Comments Stanton Byrd has made

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
On Love the earth? Die. posted 3 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses