Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

State Rep. Says Biking Is Not Earth Friendly Because Breathing Produces CO2

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the pedal-price dept.

Government 976

terbeaux writes "The fact that Rep Ed Orcutt (R — WA) wants to tax bicycle use is not extraordinary. The representative's irrational conviction is. SeattleBikeBlog has confirmed reports that Orcutt does not feel bicycling is environmentally friendly because the activity causes cyclists to have 'an increased heart rate and respiration.' When they contacted him he clarified that 'You would be giving off more CO2 if you are riding a bike than driving in a car...' Cascade blog has posted the full exchange between Rep Ed Orcutt and a citizen concerned about the new tax."

cancel ×

976 comments

Cars produce more (-1, Troll)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43066803)

In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely. And ultimately, if we as a species are going to survive, we need to do that. But in the here and now, we have to do the best we can. And cars produce way more of that poison than anyone on a bicycle. The Congressman is just an ignorant jackass who has no understanding of how our biosphere works.

Re:Cars produce more (4, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43066817)

If you eliminated all the CO2, the plants would die. I think you mean limit it to some given level.

Re:Cars produce more (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066921)

If you eliminated all the CO2, the plants would die. I think you mean limit it to some given level.

Yes. When you think about the fact that the GP posted this on a "Geek" website, I am deeply saddened and worried by the lack of basic science education.

Consider that this politician is a product of that system, I can't really blame him for making such an ignorant statement.

Re:Cars produce more (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43067175)

The "stuff that matters" is that Americans elected that kind of people to make laws based on his knowledge. Don't worry, probably have more clue than the rest.

Re:Cars produce more (4, Funny)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about a year ago | (#43067129)

I don't know why they don't just drag some trees from the back of aeroplanes. Or perhaps a small shrubbery on the roof. That'll get rid of the CO2 in the stratosphere, surely?

Re:Cars produce more (4, Insightful)

nurhussein (864532) | about a year ago | (#43066841)

In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely

Plants need CO2 to produce food. If you eliminated CO2 we'd die as a species, along with every other species.

Re:Cars produce more (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#43066915)

...we'd die as a species

No more AGW, success!

Re:Cars produce more (4, Insightful)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year ago | (#43066999)

In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely

Plants need CO2 to produce food. If you eliminated CO2 we'd die as a species, along with every other species.

The Earth also needs CO2 to stay warm. We'd be in a permanent ice age if there was literally zero in the atmosphere.

Moderation. People have surprising difficulty with the concept.

Re:Cars produce more (-1, Troll)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43067081)

Denier!

Re:Cars produce more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067167)

Goodness gracious, there was even a South Park episode to explain this. Holding in all your farts causes spontaneous combustion. But farting too much causes global warming. The only solution is to fart in moderation.

Re:Cars produce more (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about a year ago | (#43066845)

Also, by his reasoning we should start killing our population off, because then we'll produce less CO2 when they're dead. What a moron.

Re:Cars produce more (2)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year ago | (#43066871)

Kill off poor people, burn their bodies as fuel. Win/win for the 1%!

Re:Cars produce more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066855)

I don't think we want to eliminate it completely...

Re:Cars produce more (0, Troll)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43067101)

Clearly, you are in the pocket of big oil. Keep drinking their Kool-Aid.

Re:Cars produce more (1)

eagoldman (2836817) | about a year ago | (#43066859)

You failed biology, didn't you. No CO2 means no O2 (we breath this), no food. getting the picture? Now, go away and don't come back until you get a clue.

Re:Cars produce more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066867)

Is my sarcasm meter off today? Is this man crazy? WTF?

Re:Cars produce more (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year ago | (#43066869)

If your ideal world is one without life as we know at, then sure eliminate CO2 completely.

I suspect most people consider being alive part of an ideal world though and wiping out all the photosynthesizers, followed shortly by the rest of the food chain isn't doesn't count as ideal.

Re:Cars produce more (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066883)

In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely. And ultimately, if we as a species are going to survive, we need to do that. But in the here and now, we have to do the best we can. And cars produce way more of that poison than anyone on a bicycle. The Congressman is just an ignorant jackass who has no understanding of how our biosphere works.

Not sure if this is a troll, or an example of someone who has their head so far up the ass of the radical green movement that their brain has stopped working due to lack of oxygen...

