- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Washington State Rep. Ed Orcutt Claims Bicyclists Produce More Pollution than Motorists
One Washington state Republican House Representative has claimed that riding a bicycle actually produces more pollution than driving a car.
When a constituent wrote to State Rep. Ed Orcutt that he disagreed with Orcutt’s support for an additional tax on bikes, the representative wrote back in an email that the tax is justified because bicyclists create more pollution than motorists.
The incredibly inaccurate claim remains unverified by Orcutt, who originally offered no evidence for his claim. The Seattle Bike Blog obtained the email and published it on Saturday.
In it, Orcutt wrote, “If I am not mistaken, a cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That means that 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.”
He also argued that motorists help pay for roads and road maintenance, while bicyclists do not, and that they should start paying their fair share.
A much more credible source, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), estimates that 4.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide are released every year by each passenger vehicle. This number, according to the European Cyclists Foundation, is ten times more than emissions related to biking.
Source: Raw Story
You May Also Want to Read
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
The most humorous thing here
The most humorous thing here is that the tree huggers are running around worrying that their sacred cow might get taxed. It's like the Big Bicycle industry just couldn't be in it for a profit and they all hate profit. It's a moron test and the left took the bait!
Wow, what a completely
Wow, what a completely overdone sterotype.
By all means make cyclists pay in proportion to the damage we do to the roads and environment, the tax would be so small it would not be worth the costs of administering it.
I like bicycle companies to make nice profits and compete against each other in a capitalist manner, it leads to innovation in the industry leading to better bikes. The pneumatic tires that you have on your car were developed by Dunlope for bicycles, as were ball bearings and possibly to some extent LED lighting.
This guy is a complete Moron.
This guy is a complete Moron.
Yet another argument towards
Yet another argument towards me voting liberal despite being a conservative. I simply REFUSE to elect hacks such as these.
Now that the myth that
Now that the myth that cyclists don't pay their fair share for public roads has been debunked, this is the next baseless rant for people who just plain don't like bicycles? lol.
“Let’s have a minute’s
“Let’s have a minute’s silence for all those Americans who are stuck in traffic on the way to a gym to ride a stationary bicycle!” – Earl Blumenauer
wrt wear and tear on the roads, damage to the road surface goes as something like the fourth power of axle weight. A small car weighs about 10 times that of the average bicyclist, and causes 10,000 times as much damage to the roads. Once you look at bigger cars, SUVs and humvees, this increases dramatically.
People who regularly exercise, like bicyclists, are generally fitter and healthier than those who live a sedentary life style, and may produce more CO2 whilst exercising, but produce less when resting.
The CO2 produced from motoring does not just come from the gas burnt whilst driving, it also includes the CO2 produced pumping that gas from the seabed, transporting it around the world, and converting it to a state suitable for cars. The production of gas produces as much CO2 as is produced when you drive your car. Let's also not forget the wars fought over gas.
So the people that voted for
So the people that voted for him are just as dangerous as he is?
I read on an
I read on an arbitrarily-selected search result, that
"Ever since we've been licensed to drive, the 400-horsepower benchmark has gone from stratospheric to an everyday reality."
So, there are cars that, with one occupant (hopefully the driver), ought to be producing about 400 times as much greenhouse gas per passenger-mile (if you can call a driver a "passenger") as a galloping horse produces, with only one rider. Admittedly none of the CO2 exhaled and CH4 farted by a grazing horse on its days off is taken into account. But since cyclists also have the right to life even whilst not actually cycling, that's by the by.
Does anybody know the conversion constant, for horsepower to cyclistpower? That would enable us to check Rep. Ed Orcutt's arithmetic.
Ah, he's a Republican. That
Ah, he's a Republican. That explains it.
I present to you Exhibit A: Shanghai, China, back when everybody rode a bicycle, and Shanghai, China, now that everybody drives a car and nobody rides a bicycle.
