4 ms·
Lawmaker says biking bad for the environment
- kylemaxwell 14y agoHe apologized and recanted: http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/03/04/rep-orcutt-says-bicycle-carbon-emissions-not-a-point-worthy-of-even-mentioning/ http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/03/04/rep-orcutt-says-bi...
- makeshifthoop 14y agoah thanks for posting the reply.
- lelandbatey 14y agoIndeed, he goes on to say that he supports a bicycle tax only so far as it goes towards actually helping expand bicycle infrastructure, and that he made this suggestions after it was brought to him by the bicycling community. This seems like much ado about nothing.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoThere already is a bicycle tax, it's called sales tax.
- mc32 14y agoBut that tax is not specific to bikes only. People who buy cars also pay sales taxes. But they pay other taxes in addition to the initial sales tax. They also pay fuel taxes, which is an indirect tax. Not that I'm against those taxes. I would wish we'd tax fuel more (and in the future, the source of energy for transportation when cars start using more alternate energy sources) as a way to incentivize people toward more shared resources. But I'm not for trying to paint equivalence on the tax front. At the same time, I think this needs to be phased in. I think about the people in rural areas who need cars to get to civilization --keeping in mind the story of an acquaintance who said would sell pints of blood to buy fuel to get to and from work when money was low --ie getting to work before the next paycheck provided more money.)
- InclinedPlane 14y agoThat's a great hypothetical, but it falls flat in reality. The cost differential between bicycle infrastructure and car infrastructure is orders of magnitude.
- rallison 14y agoIndeed. And property taxes. And spending from general funds. Etc, etc. 40% of spending on roads comes from funds completely unrelated to gas or vehicle taxes. This amounts to about $180 per person per year in funds unrelated to taxing automobiles or gas. [1] To contrast this, per capita spending on cycling infrastructure, while significantly improved in recent years, peaked at $3.95 per person per year. [2] Quite simply, looking at the actual numbers, it is hard to support the argument that cyclists are being subsidized by drivers. [1] http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/magazine/032Spring/02provocateur.html http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/magazine/032Spring/02... [2] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/the-bicycle-dividend/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/the-bicycle-div...
- WildUtah 14y agoA gallon of gas has 30,000 Calories. An SUV weighs (technically masses) 2000kg and gets 20 MPG. Thus the kilogram miles per Calorie -- the efficiency -- for an SUV is 1.33. A peanut butter sandwich is 600 Calories (with bananas and maple syrup on whole wheat, but corn syrup on Wonder bread is similar). A bicycle plus messenger bag and rider weighs 80kg and gets 10 miles to the peanut butter sandwich. Thus the efficiency of the bicycle is 1.33 kg.mi/C. So far the bicycle and SUV seem exactly equal in efficiency and have equal environmental impact. But that doesn't take into account cost. The peanut butter sandwich costs $5, or $3 if you make it at home. Call it $4. The gallon of gasoline also costs $4. But the gasoline has 50x the energy. The total cost to society is 50x higher to operate the bicycle, taking all process costs into account through the price system. So in fact, biking is terrible for the environment. We'd all be better off banning bicycles and buying every cyclist an SUV and then having a mass lycra bonfire. Plus, think of all the cash we would save by not blowing it on extra bicycle fuel. It could save the economy.
- karanbhangui 14y agoIsn't 1 food calorie equal to 1000 physics calories?
- epochwolf 14y agoYes. Food calories are actually kilocalories.
- tolmasky 14y ago1 Calorie = 1000 calories. Yes, the unit is differentiated by capitalization.
- pjscott 14y agoAnd for the sake of preventing further confusion, it's probably best to promptly convert that into a sensible unit: 1 Calorie = 4184 Joules.
- Trezoid 14y ago
- D_Alex 14y agoI don't know whether I should laugh or cry... Please elect more people with a clue. More politicians with a background in science or engineering would be a good thing.
- CamperBob2 14y agoThis guy's just another falling brick from the edifice that was once the Republican Party.