Re:Cars produce more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066885)

Without any CO2, the earth would be far too cold to live on.

Re:Cars produce more (-1, Troll)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43067113)

Is that what Exxon told you?

Re:Cars produce more (1)

Kinwolf (945345) | about a year ago | (#43067165)

Ok, please mod parent as a troll. He might rightfully say the Congressman is just an ignorant jackass, but in all his reply that CO2 should be eliminated, ignoring what people are telling him that's it's vital to our survival, he proved he is one too.

Re:Cars produce more (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066897)

Can we mod parent as a troll? I mean, you suggest knowledge of how the biosphere works, but you do realize that survival on this planet is a bidirectional thing made possible by the fact that animals take in O2 and give off CO2 and other gasses, which are then "Breathed" by plants that take in CO2 and produce O2, right? So, then by eliminating all CO2 from our atmosphere, we would destroy half of the life on this planet by starving them of the very gasses they require for respiration.

It is a more logical thought to suggest that:

1. The person talking about taxing cyclists and such was being sarcastic,
2. That the answer to resolving global warming and also the CO2 pollution in our atmosphere is to develop new biomass that can process out CO2 into O2 at a higher level of efficiency than current plant matter.

A perfect example that is easily achievable: I've read about certain species of algae that process more CO2 than much larger sections of rainforest which currently are the largest carbon sinks/producers of O2 on the planet. Cultivating these species of algae (or even genetically modified species of plants that are much more efficient) in sections of large buildings (or empty buildings) in larger urban areas could do far more to reduce the overall scale of pollution than simply cutting emissions alone.

Re:Cars produce more (1)

billakay (1607221) | about a year ago | (#43066899)

In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely. And ultimately, if we as a species are going to survive, we need to do that. But in the here and now, we have to do the best we can. And cars produce way more of that poison than anyone on a bicycle. The Congressman is just an ignorant jackass who has no understanding of how our biosphere works.

Not sure if this is a troll, or an example of someone who has their head so far up the ass of the radical green movement that their brain has stopped working due to lack of oxygen... (Sorry I didn't mean to post as AC).

Re:Cars produce more (3, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#43066973)

I think that maybe some people just find it too hard to believe that all the carbon in the plants actually comes from the air. This gives you an idea about how much the atmosphere weighs -- CO2 is merely 0.04% of our atmosphere! Heck, forget the plants that are alive now, just look at how much of this stuff was in the atmosphere long time ago. Every bit of carbon in coal deposits came from the atmosphere!!

Re:Cars produce more (5, Insightful)

Captain Hook (923766) | about a year ago | (#43066907)

CO2 isn't a problem, it's part of a cycle for Carbon in the biosphere. Adding significantly more Carbon to the biosphere from sources which have been locked away hundreds of millions of years in the form of CO2 is a problem.

Even if people produced more CO2 than cars to travel the same distance (which they don't) it still wouldn't be a problem because the Carbon the cyclist is using is already part of the biosphere.

Re:Cars produce more (1)

fldsofglry (2754803) | about a year ago | (#43067151)

Wish I had mod points for this. Well said.

Re:Cars produce more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066909)

"In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely."

Not really, the Earth would become way too cold without any CO2 at all. Also, as another poster has pointed out, it's necessary for plant growth. There has always been CO2 in the atmosphere. We just don't want there to be *too much*.

Re:Cars produce more (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#43066927)

Next time you see a tree, I hope you realize that all the carbon in it came from the CO2 in the air. We need the name of your biology teacher, pronto.

Re:Cars produce more (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067027)

We need the name of your biology teacher, pronto.

Don't be so quick to blame the teacher. You can lead a moron to knowledge, but you can't make him learn.

Re:Cars produce more (-1, Redundant)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#43067127)

Next time you see a tree, I hope you realize that all the carbon in it came from the CO2 in the air.

Denier propaganda.

Re:Cars produce more (5, Funny)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about a year ago | (#43066941)

In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely.

No need to wait! Make a difference and stop exhaling today!

Re:Cars produce more (1)

snarkh (118018) | about a year ago | (#43067147)

Clinton did not inhale. Now we know the reason.

