------=_Part_3141_25330582.1153398382767
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
a very interesting article on biking.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Petersen
Date: Jul 20, 2006 12:23 AM
Subject: Fwd: [Elm City Cycling] Bikers, they ain't no good
To: Lisa Hsu , Pae C Wu
An interesting take on cycling, for sure... :)
tom
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Corinna Anderson
Date: Jul 19, 2006 11:53 AM
Subject: [Elm City Cycling] Bikers, they ain't no good
To: Elmcitycycling
here's a funny take on the health benefits of biking...
but follow up here for a serious solution to about half of our country's
problems! http://nature.berkeley.edu/~phiggins/Higgins_EBT_pre-print.pdf
(6pgs)
---
Bikers, they ain't no good
If we were to take Wharton Business School professor Karl Ulrich
seriously, we would have to rip our eyes out after reading his new
working paper "The Environmental Paradox of Cycling."
Here's the gist. Bicycling and other means of human-powered
transportation consume less energy than driving, which is good for the
environment. But all that healthy exercise makes cyclists live longer,
which means they end up ultimately consuming more energy than they would
have had they not biked. Which is bad for the environment. After much
careful calculation (during which one imagines the professor cackling in
contrarian glee and alarming his graduate students) Ulrich ends up
determining that there is no net gain to the environment from biking.
Ulrich founded the carbon-offset provider TerraPass and is reputed to be
an avid bike commuter. Even he concedes that his analysis is a "bizarre
Swiftian argument." He is not out to banish bike lanes from the land,
but merely to "correctly place human-powered transportation, and
physical activity generally, at the center of a basic societal tension
between the quest for longevity and the environmental costs of increased
population."
Basically, what this boils down to is what I like to call the Nick Cave
theory of human behavior: "People, they ain't no good." We're just bad
for flowers and all other living things.
But hold on there for just a second. There are holes in this argument
that you can drive a biodiesel-powered Hummer through. First and
foremost: Isn't it likely that biking is a kind of gateway drug for
enlightened resource consumption? I see it happen here in Berkeley all
the time. First you start biking around town, then you put solar panels
on your roof and start worm composting your newspapers. Suddenly, you
find yourself raising organic free-range chickens in your backyard and
hosting weekly meetings of your local Peak Oil Awareness encounter
group. (And it should go without saying that you only wear clothing
woven from all natural fibers. Lycra-clad bikers beware: Synthetic
fibers are EVIL. You really are destroying the world.)
Ulrich grudgingly concedes this as a possibility near the end of his
paper: "Those who adopt the bicycle as a means of transportation could
potentially develop an increased awareness of the environmental impact
of their actions and may over their lifetimes reduce energy consumption
substantially in their other, non-transportation activities."
But that's a pretty wishy-washy stance. We can do far better! For those
who would rather not look at their bicycle and see the specter of
drowning polar bears, I give you Paul Higgins, a research fellow at U.C.
Berkeley currently working as the legislative fellow for climate change
in the office of Sen. Mike DeWine, R, Ohio. In an article published in
Environmental Conservation, "Exercise-based Transportation Reduces Oil
Dependence, Carbon Emissions and Obesity," Higgins proposes that if "the
revenue saved through decreased health care spending on obesity is
redirected toward carbon abatement" we could reduce overall carbon
dioxide emissions by around 35 percent. Who needs Kyoto? Just get on
your bike!
Ulrich: Cyclists live longer, thus consuming more energy, bad for
environment. Result: Bikers lose all will to live.
Higgins: Cyclists aren't fat, thus lower healthcare costs, providing
money for carbon abatement. Result: Bikers save the world.
Could you ask for a better glass half-full/glass half-empty dichotomy?
But there's one other thing Ulrich ignores. How many bikers, having been
told that their beloved mode of transportation is a waste of time, will
be impelled into fits of murderous rage and start blowing up SUVs?
Wouldn't the resulting population decrease compensate for the energy
consumed during their longer lives?
this article with links at
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/07/18/bikers/index.html
__._,_.___ Messages in this topic
(
1) Reply (via web post)
|
Start
a new topic
Messages |
Files |
Photos |
Links |
Database |
Polls |
Members |
Calendar
[image: Yahoo!
Groups] You
are receiving Individual Emails Change
Delivery Settings
Visit Your Group
|
Yahoo!
Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved
message search.
Share feedback on the new changes to
Groups
Recent Activity
- 2
New Members
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
- Tax havens
- Sport nutrition
- Cycling sock
- Cycling shorts
- Cycling accessory
- Cycling tour
.