- lutusp 14y ago> Please elect more people with a clue. Americans famously don't trust smart people. American anti-intellectualism is no more obvious than at the voting booth. The last truly smart person to run for president was Adlai Stevenson (in 1952 and 1956). Even though women liked him and voted for him, he really didn't have a chance. Based on how we vote, and for whom, we have the representatives we deserve.
- jonemo 14y agoI remember reading (but don't have the link handy) about a gentlemen who did lots of analysis about his switch from car commuting to bike commuting. His conclusion was that bike commuting is more expensive for him, because he ends up eating more to compensate for the calories burnt during the ride. The cost of additional food was higher than the cost of gas saved (as someone below already pointed out that food energy is more pricey than gas energy). The guy with the data analysis nevertheless decided to stick with the bike because he suspected that this decision will have positive long term health effects saving him a lot of money in future. I am inclined to agree but in my case the parking fees at work make the decision a no-brainer anyway.
- jiggy2011 14y agoI bike a lot and I don't notice that I really eat more on days when I bike. And if I do it just means that I eat a slightly bigger portion of whatever I was eating anyway so the cost difference is negligible. Also the price of gas is relatively fixed whereas with food you can economize by eating ramen instead of steak.
- plorkyeran 14y agoBicycling is surprisingly expensive once you don't want to lose weight. At 200 calories per dollar (i.e. about $10 per day for a sedentary diet) and four dollars per gallon of gas it comes out to the equivalent of 25 mpg. There's obviously a whole bunch of other relevant factors, but personally it hadn't even occurred to me that food would be my primary bicycle-related expense until I started riding a lot.
- jiggy2011 14y agoIt's a lot more pleasant to eat a meal than it is to pump gas into your car.
- andrewflnr 14y agoIndeed. Go ahead and get the BIG slice of chocolate cake.
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoSomehow I was able to guess he was a Republican before I read the article, imagine that!
- crusso 14y agoNot going to defend his monumental stupidity to make such a statement, but if you're thinking that Republicans have any kind of lock on monumental stupidity, I beg to differ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mikeklaas 14y ago650W is far too high for the output of an average person for an hour ([3] shows this is almost 1 HP which should indicate how far it is off). Here is a more informed link: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/power-outputs-from-tour-de-france.html http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/power-outputs-from-t...
- Alex3917 14y agoI would imagine that the average watts per hour would be around 175 for most reasonably healthy people.
- est 14y agoLawmaker apologizes for bashing bicycles and all their pollution http://now.msn.com/ed-orcutt-washington-rep-apologizes-for-bike-comments http://now.msn.com/ed-orcutt-washington-rep-apologizes-for-b...
- largesse 14y agoPoliticians don't do science well, and they don't listen to people who do. The prognosis is bad.
- largesse 14y agoI don't buy the lawmaker's 'fairness' argument either. True, cyclists do use streets but so do automobile passengers yet no one is floating the idea of applying a tax to them. Many revenue sources have this quality. Property taxes foot the bill for schools in many municipalities. And 'sin taxes' definitely don't benefit the people who pay them the most. The Rep. is spouting ungrounded rhetoric. Surprise, surprise.
- Kerrick 14y agoActually, a large part of the cost of gasoline in most U.S. States is a gasoline tax that goes to their respective Departments of Transportation. That said, this is still ridiculous.
- freiheit 14y agoAnd mostly that goes to the state highways that cyclists generally can't use, while the county and city streets that cyclists do use are mostly funded by local property and sales taxes.
- lutusp 14y agoThis demented viewpoint overlooks how much more efficient bicycling is than virtually any other mode of transport. Link: http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html Quote: "The bicycle is a tremendously efficient means of transportation. In fact cycling is more efficient than any other method of travel--including walking!" The hidden agenda is that such an efficient mode of transport is difficult to tax based on conventional measures like fuel used or CO2 emitted -- although it's apparent that people will try. I think bicyclists should be taxed based on what their existence costs society as a whole -- freeway construction, pothole repair, global warming, health care for those dying of heart disease and diabetes. By that reasoning, bicyclists should receive a tax credit, like those who install solar panels or buy electric cars. Oh -- did I mention that I'm a bicyclist?