Icycle

I would like to know why bikes are never mentioned by mainstream media, mainstream politicians, and even mainstream environmental activitists as a solution to global climate change?

Transportation is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse cas emissions in America. It is clear that any solution to climate change needs to address this source of emissions. However, the solutions that are proposed seem to be things like biofuels, hybrid cars, plug-in hybrids, electric cars, or hydrogen cars. It's true that all of these can reduce our emissions, it just doesn't seem like they go far enough. The best science I've seen suggests that we need to reduce our abosolute emissions by about 80% over the next forty years or so.

Bicycles are the ultimate zero emissions vehicle. And over half of all trips in America are under 5 miles. Yet no one in the mainstream ever seems to consider the possibility that we could take steps to encourage more people to replace some of there car trips with bike trips. This would be the quickest and cheapest way to reduce our transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions.

wheel

One it is rather inexpensive compared to others as revuenue for companies.
Not to many groups lobby government because of number one, or are very small and not diversified.
Doesn't promote sprawl IE high housing costs (house),
Consumer spending would take a hit.
5. Not alot of people want to do it.
The enviroment they are in doesn't support them so you would need to spend lots of tax dollars see 5.

bragi

What wheel said. Basically, there's not a whole lot of money involved in bike tranport, so few people are going to spend much time promoting it, despite its obvious benefits. Besides, in many parts of the US most people are simply too fat and out of shape to even ride a bike five miles.

The best, perhaps only, way to make bikes a relevant form of transportation in North America is to stop subsidizing car infrastructure. If drivers had to shoulder the true cost of driving the SUV to the box store, far fewer people would be eager to do it. And of course this will never, ever happen.

folder fanatic

The time has not arrived for the bicycle-yet.

Icycle

It seems to me that the best, easiest, and cheapest ways to address climate change are things like conservation and efficiency. Biking is an excellent example of efficiency in the transportation sector. But things like better insulation, CF lights, and even just setting your thermostat more conservatively are all good examples.

It seems to me that in most cases, there are few vested interests who stand to make money from efficiency and conservation measures, and very large, powerful vested interests who stand to lose money. For example, why would an electric company support measures to reduce electricity consumption when they can make more money by adding generating capacity?

There is much social good in reducing consumption, but there is no one with political power to support such solutions.

Artkansas 

Good Point.

I'm reading WorldChanging : a user's guide for the 21st century, edited by Alex Steffen. While it's 600 pages of good ideas about working towards a better planet, bicycles are only mentioned a couple of times and the biggest mention is Critical Mass. While he doesn't have a big business priority, (Victor Papanek gets more space than bicycles do) I think that to those thinking on a mega scale, that the bicycle is just too obvious to get much notice. Like a prophet in its own land, people think they know the bicycle, but they know it as a recreational toy and that blinds them.

ModoVincere

As someone who worke in a utility planning department just less than a year ago, there are other reasons why a utility company does not want to add generating capacity. These include regulatory issues, regulatory uncertainty, costs, and fuel conservation. The basic fact of the matter is that it is a pain in the arse for utilities to have to add add'l capacity. There are only so many viable places to add a plant, and the people around those places generally don't want a power plant in their backyard. In fact it referred to by the term NIMBY (not in my back yard). The utility companies are generally heavily regulated, both environmentally and fiscally, and therefore would rather spend time on improving efficience rather than adding a new facility with scrubbers and other mandated environmental technology. In fact, many existing plants have to be retrofitted with newer environmental technologies in order to maintain existing capacity. The utilities finances are being stretched pretty thin by this fact, and there is just not that much capitol available for new generating facilities. Also, many in the industry recognise the scarcity of the fuels that are burned to generate power. They would much rather do more with what we have ( improve efficiency) than burn up more coal or oil.

Basically, the utility companies are for conservation, not against it.

cerewa

My utility companies are in the habit of sending out flyers that encourage consumers to conserve energy by using good insulation, etc. I figure that part of the reason for this is that if they provide you with utility service and you can't pay (due to rising costs of fuels, or whatever) then they lose money.

Trek Al

I thought cow flatulence was the biggest factor in greenhouse gas.

Al

wheel

They should send out flyers to devlopers for geodesic homes

old and new

Priorities,mis-guided ones,that's the only reason that bikes are all but ignored.A fighter jet costs the same as it would to provide certain major cities with a kick-ass bike path system. 20 million $$ goes a long way.

Dahon.Steve

The reason why bikes are not mentioned because mainstream media is looking for a solution that uses a motor and some sort of alternative fuel. Plain and simple. A human powered machine will never be considered because the media will not give up the motorcar for transportation.

bragi

I hope you're kidding...

https://www.ipcc.ch/

gerv 

I think cycling and walking as a mode of transportation are just too obvious. As a society addicted to technology fixes, we are waiting for the next evolution of the car. Problem is, there isn't really a progression in that direction. We need to change our thinking a little. Instead of hoping for fixes from the technologists, maybe it is time for the historians and humanists to point out that we have had solutions to the problem of transportation... ie, try walking for a change...

