Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

Cycling is BAD for the environment? (CNBC)

General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Cycling is BAD for the environment? (CNBC)

Old 07-27-06, 06:09 AM
  #26  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,807

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3498 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by gear
So I guess birth control pills and condoms are good for the envrioment because they prevent births which lead to human lives that leave a path of destruction to the planet.
Actually, that is true. Overpopulation is a huge threat to the earth.
cooker is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 07:17 AM
  #27  
huhenio
Barbieri Telefonico
 
huhenio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 3,522

Bikes: Crappy but operational secondhand Motobecane Messenger

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by timmhaan
one of the primary goals of humanity from the very beginning is to prolong life expectancy. so, if cycling is "bad" in terms of resource use, then so is all modern medicine and all health organizations and everyone who works to save people's lives. what a ridiculous point to make.
Agreed.

According to this guy, we should go back to 1920's vehicle safety standards, drunk driving, and what the hell ... lets get another WW1 (not 2) going with machetes and peanut butter sammichs (cheap weapons and food)
__________________
Giving Haircuts Over The Phone
huhenio is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 07:19 AM
  #28  
huhenio
Barbieri Telefonico
 
huhenio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 3,522

Bikes: Crappy but operational secondhand Motobecane Messenger

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gear
So I guess birth control pills and condoms are good for the envrioment because they prevent births which lead to human lives that leave a path of destruction to the planet.
... yes! ... that or abstinence.

Geez ... we need to get lazier .... screw industry....
__________________
Giving Haircuts Over The Phone
huhenio is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 07:53 AM
  #29  
shokhead
05 Roubaix Comp Double
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,665

Bikes: 2012 Trek Madone 6.2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by -VELOCITY-
Are you sure it wasn't Skip Clueless who made the comment?
They are all clueless on cnbc.
shokhead is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 08:34 AM
  #30  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,807

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3498 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Still haven't heard anyone actually refute the claim.
cooker is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 01:04 PM
  #31  
BlazingPedals
Senior Member
 
BlazingPedals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle of da Mitten
Posts: 10,943

Bikes: Trek 7500, RANS V-Rex, Optima Baron, Velokraft NoCom, M-5 Carbon Highracer, homebuilt recumbent

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 908 Post(s)
Liked 25 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker
Actually, that is true. Overpopulation is a huge threat to the earth.
Sad but true. The earth cannot support the current human population indefinitely. And it *really* can't support projected future populations. Something's gonna have to give sooner or later. Short of killing ourselves now, the best thing we can do for the earth is to only have one kid instead of two or three (or more.) Having ONE kid causes way more resource usage over time than living an extra 5 years would - because that one kid will use resources for the next 75 years.
BlazingPedals is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 01:55 PM
  #32  
shokhead
05 Roubaix Comp Double
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,665

Bikes: 2012 Trek Madone 6.2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Where i work,they keep having babies until the body says no more.
shokhead is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 02:07 PM
  #33  
Paul L.
Senior Member
 
Paul L.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 2,601

Bikes: Mercier Corvus (commuter), Fila Taos (MTB), Trek 660(Got frame for free and put my LeMans Centurian components on it)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlazingPedals
Sad but true. The earth cannot support the current human population indefinitely. And it *really* can't support projected future populations. Something's gonna have to give sooner or later. Short of killing ourselves now, the best thing we can do for the earth is to only have one kid instead of two or three (or more.) Having ONE kid causes way more resource usage over time than living an extra 5 years would - because that one kid will use resources for the next 75 years.

I don't necessarily agree with that but would agree that with the way we distribute resources as a species the earth cannot sustain us (The US throws enough food away to feed many nations with poverty problems and I am not even including farming subsidies just consumer waste). Although i suppose indefinitely is a pretty general word. I mean the sun will eventually go out of course and the earth will likely be toast long before then.

Anyway, regarding cycling I guarantee I don't breathe 16 lbs of carbon dioxide like my car does between home and work.
__________________
Sunrise saturday,
I was biking the backroads,
lost in the moment.
Paul L. is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 04:38 PM
  #34  
chephy
Two H's!!! TWO!!!!!
 
chephy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker
Still haven't heard anyone actually refute the claim.
It's as pointless as refuting the claim that living is bad for the environment. Yes, the environment would not be affected by humans if there were no humans. So what?...
chephy is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 07:14 PM
  #35  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,807

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3498 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by chephy
It's as pointless as refuting the claim that living is bad for the environment. Yes, the environment would not be affected by humans if there were no humans. So what?...

So, in estimating what steps humans can take to improve the environment, we need to fully understand and deal with unexpected consequences of our actions. If Ulrich is right, ignoring his claims because they're counterintuitive or unwelcome is not very enlightened. Better to use the information wisely. Getting a bunch of obese, unhealthy people to start bike commuting, on its own, won't help the environment, because they're still going to be using air conditioners and eating beef and engaging in other environmentally unfriendly activities, only now they'll be doing it for a few years longer. So, you'd also have to get them to reduce their day-to-day environmental footprint in other ways too. And, you'd also want to convert some healthier car drivers to biking,because they can use it to replace driving and the gym, without necessarily increasing their life expectancy. They're the ones where you'll get the biggest energy savings.
cooker is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 07:21 PM
  #36  
Keith99
Senior Member
 
Keith99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Bikes are GREAT for the environment. On a bike it takes longer to get where you are going so you have less time for scr3wing. There are studys that show excessive bike riding results in erectile disfunction, also a plus. The only possible problem is it makes for great legs. If the percentages of men and women riding was equal this might overcome the other 2 effects. But since more men ride than women this is not a problem at this time.
Keith99 is offline  
Old 07-27-06, 09:51 PM
  #37  
chephy
Two H's!!! TWO!!!!!
 
chephy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 4,259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker
Getting a bunch of obese, unhealthy people to start bike commuting, on its own, won't help the environment, because they're still going to be using air conditioners and eating beef and engaging in other environmentally unfriendly activities, only now they'll be doing it for a few years longer. So, you'd also have to get them to reduce their day-to-day environmental footprint in other ways too.
Well, I wasn't even aware that anybody in his right mind thought that the switch from car to bike alone is going to do wonders for the environment. Except maybe for the local envirnoment (say, air quality in a big city). Of course improved air quailty means fewer people die from asthma attacks, hence will use up resources... I think we should encourage everyone to drive an 18-wheeler everywhere to shorten everyone's life expectancy - that'll be good for the environment overall (and don't forget to run over those environmentally unfriendly cyclists on the road!) Except that I always naively thought that the ultimate goal of the humankind was achieving happiness, not saving the environment per se. 'Cause if we just wanted to save the environment, we should just all kill ourselves (after we properly dismantle and bury things like nuclear plants).

So whether the bikes are actually good or bad for the environment is pretty much irrelevant. They are clearly a step in the right direction, just like good healthcare or clean drinking water.
chephy is offline  
Old 07-28-06, 03:44 AM
  #38  
gear
Senior Member
 
gear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North shore of Mass.
Posts: 2,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker
Actually, that is true. Overpopulation is a huge threat to the earth.
So why wasn't the story about overpopulation? Why anti bike?
gear is offline  
Old 07-28-06, 06:16 AM
  #39  
fro.bikes
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ahem....that's chris tucker.
fro.bikes is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JonathanGennick
Bicycle Mechanics
14
05-30-17 03:42 PM
dwhite53
Bicycle Mechanics
8
11-17-15 12:21 AM
M A V I C
Bicycle Mechanics
5
11-08-15 09:49 PM
pilam99
Road Cycling
11
02-10-09 05:24 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.