Re:Cars produce more (4, Funny)

hamburger lady (218108) | about a year ago | (#43066943)

In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely. ... The Congressman is just an ignorant jackass who has no understanding of how our biosphere works.

thank god we'll never fully eliminate irony from the planet.

Re:Cars produce more (2)

johnjaydk (584895) | about a year ago | (#43066971)

In an ideal world, we would be able to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere completely.

Sigh. We need a certain amount of greenhouse effect in order to make the planet habitable. Nature, itself provides the required amount of CO2 to create that effect and that is a significant reason why life arose on this planet in the first place.

Things get dodgy when human activity causes the release of a shitload of extra CO2 and therefore amp up the greenhouse effect.

Re:Cars produce more (0)

dreamchaser (49529) | about a year ago | (#43066995)

That 'poison' is essential to the ecosystem, and in historic times has been at far higher levels than it is today, in prehistoric times when there were no bicycles or cars.

I can't figure out if you're trolling or just poorly educated.

Re:Cars produce more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067155)

Well, he's probably the same type of person who would never eat something with genes in it, nor eat something with any chemical substances in it, nor touch anything with atoms.

Not as strange as it sounds (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066835)

For those interested, I'd recommend the book How Bad is a Banana, which examines the carbon footprint of various foods (which varies greatly).

Fun tidbit: If you were to take your calories from asparagus (which has a big carbon footprint), riding a bike actually has a bigger carbon footprint than a city bus. Yea, I know we don't eat only asparagus, but the point is still valid: you can just look at the surface and ignore the externalities of your actions.

Re:Not as strange as it sounds (5, Funny)

bhcompy (1877290) | about a year ago | (#43066901)

This post has merit and should feel good about itself

Re:Not as strange as it sounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067139)

The post should feel good about itself?

Re:Not as strange as it sounds (4, Interesting)

Inda (580031) | about a year ago | (#43067135)

I'd suggest that book it dated if it's giving advice like that.

These days, asparagus can be grown in a single season. In yestayear, it would have taken two. I've grown some lovely spears myself and they take no more work than any other type of vegetable. Maybe slightly more space is needed, but not that much.

Infinite human stupidity (5, Insightful)

pianophile (181111) | about a year ago | (#43066837)

Does the House GOP caucus have a minimum stupidity requirement?

Re:Infinite human stupidity (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066939)

Nope - you just need to be able to take the economy hostage and kiss rich people's asses.

Re:Infinite human stupidity (0)

egr (932620) | about a year ago | (#43066963)

Indeed there should be some system in place to filter retards from the government positions.

Re:Infinite human stupidity (3, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | about a year ago | (#43067073)

There is one. It's called an election.

Unfortunately it relies on voters not being total fucking morons and voting in their own kind. As you can see, that plan has significant flaws.

Re:Infinite human stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067077)

No more republicans ?

Re:Infinite human stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067153)

A little naive to assume they are stupid. On the contrary, they are mostly millionaires and plan to stay that way, something you don't achieve by giving a shit about the rest of the population and saying no to big business/donators.

Re:Infinite human stupidity (3, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | about a year ago | (#43067097)

Yes, they need to be dumb enough to appeal to the "moron voters that fear intelligence" demographic.

Said demographic is quite large.

Re:Infinite human stupidity (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#43067109)

Sadly, elected representatives reflect the level of the people who voted for them.

I sighed (5, Funny)

programmerar (915654) | about a year ago | (#43066839)

I sighed while reading this, fatigued by the comments of the congressman. Sorry for the extra CO2 guys.

Re:I sighed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067067)

that's okay. if you look about a little i'm sure you could find some place that would sell you carbon credits to balance out the co2 that you exhale.

I configured my HOSTS file to absorb CO2 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066843)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.

