Archives

Following is a summary of a funny study from the Wharton School -- that bicycling really doesn't save energy over the long run. It’s not quite another of those smug ‘paradoxical’ assertions like the Prius/Hummer one, but something I might expect the anti-green pundits to gleefully jump on. To me, the amount of difference is just not a huge deal. :rolleyes: I could question whether the energy devoted to doing this study was actually worth it either.

It is axiomatic among environmentalists that substitution of human-powered transportation for single occupant automobile trips provides environmental benefits. Yet, given the current state of the automobile-driving population, particularly in the United States, first-order environmental benefits can result in high second-order environmental costs due to increased longevity of those engaging in increased physical activity. That is, the energy savings due to the use of human power for transportation may be offset by the increased energy used by living longer due to better health. On first reflection, this is a bizarre Swiftian argument. However, I believe that the argument correctly places human-powered transportation, and physical activity generally, at the center of a basic societal tension between the quest for longevity and the environmental costs of increased population.

The basic logic of my argument is:
• Human-powered transportation can substitute for trips by single-occupant automobiles. This substitution has a direct and immediate benefit of reducing energy consumption, even accounting for the latent energy content of the food required for human power.

• A substantial increase in the use of human-powered transportation would engage a substantial number of currently sedentary people in physical activity.

• Physical activity by previously sedentary individuals increases their longevity, and therefore their overall energy consumption.

• Depending on the characteristics of the population that adopts human-powered transportation, there may be little net environmental benefit associated with an increase in human-powered transportation.

In this article, I first lay out the evidence for these arguments, then engage the relationship between human-powered transportation and health policy, and finally argue that human-powered transportation remains a sound policy objective, given the most prevalent notions of social welfare.

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/documents/ulrich-cycling-enviro-jul06.pdf

Note he does believe the other benefits of biking are more valuable than the actual energy saved. Also he purposely doesn't consider the energy no longer required to manufacture a car --his assumptions are based on owning both a bike and car.

Also, I'm reading that Ulrich was "the guy behind TerraPass?" (??)

Hi Tarabell:

___How in the heck do you find this stuff and that was indeed a great article!

___I still believe Biking to be the better choice vs. driving for all the reasons we try to reduce our consumption and emissions.

___When it comes down to the food energy, I cringe every time I take a drink of bottled water knowing half of it was trucked half the way across our country so we can enjoy supposedly clean water? Similar to a touch over 10% of our oil being pumped out of the Saudi, Kuwaiti and Iraqi deserts only to be SuperTanked over to the US and piped half the way across the country to a refinery and then a distribution center into a truck to deliver to the pump :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Tarabell, this is a truly bizarre article! He seems to be saying that because I will live longer if I bicycle than if I drive a car, so I'll use more energy in total.
:confused:
Using the same argument, someone can reduce their energy consumption by disabling their air bags, not using seat belts and driving 120mph. The energy benefits of smoking cigarettes would also be significant.

This is true, but stupid.
--Walter

"On first reflection, this is a bizarre Swiftian argument" --On second reflection too!

This paper appears to be more an amusement than a serious scholarly work. There have been similarly amusing papers more or less suggesting that we subsidize smoking in order to help make Social Security solvent.

I bet you could complete an equal and opposite study with similar "speculative" population statistics based on reduced reproductive rates based on documented male potency issues due to cycling.

Highly amusing and nice find! LOL @ higher total environmental costs due to living longer because of being in shape due to biking. :eek: I hope this is satire, regardless of how it gets interpreted.

I think biking wins hands down for many reasons - but the one I like best is it improves efficiency every time I do it - my own efficiency, that is! :D What other "machine" continues to improve efficiency with regular use?


