6 ms·

Greens seem to deceive in the same way as green-washing except with greener deceptions (whereas green-washing is capitalists pretending to be green). Example:

Greens seem to deceive in the same way as green-washing except with greener deceptions (whereas green-washing is capitalists pretending to be green). Example: a report on the cost-benefit of using bicycles, that comes out with a fantastic positive number for introducing a cycle lane. Except the number depends on a monetary estimate of the benefits to society for health improvements. I'm sure the health improvements exist, and it wouldn't surprise me that the health benefits to society were well estimated. The problem is that by cherry-picking benefits you can simply ignore all monetary benefits of cars (no benefits for cars were mentioned as I recall). I've seen it in other articles which talk sacharrinely about the benefit of some green tech. But ignoring real costs and certainly not being balanced. The ultra-idealistic greenies are not helping their cause when rubbish is repeated.

kspacewalk2 2y ago
It would be great if you could cite the report you're talking about, so we can judge for ourselves whether you're steel-manning or straw-manning its methodology.
- robocat 2y ago
  I found it: https://economics.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/economics/resources/Theses/Hanna%20Main%20-%20Costbenefit_analysis_of_building_bicycle_lanes_in_Truro_Nova_Scotia.pdf https://economics.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/economics/resour... " Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Economics Acadia University, 2013" biased and poorly balanced. As far as can be determined, no cost-benefit analyses of bicycle facilities have been carried out for locations in Canada. Maybe says more about the searching skills author than the state of cost-benefit analysis in Canada - but it sounds bad. The daily benefits from one person switching from car travel to bicycle travel for commuting are estimated to be $2.14. Most of that 2.14 "savings" is car ownership and maintenance costs, which is bullshit because they say elsewhere you need a car for the days your can't cycle. Nice double counting eh? Plus the internal+external "health ben." added up to be about equal to vehicle ownership costs. See the "analysis" bias? Perhaps an Acadia University Honours in Economics is toilet paper.
  - nostrebored 2y ago
    Dude someone did this for a check box. It’s honestly more shocking that you read it
jodrellblank 2y ago
> "example: a report on the cost-benefit of using bicycles, that comes out with a fantastic positive number for introducing a cycle lane." Rubber-stamp a multi-billion dollar highway widening project that won't reduce traffic*, no problem, doesn't deserve any comment. Bike lane? Scrutiny with a fine-tooth comb, subject it to years of studies, complain about the cost, complain about why anyone would want a bike lane - they must be up to something! The slider is jammed 98% over towards 'cars' and still the car drivers are like "Won't someone PLEASE think about the cars?!". "No benefits for cars were mentioned as I recall" - seriously, you think everyone might have forgotten that cars exist in the twenty seconds between when they last saw one, or heard one, or had to wait to cross a road, or used one, or heard someone talk about one, or saw an advert for one? A study on bike benefits didn't say that cars were great, do you want a study on wheelchair accessibility to talk about the benefits of being able bodied? > "I'm sure the health improvements exist, and it wouldn't surprise me that the health benefits to society were well estimated" "Worldwide, we estimate that physical inactivity causes 6% (ranging from 3·2% in southeast Asia to 7·8% in the eastern Mediterranean region) of the burden of disease from coronary heart disease, 7% (3·9–9·6) of type 2 diabetes, 10% (5·6–14·1) of breast cancer, and 10% (5·7–13·8) of colon cancer. Inactivity causes 9% (range 5·1–12·5) of premature mortality, or more than 5·3 million of the 57 million deaths that occurred worldwide in 2008. If inactivity were not eliminated, but decreased instead by 10% or 25%, more than 533 000 and more than 1·3 million deaths, respectively, could be averted every year." - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61031-9/abstract https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... *roads are wider than they used to be; if adding lanes reduced traffic, there wouldn't be any traffic these days.
- robocat 2y ago
  Yeah: I'm totally not a fan of biased car shit either. Some of your examples seem like strawmen to me. > complain about the cost Bike lanes in my country are mostly paid for by taxes on cars and petrol. The costs/benefits are often justified by cherry-picked benefits (e.g. reduced car congestion, or reduced pollution). The congestion arguments anecdotally appear to be lies: low usage priority cycle lanes seem to cause extra congestion (through phasing of lights and islands and other traffic controlling features). Try and fairly point out that the numbers are juggled and you'll get skewered by cyclist ideologues. Read my sister comment where I reference the thesis that was the basis for my original comment. I have an acquaintance working in our council on improving bike lanes. I'm not against bikes. I'm against badly biased reports : towards/against both cyclists or cars. Balanced discussion seems so difficult.

