Roody

Good details, but the main point stands that other individual activities contribute as much or more to pollution as personal transportation--by any means. Also there are millions of computer servers around the world that not only use electricity, but even cause significant thermal pollution (from cooling of the equipment) in local waterways. Every time we post a message on BF, we are using several of these servers as well as our own computer.

gerv 

Google has been pretty quiet about its cost to keep servers going. This article suggests a typical Google search costs about $0.028 each. Much of that cost is the electricity required to move your request to the nearest data center and, of course, to keep the data center purring. Many companies like Google have considered placing their data centers near cheap electricity... sometimes from solar or wind farms.

gerv 

It's seems almost like a conspiracy really. But there are a few resources out there to indicate how you would need to live to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. How Bad Are Bananas is a pretty good book on this subject.

I've read it and concluded that I needed to do a few extra things to get that carbon footprint down. Like stop flying and cut back on my Internet use. However, I'm still working on those.

Roody

I commend your efforts, and I try to live clean and green myself. But why should we consumers have to give up nice things like computers, comfortable homes and so forth? Governments and energy producers need to do their part to make energy that pollutes much much less. A lot could be done with the technology we have already, and at little additional cost after some one time infrastructure investments.

Ekdog

Google is investing in green energy.

https://www.google.com/green/bigpicture/

https://www.co2sense.co.uk/blog/googl...n-infographic/

While I agree that transport isn't the only part of our lives that we need to look at when we consider our carbon footprint and how to improve it, kmv2's argument makes about as much sense as the ones some have tried to make in this sub-forum about cycling or even walking being as harmful to the environment as driving because of the energy required to build a bike or to make a pair of shoes.

work4bike

I read that book, https://howbadarebananas.posterous.com/ because I wanted to know how to maximize my CO2 contribution to make up for my lack of driving

kmv2

I was just trying to show that you could theoretically equate your electrical consumption to driving an SUV, and it is more than most people think.

With your mix of energy sources and the fact you use a laptop, you could probably equate about 5-10km in a small car to 8hrs use of a 65W laptop.

I was only looking at the first degree too (emissions at the electrical generating facility itself). If you take into account the oil powered extraction of resources to fuel coal, NG and even nuclear it goes up quite a bit.

kmv2

haha, that's the basics of the theory that shows as we become more efficient we consume more.

As a personal obervation, I haven't been driving that much for about 6-7yrs, I don't watch TV and I don't have an air conditioner. In that time I've flown all over the world on vacations, probably financed by my electrical bill, lack of cable tv bill and transportation savings. Also my eating habits are generally healthy and I am willing to pay more for exotic things, hence my diet consists of things that come from all over the world. I have probably indirectly consumed more fuel and emitted more carbon dioxide than someone who eats crappy food, lives in the burbs and commutes to work every day.

I will read that book though.

kmv2

No but we can't sustain it forever. We have cheap computers, etc. because of our connection to cheap labour markets through low cost oil; we can ship goods from the other side of the world to our doorstep cheaper than making it in our own cities.

AFAIK all of the developed countries of the world have stable or decreasing levels of CO2 emissions. Partly because our dirty work is done overseas. Partly because we have the political will and the economic prosperity to decommission coal plants and open cogen or NG plants. China can't afford that at current rates of energy usage growth, neither can other developing countries. This however shows that developed countries are efficient and they can use fuels efficiently. That is a positive thing to exploit.

One idea I've heard is how carbon taxes could even the playing field. Eventually rising fuel costs will make producing things overseas cost too much and production will return to USA, etc. When that will happen? Who knows. If we want to put economic theory to work, and tax the emissions generated to produce a good, it evens the playing field immediately. A Chinese factory fueled by coal is always going to emit more than an American factory powered by anything that's not coal. All of a sudden it makes sense to make it in America again. How to calculate this when taxing imports though? That's what I didn't understand. The price of things goes up though too, so I suppose we have to deal with that.

EarlGrey

sorry guys being late, co2 discussion is interesting, but here there is a strong flaw. Crashing with such a rigid vehicle against hard thing, like walls or bigger animals called truck, is going to harm/kill the driver, because she/he will be the only thing that can deform and dissipate energy.

Astrozombie

First thing that came to my mind. There is this guy on another forum that uses a word i wasn't sure was ok to post on here. "Is this guy for real? He must be a p***cake" We're talking about NorCal here!
I think he needed to look in his mirror more often!

Nobody noticed this part? "When my parked car was totaled by a drunken driver three months ago, I wasn't even fazed."

kmv2

The structure of most modern vehicles are designed to prevent harm to the occupants of the vehicle. The idea is the front and rear ends become crumple zones, and absorb much of the energy from the impact.

https://youtu.be/3l4YBf2tjag?t=1m57s

and look at what modern F1 drivers can walk away from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtrzvwayniM

Notice the central part of the car where the driver is stays intact while everything surrounding it shatters and fragments on impact.

robert schlatte

I am skeptical whether the author was ever a bona fide cyclist. I think he and his opinion are a auto industry "plant" to engender fear among cyclists. It's the classic set up. He changes his behavior for economic reasons, he quickly realizes all the good things about cycling. (We can relate -he's trying to draw us in). Then over time he comes to realize how dangerous cycling is. He has daily "terrifying" encounters with cars driven by incompetent or inebriated unattentive drivers (an attempt to demonstrate he is part of the fraternity by blaming car drivers). Then, the big epiphany encounter which causes him to give up all the benefits of cycling he has realized and go out and buy an SUV which he now feels so much safer in. His conclusion- cars and bikes can never coexist. Oh come on! I don't buy it. I have had occasional encounters with cars but nothing I would describe as terrifying and certainly not daily and some of which were my fault. One can learn to ride safely in traffic. I am convinced the opinion is a ruse intended to scare us.