Bikepacker67

Even if that were true, it would still mean that humans are causing global warming.
You don't think it's the cows that are slashing and burning the rainforests just so they can be a MickieD's hamburger, do ya?

stevesurf

They are also the most efficient delivery vehicle for many urban areas around the world. I know of a major internet retailer that has made specific provisions for mass package delivery via bike for those 5 mile and under trips.

Ekdog

Dear Icycle,

My understanding is that vehicles are only responsible for about 30% of the greenhouse gases produced by the world's biggest polluter, the United States, so even if everyone there started cycling tomorrow, we would still have to deal with the other 70%, a large part of which is produced by coal-burning power plants. In China, which is number two in greenhouse gas emissions, there are plans afoot to build another 500 coal-burning generators.

The United States needs to get its own house in order and then start leading on this issue. (Is that going to happen with the current administration in power? Hardly, but once there is a more progressive president in the White House...). The best way to deal with the issue, top environmentalists like Patrick Moore and James Lovelock now concede, is to rethink our stance on nuclear power. The French and Japanese are moving ahead, building nuclear plants using advanced technology developed by the United States. It is high time the U.S. started doing the same and cooperating with the Chinese to help them put as many of their coal-burning plants out of commission as is possible.

Regards,

Ekdog

bmike

I think unheeded consumption is the largest contributor - and by this I mean both goods and services that are consumed at an unprececdented rate + all the transport and moving about the make it all happen....

There are just soo many people driving so many cars buying so much stuff. I shudder to think of what happens when China comes online 100% and starts consuming as much as a typical US household.

I love bikes and think they fit into the puzzle of climate change - but they are not a silver bullet - and I don't think there is one other than figuring out what the hell we're all doing here.

Whats a purposeful life and what makes us happy. Money? Family? Minivans full of sporting goods? Comfortable houses? Filled with tons of plastic stuff? Simpler life foraging and farming for food amongst friends and neighbors? Buying the latest and greatest (including bike stuff) and filling our lives with it to somhow give it all meaning? Vacationing in far off lands when we don't even know our neighbors let alone the names of the creeks and trees just down the road? Strawberries in the middle of winter in a northern climate?

etc. etc.

Not sure we'll ever really change... solutions that focus on creating gadgets and technologies to 'help' with our situation will only take us so far. The real solutions lie within - and thats a place that the media, politicians, oil companies, and WalMart only go to when they need to scare us (or provide an emotional response) into voting or buying something.

Lets change the world starts with lets change me (I'm a sinner of the first order in the church of the car free living and the choir of global warming) and then work it into your community and hopefully your bioregion. Doubtful that it can come from the top down, unless its under force - be them 'free' market or guns.

gwd

The Chicagoans say that biking is promoted by the mayor there. That seems pretty mainstream to me. Also there used to be a congressman from Oregon who biked around DC, congressmen seem pretty mainstream. DC is installing transportational cycling infrastructure like crazy too. We're getting more and more intelligently designed bike parking at transit hubs. It looks to me like it is just the mass communications companies who haven't recognized the changes around them. Reporting on bike transportation still seems like freak show reporting when it occurs. As far as any "mainstream" environmental activists. They probably drive around themselves so if they promoted cycling then they'd be branded as hypocrites for their own transportation choices. Outsiders can't tell much about their home conservation but their transportation choices are transparent. I understand Ralph Nader doesn't drive he seems pretty mainstream.

garyj

Because Al Gore isn't promoting it. He's too busy explaining his electric bill.

kjohnnytarr

Also, I think bikes conflict with people's image of a leisure culture. Leisure = inactivity, in the eyes of some.

Neil_B

Follow the money:

https://historian2wheels.blogspot.com...2nd-thing.html

"Time magazine's latest issue has an article on "51 Things We Can Do" to help combat global warming. You won't find the word "bicycle" in the article, despite the green nature of the bike and bike riding. You do find a great deal of discussion on automobiles. I suppose that's because GM and Toyota advertise in Time, and Cannondale and Trek don't."

Roody

Maybe, but the oppoite is also true. Most Americans see bikes as toys or sporting equipment. They're unaware of the serious work we get done with bikes. The advantage of 2 smooth-running wheels eludes them.

However, I count more utility and commuting cyclists every year. Even in midwinter here in Michigan, I saw a lot of cyclists. A few years ago, I was the only one. So progress is being made.

Gojohnnygo.

I read that and it does talk about the bicycle as in adding more bike lanes and so on in the article. I will also say they said nothing about living car-free. When I first skimmed over that article I was like WTF no bikes. Then I read into it deeper and found a couple but not in the titles.

kjohnnytarr

So true! Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right? Luckily, bikes are becoming more stylish to many.