Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Stop Riding You Bike For Transportation.

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

Stop Riding You Bike For Transportation.

Old 08-10-07, 06:55 AM
  #76  
brokenrobot
Sweetened with Splenda
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Brooklyn, Alabama
Posts: 2,335

Bikes: Too many 80s roadbikes!

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mr handy View Post
The most apparent problem with "bio fuels" that I can see it the soil depletion that occurs when the land it over used.
Well, the BIG problem with biofuels is that we are dependent on fossil fuels for the chemical fertilizer we use to grow them. We don't have enough farmers or enough active farmland to support ourselves using natural methods right now.
brokenrobot is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 07:00 AM
  #77  
rene_sc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
`Oddly enough, CO2 is plant food that'll increase crop production which will help ethanol. But as we produce less CO2 and levels in the atmosphere drop so will the the productivity of plants.`


Well, I think the effect that CO2 has as a greenhouse gas far outweighs any (hypothetical) benefit it would have on producing energy for plants. And there is a limit...which we are quickly going to (if we haven`t already) reach where plants cannot produce energy from the extra CO2. The law of diminishing returns. At a certain point, plants just soak up the CO2 and become a world-wide carbon sink. There are far more effective ways nowadays to increase crop productivity...and I don`t think that tampering with the climate is the best idea.
rene_sc is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 07:50 AM
  #78  
maddyfish
Senior Member
 
maddyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ky. and FL.
Posts: 3,944

Bikes: KHS steel SS

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I ride 15-35 miles a day, and I still eat less than the average (fat) person.
maddyfish is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 08:00 AM
  #79  
Homebrew01
Super Moderator
 
Homebrew01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ffld Cnty Connecticut
Posts: 21,633

Bikes: Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1054 Post(s)
Liked 467 Times in 337 Posts
Originally Posted by countdowntolife View Post
This is an honest argument that I saw on the news the other night. A guy on the show stated that riding your bike instead of driving is actually worse on the environment. He said that when you ride a bike you burn a lot more calories that you would driving a car (no brainer), thus, you eat more. I thought to myself “Well yeah, that is about right”. Then he stated that since you eat more there is a high demand for food as a whole, making the need for food to be transported. He said the trucks that transport the food cause much more damage to the environment than a single car. Then he ended the discussion with the statement that is was the environmentalist fault for global warming and “stop riding your bike for transportation”. He kind of laughed it off but they were serious. Discuss.
Was this on the FOX channel ?
Homebrew01 is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 08:17 AM
  #80  
Psydotek
Body By Nintendo
 
Psydotek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Videogames ruined my life. Good thing i have 2 extra lives.
Posts: 3,187

Bikes: Giant TCR2, Giant TCX, IRO BFSSFG SE, Salsa Casseroll, IRO Rob Roy.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Stop riding my bike for transportation? WTH?!?

Courtesy of www.emotioneric.com


__________________

Originally Posted by jsharr View Post
A girl once asked me to give her twelve inches and make it hurt. I had to make love to her 3 times and then punch her in the nose.
Psydotek is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 08:19 AM
  #81  
MrCjolsen
Senior Member
 
MrCjolsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Davis CA
Posts: 3,959

Bikes: Surly Cross-Check, '85 Giant road bike (unrecogizable fixed-gear conversion

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
As for the Wharton thesis, look at it this way. Even if my increased longevity due to cycling were to offset the ecological benefits of not driving, the ED caused by cycling would prevent me from having excessive amounts of children (the fastest and easiest way to increase one's carbon footprint).

Basically, if you're dumb enough to believe one of the above theories, you're dumb enough to believe the other.
MrCjolsen is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 08:21 AM
  #82  
rollin
Sua Ku
 
rollin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hot as hell, Singapore
Posts: 5,705

Bikes: Trek 5200, BMC SLC01, BMC SSX, Specialized FSR, Holdsworth Criterium

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Do I eat more when I cycle than when I drive? yes.

There is some rationale behind the bs.

We can all do a lot more by eating locally grown food. Flying, shipping and trucking food does have a carbon cost.

