%, but there is a drop. This is also compounded by batteries being expensive and heavy compared to gasoline so EVs also tend to smaller and more aerodynamic than conventional vehicle, further reducing the energy consumption and Carbon emissions. Of course, this is kind of a moot point since any expansion in EVs will lag behind an expansion of renewables, so odds are we wouldn't have power EVs with coal, and in terms of grid capacity, we have more than enough for off peak charging at least.

BTW, I like e-bikes; I test-rode one last summer, and liked the idea of being able to go 25 mph all over town and not getting sweaty; it would be like having a moped, only quieter and greener. I'm sure they'll be really popular once oil goes up again. I decided against getting one myself mostly because of the exercise benefits of riding a regular bicycle. I work 60-70 hours/week, and finding the time to work out is difficult; if you have a bike and no car, it's a lot less challenging to stay in shape.Ideally an e-bike should allow for blended operation, pedal when ya want, electric when you don't wanna pedal, and shouldn't add more than ~30-40lbs.

Thanks, lyeinyoureye. As usual, your points are difficult, challenging, and well worth any effort to understand them. I just want to summarize to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly:

In a nutshell, I'm getting that our carfree cycling results in net reductions in energy consumption and GHG emissions, but the reductions probably are not as great as we usually think. However, at least the conclusion that cyclists pollute more because we eat more is false.

Using e-bikes--even on a massive level--might result in reductions nearly as great (maybe even greater?) as those from pedal bikes. Also, e-bikes could be adopted on a large scale without much change in our electricity generating processes.

Finally, I think you're saying that we need to do much more than just give up our cars to make a big impact in reduction of GHGs and pollution.

That is false AFAIK. A typical vehicle averages ~15+% efficiency and with gasoline produced at ~80% efficiency we're looking at ~12% well to wheels efficiency. Assuming that extracting coal has the same efficiency of 80%, then a coal power plant at 35% efficiency with an EV at 75% efficiency (transmission/charger/motor) would be at ~21%, so we would get more energy to the wheels. Of course coal has more Carbon per kWh than gas does, so overall Carbon emissions only drop by ~25%, but there is a drop. This is also compounded by batteries being expensive and heavy compared to gasoline so EVs also tend to smaller and more aerodynamic than conventional vehicle, further reducing the energy consumption and Carbon emissions. Of course, this is kind of a moot point since any expansion in EVs will lag behind an expansion of renewables, so odds are we wouldn't have power EVs with coal, and in terms of grid capacity, we have more than enough for off peak charging at least.
Ideally an e-bike should allow for blended operation, pedal when ya want, electric when you don't wanna pedal, and shouldn't add more than ~30-40lbs.

I checked your math, and it seems to work out (are you an engineer?), but it's based on assumptions that I'm not able to verify. Gasoline may well be 80% efficient, but what does that mean? That a gallon of gas returns 80% of the energy required to search for it, drill, pump, and transport it to the refinery, refine it, and then transport it to to retail outlets for sale to drivers of Priuses and Hummers? How can you be sure the same very high extraction efficiency applies to coal? I mean, there has to be a good reason we started to switch from coal to oil 100 years ago. Are electric vehicles really 75% efficient? And if gasoline-powered cars are only 15% efficient, which I can well believe, given how hot they get, why should a coal-fired power plant be able to achieve twice the efficiency? (BTW, shouldn't different ICE-powered cars have variable efficiencies? Where'd you get 15%?)

If large numbers of Americans switch to EVs, they most likely won't be switching to the electric bikes I liked so much; they'll want something a little more car-like. That means E-cars. By virtue of being larger, they'll require more energy. They're much more efficient than ICEs, but we'll still need to build more power plants if everyone switches; that much is obvious. If we do the expedient thing and provide the extra power by burning coal, it wouldn't be good from an environmental point of view. The way it stands right now, 40% of the carbon emissions of the US comes from producing electricity with coal, even though only 50% of our power plants are coal-fired, and virtually all of our cars are ICE's; if we increase our production of electricity with more coal burning to accommodate a huge fleet of electric cars, the total CO2 footprint increases dramatically.