I present to you Exhibit B:
I present to you Exhibit B: Detroit, Michigan from 1900-1961 when it was a growing, prosperous, metropolitan gem and was under Republican mayoral leadership for 50 of those 62 years; and Detroit, Michigan since 1962 when it has dropped in population from 1,600,000 to 706,585, has one of the highest vacancy rates in the housing market in the country, and is about to be handed over to an appointed financial manager because the governor declared it a state of financial emergency, and has been under Democrat mayoral "leadership" EVERY YEAR SINCE 1962.
The Republicans really are
The Republicans really are the party of stupid. On the other hand, although they are useless and destructive as legislators, they certainly add humour to politics.
From your "party of the
From your "party of the brilliant":
“Well the good news is our emissions are way down because of the recession.” --Claire McCaskill (D-MO), March 28, 2011 commenting on the decrease in American manufacturing due to the recession.
And let's not forget: “Our
And let's not forget:
“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable.” --Hillary Clinton, January 25, 2011.
CAIRO — An 18-day-old revolt led by the young people of Egypt ousted President Hosni Mubarak on Friday, shattering three decades of political stasis here and overturning the established order of the Arab world. --NY Times headline, February 11, 2011
Do the math. And the ramifications of THIS stupidity are far more important than some trivial little bicycle tax.
Both the RNC & DNC should be
Both the RNC & DNC should be ashamed for allowing idiots to run under their sponsorship. There is no test for public office, but for decades Americans trusted political parties to vet potential candidates before allowing them to be on a ballad enforced as that Party's candidate. In my voting lifetime, I have learned better than to vote for anyone I have not reasonably vetted myself through various sources. I'm convinced that some State GOP offices are more interested in a candidates financial portfolio than his ability to think. We have seen so many GOP House candidates in the last 30 years who couldn't pass standard high school exams, though most of these have higher degrees from private colleges( just shows you what money can buy). I do not expect every member of Congress to be a genius in some field but this nation is filled with millions of talented people. We only have to elect 535 voting members of Congress (that's only 2 senators & few House members from each State), so it should NOT BE TOO MUCH to demand that our Political Parties & our fellow Americans put qualified candidates on every ballot. Just because a district is predominantly Republican does not mean that Republicans in that district should accept any idiot the GOP/Tea Party puts on their ticket. Americans should be able to take pride in their elected representatives. How proud do you think the 18th District of the State of Washington feels today? Please know who you are voting for before you cast your vote.. Those you send to federal offices end up effecting us all.
First, you can't begin your
First, you can't begin your post by complaining about idiots and then write: "...before allowing them to be on a ballad enforced as that Party's candidate." Only an idiot would use the word "ballad" instead of "ballot" and "enforced" instead of "endorsed."
Second, while you do begin by chastising both the RNC and DNC, the remainder of your post is only critical of Republicans. Let's not forget the brainiac Democrat Congressman from Georgia, Hank Johnson, who thought the island of Guam would tip over if too many military personnel were stationed there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg). THAT is completely moronic.
If you read the actual quote from Rep. Orcutt about bikers, he did NOT say that bikers produce more CO2 than drivers. The idiot here is the author of this article, who lists the actual quote and misstates it in the same brief article (and all the idiots reading it who don't have the critical thinking skills to recognize this fact). The statement is that when someone rides a bike, they produce more CO2 than if they are not riding a bike. This is true (http://www.livestrong.com/article/524672-what-effect-does-exercise-have-on-the-amount-of-carbon-dioxide-released-by-the-blood/). So, if all you global warming nutjobs get your way and we start taxing CO2, then you should be supporting this guy. And liberals are complaining about a Republican who wants to raise a tax? What is this world coming to...?
@Jsax , I apologize for not
@Jsax , I apologize for not editing my spell-checker, but that doesn't make me or anyone else on this site an idiot. I'm not sure how you ever survived this long without ever learning common courtesy or civility. Perhaps you are one of these perfectly nice people who turn into rude jerks on the Net when you believe you are anonymous, but if you are actually interested in ANYONE reading your opinions you should try stating them without attacking other subscibers to this site. It is easy enough to ignore any subscriber on this site that annoys you. Attempting to belittle the comments of others gives no validity to your own.
