Should We All Just Up and Die?
I take it pretty much as an article of faith that riding a bike is good for the planet and the people, animals, and plants on it. That’s, at least in part, why I’m such an insufferable bore about two-wheeled transportation and why I go around all holier-than-thou about cars and drivers.
But I keep thinking about this paper I read a while back, by Dr. Karl. T. Ulrich of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, that raises the question of whether cycling really is beneficial for the environment given that, on average, cyclists will live longer than non-cyclists, so that any benefits in terms of resource reduction will be outweighed, over time, by bicycle riders’ use of carbon, water, topsoil, etc., in the extra years they survive.
I think Dr. Ulrich’s conjecture is reasonable; say I save 500 gallons of gas a year by not driving; I can expect, unless I move to Phoenix, Arizona or some God-forsaken hellhole like that, to use us somewhere on the order of that much energy heating my home in the five or so years I’ll live longer by cycling than sitting on my ass in a car.
Of course, maybe the riskiness of bike riding—that I’m more likely to be run over and killed on a bike than a car—lowers the overall age gap between motorists and cyclists—but that would be an aggregate, not just for me (assuming I’m not the one who’s dead.)
Or maybe bike riding makes me more environmentally sensitive overall, and so I buy compact fluorescent lights and a more efficient heater; and the difference is compensated for there.
But maybe it does follow that we have a moral obligation to the environment to die quick as we can; after all, it’s certain that the best thing I could do for the planet would be to turn my body into fertilizer as soon as possible.
I’d rather, though, take a bike ride.
But I keep thinking about this paper I read a while back, by Dr. Karl. T. Ulrich of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, that raises the question of whether cycling really is beneficial for the environment given that, on average, cyclists will live longer than non-cyclists, so that any benefits in terms of resource reduction will be outweighed, over time, by bicycle riders’ use of carbon, water, topsoil, etc., in the extra years they survive.
I think Dr. Ulrich’s conjecture is reasonable; say I save 500 gallons of gas a year by not driving; I can expect, unless I move to Phoenix, Arizona or some God-forsaken hellhole like that, to use us somewhere on the order of that much energy heating my home in the five or so years I’ll live longer by cycling than sitting on my ass in a car.
Of course, maybe the riskiness of bike riding—that I’m more likely to be run over and killed on a bike than a car—lowers the overall age gap between motorists and cyclists—but that would be an aggregate, not just for me (assuming I’m not the one who’s dead.)
Or maybe bike riding makes me more environmentally sensitive overall, and so I buy compact fluorescent lights and a more efficient heater; and the difference is compensated for there.
But maybe it does follow that we have a moral obligation to the environment to die quick as we can; after all, it’s certain that the best thing I could do for the planet would be to turn my body into fertilizer as soon as possible.
I’d rather, though, take a bike ride.
posted by Professor Dave at 4:22 PM
2 Comments:
David,
His argument, like many of it's ilk, falls completely apart when you factor that the person who rides a bike is more likely to live a healthly and be more long lived regardless of whether they end up being a bike rider or no. He's got his population trends all back asswards.
Mark
Whew! That's a relief!
And I think you're right; I ride bike because I'm healthy; I'm not healthy because I ride a bike.
Post a Comment
<< Home