Legislator says cyclists’ heavy breathing causes pollution

[toasty]

Legislator says cyclists’ heavy breathing causes pollution as they ride

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/legislator-says-cyclists-heavy-breathing-causes-po/nWgk9/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SEATTLE — A state legislator started a firestorm by claiming bicyclists add to greenhouse gas emissions by breathing heavily as they ride.
Bike shop owner Dale Carlson said he was so concerned about a proposal to tax bicycle sales that he wrote to state legislators.
The email he received back from the transportation committee’s ranking Republican, Ed Orcutt of Kalama, made an unusual claim.
“He talked about the effect on global warming we have from breathing hard,” said Carlson.
Orcutt refuted the idea that cycling is environmentally friendly by explaining that cyclists have “an increased heart rate and respiration.”
Orcutt wrote that means “the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride,” the email said.
“Oh, I thought that was amusing,” said Carlson.
Carlson forwarded Orcutt’s email to a friend. It’s now all over cycling blogs and social media.
In an interview with the Seattle Bike Blog, Orcutt went a step further and was quoted saying “you would be giving off more CO2 if you are riding a bike than driving a car.”
When KIRO 7 Eyewitness News reporter Graham Johnson reached Orcutt by phone, he retracted what he had said.
“I was over the top on that one and I do apologize to the cycling community for that,” said Orcutt.
Orcutt acknowledged there was no merit to his claims.
“It’s not a strong enough argument. I really shouldn’t have even brought it up,” said Orcutt.
“That’s good to hear,” said Carlson.
Carlson hopes attention turns to the House Democrats’ proposed bike tax.
The tax would help fund road improvements with a $25 sales fee on bikes worth $500 or more.
Opponents say it would hurt cyclists and small businesses.

 

[garygid]

Compare the CO2 footprint of a living tree with that of a cut tree.

Or, that of a living humanoid with that of a dead one.

 

[gsleaf]

The full text of his email is part of what makes this so funny: http://i.imgur.com/nxXbqQD.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Cascadia/comments/19keh5/washington_state_representative_ed_orcutt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[gbarry42]

Compare the CO2 footprint of a living tree with that of a cut tree.

Or, that of a living humanoid with that of a dead one.

Compare to the CO2 footprint of a subcommittee meeting. Or a filibuster.

 

[Nubo]

Orcutt might want to do the math on the costs to society of a sedentary lifestyle, for medical, lost productivity, etc... I think he may end up mailing each cyclist a handsome check. :lol:

 

[mwalsh]

What about heavy breathing during an obscene phone call? Does that count?

 

[davewill]

It's really sad that these guys have zero clue about the difference between closed and open cycles for CO2. You know he still thinks he's right.

 

[JimSouCal]

I thought this was a joke. It's not April 1, so, wow....

Apparently he is so stupid he doesn't know he's stupid--it didn't seem he was simply taunting and goading--but rather he believed what he was saying.

That, is, pretty stupid. No joke. <g>

 

[EVDRIVER]

In that case I need to stay inside.

 

[willk55]

Not as dumb as our Calif. state congresswomen Maxine Water’s sequester apocalypse prediction:" +170m jobs could be lost!!!"

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

i thought about posting this story but could not stop laughing long enough to do it and he did back step pretty quickly after he took a 2nd look at what he wrote (after we reminded him)

but the irony of a politician accusing someone of blowing too much hot air...

 

[donald]

I was thinking this through myself today, while a committed cyclist and I were jokingly debating the costs and merits of EVs versus cycles. I found this thread in a quick search.

From figures I have not yet found archival verification for, it would appear that a cyclist peddling hard will be emitting over 0.3 m^3/hr CO2, whereas an 'at rest' EV driver tooling along the road will be emitting an order of magitude less, 0.03 m^3/hr. Take an urban environment where the EV is going 3 times as fast as the cycle, so that's ~x 30 CO2 emissions per mile than an EV driver.

