GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment

GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Fightdirecto -> GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/4/2013 2:01:14 PM)
quote: Representative Ed Orcutt (R – Kalama, Washington) does not think bicycling is environmentally friendly because the activity causes cyclists to have “an increased heart rate and respiration.” This is according to comments he made in an email to a constituent who questioned the wisdom of a new bike tax the legislature is considering as part of a large transportation package. We spoke with Rep. Orcutt to confirm the email’s authenticity and to get further clarification. “You would be giving off more CO2 if you are riding a bike than driving in a car,” he said. However, he said he had not “done any analysis” of the difference in CO2 from a person on a bike compared to the engine of a car. He also stands by his opinion that people who bike do not pay for roads when they ride. “When you are riding your bicycle, tell me what taxes are being generated by the act of riding your bicycle,” he said. “Sales tax does not go into roads.” That people who bike don’t pay for roads is demonstrably untrue. Most roads people bike on are paid for by counties and municipalities. In Seattle, gas taxes pay just four percent of the SDOT budget (as of 2009). Most of the rest comes from sources everybody pays, no matter how they get around. On a state level, gas taxes only pay for one quarter of the WSDOT budget. "Bicycling is not good for the environment" Below is a copy of the e-mail Rep. Orcutt sent to his constituant: [image]local://upfiles/42188/09C758C7EC6F40AFB78B707504A68F17.jpg[/image] If someone riding a bicycle gives off more CO2 than someone driving a car (according to this GOP state lawmaker) - what about all those damn joggers? And those joggers run along the side of the roads, not generating any gas taxes to pay for those roads. GOP science at work...

DesideriScuri -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/4/2013 7:07:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto quote: Representative Ed Orcutt (R – Kalama, Washington) does not think bicycling is environmentally friendly because the activity causes cyclists to have “an increased heart rate and respiration.” This is according to comments he made in an email to a constituent who questioned the wisdom of a new bike tax the legislature is considering as part of a large transportation package. We spoke with Rep. Orcutt to confirm the email’s authenticity and to get further clarification. “You would be giving off more CO2 if you are riding a bike than driving in a car,” he said. However, he said he had not “done any analysis” of the difference in CO2 from a person on a bike compared to the engine of a car. He also stands by his opinion that people who bike do not pay for roads when they ride. “When you are riding your bicycle, tell me what taxes are being generated by the act of riding your bicycle,” he said. “Sales tax does not go into roads.” That people who bike don’t pay for roads is demonstrably untrue. Most roads people bike on are paid for by counties and municipalities. In Seattle, gas taxes pay just four percent of the SDOT budget (as of 2009). Most of the rest comes from sources everybody pays, no matter how they get around. On a state level, gas taxes only pay for one quarter of the WSDOT budget. "Bicycling is not good for the environment" Below is a copy of the e-mail Rep. Orcutt sent to his constituant: [image]local://upfiles/42188/09C758C7EC6F40AFB78B707504A68F17.jpg[/image] If someone riding a bicycle gives off more CO2 than someone driving a car (according to this GOP state lawmaker) - what about all those damn joggers? And those joggers run along the side of the roads, not generating any gas taxes to pay for those roads. GOP science at work... To be open and fair, his wording can be taken two ways. There is the way it is being put above, or it could be taken as, "you exhale more CO2 while riding a bike than you would exhale while driving a car." The former is true, unless you're prone to road rage, in which case it's probably a public safety thing for you to ride instead of drive. So, the guy's words could have been mistranslated. That being said, he's a nut job. The amount of wear a bike puts on a road has to be negligible compared to a motor vehicle. Thus, the maintenance of a road isn't really something they are causing. And, gas taxes, fees, etc. most likely aren't paying for all the upkeep, so other taxes are most likely going to fund that, which the cyclist probably does pay into. Your jogging idea is even less cogent. So, to sum up, I do believe the guy's words could be twisted out of context, but I still think he's wrong.

Hillwilliam -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/4/2013 8:47:03 PM)
Mr Orcutt is also scientifically illiterate. CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations. CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases..

tweakabelle -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/4/2013 9:05:15 PM)
Can we all agree that ignorant stupid law makers like this particular doozy are far worse for the environment than bike-riding will ever be?

DesideriScuri -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/5/2013 4:06:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Mr Orcutt is also scientifically illiterate. CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations. CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases.. Are you saying that you don't exhale more CO2 while exercising than when not exercising? I do believe that was his point. I agree that the impact of the increased CO2 from exercise isn't going to have an appreciable effect on global warming. What makes CO2 different coming from a tailpipe than from a lung?

Lucylastic -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/5/2013 4:09:33 AM)
seriously?? did you miss this part? CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations. CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases..