Thanks, lyeinyoureye. As usual, your points are difficult, challenging, and well worth any effort to understand them. I just want to summarize to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly:

In a nutshell, I'm getting that our carfree cycling results in net reductions in energy consumption and GHG emissions, but the reductions probably are not as great as we usually think. However, at least the conclusion that cyclists pollute more because we eat more is false.Compared to a typical driver in a conventional vehicle, that's true, cyclists use way less energy and pollute less, but compared to an e-bike rider who doesn't overeat, and maybe even a driver of something like the Aptera 2e that doesn't overeat, then the cyclist may in fact be responsible for more pollution/energy consumption, depending on their diet compared to the e-bike rider/2e driver and their diet, everything else being equal.

Using e-bikes--even on a massive level--might result in reductions nearly as great (maybe even greater?) as those from pedal bikes. Also, e-bikes could be adopted on a large scale without much change in our electricity generating processes.E-bikes would probably be greater all things being equal, since for the average person at the average distance traveled per day in a vehicle, their caloric intake would have to increase by ~35%, so even though they would essentially reduce the GHG emissions (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png) (great graph IMO) associated with the traditional transportation sector to nothing provided they didn't fly much if at all, they would increase the emissions associated with agriculture by ~30-40% on average, for a total reduction of ~11-16% (my best guess as to most of transportation plus most of FF retrieval/etc) compared to ~14-19% one would think initially. An e-bike rider otoh would see that full 14-19% reduction for all intents and purposes. Both would be better than a conventional vehicle, and the e-bike would be better than the conventional cyclist, although overall the bet benefit would be blended operation so we can all get some exercise and not have to eat as much overall. Admittedly, that's pretty tiny since we're only looking at a ~3% difference between e-bike/exercise and a normal cycling, but still something.

Finally, I think you're saying that we need to do much more than just give up our cars to make a big impact in reduction of GHGs and pollution.Exactly. Transportation as in cars are only 14-19% of the total. Electricity consumption, climate control, and the rest are all areas where people can make a greater overall impact. Slapping enough solar panels to cover our needs and an e-bike, maybe even an EV too if we have a lot of freeway commuting, could potentially be a two birds one stone deal that reduces GHG emissions by ~24-29%. Low or zero energy buildings are another step (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/building_america/about.html). Buying used instead of new, fixing stuff instead of landfilling it, and so on, are all approaches that can reduce the associated GHG emissions way more.

I checked your math, and it seems to work out (are you an engineer?), but it's based on assumptions that I'm not able to verify. Gasoline may well be 80% efficient, but what does that mean? That a gallon of gas returns 80% of the energy required to search for it, drill, pump, and transport it to the refinery, refine it, and then transport it to to retail outlets for sale to drivers of Priuses and Hummers?Upon review apparently I made some errors in this respect. From here (http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/iaw/industry/petro.html) and a google search for how many bbls of oil California could refine in 1997, we get the inputs in crude oil, natural gas, and electricity, and from here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html) and onlineconversion dot com, or any other conversion site, we get the outputs. For refining alone we're looking at ~83% efficiency, and when we toss in the extraction figures from the first link I posted, we're somewhere around 70% efficiency, mostly because extraction uses a ton of natural gas. Course, most of our oil is imported, and probably needs less energy for extraction, but I figure ~80% efficiency is a decent starting point.