Do I pollute more when cycling compared to a person driving a big empty car to go half a mile to the shops? - of course not. But do I measure my impact on the planet against these people? of course not. I guess you do what you can. Personal responsibility.

My personal pet hate is bottled mineral water shipped half way across the world, especially in glass bottles - where is the sense in that. On the other hand I know there isn't a Cliff Bar factory in Singapore and as much as I try to eat local fruit, I do love Cliff Bars...
rollin is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 10:13 AM
  #83  
ruck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 76

Bikes: Giant OCR A1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Miller2 View Post
Wouldn't that help the plight of the American farmer? Farming corn could be highly profitable.
DISCLAIMER: I read the first few posts and did a light skim after that so if I tromping on someone my apologies. Also I will not be citing things because I'm lazy, feel free to disregard me if that doesn't pass your sniff test. Also my wife is a farmer's daughter and my father works for an ag related company this should give you my bias.

It depends on the farmer. Take for example Indiana. Indiana has a lot of corn, not Iowa levels but still a lot of corn. Indiana has lot of livestock, pigs, chickens, ducks(ok so that is quantitatively very small but in the area its in its kind of large), and cows (no distinction being made between dairy and beef). Corn is up roughly a third from year ago levels, maybe more maybe less depending on current market conditions. Now for these farms that means their corn cost of raising the animals just went up by a third (not so good for the farmer, especially when not all of that cost can moved to the consumer). Also because of the high corn cost, grain farmers are now tilling under soybeans and planting corn, causing beans to cost more, this also affects cost of live stock for the worse.

Now for the regular grain farmer corn at these price levels is great. Lots of money, but what happens, cost of equipment goes up (interesting correlation between the cost of equipment and the local price of corn) also the people who own the land the farmers rent (most of the land farmers use is leased and not farmer owned) these people see how much money the farmer is making and the next time that farmers lease comes up they ask for more money, farmer makes less again.

Also corn likes nitrogen the way monkeys like throwing their poo. This means the farmer's fertilization prices go up. Also to get the nitrogen involves a lot of natural gas (this adds to the whole environmentally ethanol is a wash equation). Additionally planting the same crop in the same field for years is very very bad for the field.

Now it depends on what and who you define as a farmer, if your definition includes huge corporate farms then a lot of this doesn't apply, but if you think of the traditional view of the farmer it comes out to a wash a lot of times. And if the farmer does livestock they end up with a whole operation setup for something that suddenly is becoming very unprofitable. Now then, if you want to extrapolate for the fun of it, those livestock farms feed the food preparing industry, that industry suddenly sees its cost go through the roof and since a lot of the industry is smaller players (think eggs, ducks... not Tyson chickens) they can't handle this increased cost and shutdowns become conceivable thus resulting in people out of jobs.

I guess my point is for some farmers this is great for others its actually not. On the plus side of all this is hopefully it will start discussion on the Farm Bill and all the subsidies the farmers receive (they get subsidies whether they make 150k net profit or lost 150k).

Now I am not against ethanol, anything that lessons foreign dependence... however I don't think corn ethanol is a particular good solution and ethanol plants need to built in areas where they aren't going to significantly hurt local economies. Moving people to diesel would add a great benefit and soy diesel is a much better product than corn ethanol.

tl:dr not always good for the farmer or the local area.
ruck is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 10:37 AM
  #84  
Treker
Zebra
 
Treker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa ON
Posts: 590

Bikes: '04 Trek 1000, '05 Devinci Millenium; 07 Spec. Allez

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by adgrant View Post
Personally I think using Ethanol to fuel autos is a really dumb idea. Its more expensive with a lower MPG and using it raises food costs. If this country was serious about global warming, we would have much higher taxes on gasoline. Say a couple of bucks a gallon.
I agree with the Ethanol as a dumb idea but I'm not so sure on the higher gas tax idea for two reasons:

(1) nobody can know what the right tax level should be, and (2) we have no confidence the revenue will be used to offset other taxes.