A. In order to temper my
A. In order to temper my comment, I was going to add a parenthetical note stating that perhaps you posted from a phone with an overactive auto-correct, especially since you did use "ballot" correctly later in your post.
B. But seriously???? The reason I used the word "idiot" is because YOU did. Which isn't just a, "You did it first!" response. I was attempting to use sarcasm in pointing out the irony that someone (you) was calling other people (certain political candidates) idiots, while making two glaring word choice errors.
If you do read other posts by me (unless you've already ignored me!), you will see that I usually adopt the style of argument of the person to whom I am replying (thus, my throwing the term "idiot" right back at you). I also like to back up my opinions with facts and/or data, and don't have much patience for people who just spout off generalities that are completely biased (e.g. "Well, they're republicans, what do you expect?"). The "second" part of my email was civil and argued the specifics of our disagreement.
OK, I guess I did throw in that "nutjob" comment at the end (although I was not referring specifically to you). Sometimes I just can't help myself. It just gets soooo frustrating reading all the opposing comments--especially for an article like this where the title and content of the whole thing is just blatantly false. The Rep. did NOT say that bikers produce more pollution than motorists. That is a fact, yet most people commenting on here go on and on as if the title were accurate, just mindlessly accepting the liberal bias of the author. In your defense, the posts to which I most often reply are ones that are at least intelligently argued, even when I disagree.
Anyway, your assessment of me as perhaps "one of those perfectly nice people who turn into rude jerks on the Net when you believe you are anonymous" probably has some truth to it. I don't think I become a rude jerk, but I am very aggressive--which I am not in real life. I usually only call names in response to someone else's name calling, or when someone is just so smug that I can't resist. Plus, I go for weeks and weeks without posting on sites like this, and then I go crazy for a day or so (like today), so I am probably taking out all my frustrations in a few posts...
So, nothing personal. I'll try to tone it down a bit. I try to proofread everything I post multiple times to avoid errors, but I know the time that I make a typo or mistake, people are going to POUNCE on me for it!!!
@jsax, you are right about my
@jsax, you are right about my phone. I do understand your frustration with opposing comments, but this is Opposing Views (lol). I expect to read comments attacking the targets of an article, the issue and biased authors, but not personal attacks that discourage other subscribers from stating their views. After all, if we were not all somewhat opinionated we probable wouldn't contribute to this site. I appreciate you acknowledging my criticism with thoughtfully consideration. I'm glad I haven't dampened your desire to share your opinions here.
@ gem "There is no test for
@ gem
"There is no test for public office"
What, yet another demand for psychological screening? You yanks sure have a lot of faith in your shrinks!
I think Gem was referring to
I think Gem was referring to intelligence tests, not psychological screenings.
And sometimes I think there should be intelligence tests for political candidates. And for potential parents.
And for someone who uses the words "whilst" and "yanks", you are awfully interested in our politics... [just teasing---now gem has me paranoid...]
Agree! Every citizen ought to
Agree! Every citizen ought to have access to the logic of this post and pay heed. It is so evident that our political system is in shambles because of citizen apathy, naivete, ignorance, or whatever.
jaysea
OMG, what a retard!
OMG, what a retard!
Hmmm, usually people of this
Hmmm, usually people of this political persuasion are a little more "politically correct." But it IS nice to hear you praying...
No, I take that back. They expect the other side to be PC, but they don't have to be.
See
See http://mindprod.com/applet/powcost.html
Dodge pickup takes 260,995 watts Smart car 53,200 top bike sprinter 2,000 amateur bike racer 350 recreational bike rider 200 marathon runner 146 walker 110 energy saver light bulb 13
Orcutt is completely wrong.