How can you be sure the same very high extraction efficiency applies to coal? I mean, there has to be a good reason we started to switch from coal to oil 100 years ago. Are electric vehicles really 75% efficient?I'm not 100% sure about coal, but transportation supposedly (http://ambivalentengineer.blogspot.com/2008/07/burning-coal-is-burning-oil.html) only requires ~60kWh of energy per ton of coal, and this (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:eKHVfYg0zjkJ:www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/mining/pdfs/appendix.pdf+%22energy+per+ton%22+%22coal+mining%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a) has all the equipment associated with both above ground and underground coal mining at ~25 kWh/ton, so assuming a safety factor of two, and we're at ~50kWh/ton for mining. A ton of coal has ~6100kWh of energy, so we're looking at some pretty high efficiency figures for coal mining/extraction. I more or less assumed I was missing something and pegged it at 80%, but it could in fact be at 95+%, which isn't out of line since 60-70% of all coal mined in the U.S. is above ground. While a huge bulldozer/trucks do use a lot of energy, they also move a lot more coal energy than they move, at least if the EERE appendix is correct and I'm not missing anything significant. Production electric vehicles are probably going to be around 80% efficient from the plug. For instance the AC150 package has a charging efficiency of around 95% for a typical garage outlet and 86% motor/inverter efficiency during road load. Those using lead acid or NiMH batteries are closer to 70% due to relatively poor charging efficiency, but just about every mass market EV proposed is going to use Lithium batteries, specifically Lithium Iron cells.

And if gasoline-powered cars are only 15% efficient, which I can well believe, given how hot they get, why should a coal-fired power plant be able to achieve twice the efficiency? (BTW, shouldn't different ICE-powered cars have variable efficiencies? Where'd you get 15%?) The 15% was from some university write up IIRC. Searching turns of this (http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/HV/300.pdf), which has wheel to well efficiency for a conventional vehicle at ~12-13%. The problem with most SI engines is that they are throttled most of the time, decreasing engine efficiency. Peak efficiency for most engines is at 30+%, but the more power we have available for acceleration in a given gear the worse fuel consumption will be, because of the difference between high load BSFC, usually around 250g/kWh, and low load BSFC that's around 500-600g/kWh. This is also why cars with smaller engines, all things being equal, get better mileage than cars with bigger engines. The smaller engine has to work harder and is in a more favorable portion of the BSFC map more often. Coal plants otoh are base load and tend to be run at pretty decent efficiency all the time. According to the EIA, when comparing coal consumption to the electricity produced by coal power plants, they operate at ~31% efficiency.

If large numbers of Americans switch to EVs, they most likely won't be switching to the electric bikes I liked so much; they'll want something a little more car-like. That means E-cars. By virtue of being larger, they'll require more energy. They're much more efficient than ICEs, but we'll still need to build more power plants if everyone switches; that much is obvious.They would end up switching to something that consumes ~250Wh/mile, as opposed to the average car at around 25mpg or ~1500Wh/mile. Even with 80% motor/charger package efficiency, 31% efficient coal power plants, 97% transmission efficiency, and 95% coal mining/transportation efficiency, we're only at ~1100Wh/mile on average for a full size EV sedan like the Volt. A typical conventional vehicle otoh is at least at ~1900Wh/mile, and a hybrid is around ~1400Wh/mile. So, while coal is more Carbon intensive than gasoline, the increase in wheel to well efficiency will more than offset that IIRC. And since EVs are more expensive initially, for the same purchasing power people will need to buy something more efficient than they would with a conventional car, further dropping energy consumption.

If we do the expedient thing and provide the extra power by burning coal, it wouldn't be good from an environmental point of view. The way it stands right now, 40% of the carbon emissions of the US comes from producing electricity with coal, even though only 50% of our power plants are coal-fired, and virtually all of our cars are ICE's; if we increase our production of electricity with more coal burning to accommodate a huge fleet of electric cars, the total CO2 footprint increases dramatically.Carbon emissions would overall either drop slightly or stay roughly the same all things being equal, and given what consumers could afford in terms of EVs, they would almost certainly drop significantly since petroleum accounts for ~45% of Carbon emissions (http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0521-energy.html). Air quality where it tends to be the worst, in cities, would also get much much bettwe with a much smaller increase in emissions at coal plants since it's a lot easier to regulate hundreds of stationary sources that are essentially on 24/7 than it is to regulate millions of mobile sources that are on periodically (catalysts used for pollution control require some time to heat up and start functioning well, which is where most auto emissions come from), and can be fiddled with by their no-so-bright owners occasionally. Course, this is something of a moot point so far since we have a ~15 million Volt type EV and ~40 million Aptera 2e type EV head start from wind power, which doesn't appear to be slowing much in terms of new installations, while the number of mass produced EVs on the roads is in the hundreds and doesn't appear to be headed for a million plus per year any time soon. Considering where solar is going in terms of price, I don't think we'll be adding more coal to make more power as opposed to more renewables. Heck, from the POV of employment, renewables (http://sustainablog.org/2009/02/03/wind-energy-jobs-surpass-coal-mining-jobs/) are also pretty good compared to FFs.

