I don't think it's gonna take too many calories to play 'extend arm, scoop, raise arm, slurp'. Knock off 60 calories for that 'exercise' and call it an even 1100.

OK but what about all the excess calories burned just moving the car. Several folks here are debating the calorie count, but nobody is discussing the lack of efficiency in moving the auto.

And while we are talking "calories" that it takes to make a Ben and Jerry's, what does it take to explore, drill, transport and refine oil? Gas doesn't just pop out of the ground ready to use... but apples do grow on trees. How many miles can a cyclist go on a couple of apples? Try to get a car to even move inches on that same couple of apples.

Keep in mind that the human body is a "refinery" as well as the engine for transportation.

The car needs a huge support structure for it to go anywhere.

Yeah my BS meter is going off too... but I think it is because you guys are making all the wrong comparisons. Apples to oil, if you will.

I'm wondering if these calculations take into account that when people talk about "calories" in food, they're actually talking about "kilocalories", as physicists, engineers and chemists use the term "calorie"

My hand is up. Where does America's oil come from? According to the DOE, "In 2004, United States refineries produced over 90 percent of the gasoline used in the United States. Although the United States is the world’s third largest crude oil producer, less than 40 percent of the crude oil used by U.S. refineries was produced in the United States. Net petroleum imports (imports minus exports) account for 58 percent of our total petroleum consumption. About 50 percent of our petroleum imports are from countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 19 percent from the Persian Gulf, and 18 percent from Africa and 13 percent from other regions".So 19% of 58% = 11% of our total crude oil imports come from the middle east. That is pretty close to 1/7 of a week's consumption. I would imagine that Americans would consume more gas on weekdays so that would increase the ratio even further making the original statement more plausible.

Having said that, the original graphic is not a fair comparison (bikers ride much faster than 3mph and cars tend to travel at an average lower than 60mph).

I think he's including the energy used in production and distribution in the calorie count.

You're ignoring everything else I said, to wit, that:

- Not every American works. Those who don't, still consume petroleum.
- Not every American worker drives to work. Those who don't, still consume petroleum.
- Every American worker who drives to work...say it with me...still consumes petroleum in other ways than commuting.
- If every American who works AND who drives to work, commutes instead by bicycle one day a week, that will decrease that individual's gasoline consumption by at most one-fifth, assuming a full-time worker who never drives anywhere other than between work and home. It will not affect that individual's other petroleum consumption (in products, HVAC, etc.).

How you can take all of those unknowns and extrapolate to a radical reduction in foreign petroleum OR, let's move the goalposts, Persian Gulf petroleum, is beyond me. But hey, maybe a lot of people are swayed by crap statistics.

Now what I suggest is that you take your objections to Popular Science and ask them to produce the documentation that they used to come up with their "cute quote" in the first place.

But bear in mind that the current recession has reduced the number of motorists out there right now... and the current reduction in demand for oil has caused a glut in oil. What the actual numbers are, are beyond me, but the results are worth considering when considering your objections.

Why is it inappropriate to bring the objections to those who use these numbers in support of a point? Seems to me if you're quoting data in support of your point, it's on you to determine its validity.

OK fair enough... so does that also mean I have to confirm the approximately 45,000 auto deaths a year and the approximately 700 cyclists deaths a year as well as any other statistic provided by any other third party that has ever been quoted here.

And frankly how do we know that any oil is coming from the Persian Gulf at all. Do you have any proof... that YOU have verified?

Where does it end. Have you actually gone to the refineries and checked to see exactly how many gallons/barrels are pumped in from where?

And what about this "2000 calories a day for humans..." where the heck did that number come from?

At some point we have to trust that any data published is fact checked. If not, that agency that publishes is responsible. I provided a source, and that is all any of us should have to provide. If you don't find the source reliable, that is your choice.

For instance... how do we know that non working Americans "still consume petroleum?" For all I know, they chop wood for heat, and live in caves. Care to provide documentation of how much petroleum a typical non working American consumes?

Sure, what was provided may have been "crap statistics," but it was done in a way to illustrate a point, not provide definitive numbers for "in depth analysis."

Take a look at the two links in my sig... not exactly heavy science in those links, but rather than large numbers that are hard to relate to, the "fun facts" that are provided are something that you can really ponder in your daily life.

"2 miles per person" is a lot easier to relate to than "30 billion" of anything.

If you want to use data in support of an argument, you should be able to determine its validity, yes. Why is that a problem?

