Slashdot Mirror
State Rep. Says Biking Is Not Earth Friendly Because Breathing Produces CO2
terbeaux writes "The fact that Rep Ed Orcutt (R — WA) wants to tax bicycle use is not extraordinary. The representative's irrational conviction is. SeattleBikeBlog has confirmed reports that Orcutt does not feel bicycling is environmentally friendly because the activity causes cyclists to have 'an increased heart rate and respiration.' When they contacted him he clarified that 'You would be giving off more CO2 if you are riding a bike than driving in a car...' Cascade blog has posted the full exchange between Rep Ed Orcutt and a citizen concerned about the new tax."
If you eliminated all the CO2, the plants would die. I think you mean limit it to some given level.
For those interested, I'd recommend the book How Bad is a Banana, which examines the carbon footprint of various foods (which varies greatly).
Fun tidbit: If you were to take your calories from asparagus (which has a big carbon footprint), riding a bike actually has a bigger carbon footprint than a city bus. Yea, I know we don't eat only asparagus, but the point is still valid: you can just look at the surface and ignore the externalities of your actions.
Does the House GOP caucus have a minimum stupidity requirement?
'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
I sighed while reading this, fatigued by the comments of the congressman. Sorry for the extra CO2 guys.
Waiting for you by the bridge
In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely
Plants need CO2 to produce food. If you eliminated CO2 we'd die as a species, along with every other species.
Also, by his reasoning we should start killing our population off, because then we'll produce less CO2 when they're dead. What a moron.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I'm not holding my breath for Mr. Orcutt to get his sense. Moving on...
Set up two sealed rooms with a glass wall.
In one room have a car outside the window with its exhaust piped into the room.
In the other have a cyclist on an exercise bike working out. Pipe his exhalations into the room.
Outfit the room with a nice desk and sofa and other accouterments. Then ask the esteemed congressman which room he would like to spend the day in.
For myself it would depend on if the cyclist had eaten garlic recently!
Silence is a state of mime.
By his own reasoning, Rep Ed Orcutt needs to lower his CO2 production by keeping his mouth shut. He would do both the planet and his colleagues a favor.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
It's clear that he is just lobbying, and that's just not true. But the benefits of people commuting aren't only in helping the atmosphere, but our society, full of obese people that doesn't interact with others and act like retards with their cars.
Kill off poor people, burn their bodies as fuel. Win/win for the 1%!
Plants emit CO2 at night, let's have a tax on people who have plants too!
In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely. And ultimately, if we as a species are going to survive, we need to do that. But in the here and now, we have to do the best we can. And cars produce way more of that poison than anyone on a bicycle. The Congressman is just an ignorant jackass who has no understanding of how our biosphere works.
Not sure if this is a troll, or an example of someone who has their head so far up the ass of the radical green movement that their brain has stopped working due to lack of oxygen...
Both of these are true. The only one he is actually using to justify his position (that bikes should pay road tax) is the former, the second point is refuting the point that bikes are environmentally friendly. The second point is debatable: it's a question of what the basic comparison is. Cycling is more polluting than staying at home, less polluting than driving a car.
There are lots of valid reasons to mock Republicans, we don't need to make more up.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This can be solved by a simple test.
Put several plants and some animals in a closed garage and ride your bike all day long. Take note of any sick or dead plants/animals afterwards.
After this if you are still convinced bikes are bad for the environment, do the same test using your car instead of the bike.
Did a representative of MY government just try and tell me that my breath is somehow more harmful to the environment than the Hummer exhaust I'm choking on?
Where is the damn toilet handle on Congress already...Will someone please go tell Nicolas Cage to go find THAT please? I could care less about a fountain of youth if the world is going to be run by this level of ignorance.
CO2 isn't a problem, it's part of a cycle for Carbon in the biosphere. Adding significantly more Carbon to the biosphere from sources which have been locked away hundreds of millions of years in the form of CO2 is a problem.
Even if people produced more CO2 than cars to travel the same distance (which they don't) it still wouldn't be a problem because the Carbon the cyclist is using is already part of the biosphere.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
...we'd die as a species
No more AGW, success!
If you eliminated all the CO2, the plants would die. I think you mean limit it to some given level.
Yes. When you think about the fact that the GP posted this on a "Geek" website, I am deeply saddened and worried by the lack of basic science education.
Consider that this politician is a product of that system, I can't really blame him for making such an ignorant statement.
In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely.
