I subscribe to Terra Pass to offset the very teeny bit of GW my Prius emits. They sent me this article in their blog last week. While it makes some sense, in cases like mine, I believe that it would be a benefit if I would bike to work. I go to the gym three times a week to do cardio so I would simply stop doing that and bike to work instead. My caloric intake probably wouldn't be increased and the net effect would probably be beneficial to the environment. Check it out............. http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/docu...nviro-jul06.pdf The basic gist of the attached is that the more active your are the more you must eat to sustain yourself The additional food production utilizes more energy for production and transportation to you which offsets the amount of emissions one produces if they were to simply drive their car. Also, the study says that if those people that are out of shape engaged in bicycling instead of driving, they would get healthier and live longer which would require additional energy to sustain them for these additional years, again offsetting any savings of emissions if they just drove their car.
if you're unhealthy, though, you also require lots of medical equipment and drugs and etc to sustain you, which is also a negative for the environment. biking will always be better than an ambulance ride.
The author tries to make a case for cyclists using more energy because they live longer. Obviously, he's never actually ridden a bicycle in urban traffic! And cyclists eat more? The skinny ones, maybe. Most of us have already consumed all the extra calories we need for that cross town (country?) trip. So, the arguments 'against' seem pretty iffy to me. The correct answer is BIKE!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jul 31 2006, 04:23 PM) [snapback]295331[/snapback]</div> Yeah, that's a fallacy for sure. When I bike more, I lose weight. Any additional food eaten is stuff I probably would've dumped in the garbage otherwise, given the portion sizes that are provided to us in prepared foods of any kind nowadays. Cut down on the waste in any restaurants dumpster before blaming me for staying healthy, saving gas money, prolonging the healthy years of my life, and reducing air pollution.
From my personal experience, my appetite/hunger levels don't significantly change whether I drive or bike. Now of course, there are other factors to consider. When I biked to work, it was a 1.5 mile ride. Now, I'm 15 miles from work, and that far of a ride (tried it once) leaves me extremely hungry. However, the extra energy to get that food to me, prepare it, etc., is negligible compared to the gas used by the Prius. Why? Any food shipped in is transported in bulk, so the actual energy used to bring a meal across country is probably significantly less than what is needed to drive to work. Those shipments will be made anyway, the energy will be used anyway. The difference of even several thousand people eating a little more to sustain biking will be offset by the gas saved, especially if you assume that not everyone drives a Prius.
I am rather shocked by this article... inactivity leads to obesity... IE the general rule is that if you take in more calories than you expend, you'll gain weight. Some hospitals are having to overhaul equipment to accommodate our guts (no offense intended towards anyone). I am sure there are some related energy expenditures that won't agree with the assertations of this author. The issue of weight gain is rather complex, but things like stress can play a significant factor in weight gain. Bicycling is a great way of reducing stress, and obesity (the effect is on multiple levels... like w/ cortisol). (above what everyone else mentioned) Not only does it aid with maintain weight, but it helps us feel better and more positive... and thus more likely to take actions on convictions such as sustainability. To say that health and a sustainable economy have an inverse relationship is rather... ummm... controversial. There are more important topics to discuss than arguing against bike riders (which imo is not a sound argument). For one, how about reducing the birth rate? That alone would make a far greater difference in energy consumption. This is just ludicrous.
So . . . fat, lazy Americans are in actuality good earth stewards? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Whew, thanks for the good laugh!