Drivers presumably don't eat extra calories to support their driving. Cyclists do.

Those drivers most likely do eat more calories than are required for a sedentary lifestyle, though, and those are probably turned into fat, unless they drive down to the local gym to burn them off.

Those drivers most likely do eat more calories than are required for a sedentary lifestyle, though, and those are probably turned into fat, unless they drive down to the local gym to burn them off.

I'll say it one last time. You cannot count ANY of the calories that car drivers eat as fuel for transportation. You can count SOME of the calories that bike riders eat as fuel for transportation.

(As a rule of thumb, you can count about 40 calories per mile as a cyclist's fuel expenditure.)

:deadhorse:

I'll say it one last time. You cannot count ANY of the calories that car drivers eat as fuel for transportation. You can count SOME of the calories that bike riders eat as fuel for transportation.

(As a rule of thumb, you can count about 40 calories per mile as a cyclist's fuel expenditure.)

:deadhorse:
The extra fat they carry cuts into gas mileage. They need to eat more just to maintain the fat too. There was some article, I think posted here about how the obeisity problems in America are increasing fuel consumption.

Is 40 Calories per mile correct? So if I go back to commuting 20 miles per day, I can chow down on 800 more calories without laying down any blubber? Thats like 8 light beers per day or a big plate of greasy french fries. 40 calories per mile seems too high. What about that old wives tale that after exercise your "metabolism" stays high and you burn more calories than your car dependent co-workers just by sitting around?

The extra fat they carry cuts into gas mileage. They need to eat more just to maintain the fat too. There was some article, I think posted here about how the obeisity problems in America are increasing fuel consumption.

Is 40 Calories per mile correct? So if I go back to commuting 20 miles per day, I can chow down on 800 more calories without laying down any blubber? Thats like 8 light beers per day or a big plate of greasy french fries. 40 calories per mile seems too high. What about that old wives tale that after exercise your "metabolism" stays high and you burn more calories than your car dependent co-workers just by sitting around?

1. IMO, the 20 extra pounds of fat that a driver might carry is trivial compared to gross (lol) weight of the vehicle and occupant.

2. Forty calories per mile is a rough and averaged approximation, but the figure is accepted by many exercise physiologists.

For me, the takeaway point of this thread is that transportation cycling is not "carbon-free" or "fossil fuel-free". As carfree cyclists, we eat more, so we have to be even more careful of the type of food we eat. As much as possible, I would eat local and organic food.

The remaining question is, how many calories does it take to produce and transport the 4,000 calories in food? I doubt if anybody has a good answer to this question. If you do, please post it.

Less than it takes to process and transport the gas. Especially if you try to eat consciously / organically / locally.

*note: by consciously, I'm not saying "don't eat animals" (I do eat animals), I'm just saying realize that vegetables / fruit are healthier for you and take a lower toll on the environment. so, you should try to consume a higher proportion of said fruits and vegetables than are normally found in the SAD (standard American diet)

This is definitely the biggest problem of the whole equation. I've seen estimations from 90mpg to 400mpg gas consumption equivalent based on what's required to bring food to your store. There's no way to account for every food as each item on the grocery aisle takes a COMPLETELY different path with a differing number of stops, packaging, and distribution methods. Even a reasonably accurate estimation would take a mountain of data and tons of research.

This would require researchers... who would probably drive to work anyway.