Roedy Green
The only other thing that can
The only other thing that can be added is that his party denies infrastructure upgrades. Do republicans even see how dumb they appear to the People?
''We have to pass the (health
''We have to pass the (health care) bill so you can find out what is in it.'' —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a speech to the National Association of Counties shortly before the health care reform bill became law, March 9, 2010
Do democrats even see how dumb they appear to the people?
Here is a screenshot of the
Here is a screenshot of the original email sent out by Orcutt: http://imgur.com/nxXbqQD
And here is his attempt to backpedal (pun intended): http://i.imgur.com/xug2Jvu.jpg
I guess what he is missing is that much of the damage to roads that makes them require so much maintenance and repair is the weight on the vehicles that use them - which is the justification for the extra fees on big rig trucks. Considering the much lesser weight of bicyclists use of the roads, the damage caused by them is indistinguishable from wear and tear caused by the weather (expansion and contraction due to heat and cold). If anything, people who use bicycles instead of cars are actually saving the state a lot of money in repairs that don't need to be done as often, and all kinds of toxic materials that don't need to be disposed of somehow (antifreeze, oil, transmission fluid, etc). Then there's the benefits of fewer cars on the road causing less insane traffic jams, too.
full disclosure: I commute to work on a bicycle. So far for this calendar year I've put about 300 miles total on my car and about 700 miles on my bicycle. As the weather warms up, I expect that gap to expand rapidly.
A. I DO admire you for riding
A. I DO admire you for riding your bike more than driving your car. At least your actions support your words.
B. I read both of the links you provided (and would encourage EVERYONE who comments on this topic to do so BEFORE you comment). I see nothing in either the original email or the follow-up that is unreasonable. I don't disagree with your contention that damage to roads is increased by the weight of vehicles. However, Rep. Orcutt did not refer to repairing roads, he referred to the construction of bike lanes. He wrote:
“Currently motorists are paying to use their cars on the roads while they are actually driving their cars. At the same time, they are paying for the bike lanes because there is no gas tax – or any transportation tax – generated by the act of riding a bike on the roadways. So, if cars pay for the roads they are using, it only makes sense that bicyclists would also be required to pay for the “roads” they use when they are actually biking on them.”
How does that not make sense?
In his "attempt to backpedal," as you call it, he wrote:
“My point was that by not driving a car, a cyclist was not necessarily having a zero-carbon footprint. In looking back, it was not a point worthy of even mentioning, so, again, I apologize – both for bringing it up and for the wording of the e-mail.”
I was clear on his point the first time I read it, unlike Heather Manes. I think he graciously admitted that he didn't need to bring up that point to support his argument. And he didn't--he justified his position very clearly on other grounds. What is missing here is the original email that was sent to Rep. Orcutt, so it is not totally fair to judge his reply without knowing the context. The original author could have gone on and on about the environmental impact of driving and how biking didn't produce greenhouse gasses, etc. In that case, if wouldn't be completely unreasonable to point out that biking isn't 100% CO2 neutral. Maybe the original author didn't say anything like that, but since we don't know, we cannot fairly assess the appropriateness of Rep. Orcutt's remarks.
His overall point is that if money is spent creating bicycle lanes and overpasses, then there should be a means for bicyclists to contribute to that cost--just like motorists pay, through taxation, for the roads on which they drive. That seems like a fair, intelligent position to me.
P.S. The proposed legislation only imposes a tax on bikes costing $500 or more. I would think Democrats would like this, as it is taxing the rich and making them "pay their fair share." The "middle-class" and "poor" bicyclists wouldn't even have to pay it (despite the fact that the rate of obesity is higher for lower socioeconomic classes, and obesity results in less-efficient metabolism and higher rates of CO2 production, meaning that the ones making the most CO2 are not paying the tax. Plus, according to your assertion about weight of vehicles being directly proportional to the damage they cause to the roads, then overweight, low-socioeconomic bike riders are causing more damage to the bike lanes than lighter, higher-socioeconomic riders, yet the rich bikers are paying for the roads. Uh oh, I shouldn't have written that. Now Heather Manes will create a headline for this post: "Poster Says Poor, Obese People Emit More CO2 Than Semi Trucks")
Great job on the bike
Great job on the bike commuting!