__,_._,___
------=_Part_3141_25330582.1153398382767
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
a very interesting article on biking. ---------- Forwarded message - ---------
From: Tom Petersen < tpetersen02 Æ gmail.com
> Date: Jul 20, 2006 12:23 AM Subject: Fwd: [Elm City Cycling] Bikers,
they ain't no good To: Lisa Hsu < lisashoe Æ gmail.com >, Pae C Wu
<
pcw5 Æ duke.edu > An interesting take on cycling, for sure... :)
tom ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Corinna Anderson
<
corinna.anderson Æ yale.edu > Date: Jul 19, 2006 11:53 AM Subject :
[Elm City Cycling] Bikers, they ain't no good To: Elmcitycycling <
elmcitycycling Æ yahoogroups.com
>
here's a funny take on the health benefits of biking...
but follow up here for a serious solution to about half of our country's
problems!
http://nature.berkeley.edu/~phiggins/Higgins_EBT_pre-print.pdf
(6pgs)
---
Bikers, they ain't no good
If we were to take Wharton Business School professor Karl Ulrich
seriously, we would have to rip our eyes out after reading his new
working paper "The Environmental Paradox of Cycling."
Here's the gist. Bicycling and other means of human-powered
transportation consume less energy than driving, which is good for the
environment. But all that healthy exercise makes cyclists live longer,
which means they end up ultimately consuming more energy than they would
have had they not biked. Which is bad for the environment. After much
careful calculation (during which one imagines the professor cackling in
contrarian glee and alarming his graduate students) Ulrich ends up
determining that there is no net gain to the environment from biking.
Ulrich founded the carbon-offset provider TerraPass and is reputed to be
an avid bike commuter. Even he concedes that his analysis is a "bizarre
Swiftian argument." He is not out to banish bike lanes from the land,
but merely to "correctly place human-powered transportation, and
physical activity generally, at the center of a basic societal tension
between the quest for longevity and the environmental costs of increased
population."
Basically, what this boils down to is what I like to call the Nick Cave
theory of human behavior: "People, they ain't no good." We're just bad
for flowers and all other living things.
But hold on there for just a second. There are holes in this argument
that you can drive a biodiesel-powered Hummer through. First and
foremost: Isn't it likely that biking is a kind of gateway drug for
enlightened resource consumption? I see it happen here in Berkeley all
the time. First you start biking around town, then you put solar panels
on your roof and start worm composting your newspapers. Suddenly, you
find yourself raising organic free-range chickens in your backyard and
hosting weekly meetings of your local Peak Oil Awareness encounter
group. (And it should go without saying that you only wear clothing
woven from all natural fibers. Lycra-clad bikers beware: Synthetic
fibers are EVIL. You really are destroying the world.)
Ulrich grudgingly concedes this as a possibility near the end of his
paper: "Those who adopt the bicycle as a means of transportation could
potentially develop an increased awareness of the environmental impact
of their actions and may over their lifetimes reduce energy consumption
substantially in their other, non-transportation activities."
But that's a pretty wishy-washy stance. We can do far better! For those
who would rather not look at their bicycle and see the specter of
drowning polar bears, I give you Paul Higgins, a research fellow at U.C.
Berkeley currently working as the legislative fellow for climate change
in the office of Sen. Mike DeWine, R, Ohio. In an article published in
Environmental Conservation, "Exercise-based Transportation Reduces Oil
Dependence, Carbon Emissions and Obesity," Higgins proposes that if " ;the
revenue saved through decreased health care spending on obesity is
redirected toward carbon abatement" we could reduce overall carbon
dioxide emissions by around 35 percent. Who needs Kyoto? Just get on
your bike!
Ulrich: Cyclists live longer, thus consuming more energy, bad for
environment. Result: Bikers lose all will to live.
Higgins: Cyclists aren't fat, thus lower healthcare costs, providing
money for carbon abatement. Result: Bikers save the world.
Could you ask for a better glass half-full/glass half-empty dichotomy?
But there's one other thing Ulrich ignores. How many bikers, having been
told that their beloved mode of transportation is a waste of time, will
be impelled into fits of murderous rage and start blowing up SUVs?
Wouldn't the resulting population decrease compensate for the energy
consumed during their longer lives?
this article with links at
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/07/18/bikers/index.html
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic ( 1 )
Reply (via web post)
|
Start a new topic
Messages
|
Files
|
Photos
|
Links
|
Database
|
Polls
|
Members
|
Calendar
You are receiving Individual Emails
Change Delivery Settings
Visit Your Group
|
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |
Unsubscribe
New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the
improved message search.
Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
Recent Activity
2
New Members
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
Tax havens
Sport nutrition
Cycling sock
Cycling shorts
Cycling accessory
Cycling tour
.
__,_._,___
------=_Part_3141_25330582.1153398382767--
|