There actually is one other factor you need to include: the amount of calories a person burns driving the 100 miles. It's NOT zero. Here's one calculator (no idea if it's accurate): http://www.shapeup.org/interactive/rmr1.php Most people will burn somewhere around 70-100 calories per hour just resting (and driving a car is not resting). According to this website ( http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculator.cgi ), driving would burn about 2 1/3 x the number of calories as being at rest. So, given an average car speed of 40 mph (for a commute), I think it'd be around 5-8 calories per mile?

For me, the takeaway point of this thread is that transportation cycling is not "carbon-free" or "fossil fuel-free". As carfree cyclists, we eat more, so we have to be even more careful of the type of food we eat. As much as possible, I would eat local and organic food.

OK, I took the point away to the grocer at lunch and am chewing on an organic apple from Washington. Not DC, state. We need some rules of thumb here, I could've bought a more expensive non-organic apple from Pennsylvania but I went Organic-non-local-cheap rather than non-Organic-local-expensive. Did I dull the point? Actually, the first bite was refreshing but no apple tastes as good as these scaly skinned pink fleshed apples from the home orchard when I was a kid. Mom said they were some variety that doesn't travel well so you didn't see that kind in the market. They did seem to bruise easily. They were sweet and slightly tart with this rose flavor in the background. The ones that rotted on the ground gave off a musky smell. Anyway when faced with the bins at the grocer's it isn't so simple. Even at the farmer's market the guy has some organic non local, semi-organic IPA, and non-organic local and heirlooms he gets from these apple variety preservationists. Does one support heirlooms or organics or locals. Whats the trade-off? You guys trying to be ethical make it hard for yourselves. The selfish car free do it for fun, convenience and saving money and don't worry about anything else. Isn't that the philosophical basis of the American way of life- private vices produce public good?

OK, I took the point away to the grocer at lunch and am chewing on an organic apple from Washington. Not DC, state. We need some rules of thumb here, I could've bought a more expensive non-organic apple from Pennsylvania but I went Organic-non-local-cheap rather than non-Organic-local-expensive. Did I dull the point? Actually, the first bite was refreshing but no apple tastes as good as these scaly skinned pink fleshed apples from the home orchard when I was a kid. Mom said they were some variety that doesn't travel well so you didn't see that kind in the market. They did seem to bruise easily. They were sweet and slightly tart with this rose flavor in the background. The ones that rotted on the ground gave off a musky smell. Anyway when faced with the bins at the grocer's it isn't so simple. Even at the farmer's market the guy has some organic non local, semi-organic IPA, and non-organic local and heirlooms he gets from these apple variety preservationists. Does one support heirlooms or organics or locals. Whats the trade-off? You guys trying to be ethical make it hard for yourselves. The selfish car free do it for fun, convenience and saving money and don't worry about anything else. Isn't that the philosophical basis of the American way of life- private vices produce public good?

Nobody's telling you that you have to take this seriously. That's up to you. And nobody has more fun on a bike than I do. It should be illegal to have as much fun as I do!

But all fun has a serious side. Even bike riding leaves a footprint, or maybe you'd call it a tire print. If you do want to help the environment by riding your bike, there might be other simple steps you can take that will help as much or more. Buying local and organic food is one of them. To me, buing local food is actually kinda like bike riding--it's fun, saves money, AND is good for the environment.

Nobody's telling you that you have to take this seriously. That's up to you. And nobody has more fun on a bike than I do. It should be illegal to have as much fun as I do!

But all fun has a serious side. Even bike riding leaves a footprint, or maybe you'd call it a tire print. If you do want to help the environment by riding your bike, there might be other simple steps you can take that will help as much or more. Buying local and organic food is one of them. To me, buing local food is actually kinda like bike riding--it's fun, saves money, AND is good for the environment.

But Roody, there are three factors, local, organic and cost. So I'm a selfish biker but not unaware. I've learned about the ethical dimensions on LCF and how the same considerations can seep over into other areas of your life. So, what I read your rule of thumb to be is local AND organic or avoid the product. So I sinned by buying organic but not local, seduced by the jezebel cost. Well, last weekend I convinced a suburban family to dig up some grass and plant food. They didn't think much of the idea until they saw that Michelle Obama was doing it so that made it OK. Weird how people think.