No need to wait! Make a difference and stop exhaling today!
In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely. ... The Congressman is just an ignorant jackass who has no understanding of how our biosphere works.
thank god we'll never fully eliminate irony from the planet.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely.
Sigh. We need a certain amount of greenhouse effect in order to make the planet habitable. Nature, itself provides the required amount of CO2 to create that effect and that is a significant reason why life arose on this planet in the first place.
Things get dodgy when human activity causes the release of a shitload of extra CO2 and therefore amp up the greenhouse effect.
TCAP-Abort
I think that maybe some people just find it too hard to believe that all the carbon in the plants actually comes from the air. This gives you an idea about how much the atmosphere weighs -- CO2 is merely 0.04% of our atmosphere! Heck, forget the plants that are alive now, just look at how much of this stuff was in the atmosphere long time ago. Every bit of carbon in coal deposits came from the atmosphere!!
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Brought to you by Carl's Jr
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely
Plants need CO2 to produce food. If you eliminated CO2 we'd die as a species, along with every other species.
The Earth also needs CO2 to stay warm. We'd be in a permanent ice age if there was literally zero in the atmosphere.
Moderation. People have surprising difficulty with the concept.
The eco-taxes are out of control in general and really it needs to stop. It's not helping the environment and it's making the economy worse.
Seriously... we can all come up with ways to f' each other over. Can we just stop it? Because every time one group comes up with a nasty way to hurt another group the second group just responds in kind.
And then what do we have?
Moral of the story? Stop acting like children and play nice.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This news looks like one of The Onion great news... but I just checked, and I couldn't find it.
Anyway, one should point out that biking produces less CO2 than walking or using any other vehicle, for a given distance.
We need the name of your biology teacher, pronto.
Don't be so quick to blame the teacher. You can lead a moron to knowledge, but you can't make him learn.
What is remarkable about this exchange is not that bike riders are enhanced CO2 producers, but that a republican legislator has acknowledged the CO2 needs to be recognized as a greenhouse gas, which in excess is bad.
It is a start...
I don't know why they don't just drag some trees from the back of aeroplanes. Or perhaps a small shrubbery on the roof. That'll get rid of the CO2 in the stratosphere, surely?
Since any form of exercise does this then, by the Congressmen's reasoning, all Americans should stop exercising. To make sure we don't exercise, we should make physical movement difficult by, say, adding two hundred pounds to every person. McDonald's is now proud to announce the McPatriot. It's a five thousand calorie burger that all patriotic Americans should eat. By eating five of these a day, you should put on your two hundred pounds of patriotic, exercise-preventing fat very quickly. (Don't worry about the lack of competition. Burger King is coming out with an All-American Whopper. KFC has said that they were ahead of the curve with their Double Down sandwich.) As a bonus, all of this fat will mean that Americans won't live as long which should solve the Social Security crisis.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The "stuff that matters" is that Americans elected that kind of people to make laws based on his knowledge. Don't worry, probably have more clue than the rest.
The difference between the CO2 you exhale and that exhaled by your car is that yours come from the food you ate: plants (even if indirectly you ate animals that ate plants). And those plants got it from the atmosphere. So you are just returning CO2 to where it came from. A car takes it from the ground where it's been slowly accumulating for tens of millions of years and dumps it into the atmosphere. It's NOT the same CO2.
Now if we go into externalities such as "how must CO2 from petroleum did it take to bring that food on the table", then it gets a bit more tricky.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
I think many of you are missing the point by engaging in the merit of the argument. Politicians raise taxes to gain and extend their power. If they could do so at will they would. However they need some level of acceptance by their marginally informed constituents. So they throw out explanations that only need to sound legitimate enough to let them proceed. I doubt the good congressman cares squat about the co2 generated by a biker.
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
Well yes, but not because its Asparagus, but rather because it's grown in Peru and imported at great CO2 cost using petroleum fueled ships and truck:
http://www.coopfoodstore.coop/content/what-price-asparagus
In fact, thin air is a strong CO2 producer..... if you bottle it in Peru and ship it to the breather in trucks.
Who is voting for this guy? It must be a corner of WA where stupid is a virtue.
An average car produces 5.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The average resting human produces 170,000 liters, or 340kg carbon dioxide per year. With a moderate level of activity, we can increase this to a conservative 500kg. There is simply no comparison. Clearly, this guy is an idiot masquerading as a "representative" of people's needs.