Disproof of all apk's statements:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040729&cid=40949719
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040697&cid=40949343
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040597&cid=40948659
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40947927
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040425&cid=40946755
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40942439
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3024445&cid=40942207
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40942031
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038601&cid=40942085
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040803&cid=40950045
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040867&cid=40950563
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40950839
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041035&cid=40951899
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041081&cid=40952169
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041091&cid=40952383
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40952991
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954201
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40956625
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897177
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40894889
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40886171
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042451&cid=40959497
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042547&cid=40960279
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042669&cid=40962027
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965091
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965087
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967049
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972117
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972271
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40972313
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045349&cid=40973979
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3046181&cid=40978835
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3046211&cid=40979293
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3050711&cid=41002319
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3118863&cid=41341925
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3131751&cid=41397971
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41429005
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146511&cid=41469199
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146549&cid=41469495
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41509255
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3164403&cid=41555261
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832417
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41846971
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41861263
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228787&cid=41866351
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228683&cid=41866627
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228991&cid=41866737
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41868513
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41868567
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869275f
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229765&cid=41872927
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3472971&cid=42939773
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3483339&cid=42972349
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42981835
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486901&cid=42988415
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3500483&cid=43026797
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028205
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033535
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3504883&cid=43040365
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3506945&cid=43044767
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3507727&cid=43048175
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3507873&cid=43049019
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43051385
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3509683&cid=43054221
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3510265&cid=43056879
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063711
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3512099&cid=43066627
AND MANY MORE

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

That's the kind of martial arts I practice.

Re:I configured my HOSTS file to absorb CO2 (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#43066989)

Is there an online random troll post generator somewhere? This sure looks like it.

Not Holding My Breath... (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066853)

I'm not holding my breath for Mr. Orcutt to get his sense. Moving on...

Simple solution (5, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#43066861)

Set up two sealed rooms with a glass wall.
In one room have a car outside the window with its exhaust piped into the room.
In the other have a cyclist on an exercise bike working out. Pipe his exhalations into the room.
Outfit the room with a nice desk and sofa and other accouterments. Then ask the esteemed congressman which room he would like to spend the day in.

For myself it would depend on if the cyclist had eaten garlic recently!

Re:Simple solution (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067095)

Also would depend if the person in the smoke room had to watch a video of the bicyclist yelling "AsssHOLE!!!" and raise his middle finger as most of them seem to as they weave their way across busy city intersections.

By his own reasoning... (4, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#43066863)

By his own reasoning, Rep Ed Orcutt needs to lower his CO2 production by keeping his mouth shut. He would do both the planet and his colleagues a favor.

All politicians that don't understand Science.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066967)

All politicians that don't understand Science need to be sacked. I'm sick of these fucking morons running the show.

Re:By his own reasoning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067003)

This politician is a "(score:5, troll)".

I think he is either out of his fucking mind or he is a ninja genious we can all learn from.

Re:By his own reasoning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067011)

Not good enough - he's still producing CO2 just by breathing. If he's so concerned about the CO2 created by cyclists, then the logical conclusion is for him to kill himself, in order to reduce his personal CO2 production to zero.

Re:By his own reasoning... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067059)

By his own reasoning, Rep Ed Orcutt needs to lower his CO2 production by keeping his mouth shut. He would do both the planet and his colleagues a favor.

No, not really. The amount of bullshit spewing from his mouth is fertilizing 4500 acres and subsidizing 13 families right now.

You should see what some of the others are capable of.

Re:By his own reasoning... (4, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | about a year ago | (#43067069)

By his own reasoning, Rep Ed Orcutt needs to lower his CO2 production by keeping his mouth shut. He would do both the planet and his colleagues a favor.

Perhaps by inserting his own head into his anus he would be prevented from expelling methane, CO2 and consuming oxygen, at the same time.

Re:By his own reasoning... (1)

quacking duck (607555) | about a year ago | (#43067089)

His CO2 production is already as low as possible. He's clearly brain-dead.

CO2 isn't the only biking benefit (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066865)

It's clear that he is just lobbying, and that's just not true. But the benefits of people commuting aren't only in helping the atmosphere, but our society, full of obese people that doesn't interact with others and act like retards with their cars.

Re:CO2 isn't the only biking benefit (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066937)

I can tell you from my own experience that many people also act as retards when sitting on a bike.

Re:CO2 isn't the only biking benefit (4, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#43067133)

It's clear that he is just lobbying, and that's just not true. But the benefits of people commuting aren't only in helping the atmosphere, but our society, full of obese people that doesn't interact with others and act like retards with their cars.

The only problem with that, is my experience is the that the percentage of idiots in cars is roughly the same as the percentage of idiots on bicycles. Which isn't bad, I guess, if there were only bicycles in the road.

But when you mix bikes and cars together, even with a biking lane, the idiots make things dangerous. A) because they're idiots and B) because SOME cyclists think that since they're not in cars they don't need to follow the rules.