Those two thoughts were taken from the 'NoPigou' site, a site dedicated to counter Pigou-type levies. FWIW, Arthur C. Pigou was an early 20th-century British economist, one of the fathers of welfare economics.
Treker is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 11:12 AM
  #85  
skinnyone
Dude wheres my guads?
 
skinnyone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Guess
Posts: 2,680

Bikes: Not enough

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What this newscaster does'nt address and is a monumental fallacy in his argument is that you can produce and recycle food at a much much faster rate than gasoline.. (The nitrogen cycle versus the carbon cycle).. So his argument is bull**** when you factor in the fact its not sustainable to pump gas at the rate that we are doing right now..
skinnyone is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 11:39 AM
  #86  
Trevor98
Senior Member
 
Trevor98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,038
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by slimvela View Post
For the record, I do believe warming is happening. After reading up on global cooling, I do believe that occured as well, somewhat. However, the reasons for the current state are so vast it is hard to accept any/all of them at the moment. Some are credible, while others are "in the moment".
Warming and cooling are always happening, that's completely natural. Tommorow will be cooler or warmer than today, next year will be, on average, cooler or warmer than this one. The next decade will be cooler or warmer than this one. We all know this to be true yet somehow in humanities wish to blame itself for things we forget this basic reality.

There is a vast, but often ignored, difference between believing in global warming and believing in anthropogenic global warming. One is a natural function of several natural occurring events most unstoppable by while the other is a belief that human kind has is causing this warming. We are kidding ourselves if we think we can hold back natural global warming and, if history gives us insight into the blowback from human manipulation of our environment, such an attempt would be cosmically stupid. . Anthropogenic global warming, on the other hand, would be prudent to stop before it kills us all.

Currently, scientists cannot determine if we are in between ice ages nor can they specify the climatic change patterns that precede a new ice age. We, as a species, don't know enough about the natural processes at work to make bold assertions about the causes of global warming. I guess it is ego satisfying to propose that humanity is responsible for such a massive thing.

Originally Posted by brokenrobot View Post
Just so we're clear: you do believe in science, right? At least insofar as oil and coal are FOSSIL fuels, from billions of years of ancient plant life, and not miracles from God hidden under the Middle East to teach us a lesson?

Next, do you believe in physics, or at least in the law of the conservation of energy?

If so, is it really amazing that by taking billions of years of stored solar energy and releasing them in a couple hundred years - mostly in the last hundred - might have an effect on things around here?

Stupid people who declare war on science because Fox News says so provide entertainment value, but they also make my head hurt and my heart sad.
It is interesting that I have never seen any academic discussion in climatology concerning the release of X BTUs/day from oil. Climatologist focus primarily on the Greenhouse Effect to the exclusion of the actual heat produced from the burning of oil products. It was an uncomfortable moment in a climate class when the factor in of energy change was brought up to a PhD climatologist.

All that having been said, we still shouldn't spew pollutants into to the air for dozens of other reasons the least of which is ascetics.
Trevor98 is offline  
Old 08-10-07, 11:57 AM
  #87  
timmhaan
more ape than man
 
timmhaan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nyc
Posts: 8,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
there is both a natural and an unnatural process at work, and they can both influence each other. that's why it's complicated.

the argument that "well, in the past the climate has changed and that's all that is happening now" is way to simplistic to even bring up. OF COURSE IT HAS. we're talking about the rate of change and how our actions may be speeding up this change.

you simply cannot burn fuels every day across the globe for over a century and not expect some consequences. EVEN IF, against all logic, global warming is not influenced by man then we still have to figure out how to live with rising sea levels and changing weather patterns (which is happening).

Last edited by timmhaan; 08-10-07 at 12:03 PM.
timmhaan is offline  
Old 08-12-07, 01:55 PM
  #88  
doktoravalanche
Senior Member
 
doktoravalanche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: People's republic of Kernow
Posts: 116

Bikes: Frankenhinger

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Forget bio-ethanol, diesel engines run effectively on waste vegetable oil of the type used in fast food places. In theory yer local burger place could install pumps in its forecourt refilled from its own fryers (once filtered obviously). Which would also save the big tanker having to take it away and dump it somewhere. Diesel cars can do 50mpg easily...