I need you to provide a source for the following:

I also need actual numbers, not just "still consumes petroleum."

My brother is unemployed. He does not drive to work. He consumes petroleum in the form of heating oil among others.

My friend Jake telecommutes. He consumes petroleum in the form of gasoline used for non-work driving and heating oil, among others.

Every American worker who drives to work also consumes petroleum in the form of: consumption of petroleum-based products such as plastics and synthetic fabrics; heating oil; petroleum used to transport goods that that they consume; gasoline or diesel used to power equipment from lawnmowers to chainsaws to snowmobiles to ski lifts to backhoes that are used by them directly or on their behalf. Find me one American who drives to work and yet consumes no other petroleum, in any other form, and I'll consider retracting this statement.

No you don't, because I made no quantitative claims that would need numbers to substantiate them.

The graphic doesn't seem to be implying that the person is biking. I believe 3mph is walking speed.

I agree that the numbers seem over-simplified. To get those figures they seem to be implying:

• 100% of gas used in the US is used to get people to and from work.
• Any reduction in the gas used will come out of what we buy from the Persian Gulf before it cuts into any other source.

Neither of those are necessarily true. But the gist of it is: if we use less gas, we buy less gas, we need less gas. That's hard to argue with. People who drive gas powered vehicles use more gas then people who do not in general. I would question the exact figures, but I would be inclined to accept the conclusion in general terms: Bicycle commuting takes less gas than driving and reduces the amount of oil we need to buy. That doesn't sound nearly as impressive as throwing around a lot of big numbers, but then it's the big numbers that get people's attention. But when the big numbers don't seem based in reality, it makes people question the original premise which, I think, remains sound.

And on the original graphic: Where is human CO2 production? I'm sure it's minuscule in comparison to cars, but it does need to be accounted for. Of course, part of the issue is that it's not an either/or equation. Every car also has at least one person in it who is going to consume calories and create waste even when using the car. So essentially the numbers associated with the people don't count. The only numbers that matter for people are those that represent the difference in caloric intake and waste production that result from being self propelled vs. taking a car.

Most of the power generated in the US is by hydroelectric, coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Much heating is done with natural gas. In certain places in the US, such as where I live, there is very little need for either heat or AC. Texas promotes "Total Electric Living" and the use of natural gas where needed. Texas is a large state.

I know many car free people that don't use gas. I have lived a car minimal lifestyle. My neighbor who does commute does so on bicycle, my other neighbor does so in a Prius, which still uses gas, but to a much less extent than say an SUV.

Not all oil is of the same quality... the light sweet crude is used to make gasoline, where as domestic oil can easily be used to make plastics and fertilizer as well as be used in other processes.

No, you merely denied the claims made by Popular Science with a few blanket statements that contained no facts or quantitative numbers what so ever.

Also, consider the excruciatingly small percentage of people who currently bike to work. Going from "present state" to "every US driver bicycling to work one day a week" represents, in my estimation, a staggeringly astronomical shift. Doubling that? Whew.

Read the words carefully: he consumes petroleum in the form of heating oil among others. Your observation is irrelevant.

Read the words carefully. He consumes petroleum in the form of gasoline used for non-work driving and heating oil, among others.

genec, do you understand that a single counterexample is sufficient to disprove an absolute statement? And that I wasn't the person making absolute statements? Evidently not.

Now you're making an assumption about how the numbers were calculated. Popular Science may well have only considered the portion of oil imports that are refined into gasoline. In which case whether your brother heats his home with heating oil, or drinks nice glass of WD-40 in the morning would then be irrelevant.

I don't for one fine the assertion that earth shattering. As pointed out earlier America produces much of it's own oil. Secondly Canada is your number one oil supplier and i also believe that you get more oil from south America than you do from the Persian gulf. I'm pretty sure that of the top five countries you import from only one heralds from the Persian gulf area. When you boil it down, it sounds outright trivial IMHO. That statement to me is a great example of a bold assertion that actually states very little.

Sigh, you made me use google. Here's some backup. The only really significant imports from the Persian Gulf area are from Saudi Arabia. Is someone going to do the math?

Ethanol is alcohol that we drink.

No, I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that driving to work is only one form of petroleum consumption for a subset of the American petroleum-consuming public. If that subset were to reduce that form of their petroleum consumption by one-fifth, that's going to be just a small slice out of total American petroleum consumption.