And some of the biggest idiots I've talked to about it, are people that have recently switched "for the environment" Like I've yelled at people that did the below, and their response was simply "But it's good for the environment." Great, will the environment save me from the lawsuit your family will file because I hit you with the car because you swerved in front of me?

Stuff I've seen
- Let's speed down the middle of a one-way street, going the wrong way.
- Let's ride down the middle of an actual highway... yeh, nothing bad will happen here. (Seriously, saw that and went WTF)
- That red light (or stop sign) at the bottom of the hill is only for cars... I don't need to stop or even slow down
- Let's make a left turn here while on this 40MpH road without indicating or looking, I'm sure the car behind me can stop in time
- Hmm, I think I'll dig in my pocket and look for my cellphone, then start talking on the cellphone, while weaving around like a drunk idiot
- Hmm, I'm obviously not a great cyclist... so let me ride carelessly on a 40MpH road, fall down in the middle of the road without a helmet, and nearly cause a bunch of accidents as they try not to drive over my head.

Obviously, there are plenty of careful and educated cyclists out there... especially the ones that take it seriously (helmet, solid bike, proper signals, etc). But the idiots out there are quite bountiful. And of course, hitting one due to their stupidity will obviously result in ME getting hit with criminal and/or civil issues out the whazoo.

Next? People who have plants! (5, Funny)

Orphis (1356561) | about a year ago | (#43066873)

Plants emit CO2 at night, let's have a tax on people who have plants too!

Re:Next? People who have plants! (4, Funny)

MarioMax (907837) | about a year ago | (#43066911)

Maybe your plants do. My plants are powered by the sun, and only emit CO2 during construction and demolition.

RTFA (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year ago | (#43066889)

He doesn't say that bicycles produce more CO2 than cars, he says that:
  • Drivers pay road tax to cover the costs of roads, including bike lanes, why shouldn't bikes pay some of this?
  • Cycling increases your respiration rate so produces more CO2 than not cycling.

Both of these are true. The only one he is actually using to justify his position (that bikes should pay road tax) is the former, the second point is refuting the point that bikes are environmentally friendly. The second point is debatable: it's a question of what the basic comparison is. Cycling is more polluting than staying at home, less polluting than driving a car.

There are lots of valid reasons to mock Republicans, we don't need to make more up.

Re:RTFA (2)

Zelos (1050172) | about a year ago | (#43066951)

Where do you think the carbon in the CO2 you breathe out comes from?

Re:RTFA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066959)

No. The second point is complete nonsense.

Every gram of carbon dioxide you emit while cycling was previously fixed directly from the atmosphere by a plant or alga. If you didn't re-emit it, the food you would have eaten would rot instead, and the same CO2 would be released by bacteria. Even if that food had never been grown, the plant or alga that grew in its place would have eventually decayed, emitting the same CO2.

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067187)

No. The second point is complete nonsense.

Every gram of carbon dioxide you emit while cycling was previously fixed directly from the atmosphere by a plant or alga. If you didn't re-emit it, the food you would have eaten would rot instead, and the same CO2 would be released by bacteria. Even if that food had never been grown, the plant or alga that grew in its place would have eventually decayed, emitting the same CO2.

Sure, if your food is grown in magic land, where food processes itself, self-cooks and is magically teleported to your magical plate that'll clean itself when you're done.

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066975)

There are lots of valid reasons to mock Republicans, we don't need to make more up.

"We don't need to try to make them look ridiculous... they're doing just fine on their own."

Re:RTFA (5, Insightful)

faedle (114018) | about a year ago | (#43066985)

And even assertion 1 is faulty.

Cyclists also pay for roads via sales and property taxes in Washington, probably reasonably close to their proportional use of same. Cyclists are more likely to use city streets over state highways (and aren't allowed on Interstates at all), occupy a considerably smaller footprint than an automobile, and impact the road surface considerably less, if at all, given their light weight.

Re:RTFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067143)

if anything, they should be getting paid for taking their bike instead of their cars.

Re:RTFA (3, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year ago | (#43067023)

He doesn't say that bicycles produce more CO2 than cars, he says that:

  • Drivers pay road tax to cover the costs of roads, including bike lanes, why shouldn't bikes pay some of this?
  • Cycling increases your respiration rate so produces more CO2 than not cycling.

