A cyclists emits more CO2 than a Porsche Cayenne

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

I do not think so so for one moment but time and again we find statements and comments such as this all over the place, apparently backed up by supposedly independent scientific research.

OK, so as I cycle I breathe out CO². Yes, agreed, but I also do so while walking or just by the simple act of breathing; all humans, and every other living being, bar fish, breathe in oxygen, as in air, and breathe out carbon dioxide. This is why this entire carbon measuring stuff is – pardon my language – crap.

While the cyclist exhales CO², as inn simple carbon dioxide, the Porsche Cayenne referred to “exhales” not just CO² but all manner of pollutants and we really must get back to calling our problem air pollution (and general pollution) and not just carbon emissions.

What those people who like to claim that thus cycling has greater CO² emissions also forget to factor in into this equation is the pollution – and I deliberately use that term here – cause in the manufacture of said Porsche and already in the production of the raw materials said car is made from.

The cyclist may be exhaling an amount of carbon dioxide and some pollution will have occurred during the manufacture of the bicycle and it components but once it is dealt with the bicycle and cycling is non-polluting, bar the somewhat increased exhalation of carbon dioxide by the cyclist while cycling, compared to walking and sitting. We all breathe in and exhale all the time and during any physical activity the rate is just somewhat greater and thus somewhat more CO² is being exhaled.

Here we can see how figures can be used too almost prove anything and on top of it all we also may have to ask who commissioned and paid for that kind of “scientific” research. I am afraid to say that there is no one who can tell me that using a human-powered vehicle of the simplest kind, well almost, if we discount the Draisine and the Kick-Scooter, is more polluting, even if only by way of CO² emissions than a 4x4 Porsche powered by an internal combustion engine, and I hope no one else falls for that one either.

It is time that we came back to reality and stopped talking about carbon emissions as if that were the only thing. When we called it pollution that was more like it and brown carbon, the stuff that is causing the Himalayan glaciers to melt, is nothing more than soot, regardless of how they want to paint it, and thus air pollution from factory chimneys and those of power stations.

© 2015

Britain attempts to push for leading position on green transport

by Michael Smith

A high powered meeting of industry experts, academics and policy makers was held in London in October 2008 to discuss how to get the mass market production of electric vehicles and other low carbon transport properly started.

Delegates from more than 15 countries came together in London to discuss the technological challenges, barriers and opportunities that could be created from the low carbon and electric vehicle market.

This meeting, arranged by the UK government, was a follow up to the Prime Minister's announcement made earlier this year that he wants to see Britain at the forefront of the development of green transport.

Business Minister, Ian Pearson, said that currently less than 0.1% of the UK's 26 million cars are electric. He added that the government is committed to bring lower carbon vehicles to Britain's roads as soon as possible. For that, he said, we need to act now to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of this new industry.

Continuing he said that the UK's automotive sector has a global reputation for research and development, design engineering and manufacturing. The development of electric vehicle technology is an opportunity for the UK to take the lead and, given the current state of the global economy, we need to seize that opportunity now.

What I would like to know, and it is a shame that I could not ask that question directly, is why we keep harping on about cars, cars and cars again. While electric cars are fine they cannot meet the needs for proper green transport.

The only way we will ever see Britain in the forefront of green transport is when the UK finally gets its act together on cheap – and I do mean cheap – and reliable – and I also stress that word – public transport, especially the railroads, whether local, commuter or long distance. It does not make sense when a ticket from South West of London to Birmingham in peak time is over £200 return when flying would have cost less than £70.

It is NOT electric cars that we need but a proper green transport infrastructure that makes the use of public transport, from rail, over metro to bus, cheap, reliable and safe, and which also have provisions for completely linked cycle routes, as are found in other countries of Europe, such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany; cycle routes that are physically separated from the motor vehicle traffic.

It would appear that the only thing that they were really interested in this gabfest was the car, and this is rather a shame.

We should rather promote an alternative to the car, whether or not it is electric shall not be to discussion here.

The people of this country are getting obese, and are soon catching up on their American cousins, because all they do is drive to work and to the stores by car. They then sit in the office and then get back by car and sit in front of the goggle box or the computer.

This country must get on its bike or walk. It does not make sense to use the car to go to the stores to get the newspaper – around a mile or so away – or to the shops in general, whether this be by using an electric or an ICE car.

What this country must do is to actually invest in alternative transport, starting with the railroads and then cycling, rather than more roads and more cars, regardless as to whether those cars are electric or not.

But, obviously, the motor industry still is a formidable lobby, unlike the bicycle industry or the railroads, and too many of the sheeple also cannot even think of not driving a car.

So, let's hear it for the bicycle and the train!

© M Smith (Veshengro), November 2008
<>

Train prices in UK set to rise – AGAIN

Once again the train operators in the UK intend to raise their ticket prices yet again, and that well above the rate of inflation, in some cases in the South East of England and some groups of tickets well above ten percent.

Already now train travel in the UK – on long distances and short – is more expensive than is flying. While it is possible to fly from London to, say, Manchester for around £60 return, by train the cheapest rate is over £100 return. Does this make sense? Certainly not if this country’s government is serious about wanting to get people out of their cars and to have more people use public transport. If you make it more expensive than driving or flying this is NOT going to happen. Apparently this is not something the powers that be understand.

Or, and now I know that this would fall under the tag of “conspiracy theory”, is there something else behind this all? Are the powers that be trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to commute and force us all to live, once again, close to where the jobs are? If you cannot travel to work by car, the use of which is being made more and more difficult and it may, indeed, be a factor to environmental pollution, cannot, financially, afford to travel by train – or other “public” means – to work and it is too far to walk or cycle then, by simple force of mathematics the workers, white and blue color alike, will have to, once again, move back to closer where the work is. This means a return to the towns and cities where people can be monitored better. Just some food for thought.

If the government of this country is really interested in reducing car use and still being able for people to commute then there is only one way; cheaper train travel, on a nationwide scale.

In addition to that, in order to green the travel to work, we must have a proper cycle lane network. Not the gimmicky so-called “cycle lanes” that extend for a few yards to a few hundred yards and then, often, very abruptly end.

Furthermore we need to have a rail travel where we can take along, even on our journeys to work, the bicycle along, so that we can get from the railroad station to our place of work without the need of taking, say, a taxicab. Let's green our countries in the way of travel and transportation.

To sum up; the fact that the train companies are (allowed to be) putting their fares up, yet again, well above inflation, is not going to make for less car use, of that we can be sure. We must have cheap – not just cheaper – public transport, in towns and cities, but also across the nation. It does not make sense that I can fly cheaper from London to Manchester than using the train. This does not compute.

© Michael Smith (Veshengro), November 2007