View Single Post
Old 05-28-17, 07:28 PM
Mad bike riding scientist
cyccommute's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 21,102

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, an orange one and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2296 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
Why does every conversation have to turn negative? I'm just pointing out that these ideas have been around for a while. We were at this point 40 years ago, saw solutions, didn't take them and here we are again. I'm sure someone will bring up our current malaise 40 years from now too.
Well, we weren't "at this point" 40 years in the past. We aren't currently looking at an energy production problem. We are looking at a energy usage problem.

But the past is past. There's no need to cry over spilt milk. Some of us saw a problem 40 years ago...that production problem...and did something about it. Some became more dedicated to using less energy like riding bikes and some people became more dedicated to using energy more efficiently. It's not been a bed of roses but it's not a briar patch either. Solar farms, wind farms, less reliance on coal, better energy efficiency in home power uses, etc. all come from those people who did something about the problem of energy production. It's not perfect but we are further down the road than we were 40 years ago. I know because I've been at the front lines of that fight for most of those 40 years.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
I agree that probably most regular bicycle riders already have made an adjustment that most other people haven't.
So why complain that we haven't done enough? Or why suggest that using a little bit of hydrocarbon energy while doing self-propelled touring is somehow too much carbon usage? It's not a big deal.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
As far as carbon footprint goes. It's a term that describes greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) released into the atmosphere. Doesn't relate to the source. To close the loop and be carbon neutral, a wood burning stove user would have to plant as many trees to trap CO2 as they create by burning. Otherwise, it's not neutral.
Some people may say that but the whole idea of renewable energy is to relate the carbon to the source. Carbon offsets are predicated on the idea of doing something to reduce the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels by either switching to other sources of energy or by increasing the trapping of fossil carbon.

A wood stove burner doesn't have to plant as many trees as they use because the trees are already growing. Removal of trees can actually promote more tree growth. As long as the forest isn't completely removed, burning a few trees isn't that devastating. Fire is, after all, part of the life cycle of forests and, without it, the forests can't grow that well.

Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
That's just the way it is. That's why businesses can buy "carbon offsets" to reduce their footprint without reducing their output.
Not that there is currently a carbon market where carbon offsets are bought and sold, but they are reducing their petroleum and/or fossil carbon output.
Stuart Black
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
An Good Ol' Fashion Appalachian Butt Whoopin'.
cyccommute is offline