

Lawmaker says biking bad for the environment - makeshifthoop
http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/03/02/state-lawmaker-says-bicycling-is-not-good-for-the-environment-should-be-taxed/

======
WildUtah
A gallon of gas has 30,000 Calories. An SUV weighs (technically masses) 2000kg
and gets 20 MPG. Thus the kilogram miles per Calorie -- the efficiency -- for
an SUV is 1.33.

A peanut butter sandwich is 600 Calories (with bananas and maple syrup on
whole wheat, but corn syrup on Wonder bread is similar). A bicycle plus
messenger bag and rider weighs 80kg and gets 10 miles to the peanut butter
sandwich. Thus the efficiency of the bicycle is 1.33 kg.mi/C.

So far the bicycle and SUV seem exactly equal in efficiency and have equal
environmental impact.

But that doesn't take into account cost. The peanut butter sandwich costs $5,
or $3 if you make it at home. Call it $4. The gallon of gasoline also costs
$4. But the gasoline has 50x the energy. The total cost to society is 50x
higher to operate the bicycle, taking all process costs into account through
the price system.

So in fact, biking is terrible for the environment. We'd all be better off
banning bicycles and buying every cyclist an SUV and then having a mass lycra
bonfire. Plus, think of all the cash we would save by not blowing it on extra
bicycle fuel. It could save the economy.

~~~
jonemo
Is this meant to be ironic or am I totally missing something? Sure the
kilogram miles per Calorie look similar, but as you noticed the SUV is a lot
heavier than the bicycle. You should only include the weight of the payload,
i.e. the passenger, in the calculation because that's what you want to move.
Having to move an additional 2000kg of SUV around is what makes SUV-driving so
inefficient.

~~~
mistercow
>Is this meant to be ironic or am I totally missing something?

I think if you note the claim that a homemade PB&J sandwich costs $3, as well
as the reference to "extra bicycle fuel", you will have your answer.

------
lutusp
This demented viewpoint overlooks how much more efficient bicycling is than
virtually any other mode of transport.

Link: <http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html>

Quote: "The bicycle is a tremendously efficient means of transportation. In
fact cycling is more efficient than any other method of travel--including
walking!"

The hidden agenda is that such an efficient mode of transport is difficult to
tax based on conventional measures like fuel used or CO2 emitted -- although
it's apparent that people will try.

I think bicyclists should be taxed based on what their existence costs society
as a whole -- freeway construction, pothole repair, global warming, health
care for those dying of heart disease and diabetes. By that reasoning,
bicyclists should receive a tax credit, like those who install solar panels or
buy electric cars.

Oh -- did I mention that I'm a bicyclist?

~~~
dmishe
How do you like rain and snow?

~~~
lutusp
I like it better than my bikes do, which tend to dissolve over time (I live
near Seattle).

------
kylemaxwell
He apologized and recanted:

[http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/03/04/rep-orcutt-says-
bi...](http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/03/04/rep-orcutt-says-bicycle-
carbon-emissions-not-a-point-worthy-of-even-mentioning/)

~~~
lelandbatey
Indeed, he goes on to say that he supports a bicycle tax only so far as it
goes towards actually helping expand bicycle infrastructure, and that he made
this suggestions after it was brought to him by the bicycling community.

This seems like much ado about nothing.

~~~
InclinedPlane
There already is a bicycle tax, it's called sales tax.

~~~
mc32
But that tax is not specific to bikes only. People who buy cars also pay sales
taxes. But they pay other taxes in addition to the initial sales tax. They
also pay fuel taxes, which is an indirect tax.

Not that I'm against those taxes. I would wish we'd tax fuel more (and in the
future, the source of energy for transportation when cars start using more
alternate energy sources) as a way to incentivize people toward more shared
resources. But I'm not for trying to paint equivalence on the tax front. At
the same time, I think this needs to be phased in. I think about the people in
rural areas who need cars to get to civilization --keeping in mind the story
of an acquaintance who said would sell pints of blood to buy fuel to get to
and from work when money was low --ie getting to work before the next paycheck
provided more money.)

~~~
InclinedPlane
That's a great hypothetical, but it falls flat in reality. The cost
differential between bicycle infrastructure and car infrastructure is orders
of magnitude.

------
jonemo
I remember reading (but don't have the link handy) about a gentlemen who did
lots of analysis about his switch from car commuting to bike commuting. His
conclusion was that bike commuting is more expensive for him, because he ends
up eating more to compensate for the calories burnt during the ride. The cost
of additional food was higher than the cost of gas saved (as someone below
already pointed out that food energy is more pricey than gas energy).

The guy with the data analysis nevertheless decided to stick with the bike
because he suspected that this decision will have positive long term health
effects saving him a lot of money in future. I am inclined to agree but in my
case the parking fees at work make the decision a no-brainer anyway.

~~~
plorkyeran
Bicycling is surprisingly expensive once you don't want to lose weight. At 200
calories per dollar (i.e. about $10 per day for a sedentary diet) and four
dollars per gallon of gas it comes out to the equivalent of 25 mpg. There's
obviously a whole bunch of other relevant factors, but personally it hadn't
even occurred to me that food would be my primary bicycle-related expense
until I started riding a lot.

~~~
jiggy2011
It's a lot more pleasant to eat a meal than it is to pump gas into your car.

~~~
andrewflnr
Indeed. Go ahead and get the BIG slice of chocolate cake.

------
est
Lawmaker apologizes for bashing bicycles and all their pollution

[http://now.msn.com/ed-orcutt-washington-rep-apologizes-
for-b...](http://now.msn.com/ed-orcutt-washington-rep-apologizes-for-bike-
comments)

------
D_Alex
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry...

Please elect more people with a clue. More politicians with a background in
science or engineering would be a good thing.

~~~
CamperBob2
This guy's just another falling brick from the edifice that was once the
Republican Party.

------
dinkumthinkum
Somehow I was able to guess he was a Republican before I read the article,
imagine that!

~~~
crusso
Not going to defend his monumental stupidity to make such a statement, but if
you're thinking that Republicans have any kind of lock on monumental
stupidity, I beg to differ: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg>

------
largesse
I don't buy the lawmaker's 'fairness' argument either. True, cyclists do use
streets but so do automobile passengers yet no one is floating the idea of
applying a tax to them.

Many revenue sources have this quality. Property taxes foot the bill for
schools in many municipalities. And 'sin taxes' definitely don't benefit the
people who pay them the most.

The Rep. is spouting ungrounded rhetoric. Surprise, surprise.

~~~
Kerrick
Actually, a large part of the cost of gasoline in most U.S. States is a
gasoline tax that goes to their respective Departments of Transportation.

That said, this is still ridiculous.

~~~
freiheit
And mostly that goes to the state highways that cyclists generally can't use,
while the county and city streets that cyclists do use are mostly funded by
local property and sales taxes.

------
largesse
Politicians don't do science well, and they don't listen to people who do. The
prognosis is bad.