The "stuff that matters" is that Americans elected that kind of people to make laws based on his knowledge. Don't worry, probably have more clue than the rest.
And there is the real problem. People are elected into positions of responsibility not because they can do the job, but because they read good speeches.
Annual miles traveled x weight x lane width needed. Here's my nickel, kid.
You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
I'm struggling to see the relevance but if you insist: Your average politician prefers wearing 40 denier stockings under their trousers. Garters are optional.
Next he will be taxing running, walking, having sex, masturbation, all sports ... basically anything that raises your breathing rate.
Yes, this is correct, but what many people forget is that the calories you ingest as a first world eater include pretty substantial amounts of fossil fuel use in fertilizing, care-taking, and transport. More energy from fossil fuels, in fact, than you receive in calories(or so I've heard).
remember these are the people who wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide...
Cars don't produce C02; People do!
Did a representative of MY government just try and tell me that my breath is somehow more harmful to the environment than the Hummer exhaust I'm choking on?
Betteridge's Law of Headlines needs to be expanded to cover comments on websites. No, he didn't say that at all, as you would know if you'd RTGodDamnA. He said that your breath while cycling is more harmful to the environment than your breath while driving a car, as you release more CO2 because of the physical exertion. Where I come from, we learn that in science class at around 10 years old. Secondly, the tax is separate from this issue. It was pointed out that car drivers currently pay road tax to cover maintenance costs while bicycles do not, yet bicycle riders contribute to wear and tear on the roads (even if only in a minor way). I disagree with this, as tax isn't paid specifically to care for roads. Instead all taxes are put into the public coffers, and then divided up amongst various departments.
Insert joke about ironic use of "ignorance" here.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/
When you think about the fact that the GP posted this on a "Geek" website, I am deeply saddened and worried by the lack of basic science education.
I too, am heavily ensaddened.
crazyjj is clearly the stupidiest scientition in the internet.
you got it all wrong : soylent green
42
I am not sure, I think he is just an idiot.
Looks like whoever operates that alt got sick of it and is fine using it to troll until he has no karma left.
CO seems to eliminate itself pretty well.
We have these other things that store carbon compounds in 100' tall columns!!! Imagine how much carbon per acre they could store... Everybody's gonna want on on this tech!!!
That red light (or stop sign) at the bottom of the hill is only for cars... I don't need to stop or even slow down
So what should a cyclist do facing a red light at the bottom of a hill that has stayed red for several minutes because the bicycle doesn't have enough metal surface to trip the induction sensor that it has remained stopped over? I've reported it to the city, but the city claims that fixing the sensor isn't in its budget. No, there's no marked crosswalk or pedestrian call button. No, leaning the bike doesn't help on this particular signal. Not even carrying a loop of patch cable in my left shoe works. I guess the city finds rejecting semis in the adjacent lane more important than detecting bicycles.
That I can believe, and I almost mentioned that in my original post but it detracted from the simplicity of the point I was trying to get across. I was starting to sound like a laywer. "This is true, unless you use this source for fertiliser and if you live away from rural areas you have to account for transportation fuel." etc.
The figure I've heard is something like 10 times more kJ in fossil fuel relative to the kJ consumed as food, as a species we literally eat fossil fuels by temporarily converting it into carrots and potatoes and beef steaks, it why I'm so afraid of peak oil, as a species since the industrial revolution we've thrived and the population has expanded well beyond the naturally sustainable population by using an energy source which almost no other animal on the planet can use. When it's gone we had better have a significant alternative to both the energy and the chemical feedstock aspects of fossil fuel because without it a lot of us are going to starve to death.
Having said that, I have an allotment plot and about 50% of my yearly calorie intake comes from a source without any fossil fuel usage, I could bump that up significantly but to do it I would need to put far more time into the plot. The equivalent of doing it as a full time job and it would be pretty much subsistance farming which isn't alot of fun.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Did a representative of MY government just try and tell me that my breath is somehow more harmful to the environment than the Hummer exhaust I'm choking on?
Betteridge's Law of Headlines needs to be expanded to cover comments on websites. No, he didn't say that at all, as you would know if you'd RTGodDamnA. He said that your breath while cycling is more harmful to the environment than your breath while driving a car, as you release more CO2 because of the physical exertion. Where I come from, we learn that in science class at around 10 years old. Secondly, the tax is separate from this issue. It was pointed out that car drivers currently pay road tax to cover maintenance costs while bicycles do not, yet bicycle riders contribute to wear and tear on the roads (even if only in a minor way). I disagree with this, as tax isn't paid specifically to care for roads. Instead all taxes are put into the public coffers, and then divided up amongst various departments. Insert joke about ironic use of "ignorance" here.
