State Rep. Says Biking Is Not Earth Friendly Because Breathing Produces CO2 976
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."
Not as strange as it sounds (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not as strange as it sounds (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not as strange as it sounds (Score:5, Interesting)
These days, asparagus can be grown in a single season. In yestayear, it would have taken two. I've grown some lovely spears myself and they take no more work than any other type of vegetable. Maybe slightly more space is needed, but not that much.
Re:Not as strange as it sounds (Score:5, Funny)
I'd suggest that book it dated if it's giving advice like that. These days, asparagus can be grown in a single season. In yestayear, it would have taken two. I've grown some lovely spears myself and they take no more work than any other type of vegetable. Maybe slightly more space is needed, but not that much.
Even if it grew in one season, asparagus isn't very high in calories. The hypothetical man trying to consume 2000 calories of it would need something like 10 kg/day! And can you imagine the "asparagus pee" you'd get from that?
Anyway -- where did you find this single-season asparagus? I've never planted it just due to impatience (and need to move every so often). Is it a new variety, or is there a successful way of raising it to maturity in a greenhouse/nursery before transplanting to a garden?
*PERUVIAN* Asparagus (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.
Re:*PERUVIAN* Asparagus (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually shipping is very efficient. It can take far more fossil fuels to grow crops outside their ideal area vs transporting them.
I guess we could all only eat things grown in a 20 mile radius, but that would be pretty limiting.
Re:*PERUVIAN* Asparagus (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually shipping is very efficient. It can take far more fossil fuels to grow crops outside their ideal area vs transporting them.
I guess we could all only eat things grown in a 20 mile radius, but that would be pretty limiting.
Something like 10% of the carbon footprint of agriculture is due to transportation to the consumer. While "eating local" is generally a good idea, by itself it is not a complete solution. Winter hothouse tomatoes in Britain contribute significantly more CO2 than importing Spanish field tomatoes to Britain, for example.
Re:*PERUVIAN* Asparagus (Score:4, Informative)
Before Mr. Earl Butz [wikipedia.org], we did only eat things grown locally. Mr. Butz thought a lot of money could be made shipping our food thousands of miles, and voila we have Big Agribusiness [grist.org] the modern American waistline, diabetes, and increasingly, horse meat in our burgers, carp in our crab, and all the other lovely things to hate about the current very frightening state of our food supply.
Re:Not as strange as it sounds (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.
Re:Not as strange as it sounds (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not as strange as it sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
If we are talking about the carbon footprint of growing the asparagus, don't we also have to include the carbon footprint of producing the the bus?
Re:Not as strange as it sounds (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.
Infinite human stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Infinite human stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Infinite human stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they need to be dumb enough to appeal to the "moron voters that fear intelligence" demographic.
Said demographic is quite large.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Infinite human stupidity (Score:4, Funny)
Does the House GOP caucus have a minimum stupidity requirement?
They are trying to construct an Infinity Stupidity Drive. You need to cram 500lbs of bullshit in a 10lb bag then light it on fire while a 100 Congressmen dance on it singing God Bless America. It won't power a starship and is a complete waste of time but it makes as much sense as everything else they are doing lately!
Re:Infinite human stupidity (Score:4, Informative)
Did you know Congresscritters expel CO2? LOTS of it.
Re:Infinite human stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the House GOP caucus have a minimum stupidity requirement?
Although I hate to be fair to Republicans, I'm going to point out that some pretty unqualified people can get elected to state legislatures regardless of party. In a heavily Republican (or heavily Democratic) district, a candidate might actually run unopposed. It can be hard for even the majority local party to recruit a good candidate. Not just anyone can get their boss to give them 2 or 3 months off to serve in the statehouse. So you just might end up with an unemployed loon getting in by default.
Re:Infinite human stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFY. Remember, we've got Maxine Waters saying 170 million jobs will be lost due to the sequester, when we don't even have that many Americans in the work force right now. Stupidity is standard equipment for the politician. If you keep pointing at one party, you'll let the other one off the hook.
Re:Infinite human stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
There is one. It's called an election.