Both of these are true. The only one he is actually using to justify his position (that bikes should pay road tax) is the former, the second point is refuting the point that bikes are environmentally friendly. The second point is debatable: it's a question of what the basic comparison is. Cycling is more polluting than staying at home, less polluting than driving a car.

There are lots of valid reasons to mock Republicans, we don't need to make more up.

Yeah, you're right, because the concept of taxing breathing now makes sense. How about the dog who takes twice as many breaths as I do walking? Should we start taxing the animals too? Be careful if you do, those blue whales are gonna all swim to the Cayman Islands to avoid their tax.

Yup, they were right all along. Death is the only way to get out of taxes. You have to stop breathing.

I don't care how you want to slice this. Enough is enough.

Re:RTFA (5, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#43067063)

You haven't been paying attention to politics I see. The deal is only and precisely in how he frames his "facts". He is implying -- and his statements are specifically construed to do so to the uneducated masses -- that the respiratory CO2 output of a bike rider is somehow in the ballpark of a per-person amortized CO2 output of any ICE means of transport (whatever comes to Joe Sixpack's mind). This is of course sheer lunacy, but he is careful by not stating it outright -- he'd be rightfully called a fool. What he is doing is what politicians do: what's important is what he is not saying -- what the ignorants' minds will fill the voids with. It's a rather obvious means of manipulating the public -- on the surface there's no way to accuse him of anything much, really. That's where the problem is with politicians.

Re:RTFA (1)

alien9 (890794) | about a year ago | (#43067071)

No one pays 'road tax', at least in US.

Re:RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067141)

The 2nd point could be refuted by cyclists having fewer long-term medical expenses due to increased well-being.
A dead taxpayer doesn't pay.

Simple test (3, Insightful)

devforhire (2658537) | about a year ago | (#43066903)

This can be solved by a simple test.

Put several plants and some animals in a closed garage and ride your bike all day long. Take note of any sick or dead plants/animals afterwards.

After this if you are still convinced bikes are bad for the environment, do the same test using your car instead of the bike.

Where's the toilet handle. We're done here. (5, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year ago | (#43066905)

Did a representative of MY government just try and tell me that my breath is somehow more harmful to the environment than the Hummer exhaust I'm choking on?

Where is the damn toilet handle on Congress already...Will someone please go tell Nicolas Cage to go find THAT please? I could care less about a fountain of youth if the world is going to be run by this level of ignorance.

Pelosi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066953)

Is this any dumber than passing a bill costing over a Trillion dollars with the statement "We have to pass it to see whats in it?" I would vote Pelosi was far worse because she actually passed it without reading it, this guy just proposed a dumb law.

GOP does not have a monopoly on stupid legislatures.

heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066957)

I don't think we should pay tax on gas, I think we should pay it on road use, and bicyclists should too. Everyone should pay their fair share.

He ended his speech by saying (3, Funny)

Progman3K (515744) | about a year ago | (#43066983)

Brought to you by Carl's Jr

Has has a Bachelor of Science degree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43066997)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Orcutt
"He received an Associate's Degree in science from The University of Maine in 1984, and a Bachelor of Science in 1987"

I took a look at his donors list (mostly alcohol companies, *not* big oil as you'd expect). Odd, really odd, he must know there's a substantial decrease in CO2 output when you cycle to work instead of driving, but seems to have an odd blind-spot in his common sense.

How does he think they make the journey if they don't cycle? Walk? Or more likely car or bike or bus??

It could be a blindspot, or perhaps Slashdot summary is misquoting him, since the blog is down, I can't judge and submitters tend to always mislead in their summaries to push their own agendas.

Illustrates a Problem (1)

DragonDru (984185) | about a year ago | (#43067013)

The story does illustrate one of the many issues. Different people need information communicated in different ways. Some want CO2 exhaust listed in tonnage, others need comparison charts. Personally, I find comparisons to "average households" to be meaningless, but a comparison with "middle-aged bicycle commuters, both by time and miles" would be great

Obviously a troll argument... But... (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a year ago | (#43067019)

The eco-taxes are out of control in general and really it needs to stop. It's not helping the environment and it's making the economy worse.

Seriously... we can all come up with ways to f' each other over. Can we just stop it? Because every time one group comes up with a nasty way to hurt another group the second group just responds in kind.