I-Like-To-Bike

Do you believe the author now is back piloting black helicopters or perhaps is operating drones overhead and targeting automotive missiles at "us" cyclists to engender more fear among "us" cyclists?

zeppinger

I agree with the message you are trying to send. I thought though, that I would point out that most consumers have no ability at all to decide what power source their laptop will be drawing from (coal, wind, solar, fossil fuel, etc). However, in the realm of transportation the consumer does have choice such as to walk, drive, ride, bus, train, subway, etc... The ability to directly affect where a given energy comes from means that their is more personal responsibility for ones choices, I think.

robert schlatte

Yes, I fear a vast right wing conspiracy. How truly perceptive you are.

kmv2

No, but the story is similar to one of those silly editorials where the author starts out by telling some half baked "I used to ride a bike" anecdote. Like if an LCF forum regular wrote an article on the danger of cars based on that time 15 years ago he rented a car for a day.

I-Like-To-Bike

Silly story, article, or opinion is one thing, believing that a "silly" story, article or opinion is part of a devious plot by some sort of conspiracy against "us cyclists" is another. It could make one deny being a cyclist in public so as as not to be associated with such loony tunes.

I-Like-To-Bike

That is the way your posts on this thread read; no smiley faces are evident.

kmv2

Partly true. But look at the trend of most developed countries moving away from coal.
Planet Earth has enough coal to power our grid for centuries if not millenia. It's AFAIK the biggest reserve of energy on the planet. It's cheap too. Yet, we are phasing out coal fired plants in favour of natural gas. This is because people are at a point where we are starting to understand the consequences of emissions, and the elected representatives get voted in on these views. Its not as swift a change as switching from a Ford Expedition to a Nissan Leaf. The result of the coal switch is a gradual increase in electrical costs. This is a non-immediate choice in which society has a big part in. Look at Germany and their drive to sustainable energy. I'd say Germans made their choice.

Conversely, does the choice really exist at the consumer end? I live in a fairly bike friendly city, and yet there are still numerous streets that don't even have sidewalks! Even on some new developments. The lack of public transit in some areas is even more disparate. When it comes to vehicle choice, there are also issues with choice. In Canada, we can buy an electric vehicle if we want to, that choice is there, but currently that means you pay double or more what you'd pay for a regular gasoline vehicle. Does a low income person who lives in the burbs with no public transit and no sidewalk and works at some factory/whatever outside of the city really have a transportation choice? These are immediate choices, where you live and how you get around affect your finances directly and immediately. I'd say you have less of a choice in immediate choices than you do in non immediate choices like where your power comes from.

I'm sort of rambling though, I invite some alternate views on this though

kmv2

Hyperbole.

Roody

That's exactly what this article was, and I totally missed it. These articles were everywhere a few years ago. Editor or producer springs an assignment on the cub reporter: starting right now, you're going to ride a bike everywhere for one week, then do a first-person piece about being carfree. The reporter tries it and, being totally unprepared and under-motivated, fails. The implied conclusion was that if this fit young reporter can't handle being carfree, there's obviously no hope for me.

nowadays, the media has changed it up a bit. Now they interview a couple people who have planned and prepared to be carfree, and are successful at it. The new foregone media conclusion is always something like: "We salute this rare tough breed of Americans, who sacrifice daily in their fight against pollution." The implied message is flattering to carfree people, but quite false: it takes a special person to be carfree or even bike commute, and the average person could never pull it off.

kmv2

yeah exactly, like that weathernetwork piece on commuting in the winter,

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/new...cle_13_11_2012

"He seems to prefer his *cough* BIKE over his car even when its *pause* MINUS FORTY!"

All these positive fluffy comments throughout.. you begin to think "Oh sweet, maybe I could try this! It doesn't sound so bad according to that cyclist guy"

..then it ends with a shot of the reporter (no toque, no gloves, obviously she spends alot of time outside ) sums it up and leaves you with "while hardcore cyclists can do it, not EVERYONE can pedal through an Edmonton winter"

So... despite the "research" and interviews she decides to not even attempt it and concludes that only hardcore fringe people can do it.

"Well, I guess I won't even try! Because I'm not a hardcore cyclist"

Roody

Well, when it comes to natural gas versus coal, you are neglecting the fact that the price of natural gas has plummeted, thanks to an environmentally dubious extraction process known as fracking. Low prices relative to coal, rather than environmental consciousness, are probably the main reason for the new gas plants.

Also, a lot of the natural gas plants that are now coming online were commissioned early in Obama's first term, when it looked like a carbon tax was inevitable. This tax would have made coal burning much more expensive, but the carbon tax never happened.

Finally, it's good to keep in mind that natural gas is cleaner than coal, but it still emits a lot of greenhouse gases. If every power plant in the world were magically switched over to natural gas, we would see a modest decline in global CO2 emissions. But as demand for electricity continues to soar, that decline would be wiped out in just a few years.

Newspaperguy

I've noticed this transition in recent years and it is an improvement. The story of the reporter who is expected to use the bike exclusively for all travel simply points out the limitations of that form of travel. The interviews with those who are already car-free can offer some practical advice to those considering going car-free or car-light.

What will help even more is when people see someone they know getting around without a car. That is when it becomes accessible and not a fringe activity for the hardcore extremists.