#1: I don't care how you want to slice this. This is a public declaration on a tax on breathing. The only thing that outshines the utter stupidity of that concept is the sheer arrogance that Representatives have the gall to word it that way to my face. Shit, at least call it a damn paint surcharge or reflector subsidy or something. This is how bold they are, reflecting just how weak and apathetic we are.
#2: Cycling provides health benefits making healthier citizens. Let's discourage that shit and put them back in their cars or at home, making them unhealthy and therefore far more profitable for our next business venture, socialized medicine.
All one has to do is follow the money anymore, and remember who pulls the strings. Common sense is clearly irrelevant. I learned that in 3rd grade social studies.
That just means they should pay a smaller tax, thats all.
A 2000 pound passenger vehicle in use weighs 1000 pounds per axle. A 200 pound bicycle in use weighs only 100. Because road wear increases as the fourth power of weight per axle, ten times the weight implies roughly 10,000 times the road wear. How much do you charge each driver per year in road tax? And how much would it cost the state to bill each cyclist 1/10,000 of that?
Weeds are plants in the wrong place. And pollutants are chemicals in the wrong place. Dihydrogen monoxide certainly can be a pollutant. In times of flood for example. Or in my whisky.
Maybe the people who set up this vox-pop trap weren't as clever as they thought they were.
we should start killing our population off, because then we'll produce less CO2 when they're dead.
I say we start with the cast of the Jersey Shore and pretty much everyone that works on Captiol Hill. Especially ignorant fools that have minds akin to that of the representative from Washington and any idiot that is on the science committee, that believes evolution is a fallacy.
--There are two kinds of people in this world. I don't like either of them.
It's bad enough when people with degrees in Law or Political Science or Business Administration try to legislate on scientific questions. What's even scarier is the fact that this guy received an A.S. in Forestry from the University of Maine, and a B.S. in Forestry Management from the University of Idaho. Which I'm sure is a lot less biochemically rigorous a field of study than, say, Botany, but someone with that kind of credentials ought to have a better understanding of environmental science than he shows.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
That's the last of our problems- we'd all be dead within 72 hours or so. CO2 is required to make the human respiration system work, the breathing reflex is triggered by too much CO2, not by a lack of oxygen, this is why hyperventilating before holding your breath can make you pass out, you scrub lots of CO2 out of your system and then run out of O2 before your brain forces you to inhale. This is also the mechanism behind Cheyne Stokes respiration, where high altitude climbers don't breath enough while they sleep.
Erradicate all CO2 and you have to consciously breath, on purpose - if you forget, or fall asleep, you're dead.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
I say we cut down the CO2 emissions... with a herring.
Can we please institute basic tests for elected officials.
Say something like basic grade 8 science, math, history and english.
There are as many idiot on bike as in car. BUT and that is a really important point, idiot biker are far more likely to damage themselves than to damage other, on the contrary to idiot in car. In fact for many of the point you cited above , I saw in the last years at least one car doing it. Up to the point of having a geisterfahrer (guys which take the highway on the frigging wrong direction going coutner sense of the other car).
"- Let's speed down the middle of a one-way street, going the wrong way."
Have had car do that on me. At 40 mph in a city road because they were in a hurry.
- Let's ride down the middle of an actual highway... yeh, nothing bad will happen here. (Seriously, saw that and went WTF)
As said above see my paragraph about geisterfahrer.
- That red light (or stop sign) at the bottom of the hill is only for cars... I don't need to stop or even slow down
Was badly hurt by a car which tought red light don't count. There was no policeman so hey who the fuck care about red light, right RIGHT ? And I don't count the number of time where car think stops sign and "right of way" do not count if you ride a bike. And seems surprised when you fume at them ("You should not be in the road , it is for car only fucktard")
- Let's make a left turn here while on this 40MpH road without indicating or looking, I'm sure the car behind me can stop in time
My colleagues fumes about cars doing that all the time, never putting the blinker light. So I am guessing ehre it is actually a widespread "sport" of forgetting for everybody to put a indication. On the other hand nearly 1/3 of the time if I put my arm to the left, the guys whicha re up to 100m behind me REEVES their motor up the wazoo and accelerate to pass before I go to the left. I dunno for the US, but here once you put your harm to the elft, unless they were already engaged to pass over you, they should not accelerate , they should slow down and let the bike pass. As I said a full 1/3 of the population ignore that fully.
