stokell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NoReg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Stormcrowe

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

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

NoReg

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

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

nm+

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

arctos

I must confess that I have been corrupted by bicycles!

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

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

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

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

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

NoReg

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

mtnroads

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

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

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

gemini

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

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

nm+

Not to mention that gallons per seat mile IS the defining factor (combined with a few other factors) in nearly all purchase decisions. Low fuel consumption is the most important goal for Boeing and Airbus, while car manufacturers only sort of think about it.

Bekologist

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

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

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

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


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

Shemp

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

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

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

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

Alex L

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

Tom Stormcrowe

OK, I do agree with you re: Governmental failure to do anything meaningful toward changing the status quo. I also agree that I admire Stokells intent and commitment. I don't always agree with his percieved positions, but admit he is at least consistent as far as I can see with applying his standard to himself...before trying to apply them to others (Yuppers, Stokell, that's a compliment! ) Most cyclists have a bit o' the green at the core at least.

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

RiotBoi

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

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

stokell

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

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

Bikepacker67

I tour so I can eat like a pig.

Shemp

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

Not exactly a few things.

bmike

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

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

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

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

stokell

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

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

NoReg

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

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


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

Suit yourself I said young OR stupid.

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

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

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

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

"Age has nothing to do with income potential."

It has a lot to do with distribution.

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

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

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

NoReg

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

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

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

Shemp

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

Belugadave

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

gregw

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