Don't Pump Gas On May 15th!

[6thGen]

The post was tongue in cheek, I thought that was obvious when I said that Smiling Joe hated Children. Regardless, the argument does have merit. Here's the whole article.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=174

And another snippet I liked:

"And soft alternatives entail secondary sprawl of their own. Technologies that use more material and more surface -- soft fuels invariably do -- are generally going to end up polluting more, as well. The bicyclist, lest we forget, emits greenhouse gas, too, as he puffs along the road. In fact, the main reason many of us are biking is precisely to promote our emissions of greenhouse gas, and metabolize some of that excess granola we ate for breakfast, or steak that we consumed too freely the night before. Per pound of useful payload moved, the biker emits more greenhouse gas -- or so I assert -- once you take proper account of land usage, cow pasture, and the alternatives of more deforestation or more reforestation. Soft agriculture has run-offs and relies on pesticides -- pesticides bred into the pest-resistant crops themselves, and designed to kill predatory insects in much the same way as the chemicals Dow or DuPont would have us spray on less hardy plants. PV?s are manufactured from toxic metals. More eagles have been killed by wind turbines than were lost in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Audubon Society labeled a proposed wind farm in the Tehachapi Mountains north of LA the 'condor Cuisinart'."

 

[TNJed]

Interesting find. I realize you're not promoting that idea and I think beachbob nailed it. That "study" would have real merit if it actually followed the complete chain of materials required to make and power both types of transport. In addition to those bb listed I think it left out maintenance fluid changes, oil changes, tire changes, replacement parts when broken or crashed, noise pollution, and the number of people actually killed each year from being hit by any car versus a bicycle. And then of course there is parking.

Sounds like they took it to the Nth degree on the bicycle end and barely scratched the surface of SUV requirements.

I find that report humorous at best and scary at worst that many will latch on to it to further their want of a rolling living room. It nearly sounded like a Daily Show segment. :funn:

 

[6thGen]

It had more to do with the falsehood that bicycles are more environmentally friendly than vehicles. If you read the whole thing, you'd see that. He used the most vilified form of transportation, SUVs, to demonstrate that. He repeatedly said that he was not in favor of SUVs, but used them to make a point. The title of the study was "Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists". Bottom line, from a fuel consumption standpoint, and probably from a greenhouse emission standpoint, bikes are worse for the environment than SUVs. But I'd guess that 99.5% of bike riders aren't riding to save the environment.

 

[TripleB]

In my effort to support the "Don't Pump Gas on May 15th!" movement, I will go to a full-service station (yes, I know of one) and have it pumped for me! Just doing my part. Thank You.

 

[beachbob]

6th gen, while i undersand what the aurthor is trying to demonstrate in your post, i still say that the suv's we see down herer, weighing over 6,000, have terrible efficiency, due to having to use a motor to power a 6,000# + vehicle weight, on top of the passenger and cargo weight. the bicycle probably isn't the most efficient vehicle out there, but add a lightweight engine to it, like a scooter, and you might have the most efficient people mover, in the category of self operated vehicles. it takes a lot of horse power to push a 6,000 lb sled. horsepower which is wasted on most trips to the grocery store, work, and to pick up the kis from school. be careful, some of the dumb masses might actually believe that mostly non-sense comparison in the marshall report.

 

[Allifunn]

6th Gen, the marshall report doesn't take into account that the avg suv which people have here at the beach, weighs over 6,000 lbs. also, it doesn't include the environmental impacts on the mining of aluminum and steel, and the making of plastics and rubber for the parts of the suv's as compared to the bicycles. nor does it take into account the comparison of the manufactoring and transportation costs between the two, and the trasportation costs and environmental impacts for delivering fuel to the gas stations, and the electricity burned to keep gas stations open 24-7. also, there are many health benefits to riding a bicycle on a daily basis, which you don't have by driving a suv. you can save that extra costs of joining a gym and reading books about losing weight, and jenny craig meals, etc. if you have to ride a bike to work, you will not be wanting to carry any extra weight. being in better health will also save the public much money when it comes to the costs of health care. the marshall report if more filled with holes than swiss cheese. I almost forgot to mention that most americans are overweight, and we would not have to consume any more food to ride a bicycle instead of driving a suv. we might even buy less of the useless consumer junk if we had to carry it back home on our bicycles.

:clap_1: :clap_1: amen!!!!

 

[John R]

...blame the trucking industry for getting the rails regulated. The US used to have the most advanced rail system in the world, until the government stepped in.

I'm sure you have mountains of links to back this up. care to share?

 

[6thGen]

You all can always move to Great Britain. It seems like every Brit I've met abroad is completely goobed out over the whole environment thing. Now I see why.

http://setup1.wsj.com/article/SB117832926960393062.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

 

[6thGen]

I'm sure you have mountains of links to back this up. care to share?

I'll have to dig through some old college textbooks and notes. It was somewhat covered in Free to Choose, in the "Who Protects the Consumer" chapter. I'm not sure if it is mentioned below, but you can look.

http://www.freetochoose.net/1980_vol7.html

http://www.freetochoose.net/1980_vol7_transcript.html

 

[6thGen]

A few things here - SJ, your "freedom of choice" platform on other issues that affect you, such as spraying, rings hollow here. You haven't come out and said it, but you basically want to tax the choice of vehicles away from the consumer. You are against incentives to choose larger vehicles, but are for incentives to choose smaller, more efficient ones. There are already plenty of incentives to driving more efficient vehicles that are (mostly) market driven. There are also government incentives for hybrids. Also, people who drive SUVs are paying for their use of the road in the form of gasoline taxes that keep and maintain them. If a city or even a county wants to tax inefficient vehicles, that's fine, but be ready to reap the economic consequences.