In global impact, the closed cycle CO2 of the cyclist would appear to contribute nothing to atmospheric CO2. However, if you are emitting x 30 CO2, then you will have eaten x 30 energy intake. So, if only 4% of the farm-to-mouth-to-breath CO2 is from the emissions of processing the food and transporting it, the cyclist does, actually, emit more contributory CO2 from the 'embedded-carbon' in the food product than the EV driver emits. For sure, local to the urban environment, the cyclist is certainly emitting x 30 locally, and as for methane and other smog emissions !!.... surely would fail EPA emissions regs if a bean-eating cyclist were to be categorised as a vehicle!!!

I presume the EPA test would consist of flogging the cyclist around a test track until he runs out of energy, filling him up with baked beans, sending him back out on the test track, and repeat 10 times. I am not sure what the MPGe for baked beans might be, but I am sure the EPA would figure that out ....

 

[ttweed]

"There's no crime in being ignorant. Problems arise when people who don't know they're ignorant rise to power."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[Berlino]

I always took for granted that the Oil lobby could spin bicycle riding as harmful to the environment, but thought the argument would be along the lines of "Oh my God, look how much energy it takes to make those aluminum frames."

 

[TomT]

I don't think you can blame the oil lobby for this one... He's simply stupid in his own right!

I always took for granted that the Oil lobby could spin bicycle riding as harmful to the environment, but thought the argument would be along the lines of "Oh my God, look how much energy it takes to make those aluminum frames."

 

[Stoaty]

"There's no crime in being ignorant. Problems arise when people who don't know they're ignorant rise to power."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Yes, a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[donald]

OK, so I am somewhat embarrassed to say this, but, actually, it appears quite untrue that cycling is CO2 free.

But that rather does depend on what the cyclist eats.

The only way I can see that a cyclist would not generate an excess of fossil-fuel sourced CO2 is if he were to only eat raw vegetables from his own garden, and to have a 'natural' lavatory not requiring sewage reprocessing.

Here is the 'worst case' food I can find, versus the 'best case' EV driving:

In France, running a typical EV on their 85% nuclear power sourced electricity results in 16 g CO2/km. Let's consider a 100 km journey in which the EV would have generated 1.6 kg of CO2.

The worst food appears to be lamb. Here are figures taken from page 28 of;
http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Table 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lamb Production (at farmgate)
Lamb Production System kg of CO2
E per pound of edible lamb
Idaho 23.75
Ohio (high productivity) 17.77
Ohio (average productivity) 19.80
Average 20.44
Table 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lamb Consumption (post-farmgate)
Emission Source kg of CO2
e per pound of consumed lamb
Processing 1.62
Domestic transport 0.36
Ocean transport 0.09
Refrigeration (retail) 0.09
Home cooking 1.42
Waste disposal 0.14
Total 3.72

Now, according to http://chuck-wright.com/calculators/bicycle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, to cycle 100 km at 20 mph (zero elevation changes, no weight effects) would require 0.67 kWh of motive energy.

Lamb meat provides ~200kCal/4oz, [200kCal = ~0.23kWh].

So to cycle 100 km at 20 mph on lamb meat = 11 oz.

The reference above shows 16 oz of Idaho lamb meat takes 27.5 kg.CO2 to produce and consume, so an additional 11 oz of consumed meat to fuel the cyclist's 100 km cycle will cause 18.9 kg of fossil-fuel sourced CO2 emissions.

So an Idaho-lamb-burger fed cyclist will emit >10 times as much fossil-fuel sourced CO2 as a French EV.

This is the worst/best case. This can be compared using the graphic below, and recognising that EVs are typically around 50-70 g/km for most countries with a more conventional electrity mix.

Let's say that, excepting France, the comparison would be more like 7 kg.CO2 for the EVs 100 km, which is around a third of the amount the lamb-fed cyclist generates. The graphic shows that foods that produce a third less CO2 than lamb are anything from 'tuna' up.