- Hmm, I think I'll dig in my pocket and look for my cellphone, then start talking on the cellphone, while weaving around like a drunk idiot
Like cars. Which is why there are so many law against driving with cellphone and so many fines distributed.
- Hmm, I'm obviously not a great cyclist... so let me ride carelessly on a 40MpH road, fall down in the middle of the road without a helmet, and nearly cause a bunch of accidents as they try not to drive over my head.
How often that happens ? get real.
Oh yeah and my all time classic. old driver thinking they will brake and accelerate instead
I was nearly killed by one guy and his wife parking in a sport car, thankfully a tree stopped the car right in its track and they were not wounded,, the car totalled, but there hadn't been the tree I would probably be in a hospital or gone.
At least old biker are not a menace to everybody else.
Facts is, I frankly think there are a higher number of idiot on bike than there is on car. But the idiots in cars provocate hundreds, thousands of death every year. Those in bike do not.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Or, he's trying to irritate you people who keep trying to correct an obvious sarcasm.
And he's doing a pretty good job at it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
And these are the kinds of uneducated idiots we continue to elect to the house and senate. I wonder what lobby group or groups payed this clown to spout his complete bullshit. This moron, like just about every other politician in Washington, should be thrown out! I would call for a stronger response but considering that the government monitors these sorts of forums of expression and opinion I suspect it would be unwise.
I thought bullshit gave off more methane than CO2.
Quick! To Kickstarter!
The "stuff that matters" is that Americans elected that kind of people to make laws based on his knowledge.
The politician cited in this story makes laws based on the wishes of his largest contributors, not his personal knowledge.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Average gasoline vehicle produces 19.29 lbs /gal CO2 emissions. An average North American mid-size car travels 21 mpg. So, in an average 21 mile commute the vehicle would travel 21 miles and release 19.29 pounds of CO2 emissions.
.074 KW = 500)
An average person’s respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day (CO2#Human_physiology). The amount of CO2 released by human per day is 0.9 kg/day or 1.9 lbs.
It is an absurd comparison because there is no way a human can produce the amount of energy in one gallon of fuel. In fact, one gallon of gasoline is equivalent to
1 Barrel of Oil = 5,800,000 BTUs Source: Louisiana Oil and Gas Association
1 Gallon of Gas = 125,000 BTUs Source: US Department of Energy
1 Barrel of Oil thus contains the energy contained in 46.4 gallons of gas (5,800,000 divided by 125,000 = 46.4 )
1 Gallon of Gas = 500 hours of human work output (37 KWH in 1 gallon of gas divided by human work output in agriculture of
1 Barrel of Oil = 23,200 Hours of Human Work Output (Energy equivalent of 46.4 gallons of gas per barrel of oil x 500 hours of human work ouput per gallon of gas = 23,2000 hours)
In other news: Congressman tried biking in college, but didn't exhale.
It seems we are electing complete morons to Public service now.
When a senator or rep says something this stupid, they should be kicked out of office right away... Tar them, roll them in feathers, and force them to walk from the capitol for 10 blocks carrying a sign that says "IDIOT" with an arrow pointing down at them.
Why in the world do we not only allow but freaking encourage the stupid people to be elected officials?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If your going to be a pendant, at least be correct. This is quiet ironic.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
As others have pointed out, the goal for this legislation is to get everyone using the roads to help pay for them via a "use tax" rather than from general taxes. This is a trend (a bad one, in my view) pushed heavily by the Right and by Libertarians. Basic idea is "I don't use it, so I don't pay for it" where "it" can be schools, bridges in another town, firemen (when my house isn't on fire), etc. This concept is, IMHO, what's pulling this country apart as a community and turning us into little enclaves of selfishness that remind me of the seagulls in the movie "Finding Nemo" (as in "mine mine minemineminemine ..."). I'm not sure this is progress.
We really need to limit the stupidity - or ignorance of basic science - in our elected officials.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
This is why I pick up fresh organic carbon each day at the Whole Foods. The idea of using someone else's sloppy seconds carbon is just... nasty.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Because, now that the government derives an income stream that is inversely proportional to how healthy people are, people will become more healthy to avoid the tax.
So, the government will start having to tax healthy activities to make up for the loss of income.
This is no different than road tax based on mileage because cars are getting more efficient.