Unfortunately it relies on voters not being total fucking morons and voting in their own kind. As you can see, that plan has significant flaws.
Re:Infinite human stupidity (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
Re:Infinite human stupidity (Score:4, 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
There's another alternative to that. One in which everyone is allowed to vote, but instead of encouraging everyone to get up the day of the election and cast a vote, it doesn't matter who, we teach them that the civil responsibility is to get informed on the issues and the candidates, and then going out and voting. The important part of the voting process is the getting informed part. If you failed to do that because you didn't have the time, then you've already failed at your civil responsibility, and you should self-select yourself to stay home.
I don't support telling any citizen they're not allowed to vote, even if I think they're voting for the wrong person or they're not informed enough to be voting, because who I am to decide that?. That said, I can't support breeding a culture in which we think the value of our democratic government is in pushing a few buttons and then wearing an "I voted!" sticker. I often don't find the time to do my civic duty and being truly informed myself, but I self-select myself out of the voting pool when that happens. I'm not going to my part in this even worse by canceling out the vote of a more responsible citizen.
I sighed (Score:5, Funny)
I sighed while reading this, fatigued by the comments of the congressman. Sorry for the extra CO2 guys.
Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Informative)
CO != CO2
this isn't 1960 (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the difference between a driver and a cyclist? You can't hear the driver yelling "ASSHOLE!!!" every 10 seconds as he weaves his way across busy city intersections.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Funny)
What is the difference between a driver and a cyclist? You can't hear the driver yelling "ASSHOLE!!!" every 10 seconds as he weaves his way across busy city intersections.
Clearly you've never been to Chicago.
By his own reasoning... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:By his own reasoning... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Perhaps by inserting his own head into his anus he would be prevented from expelling methane, CO2 and consuming oxygen, at the same time.
CO2 isn't the only biking benefit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CO2 isn't the only biking benefit (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The only problem with that, is my experience is the that the percentage of idiots in cars is roughly the same as the percentage of idiots on bicycles. Which isn't bad, I guess, if there were only bicycles in the road.
But when you mix bikes and cars together, even with a biking lane, the idiots make things dangerous. A) because they're idiots and B) because SOME cyclists think that since they're not in cars they don't need to follow the rules.
And some of the biggest idiots I've talked to about it, are people that have recently switched "for the environment" Like I've yelled at people that did the below, and their response was simply "But it's good for the environment." Great, will the environment save me from the lawsuit your family will file because I hit you with the car because you swerved in front of me?
Stuff I've seen
- Let's speed down the middle of a one-way street, going the wrong way.
- Let's ride down the middle of an actual highway... yeh, nothing bad will happen here. (Seriously, saw that and went WTF)
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
Obviously, there are plenty of careful and educated cyclists out there... especially the ones that take it seriously (helmet, solid bike, proper signals, etc). But the idiots out there are quite bountiful. And of course, hitting one due to their stupidity will obviously result in ME getting hit with criminal and/or civil issues out the whazoo.
Re:CO2 isn't the only biking benefit (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).
Broken signal (Score:3)
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 gues
Re:Broken signal (Score:4, Informative)
Well, then, that's on them. (No pun intended.)
Seriously, if bicyclists want to flout the law -- and I speak as one of them -- then let them suffer the consequences. And if they survive, maybe they'll be more careful the next time they're rolling toward that red light.
Agreed but a remark (Score:4, Interesting)
"- 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.
Next? People who have plants! (Score:5, Funny)
Plants emit CO2 at night, let's have a tax on people who have plants too!
Re:Next? People who have plants! (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe your plants do. My plants are powered by the sun, and only emit CO2 during construction and demolition.
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Where do you think the carbon in the CO2 you breathe out comes from?
Re:RTFA (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.
Re:RTFA (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.
You are missing the secondary costs. These are things like the oil burnt by machinery to turn the soil, plant the seeds, pull up the plants, process and package the plants, deliver them to supermarkets, and the gas you burn cooking them.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
The secondary costs are small. I can't not eat by simply not cycling, I have to eat anyway.
