quote:

Representative Ed Orcutt (R – Kalama, Washington) does not think bicycling is environmentally friendly because the activity causes cyclists to have “an increased heart rate and respiration.”

This is according to comments he made in an email to a constituent who questioned the wisdom of a new bike tax the legislature is considering as part of a large transportation package.

We spoke with Rep. Orcutt to confirm the email’s authenticity and to get further clarification.

“You would be giving off more CO2 if you are riding a bike than driving in a car,” he said. However, he said he had not “done any analysis” of the difference in CO2 from a person on a bike compared to the engine of a car.

He also stands by his opinion that people who bike do not pay for roads when they ride.

“When you are riding your bicycle, tell me what taxes are being generated by the act of riding your bicycle,” he said. “Sales tax does not go into roads.”

That people who bike don’t pay for roads is demonstrably untrue. Most roads people bike on are paid for by counties and municipalities. In Seattle, gas taxes pay just four percent of the SDOT budget (as of 2009). Most of the rest comes from sources everybody pays, no matter how they get around. On a state level, gas taxes only pay for one quarter of the WSDOT budget.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

quote:

Representative Ed Orcutt (R – Kalama, Washington) does not think bicycling is environmentally friendly because the activity causes cyclists to have “an increased heart rate and respiration.”
This is according to comments he made in an email to a constituent who questioned the wisdom of a new bike tax the legislature is considering as part of a large transportation package.
We spoke with Rep. Orcutt to confirm the email’s authenticity and to get further clarification.
“You would be giving off more CO2 if you are riding a bike than driving in a car,” he said. However, he said he had not “done any analysis” of the difference in CO2 from a person on a bike compared to the engine of a car.
He also stands by his opinion that people who bike do not pay for roads when they ride.
“When you are riding your bicycle, tell me what taxes are being generated by the act of riding your bicycle,” he said. “Sales tax does not go into roads.”
That people who bike don’t pay for roads is demonstrably untrue. Most roads people bike on are paid for by counties and municipalities. In Seattle, gas taxes pay just four percent of the SDOT budget (as of 2009). Most of the rest comes from sources everybody pays, no matter how they get around. On a state level, gas taxes only pay for one quarter of the WSDOT budget.

"Bicycling is not good for the environment"
Below is a copy of the e-mail Rep. Orcutt sent to his constituant:


If someone riding a bicycle gives off more CO2 than someone driving a car (according to this GOP state lawmaker) - what about all those damn joggers? And those joggers run along the side of the roads, not generating any gas taxes to pay for those roads.
GOP science at work...

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Mr Orcutt is also scientifically illiterate.
CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations.
CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases..

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Mr Orcutt is also scientifically illiterate.
CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations.
CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases..

Are you saying that you don't exhale more CO2 while exercising than when not exercising? I do believe that was his point. I agree that the impact of the increased CO2 from exercise isn't going to have an appreciable effect on global warming.

What makes CO2 different coming from a tailpipe than from a lung?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
seriously??
did you miss this part?
CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations.
CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases..

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Mr Orcutt is also scientifically illiterate.
CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations.
CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases..

Are you saying that you don't exhale more CO2 while exercising than when not exercising? I do believe that was his point. I agree that the impact of the increased CO2 from exercise isn't going to have an appreciable effect on global warming.
What makes CO2 different coming from a tailpipe than from a lung?

CO2 from a lung came from plant or animal tissue which was just recently CO2 in the atmosphere and converted to sugars via photosynthesis. Sugars are then converted to other biochemicals which are consumed and converted back to CO2 with a release of energy. As long as this cycle occurs, the atmospheric CO2 will remain more or less constant. This is a homeostatic system (stable).
CO2 from petroleum and coal (fossil fuels) has been sequestered for many millions of years via a very slow process. When it is introduced into a homeostatic system, the atmospheric levels will rise as the rate of introduction of fossil CO2 is many orders of magnitude greater than the rate of sequestration.
ETA. Yes, you exhale more CO2 but you also eat more to supply the energy so you are in effect extracting exactly the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as primary productivity as you add to it in respiration.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
seriously??
did you miss this part?
CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations.
CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases..

Seriously, did you miss the part where I don't blindly follow anything and request what makes it different? For instance, why isn't CO2 from burning biomass not part of the "dynamic carbon cycle?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Mr Orcutt is also scientifically illiterate.
CO2 that is respired by organisms or released by burning biomass is part of the dynamic carbon cycle and doesn;t lead to increased atmospheric concentrations.
CO2 released by burning of petroleum is from fossil carbon that has been sequestered for a couple of hundred million years and does lead to atmospheric increases..

Are you saying that you don't exhale more CO2 while exercising than when not exercising? I do believe that was his point. I agree that the impact of the increased CO2 from exercise isn't going to have an appreciable effect on global warming.
What makes CO2 different coming from a tailpipe than from a lung?

CO2 from a lung came from plant or animal tissue which was just recently CO2 in the atmosphere and converted to sugars via photosynthesis. Sugars are then converted to other biochemicals which are consumed and converted back to CO2 with a release of energy. As long as this cycle occurs, the atmospheric CO2 will remain more or less constant. This is a homeostatic system (stable).
CO2 from petroleum and coal (fossil fuels) has been sequestered for many millions of years via a very slow process. When it is introduced into a homeostatic system, the atmospheric levels will rise as the rate of introduction of fossil CO2 is many orders of magnitude greater than the rate of sequestration.
ETA. Yes, you exhale more CO2 but you also eat more to supply the energy so you are in effect extracting exactly the same amount of CO2 from the atmosphere as primary productivity as you add to it in respiration.

Thank you for the response. Appreciate it.