The government is going to get the money it wants, one way or another, because the American People are collectively too chicken shit to get its own government under control.
I say we start with people that make this kind of suggestion. How about that? You volunteer? No? Thought so.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
2012 Honda civic CO2 emmision rating: 200g/mi (Note, converted to mi from km)
Daily Human CO2 (no excercise, 60bpm:) 900g/day (38g per hour)
Now we do some math here: assume we cycle for an hour, reaching a peak of 3x consumption (180bpm vs resting rate of 60), that's 113g. My average biking in 1hr is about 12mi, so my exercising is 9.4 grams per mile. Now contrast that with the 200 grams per mile...
Efficency wise, my car is 3400lbs, I am 180lbs. It is 19 times heaver than I am. It's CO2 g/mi is 21 times mine per mile, meaning I am slightly more efficient per pound than the car. (Note: I did not include my bike weight.) The car's downfall is all t he additional weight.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Give the GP credit, at least when being pendantic he didn't dangle his participles, quietly or otherwise.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Most of the calories you eat are being made with lots and lots of fossil fuels both for fertilizer and even basic processing like separating wheat from chaff.
Sure a car is worse, but cyclists and all humans at this point are increasing net CO2 just by eating.
I would support this tax only if Rep Orcutt and his ilk all stopped producing any CO2 themselves.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Wow, with mistakes like that, you'd think I was doing it on porpoise.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Reminds me of an issue I've had with some intersections while driving.
The sign says "Left turn only on green".
The light changes to flashing red after 11pm.
Taken literally, the sign would seem to require waiting until morning.
Intelligent Design (guffaw), trickle down economics, .....
It's no wonder America is in trouble, it's run by complete idiots! If Rep. Orcutt is representative of the future of America, Americans are doomed.
No, pendantic is right, he's hanging around making comments.
get with the times, pal. the catalytic converter turns most of the CO into CO2. As some farmers have found out, CO2 in high concentration is maiming or lethal, the carbonic acid will make your lungs bleed.
As a cyclist, I have to chime in here a bit. Even though I bike to and from daily to work, I'm pretty sure I eat less food calories than the average person in the population. Cyclists (in general) don't like any extra weight. It's way easier to lose 20 lbs than it is to cut 20 lbs off the bike. Even a decent bike won't weight much more than 30 lbs anyway, and the best of the best bikes are about 15 lbs. Also, I tend to travel less far, to work and otherwise, than the average person in my city. Because I don't even own a car I find it much more important to live a reasonable distance from my work. My commute is only 7 km each way. Also, I don't make many long trips in the evening or on weekends. I know people who will easily drive 30-40 km across the city to save $10 on groceries.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
...no he doesn't. That driver takes in food as fuel as well and by virtue of being a warm blooded creature he burns that fuel at a rate not far off of the active cyclist. I'm moderately active, and while I may eat a bit more than some folks my weight - I for damn sure eat less than the average American. Now you're trying to compare the amount of energy burned by a cyclist to a car engine moving 1.5 tons of steel around?
Parent post is trying to take the least efficient food he can find and factor in all of the externalities to making and delivering that food, then compare that with only the fuel consumption of the car. Make sure you understand exactly what that means before supporting his position.
+1 Disagree
The only one he is actually using to justify his position (that bikes should pay road tax) is the former, the second point is refuting the point that bikes are environmentally friendly. The second point is debatable: it's a question of what the basic comparison is.
Roads are not paid for by drivers. They're paid for by the public, overwhelmingly via property taxes. Everyone who walks, takes public transit, or bicycles is subsidizing drivers. People who walk or ride bicycles don't impact the road surface at all (bicycles exert so little force on the road that they don't cause any wear at all.) Every person who gets out of their car and onto a bike saves the government in road maintenance, and saves their healthcare company in health costs.
Furthermore, the gas tax hasn't been adjusted in decades for increasing fuel economy standards; as cars have become far more efficient, drivers have been paying less per mile for road costs. Politicians won't increase the pittance of a gas tax because it's political suicide.
Please help metamoderate.
There's a problem with that reasoning. 95% of the wear-and-tear on public streets is done be trucks. Damage increases exponentially with the weight on each tire (and probably with speed). The wear caused by a bicycle on the street is basically immeasurable; the ocaissional motor vehicle that wanders into the bike lane does far more damage. When was the last time you saw a bicycles-only path the showed _any_ signs of tire wear?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.