A gallon of gas has 30,000 Calories. An SUV weighs (technically masses) 2000kg and gets 20 MPG. Thus the kilogram miles per Calorie -- the efficiency -- for an SUV is 1.33.<p>A peanut butter sandwich is 600 Calories (with bananas and maple syrup on whole wheat, but corn syrup on Wonder bread is similar). A bicycle plus messenger bag and rider weighs 80kg and gets 10 miles to the peanut butter sandwich. Thus the efficiency of the bicycle is 1.33 kg.mi/C.<p>So far the bicycle and SUV seem exactly equal in efficiency and have equal environmental impact.<p>But that doesn't take into account cost. The peanut butter sandwich costs $5, or $3 if you make it at home. Call it $4. The gallon of gasoline also costs $4. But the gasoline has 50x the energy. The total cost to society is 50x higher to operate the bicycle, taking all process costs into account through the price system.<p>So in fact, biking is terrible for the environment. We'd all be better off banning bicycles and buying every cyclist an SUV and then having a mass lycra bonfire. Plus, think of all the cash we would save by not blowing it on extra bicycle fuel. It could save the economy.
This demented viewpoint overlooks how much more efficient bicycling is than virtually any other mode of transport.<p>Link: <a href="http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html</a><p>Quote: "The bicycle is a tremendously efficient means of transportation. In fact cycling is more efficient than any other method of travel--including walking!"<p>The hidden agenda is that such an efficient mode of transport is difficult to tax based on conventional measures like fuel used or CO2 emitted -- although it's apparent that people will try.<p>I think bicyclists should be taxed based on what their existence costs society as a whole -- freeway construction, pothole repair, global warming, health care for those dying of heart disease and diabetes. By that reasoning, bicyclists should receive a tax credit, like those who install solar panels or buy electric cars.<p>Oh -- did I mention that I'm a bicyclist?
He apologized and recanted:<p><a href="http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/03/04/rep-orcutt-says-bicycle-carbon-emissions-not-a-point-worthy-of-even-mentioning/" rel="nofollow">http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/03/04/rep-orcutt-says-bi...</a>
I remember reading (but don't have the link handy) about a gentlemen who did lots of analysis about his switch from car commuting to bike commuting. His conclusion was that bike commuting is more expensive for him, because he ends up eating more to compensate for the calories burnt during the ride. The cost of additional food was higher than the cost of gas saved (as someone below already pointed out that food energy is more pricey than gas energy).<p>The guy with the data analysis nevertheless decided to stick with the bike because he suspected that this decision will have positive long term health effects saving him a lot of money in future. I am inclined to agree but in my case the parking fees at work make the decision a no-brainer anyway.
Lawmaker apologizes for bashing bicycles and all their pollution<p><a href="http://now.msn.com/ed-orcutt-washington-rep-apologizes-for-bike-comments" rel="nofollow">http://now.msn.com/ed-orcutt-washington-rep-apologizes-for-b...</a>
I don't know whether I should laugh or cry...<p>Please elect more people with a clue. More politicians with a background in science or engineering would be a good thing.
I don't buy the lawmaker's 'fairness' argument either. True, cyclists do use streets but so do automobile passengers yet no one is floating the idea of applying a tax to them.<p>Many revenue sources have this quality. Property taxes foot the bill for schools in many municipalities. And 'sin taxes' definitely don't benefit the people who pay them the most.<p>The Rep. is spouting ungrounded rhetoric. Surprise, surprise.