Love the earth? Die.

Posted by David Roberts at 11:44 AM on 18 Jul 2006

The TerraPass blog points to a new study out from U. Penn professor Karl Ulrich called "The Environmental Paradox of Biking" (PDF). The rather jarring conclusion is that switching people over from cars to bicycles has, at present, no net environmental benefit.

"Wha ...?!" you say.

Well, here's the thing. Just by being alive, you're sucking up resources. In particular, lots and lots of fossil fuels are required to transport food to you. If you stop driving everywhere and bike instead, you'll live longer. So you'll suck up more resources. So it's a wash.

If you really love the environment, you'll drive your car ... off a bridge.

Ouch.

(Yes, yes, before you start yelling at me, it's a bit of a lark. Ulrich is a dedicated enviro -- he's responsible for the birth of TerraPass and is a dedicated cyclist. As the energy intensity of our lifestyles decreases, as it had better in coming years, the balance will change to favor biking and living longer. [Other angry-letter-diverting caveats here.])

For story: Love the earth? Die.
9 Comments | Post a Comment

Wait!

It seems far better if I ride my bike off a bridge ... think of the oil slick my car would make.

If a twigg falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear it, it's probably best because there is bound to be cussing.

by Tom Twigg at 12:30 PM on 18 Jul 2006

Kind of creepy.

How many carbon credits would one buy to off-set having a baby?

by sunflower at 12:46 PM on 18 Jul 2006

Not serious, you say?

But what if people take this seriously? In this world of excuses for inaction this will be...Grist to the Mill (sorry) for the refusenik driver, especially of SUVs and other symbols of selfishness.

Suppose for a moment that we do take this seriously - well, as a vegetarian (much less energy required to produce food), who buys locally (less travel) and organic (less energy to produce chemicals), whose electricity comes from wind power (zero energy after manufacture) and who has lots of energy saving features in his home (less natural gas used too) and takes public transport and feet to work every day (this is getting dull)...

Well, you get the idea. Let's all Carbon Footprint and see who is allowed to live a long time ;-)

Keith
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.com

Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

by farnishk at 1:32 PM on 18 Jul 2006

Well, it's kind of serious. But not really.

Sunflower, the average American is responsible for roughly 20 tons of CO2 each year. Let's say your baby lives for a 100 years, thanks to its cycling regimen and Lipitor prescription. You'd be on the hook for about 2,000 tons of CO2. Which at present prices is less than one year of tuition at a private college. I'm just saying.

I'd be remiss if I didn't shamelessly self-promote by pointing to TerraPass' tongue-in-cheek follow-up exploring the tradeoff between longevity and greenhouse gas emissions:

http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/000326.html

I feel dirty.

www.terrapass.com/blog

by Adam Stein at 3:31 PM on 18 Jul 2006

a great fun paper

thanks, I really enjoyed reading that.

and I think Keith has the right idea. I'm not vegetarian but I try to eat lower on the food chain as my biking kicks up my appetite.

by odograph at 9:45 PM on 18 Jul 2006

Don't forget Carbonfund.org

While I did buy a TerraPass, I later found an even better deal at Carbonfund.org, a nonprofit (so your renewable energy credits are tax deductable). I computed our carbon footprint and neutralizing it came to about $13 a month--so we set up an EFT and every month they get $15, which I can then deduct on my taxes. Hell of a deal.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 6:42 AM on 19 Jul 2006

This means War

It is clear to me after reading this report that environmnetalists should refocus their efforts towards demanding stricter legislative action for energy efficienct bicycles. We should also bomb the Dutch, strip Lance Armstrong of all his glory, initiate anti-cycling terrorist cells in China, and form tackle any hipster doofus on a fixed gear.

(note on the tackling: be careful not to run, it increases life-expectancy by one meal.)

by banjowen at 12:53 PM on 19 Jul 2006

The problem with this study

is that every right wing commentator in the world will be using it to attack environmentalism and bicycling.

Ulrich is a moron who should have his head examined (does he ride without a helmut in traffic?).

This kind of nonsense is unuseful. If Dr. Ulrich thinks living longer is a bad idea, well, he can solve that problem personally any time!! Or does he think it is only "other people" living longer that is a bad idea?

You can go a long ways down the carbon chain if you wish. Start with small apartment urban dwelling, no car, vegetarian, add energy efficiency, and voila!

Smile.

Umm, fixed gears are de-rigour in China!! (If I understood you right, stop tackling me and explain!).

(If I had multiple gears I could go very fast, and this is not a good idea!).

BTW, I don't find the lifestyle dull at all!

Again, anyone who wants to live without using any resources can become an "airian" and live only by breathing (for a while).

It must be the heat.....

patrick

by bookerly at 4:42 AM on 21 Jul 2006

The Environmental Paradoxes of Bicycling

This is what I wrote Karl Ulrich:

Hi Mr. Ulrich,

I just wanted to make a comment about your paper that some say is ridiculous. Firstly, it isn't ridiculous. But I just wanted to pose a possible alternative theory to yours.

Your argument supposes that increased biking for commuting purposes would mean that fat people would hop on bikes, live longer, and therefore the environmental utility of their non-polluting would be offset by the environmental disutility of their living longer. BUT very few sedentary people would ever conceive of taking up bicycle commuting. It's just too extreme. I rarely ever see fat people on bicycles going anywhere. A bicycle seat is the last thing a fat person would ever want to sit on.

My theory is that an increase in bicycle commuting would mean (mostly), that people who are active anyway would start riding bikes instead of engaging in other useless exercise--like crunches or pushups--exercises that have no benefit other than the immediate health benefits.

So, my theory is that increased bicycle commuting would mean that people who would be generally inclined to engage in physical activity anyway would commute by bike. A bicycle commuting revolution would only mean that people who otherwise spend $50 bucks a month to go to a gym to exercise on stationary aerobic contraptions, would instead, expend that energy for the environmentally useful purpose of going to work.

If this is true, it would mean that fat people would continue to die--good for the environment and fewer people would be polluting--also good for the environment. Everyone wins!

This is what Karl Ulrich wrote back:

Yes, your logic is correct.
Unfortunatly there aren't very many fit people in the US. I think the
population you refer to is less than 10 percent. So, it would be great
to have those folks on bikes, but it would be a small win relative
to the revolution envisioned by most cycling advocates.

My response:
Hello, Me again,
I was looking around on the internet for numbers and figures and such and came across an article that appears to have run in 2002 in the Washington Post (http://www.mercola.com/2002/apr/24/exercise.htm). The article says something to the effect that 30% of Americans engage in regular physical activity and that 40% of all Americans are certifiably sedentary. I think your figure of 10%--which you suppose represents the percentage I refer to in my theory, is pessimistic. I think its probably closer to 20 or 25%. But I think even 10% would benefit the environment significantly without the spectre of our longevity offsetting said benefits. Either way, you should probably address this theory in your work to avoid being intellectually disingenuous.

-stan

by Stanton Byrd at 10:14 AM on 21 Sep 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.