If I bike to work (12.5 hilly miles in each direction) the amount of extra food I have to eat compared to just sitting on my backside all day is approximately 1 banana or equivalent thereof, which is a pretty small fraction of daily food intake. While a competition cyclist might need a lot more than that, a utility cyclist generally isn't training for competition and rides at a lower, less energy intensive pace.
Re:RTFA (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.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Bike lanes cost money to build, and money to maintain. They may not get worn out by the bicyclists but they still need to have the street sweeper run, the lines painted, signs posted, cracks sealed, etc. Around here the bike lanes are not used nearly as much as the rest of the street, I would say probably the bike lanes cost more per mile used than the rest of the street.
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Roads are usually paid for with a gasoline tax.
False. That's why the post you quoted mentioned that it was a faulty assertion and specifically mentioned city streets vs. state or interstate highways. For the former, which cyclists are for more likely to use, most funding comes from municipal revenue. This is something every citizen pays. The gas tax is more important on the latter two, but cyclists aren't even allowed on interstates.
For a discussion on this issue with data from Seattle and the state of Washington (where this rep is from), see, for example: http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/publicola/articles/we-all-pay-for-the-roads [seattlemet.com].
How much smaller of a tax? (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?
Re:RTFA (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 [gao.gov] - 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).
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
He doesn't say that bicycles produce more CO2 than cars, he says that:
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.
Yeah, you're right, because the concept of taxing breathing now makes sense. How about the dog who takes twice as many breaths as I do walking? Should we start taxing the animals too? Be careful if you do, those blue whales are gonna all swim to the Cayman Islands to avoid their tax.
Yup, they were right all along. Death is the only way to get out of taxes. You have to stop breathing.
I don't care how you want to slice this. Enough is enough.
Re:RTFA (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.
Re:RTFA (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.
Then start taxing those awful anti patriotic people that walk around, cause you know, they have pass-walks in the cities as well, and well, in case it's too complicated for you to understand, they actually "waste" more CO2 to move the same distance then someone riding a bicycle.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance [wikipedia.org]
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
When gas taxes are large enough cover the real costs of the automobile to society, maybe then we can talk about taxing bicyclists to help cover the costs of roads.
Simple test (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Where's the toilet handle. We're done here. (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 m
He ended his speech by saying (Score:4, Funny)
Brought to you by Carl's Jr
I checked The Onion... (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 [globe.gov] than walking or using any other vehicle, for a given distance.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyway, one should point out that biking produces less CO2 [globe.gov] than walking or using any other vehicle, for a given distance.
I produce more CO2 when I bike than when I ride in a car.
The car itself is another story, though.
Wrong Analysis (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...
Re:Wrong Analysis (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...
You've got to be the most optimistic commenter on Slashdot today.
Any form of exercise does this... (Score:3)
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.
What a fucking moron (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Missing the point (Score:3)
Folks in this guys district must be embarrased (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.
This is the thin end of the wedge (Score:5, Funny)
To paraphrase the NRA (Score:3, Funny)
1 gallon of fuel = 500 hours of human work output (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)
We really need to limit the stupidity - or ignorance of basic science - in our elected officials.
Something I can support instead (Score:4, Funny)
I would support this tax only if Rep Orcutt and his ilk all stopped producing any CO2 themselves.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Informative)
If you eliminated all the CO2, the plants would die. I think you mean limit it to some given level.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cars produce more (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.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Insightful)
Plants need CO2 to produce food. If you eliminated CO2 we'd die as a species, along with every other species.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Funny)
...we'd die as a species
No more AGW, success!
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Funny)
In other news: Congressman tried biking in college, but didn't exhale.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
you got it all wrong : soylent green
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Funny)
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!!!
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 i
Re:Cars produce more (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!
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:4, Interesting)
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!!
Re:Cars produce more (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.
Re:Cars produce more (Score:5, Interesting)
Erradicate all CO2 and you have to consciously breath, on purpose - if you forget, or fall asleep, you're dead.
Re:heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Annual miles traveled x weight x lane width needed. Here's my nickel, kid.
Re:CO2 of Congress? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought bullshit gave off more methane than CO2.