And then what do we have?

Moral of the story? Stop acting like children and play nice.

I checked The Onion... (5, Informative)

advid.net (595837) | about a year ago | (#43067025)

This news looks like one of The Onion great news... but I just checked, and I couldn't find it.

Anyway, one should point out that biking produces less CO2 [globe.gov] than walking or using any other vehicle, for a given distance.

Wrong Analysis (5, Insightful)

NEDHead (1651195) | about a year ago | (#43067039)

What is remarkable about this exchange is not that bike riders are enhanced CO2 producers, but that a republican legislator has acknowledged the CO2 needs to be recognized as a greenhouse gas, which in excess is bad.

It is a start...

Sweet Jumping Jesus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067043)

beam him up now. Please get him off the planet or at least get him away from any position where he has to make a rational decision.

List of other items to be hit with additional tax (1)

quacking duck (607555) | about a year ago | (#43067065)

Expect additional taxes to be levied soon on things that potentially increase heart rate and respiration, and therefore CO2: running shoes, swimming pools, gyms, and beds.

Hold your breath! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067085)

If that was the case, an orgy would be deadly...

This just in... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#43067125)

... Congress critters can be morons. Film at 11.

I for one like drinking fossil fuels... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#43067149)

Or does he assume that all cars fun of biofuels.

The point being that food is carbon neutral - the carbon used in growing the crops is the same as than emitted by eating the food and exhaling. Technically so are fossil fuels over long periods but that's over millions of years.

Also it's not that simple because farm machinery uses fossil fuels, but the State Rep didn't mention that so I assume he's a moron.

Monty Python's decades-old question answered (1)

BitterKraut (820348) | about a year ago | (#43067159)

Why not put a tax on thingy? Would feel as stupid as to call for a tax on standing in water, once you realize what you're standing in.

Bike production CO2 footprint (1)

Frans Faase (648933) | about a year ago | (#43067171)

It would not surprise me, if the production of the bike causes more CO2 to be released than all the extra CO2 that is produced while using the bike. Also, one would also need to look at the life style effects of people who do bike and who don't to determine if cyclist do produce more CO2.

Any form of exercise does this... (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#43067173)

Since any form of exercise does this then, by the Congressmen's reasoning, all Americans should stop exercising. To make sure we don't exercise, we should make physical movement difficult by, say, adding two hundred pounds to every person. McDonald's is now proud to announce the McPatriot. It's a five thousand calorie burger that all patriotic Americans should eat. By eating five of these a day, you should put on your two hundred pounds of patriotic, exercise-preventing fat very quickly. (Don't worry about the lack of competition. Burger King is coming out with an All-American Whopper. KFC has said that they were ahead of the curve with their Double Down sandwich.) As a bonus, all of this fat will mean that Americans won't live as long which should solve the Social Security crisis.

New method of sequestration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43067179)

How are we supposed to implement the new carbon sequestration program by making everyone obese if people continue to exercise. We need to eat as much as we possibly can and NEVER, EVER exercise in order to trap all that nasty CO2 from the air. Then, as the obese have their heart attacks and die, we can just bury all that carbon in the ground, safely locked away in boxes.

So eat up and make sure you drive your Hummer to work today. The environment depends on you!

What? (1)

Jack Musick (2856571) | about a year ago | (#43067181)

So let me get this straight... Someone wants to tax us for breathing? Regardless, I think we're tired of being taxed for everything. And if it came down to paying a registration fee for my bike or some nonsense like that, I assure you I just wouldn't do it.

What a fucking moron (4, Interesting)

dargaud (518470) | about a year ago | (#43067183)

Some people really deserve all the insults that can be thrown at them.

The difference between the CO2 you exhale and that exhaled by your car is that yours come from the food you ate: plants (even if indirectly you ate animals that ate plants). And those plants got it from the atmosphere. So you are just returning CO2 to where it came from. A car takes it from the ground where it's been slowly accumulating for tens of millions of years and dumps it into the atmosphere. It's NOT the same CO2.

Now if we go into externalities such as "how must CO2 from petroleum did it take to bring that food on the table", then it gets a bit more tricky.

The lights are on... (1)

DontBlameCanada (1325547) | about a year ago | (#43067185)

... but no one is home in Rep Orcutt's skull.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...