So as long as the cyclist is not eating meat then he'll produce a little less CO2 than an EV, excepting if he lives in France when essentially any additional foods, except lentils and tomatoes (great diet!!! - what about the CH4!?) will result in a net addition of CO2.

'Fraid there is an element of reality to this story!... :? {Sorry ...}

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

OK, so I am somewhat embarrassed to say this, but, actually, it appears quite untrue that cycling is CO2 free.

But that rather does depend on what the cyclist eats.

The only way I can see that a cyclist would not generate an excess of fossil-fuel sourced CO2 is if he were to only eat raw vegetables from his own garden, and to have a 'natural' lavatory not requiring sewage reprocessing.

Here is the 'worst case' food I can find, versus the 'best case' EV driving:

In France, running a typical EV on their 85% nuclear power sourced electricity results in 16 g CO2/km. Let's consider a 100 km journey in which the EV would have generated 1.6 kg of CO2.

The worst food appears to be lamb. Here are figures taken from page 28 of;
http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Table 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lamb Production (at farmgate)
Lamb Production System kg of CO2
E per pound of edible lamb
Idaho 23.75
Ohio (high productivity) 17.77
Ohio (average productivity) 19.80
Average 20.44
Table 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lamb Consumption (post-farmgate)
Emission Source kg of CO2
e per pound of consumed lamb
Processing 1.62
Domestic transport 0.36
Ocean transport 0.09
Refrigeration (retail) 0.09
Home cooking 1.42
Waste disposal 0.14
Total 3.72

Now, according to http://chuck-wright.com/calculators/bicycle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, to cycle 100 km at 20 mph (zero elevation changes, no weight effects) would require 0.67 kWh of motive energy.

Lamb meat provides ~200kCal/4oz, [200kCal = ~0.23kWh].

So to cycle 100 km at 20 mph on lamb meat = 11 oz.

The reference above shows 16 oz of Idaho lamb meat takes 27.5 kg.CO2 to produce and consume, so an additional 11 oz of consumed meat to fuel the cyclist's 100 km cycle will cause 18.9 kg of fossil-fuel sourced CO2 emissions.

So an Idaho-lamb-burger fed cyclist will emit >10 times as much fossil-fuel sourced CO2 as a French EV.

This is the worst/best case. This can be compared using the graphic below, and recognising that EVs are typically around 50-70 g/km for most countries with a more conventional electrity mix.

Let's say that, excepting France, the comparison would be more like 7 kg.CO2 for the EVs 100 km, which is around a third of the amount the lamb-fed cyclist generates. The graphic shows that foods that produce a third less CO2 than lamb are anything from 'tuna' up.

So as long as the cyclist is not eating meat then he'll produce a little less CO2 than an EV, excepting if he lives in France when essentially any additional foods, except lentils and tomatoes (great diet!!! - what about the CH4!?) will result in a net addition of CO2.

'Fraid there is an element of reality to this story!... :? {Sorry ...}

ok, this argument ONLY works if the cyclist generates more CO2 if he is not cycling. other than a higher breathing rate, this is not likely to be the case.

 

[donald]

ok, this argument ONLY works if the cyclist generates more CO2 if he is not cycling. other than a higher breathing rate, this is not likely to be the case.

err.. so where does he get the 0.67kWh/100km of tractive energy from, if it isn't from increasing his energy input?

Do the laws of thermodynamics not apply to human energy consumption?

 

[dgpcolorado]

Perhaps not quite as outrageous as the politician in the OP, but we had a candidate who won a major party primary for governor, who ascribed Denver's push for more bicycle use to a UN plot (to paraphrase it):

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are "converting Denver into a United Nations community."

"This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed," Maes told about 50 supporters who showed up at a campaign rally last week in Centennial.

For more details: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/dan-maes-colorado-guberna_n_670479.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He never recovered from the ridicule and got 11% of the vote in the general election. It was the highlight of the 2010 election here. This is a rather bicycle-friendly state.