For the record, the CO2
For the record, the CO2 released by humans during respiration is from biofuel, not fossil fuel. Biofuel is "short cycle" CO2 - meaning it's already hanging around in the atmosphere, and it gets turned into plant material for a few months, then released back out. This activity does not add more CO2 to the atmosphere, it just recycles what's already there.
Burning fossil fuels, OTOH, releases CO2 that has not been in our atmosphere for, say, a few million years, before humans ever existed. Releasing this long-sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere is what causes CO2 concentrations to increase.
Regardless of semantics or specifics of what this guy said, he is deliberately misleading people, trying to make it look like fossil-fuel powered transportation is not a primary cause of increasing CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere. He's being intellectually dishonest, for the purpose of casting doubt on the science of climate change.
There is no defense for such purposeful, willful ignorance or dishonesty. None.
Thanks for making this point
Thanks for making this point exactly. Nothing more need be said.
Well... except for that I completely disagree that the Hon. Congressman was being 'intellectually dishonest'. I think he was speaking his mind, quite honestly.
The election of "airheads"
The election of "airheads" and/or prevaricators will produce these kinds of grossly distorted facts by the elected. In this case though, Orcutt's constituents might just have the flatulence to support his claim. They might produce 10 or 100 times the amount of gas as we ordinary citizens.
jaysea
Besides, processing raw
Besides, processing raw materials into one automobile generates a LOT more CO2 et al. than processing raw materials into one bicycle.
-- Data Ferret
Yes, and it's a staggering
Yes, and it's a staggering difference, too. A bike weighs 20-30 pounds; a car weighs 2,000 - 4,000 pounds. Both are mostly metal, rubber, and plastic. Based on weight of final product, the car emits about 100 times more CO2 to produce than a bike.
Orcutt is dumber than rocks.
Orcutt is dumber than rocks.
Hey now, he didn't say "more"
Hey now, he didn't say "more" that would veer off into the realm of insanity. Do you read your own quotes? I lived in a county that had bike registrations once (one time fee of a few bucks), one bonus was your serial # was automatically registered with the police in case it was stolen and recovered. But it wasn't mandatory.
Bikes do have wear and tear on the roadway and bike lanes do require work/maintenance to create though I would assume I help pay for it through other taxes.
So bicycles inflict "Wear and
So bicycles inflict "Wear and Tear" on the roads? I think the wear and tear a bicycle would inflict vs a car or truck would be unmeasurable. 2000+ lbs vs 180 lbs.
We often hear the argument, ‘If cyclists want bike lanes, they should pay for them.’ Cyclists already do pay for them. Anyone who pays rent or property tax is paying for our municipal roadways. If you compare the relative impact of cars and bicycles on the roadways themselves, on our collective airspace, and the healthcare costs of pollution and a sedentary life that driving promotes, it is quite apparent that cyclists are actually subsidizing automobile drivers.
I don't even drive a car and
I don't even drive a car and get around only by bike (I live in bike friendly Portland, OR. I never claimed bikes put anywhere near as much wear on the road as a even the smallest car. I'm just saying that we bikers also use public facilities so it's not like we don't have to pay for anything.
I've actually done some
I've actually done some research and calculations on the user fees (licensing fees and fuel taxes) that are paid only by auto drivers. The total amount collected by these fees and taxes is roughly equivalent to the amount of money spent to build controlled-access highways - i.e. the Interstate Highway System - which bicycles are not allowed to use.
So, anyone who wants auto drivers to get exclusive use of the roads their user fees paid for, their wish has already been granted! For every other non-controlled roadway, which bicycles are allowed to use, the cyclist has paid just as much for for access and use of those roads as any motorist.