Of course that means MDonnerking could save the planet. Erm....
doktoravalanche is offline  
Old 08-12-07, 05:53 PM
  #89  
flatlander_48
Cathedral City, CA
 
flatlander_48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cathedral City, CA
Posts: 1,504

Bikes: 2016 RITCHEY BreakAway (full Chorus 11), 2005 Ritchey BreakAway (full Chorus 11, STOLEN), 2001 Gary Fisher Tassajara mountain bike (sold), 2004 Giant TRC 2 road bike (sold)

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by countdowntolife View Post
This is an honest argument that I saw on the news the other night. A guy on the show stated that riding your bike instead of driving is actually worse on the environment. He said that when you ride a bike you burn a lot more calories that you would driving a car (no brainer), thus, you eat more. I thought to myself “Well yeah, that is about right”. Then he stated that since you eat more there is a high demand for food as a whole, making the need for food to be transported. He said the trucks that transport the food cause much more damage to the environment than a single car. Then he ended the discussion with the statement that is was the environmentalist fault for global warming and “stop riding your bike for transportation”. He kind of laughed it off but they were serious. Discuss.
One thing this doesn't take into consideration is improved health from riding. This should result in more productivity at work and less money going towards health issues
flatlander_48 is offline  
Old 08-12-07, 06:21 PM
  #90  
Toastytofu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
this reminds me of mr. president nixon
"Cars don't polute.... Trees do!!"

annnyway... SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!
surprised nobody caught that.
i'm a firm advocate in soylent green.
Toastytofu is offline  
Old 08-12-07, 07:09 PM
  #91  
urbanknight
Over the hill
 
urbanknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 22,698

Bikes: Specialized Allez Elite, Raleigh Pursuit tandem

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked 116 Times in 71 Posts
Originally Posted by countdowntolife View Post
He said that when you ride a bike you burn a lot more calories that you would driving a car (no brainer)
Incorrect. Calorie is just a measurement of energy, and it takes far more energy to power a car than it does to power a bicycle. We just don't measure the energy to propel a car in calories.
__________________
It's like riding a bicycle
urbanknight is offline  
Old 08-12-07, 07:35 PM
  #92  
skinnyone
Dude wheres my guads?
 
skinnyone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Guess
Posts: 2,680

Bikes: Not enough

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by urbanknight View Post
Incorrect. Calorie is just a measurement of energy, and it takes far more energy to power a car than it does to power a bicycle. We just don't measure the energy to propel a car in calories.
I think the op meant that you spend less calories driving than biking. But as a whole, you are right, to motor your car to point x you expend 31000(approx)*total miles driven/mpg(of your car).. You personally very roughly 500 calories/hour that you ride..
skinnyone is offline  
Old 08-12-07, 09:44 PM
  #93  
michaelalanjone
Senior Member
 
michaelalanjone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 139

Bikes: Giant OCR-1, Schwinn Rocket Pro, Dahon Jack, a few others

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
That guy is a dumba§§ anyway. He's up there with the "Cyclists don't pay taxes, so they shouldn't use the roads...Get on the sidewalk!" folks.

Stop eating dead animals and you stop the transportation of them, providing grain to feed them and reduce their offall. Oh, no, now I've gone and started it.
michaelalanjone is offline  
Old 08-12-07, 09:55 PM
  #94  
Nachoman
well hello there
 
Nachoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Point Loma, CA
Posts: 15,212

Bikes: Bill Holland (Road-Ti), Fuji Roubaix Pro (back-up), Bike Friday (folder), Co-Motion (tandem) & Trek 750 (hybrid)

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 435 Post(s)
Liked 176 Times in 112 Posts
Drive more. Bike less. Oh. Now I understand. Brilliant.
__________________
.
.

Two wheels good. Four wheels bad.
Nachoman is offline  
Old 08-13-07, 12:51 PM
  #95  
countdowntolife
Siiiiick Member
Thread Starter
 
countdowntolife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Redding, Ca
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I don't even see how this is an argument, you don't have to look very hard to see that humans have put a very negative impact on the earth...
countdowntolife is offline  

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 - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.