Hillwilliam -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/5/2013 5:21:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Mr Orcutt is also scientifically illiterate. CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations. CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases.. Are you saying that you don't exhale more CO2 while exercising than when not exercising? I do believe that was his point. I agree that the impact of the increased CO2 from exercise isn't going to have an appreciable effect on global warming. What makes CO2 different coming from a tailpipe than from a lung? CO2 from a lung came from plant or animal tissue which was just recently CO2 in the atmosphere and converted to sugars via photosynthesis. Sugars are then converted to other biochemicals which are consumed and converted back to CO2 with a release of energy. As long as this cycle occurs, the atmospheric CO2 will remain more or less constant. This is a homeostatic system (stable). CO2 from petroleum and coal (fossil fuels) has been sequestered for many millions of years via a very slow process. When it is introduced into a homeostatic system, the atmospheric levels will rise as the rate of introduction of fossil CO2 is many orders of magnitude greater than the rate of sequestration. ETA. Yes, you exhale more CO2 but you also eat more to supply the energy so you are in effect extracting exactly the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as primary productivity as you add to it in respiration.

deathtothepixies -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/5/2013 5:35:44 AM)
Orcutt is a genius, but he hasn't thought it through properly..... tax people who give birth, they have brought another CO2 exhalant, if that is a word, into the world tax credits for murderers, they have stopped another pesky exhalant from polluting our delicate planet One things for sure there won't be many people rich enough to run marathons soon Or he could just do the decent thing and commit suicide and stop all that bullshit, I mean CO2 coming out of his own mouth

DesideriScuri -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/5/2013 9:41:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic seriously?? did you miss this part? CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations. CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases.. Seriously, did you miss the part where I don't blindly follow anything and request what makes it different? For instance, why isn't CO2 from burning biomass not part of the "dynamic carbon cycle?"

DesideriScuri -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/5/2013 9:45:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Mr Orcutt is also scientifically illiterate. CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations. CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases.. Are you saying that you don't exhale more CO2 while exercising than when not exercising? I do believe that was his point. I agree that the impact of the increased CO2 from exercise isn't going to have an appreciable effect on global warming. What makes CO2 different coming from a tailpipe than from a lung? CO2 from a lung came from plant or animal tissue which was just recently CO2 in the atmosphere and converted to sugars via photosynthesis. Sugars are then converted to other biochemicals which are consumed and converted back to CO2 with a release of energy. As long as this cycle occurs, the atmospheric CO2 will remain more or less constant. This is a homeostatic system (stable). CO2 from petroleum and coal (fossil fuels) has been sequestered for many millions of years via a very slow process. When it is introduced into a homeostatic system, the atmospheric levels will rise as the rate of introduction of fossil CO2 is many orders of magnitude greater than the rate of sequestration. ETA. Yes, you exhale more CO2 but you also eat more to supply the energy so you are in effect extracting exactly the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as primary productivity as you add to it in respiration. Thank you for the response. Appreciate it.

jlf1961 -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/5/2013 9:49:24 AM)
To continue this GOP lawmakers logic, any strenuous activity produces CO2, there for when two people are engaged in hot passionate sex, they are polluting the air, therefore we need to make sex illegal, which would end the abortion problem.

Lucylastic -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/5/2013 10:02:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic seriously?? did you miss this part? CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations. CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases.. Seriously, did you miss the part where I don't blindly follow anything and request what makes it different? For instance, why isn't CO2 from burning biomass not part of the "dynamic carbon cycle?" Seriously I tend to do research myself if Im given a statement like Hill did.... it seemed quite ....self explanatory the first time in the bolded parts.

Hillwilliam -> RE: GOP State lawmaker says bicycling is bad for the environment (3/5/2013 10:16:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Mr Orcutt is also scientifically illiterate. CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations. CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases.. Are you saying that you don't exhale more CO2 while exercising than when not exercising? I do believe that was his point. I agree that the impact of the increased CO2 from exercise isn't going to have an appreciable effect on global warming. What makes CO2 different coming from a tailpipe than from a lung? CO2 from a lung came from plant or animal tissue which was just recently CO2 in the atmosphere and converted to sugars via photosynthesis. Sugars are then converted to other biochemicals which are consumed and converted back to CO2 with a release of energy. As long as this cycle occurs, the atmospheric CO2 will remain more or less constant. This is a homeostatic system (stable). CO2 from petroleum and coal (fossil fuels) has been sequestered for many millions of years via a very slow process. When it is introduced into a homeostatic system, the atmospheric levels will rise as the rate of introduction of fossil CO2 is many orders of magnitude greater than the rate of sequestration. ETA. Yes, you exhale more CO2 but you also eat more to supply the energy so you are in effect extracting exactly the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as primary productivity as you add to it in respiration. Thank you for the response. Appreciate it. I hope it made sense.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125