kspacewalk2 2y ago

It would be great if you could cite the report you're talking about, so we can judge for ourselves whether you're steel-manning or straw-manning its methodology.

robocat 2y ago
I found it: https://economics.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/economics/resources/Theses/Hanna%20Main%20-%20Costbenefit_analysis_of_building_bicycle_lanes_in_Truro_Nova_Scotia.pdf https://economics.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/economics/resour... " Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Economics Acadia University, 2013" biased and poorly balanced. As far as can be determined, no cost-benefit analyses of bicycle facilities have been carried out for locations in Canada. Maybe says more about the searching skills author than the state of cost-benefit analysis in Canada - but it sounds bad. The daily benefits from one person switching from car travel to bicycle travel for commuting are estimated to be $2.14. Most of that 2.14 "savings" is car ownership and maintenance costs, which is bullshit because they say elsewhere you need a car for the days your can't cycle. Nice double counting eh? Plus the internal+external "health ben." added up to be about equal to vehicle ownership costs. See the "analysis" bias? Perhaps an Acadia University Honours in Economics is toilet paper.
- nostrebored 2y ago
  Dude someone did this for a check box. It’s honestly more shocking that you read it

jodrellblank 2y ago

> "example: a report on the cost-benefit of using bicycles, that comes out with a fantastic positive number for introducing a cycle lane." Rubber-stamp a multi-billion dollar highway widening project that won't reduce traffic*, no problem, doesn't deserve any comment. Bike lane? Scrutiny with a fine-tooth comb, subject it to years of studies, complain about the cost, complain about why anyone would want a bike lane - they must be up to something! The slider is jammed 98% over towards 'cars' and still the car drivers are like "Won't someone PLEASE think about the cars?!". "No benefits for cars were mentioned as I recall" - seriously, you think everyone might have forgotten that cars exist in the twenty seconds between when they last saw one, or heard one, or had to wait to cross a road, or used one, or heard someone talk about one, or saw an advert for one? A study on bike benefits didn't say that cars were great, do you want a study on wheelchair accessibility to talk about the benefits of being able bodied? > "I'm sure the health improvements exist, and it wouldn't surprise me that the health benefits to society were well estimated" "Worldwide, we estimate that physical inactivity causes 6% (ranging from 3·2% in southeast Asia to 7·8% in the eastern Mediterranean region) of the burden of disease from coronary heart disease, 7% (3·9–9·6) of type 2 diabetes, 10% (5·6–14·1) of breast cancer, and 10% (5·7–13·8) of colon cancer. Inactivity causes 9% (range 5·1–12·5) of premature mortality, or more than 5·3 million of the 57 million deaths that occurred worldwide in 2008. If inactivity were not eliminated, but decreased instead by 10% or 25%, more than 533 000 and more than 1·3 million deaths, respectively, could be averted every year." - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61031-9/abstract https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... *roads are wider than they used to be; if adding lanes reduced traffic, there wouldn't be any traffic these days.

robocat 2y ago
Yeah: I'm totally not a fan of biased car shit either. Some of your examples seem like strawmen to me. > complain about the cost Bike lanes in my country are mostly paid for by taxes on cars and petrol. The costs/benefits are often justified by cherry-picked benefits (e.g. reduced car congestion, or reduced pollution). The congestion arguments anecdotally appear to be lies: low usage priority cycle lanes seem to cause extra congestion (through phasing of lights and islands and other traffic controlling features). Try and fairly point out that the numbers are juggled and you'll get skewered by cyclist ideologues. Read my sister comment where I reference the thesis that was the basis for my original comment. I have an acquaintance working in our council on improving bike lanes. I'm not against bikes. I'm against badly biased reports : towards/against both cyclists or cars. Balanced discussion seems so difficult.