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."

31 of 976 comments (clear)

  1. Infinite human stupidity by pianophile · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does the House GOP caucus have a minimum stupidity requirement?

    --

    'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    1. Re:Infinite human stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope - you just need to be able to take the economy hostage and kiss rich people's asses.

    2. Re:Infinite human stupidity by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the problem is the alternative: a world where a self-appointed subclass has deemed that they are more worthy than the people themselves to decide what is good for you. the truth is, complete morons voting and complete morons getting elected is a world far, far better than the alternatives

      if you don't believe me, ask the chinese (the people, not their government). they look at the usa, with all of the morons voting and getting elected, with deep envy

      you have no idea how good you have it. i'm being 100% serious

      caveat: we really need to get the fucking money out of our election process. that's the real evil

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  2. I sighed by programmerar · · Score: 5, Funny

    I sighed while reading this, fatigued by the comments of the congressman. Sorry for the extra CO2 guys.

  3. Simple solution by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Next? People who have plants! by Orphis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Plants emit CO2 at night, let's have a tax on people who have plants too!

  5. RTFA by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative
    He doesn't say that bicycles produce more CO2 than cars, he says that:
    • Drivers pay road tax to cover the costs of roads, including bike lanes, why shouldn't bikes pay some of this?
    • Cycling increases your respiration rate so produces more CO2 than not cycling.

    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
    1. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. The second point is complete nonsense.

      Every gram of carbon dioxide you emit while cycling was previously fixed directly from the atmosphere by a plant or alga. If you didn't re-emit it, the food you would have eaten would rot instead, and the same CO2 would be released by bacteria. Even if that food had never been grown, the plant or alga that grew in its place would have eventually decayed, emitting the same CO2.

    2. Re:RTFA by faedle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And even assertion 1 is faulty.

      Cyclists also pay for roads via sales and property taxes in Washington, probably reasonably close to their proportional use of same. Cyclists are more likely to use city streets over state highways (and aren't allowed on Interstates at all), occupy a considerably smaller footprint than an automobile, and impact the road surface considerably less, if at all, given their light weight.

    3. Re:RTFA by tibit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You haven't been paying attention to politics I see. The deal is only and precisely in how he frames his "facts". He is implying -- and his statements are specifically construed to do so to the uneducated masses -- that the respiratory CO2 output of a bike rider is somehow in the ballpark of a per-person amortized CO2 output of any ICE means of transport (whatever comes to Joe Sixpack's mind). This is of course sheer lunacy, but he is careful by not stating it outright -- he'd be rightfully called a fool. What he is doing is what politicians do: what's important is what he is not saying -- what the ignorants' minds will fill the voids with. It's a rather obvious means of manipulating the public -- on the surface there's no way to accuse him of anything much, really. That's where the problem is with politicians.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:RTFA by Alioth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Road wear isn't a factor of tire PSI, but axle load. Road wear increases at an exponetional proportional to axle load.

      See p.23 of this: http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf - showing that a 5 axle tractor/trailer does 9600 times the road damage than a car, despite only weighing 20 times as much. (A bicycle's wear to the road is likely immeasurably small compared to a car).

  6. Re:Not as strange as it sounds by bhcompy · · Score: 5, Funny

    This post has merit and should feel good about itself

  7. Where's the toilet handle. We're done here. by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Cars produce more by Captain+Hook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Cars produce more by gallondr00nk · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

  10. I checked The Onion... by advid.net · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Cars produce more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Wrong Analysis by NEDHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  13. *PERUVIAN* Asparagus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Not as strange as it sounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most of these claims often analyze the entire chain of producing asparagus, while neglecting to do the same for fuel the bus is using. So while superficially it is an interesting statement, the way it is derived is probably flawed. You can't compare the carbon footprint of asparagus vs. the emissions of a city bus. You also have to take into consideration the carbon footprint of the fuel the city bus is using.

  15. Folks in this guys district must be embarrased by turkeyfish · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Cars produce more by 1s44c · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  17. Re:Cars produce more by Frontier+Owner · · Score: 5, Funny

    remember these are the people who wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide...

  18. Re:CO2 isn't the only biking benefit by YttriumOxide · · Score: 5, Informative

    To me, this all seems like a problem with cyclist education and your local laws.

    In European cities, where cycling is much more common, there seems to be significantly fewer (although sadly still more than zero) idiots. I assume it's simply that because cycling is so much more common, both the cyclists and the vehicle drivers are more used to dealing with each other.

    Beyond that, cyclists can and do end up taking the blame when they cause an accident. An acquaintance of mine here in Germany was cycling drunk one day, ran a red light and got hit side on by a VW convertible going 50km/h. He was thrown a significant distance and woke up in hospital, lucky to be alive. Upon being released from hospital, a couple of police officers had a nice chat with him about the accident and the end result was that he ended up paying two separate fines for cycling whilst under the influence as well as running a red light; AND he had to pay for the damage he caused to the car (normally there's a type of insurance here that covers that sort of thing, but being the relatively irresponsible type (obviously) he doesn't have it).

    --
    My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
    Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  19. Re:Not as strange as it sounds by sootman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I haven't read the book but I find that hard to believe for many reasons.

    1. You are going to breathe some anyway, so you need to look at how much more CO2 you give off than if you were just sitting. And they need to compare a typical rider, not Lance Armstrong in competition mode. The bicycle is one of the most efficient forms of transportation ever made, in terms of distance traveled per energy put in. I rode a bike pretty much exclusively in college, and in a flat town, it's less work than walking. Pedal, coast. Pedal, coast. Pedal, coast.

    2. If you're going to look at all the CO2 it took to make some asparagus, then you need to be fair and look at all the CO2 it took to make every single component of the car, and assemble the car, and all the CO2 it took to gather and refine the petroleum that's in the tank -- not just the CO2 that's coming out the tailpipe. I'd also be curious how he made his measurements -- like the saying goes, it takes a lot to build a factory to make one can of soup, but after you've done that, the next million cans are pretty easy.

    3. I'd also like the see the footprints of more foods. There's probably a 10x, if not 100x, difference between the highest and lowest foods, and as you say, we don't all eat just asparagus.

    4. And finally, are you talking about the entire bus, or just one rider's worth? The good Rep. Orcutt is talking about biking versus driving a car, and we all know that a bus with 60 people gives off less CO2 than 60 people driving.

    If you're familiar with the book, I'd be curious to know the answer to any of those questions.

    In any case, the representative is full of shit. When I'm walking my kid to school, and we get to the door, I can smell the exhaust of the dozens of cars sitting there. It does not smell like that from an equal number of people breathing.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  20. How much smaller of a tax? by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  21. Re:Cars produce more by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
  22. Re:Cars produce more by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  23. Re:Cars produce more by indeterminator · · Score: 5, Funny

    I say we cut down the CO2 emissions... with a herring.

  24. Re:Cars produce more by PSVMOrnot · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news: Congressman tried biking in college, but didn't exhale.

  25. Re:Not as strange as it sounds by poolecl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not to mention the fact that the people on the bus are still breathing, albeit not as much as while riding a bicycle. I bet that is ignored as well.