3 ms·

What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving?! btw, if you look at CO2 emission and greenhouse gas emission, you'

What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving?! btw, if you look at CO2 emission and greenhouse gas emission, you'll find that USA and CHINA are pretty much tete a tete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse... Obviously, emission pro-capita is quite different. So, yes, the low hanging fruit it in your living room pretty much.

ars 13y ago
> What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving? Do the math. It's quite clear. You don't realize just how much fuel (diesel) farms use to grow that food, and then your body is not as efficient at converting the food into motion. It's a double whammy and you end up with cars being more efficient than bicycles. > Obviously, emission pro-capita is quite different. Yes. Obviously. And since this article is talking about pollution why would you even look at CO2 numbers?
- crocowhile 13y ago
  I commute 30km a day, consuming around 600 kcalories (it's about (0.1 calories per kg per minute for a 70kg adult going 25kmh). Driving would cost me about 21000 kcal (0.7 gallons a day, that is 0.7 * 31000 kcal in a gallon of diesel). So my car is about 36 times less efficient than me. Do yourself a favour and stop watching fox news.
- mturmon 13y ago
  @ars: You're not doing the math. You're just repeating the same claim, which seems wrong, and probably is wrong. You should certainly not be surprised that you're not convincing anyone. And saying "It's quite clear" is really rich, because, of course, it is not clear at all. I think the best rebuttal has to do with the cost. The cost of buying, fueling, and maintaining a car is much greater than that of a bicycle plus the incremental food cost for the rider. Additionally, @wes-exp has pointed to figures (just concerning MPG equivalent, not counting buying and maintaining) that have bicycles much more efficient than cars.

ars 13y ago

> What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving? Do the math. It's quite clear. You don't realize just how much fuel (diesel) farms use to grow that food, and then your body is not as efficient at converting the food into motion. It's a double whammy and you end up with cars being more efficient than bicycles. > Obviously, emission pro-capita is quite different. Yes. Obviously. And since this article is talking about pollution why would you even look at CO2 numbers?

crocowhile 13y ago
I commute 30km a day, consuming around 600 kcalories (it's about (0.1 calories per kg per minute for a 70kg adult going 25kmh). Driving would cost me about 21000 kcal (0.7 gallons a day, that is 0.7 * 31000 kcal in a gallon of diesel). So my car is about 36 times less efficient than me. Do yourself a favour and stop watching fox news.
mturmon 13y ago
@ars: You're not doing the math. You're just repeating the same claim, which seems wrong, and probably is wrong. You should certainly not be surprised that you're not convincing anyone. And saying "It's quite clear" is really rich, because, of course, it is not clear at all. I think the best rebuttal has to do with the cost. The cost of buying, fueling, and maintaining a car is much greater than that of a bicycle plus the incremental food cost for the rider. Additionally, @wes-exp has pointed to figures (just concerning MPG equivalent, not counting buying and maintaining) that have bicycles much more efficient than cars.