___When it comes down to the food energy, I cringe every time I take a drink of bottled water knowing half of it was trucked half the way across our country so we can enjoy supposedly clean water? Similar to a touch over 10% of our oil being pumped out of the Saudi, Kuwaiti and Iraqi deserts only to be SuperTanked over to the US and piped half the way across the country to a refinery and then a distribution center into a truck to deliver to the pump :(


Bottled Water Isn't Healthier Than Tap, Report Reveals (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water.html)

If you are worried about contamination or pollution (still valid concerns), filters do wonders. Bottled water is nasty in terms of total cost, and especially total energy cost. :( :(

So if we all smoked, ate Big Macs and lounged on the couch every day, it would be better for the environment.

What a load of BS. But thanks for posting it. Like the Prius-vs-Hummer stuff, nice to get a heads-up when garbage like this is headed our way.

I'm glad everyone found entertainment value in it. :)
Ulrich really owes some carbon credits for this piece of work.

BTW I hate the bottled water too and I'm thinking of just getting a filter for the water line.

What about the reduced energy consumption due to less of a burden placed on the health care system by healthy cyclists?

You also have to consider the increased cost for emergency equipment for all of those formerly sedentary individuals that will likely over do it and have a heart attack.;) Remember those ambulances and fire trucks are not know for their FE.

Most bicycles get ridden less than a hundred miles in their life, so even though they have very little mass, a Hummer (with its 300,000 mile life) has a lower dust-to-dust energy cost per mile! Also, bicycles cause more trips -- they get carried about on top of cars to a riding destination, making both an additional trip and additional aerodynamic drag.

Sadly, this is close to the truth, but it has nothing to with the potential of bicycles. My bikes all have thousands of miles on them (either directly replacing auto use, or indirectly by filling time when I might otherwise have driven to other recreation), and rarely travel on top of the car.

At least it should be difficult for someone to simultaneously claim that bicycling is too dangerous and that it makes the cyclist live so much longer that he uses more energy than someone who drives everywhere!

Greg

I can't even imagine that the math was right for his study. I figured out my carbon footprint online somewhere and I remember driving was something like half of my output. So, I don't remember the exact numbers, but say I put out 4 tons of carbon without my car, and another 4 with my car.

If I drive until I drop dead in 40 years, I produce (8X40=)320 tons of carbon
If I ditch my car I would have to live for another 80 years to produce the same (4X80=) 320 tons.

Surely biking isn't THAT good for someone's health! I guess some people's homes probably consume a lot more energy than mine, but still...

This idea is only true( assuming the numbers actually back it up), if we just look at the USA,and if we ignore the probability that these folks are probably just switching exercise regimens.In other countries-China,India etc bikes most assuredly do save energy.Just watch as their individual energy consumptions increase as they switch from bicycles to cars,and motorcycles. The writer is ignoring 2 billion plus people. For the planet as a whole, he is wrong,and probably wrong for the USA also..
Besides, there isn't any hard evidence that you will live substantially longer if you take up bike riding.There are plenty of other ways to stay fit.The sort of folks who take up bike riding to save the planet tend to be committed "fanatics" who are probably reasonably healthy "yuppies" already.I use the term yuppies, not meant to be insulting, but meant to describe the upper middle class urban educated types who are well off enough to worry about the planet.The poor don't worry about the planet,and they usually don't use the energy that better off folks use,and the rich with their Mc Mansions/estates only give lip service to long term environmental concerns(private jets, huge houses, jetting to vacation areas,2nd houses etc).
He is probably doing this study with his tongue firmly in cheek.He is assuming that folks will live longer, if they take up bike riding.
The folks who take up bike riding are destined to live longer anyway because of their life style(low fat, low sat fat,exercise).They are just switching exercise regimens from the health club to the roads.Bikes will certainly save energy when bike riding is substituted for a trip to the health club.
I'm a big fan of bikes, but not necessarily because of environmental concerns.I just love bikes-the movement I guess! Currently,I buy POS bikes, half ass rehab them,and sell them to folks-usually young college students etc.I doubt I make much doing it;strictly for fun.I like working on them, playing with them. I'm prejudiced in respect to bikes.They are fun, but fairly dangerous in many urban/suburban areas.
Charlie