amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Bontesla: Mr. Coffee Nerves: With that kind of keen analytical insight I'm shocked the GOP hasn't named him Chairman of the Education Committee.

He'll be promoted to the Science committee in a few days.

Outside of the military a few emergency services type and NASA/DARPA our best and brightest are not in government. We certainly don't elect them:







He is a graduate of the District of Columbia Public Schools, Clark College in Atlanta and the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University

Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary - chaired the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy

House Committees on Armed Services and Transportation and Infrastructure.

He was elected by his colleagues to serve in the House Leadership as Southeast Regional Whip in 2009. In that capacity, he has played a key role in garnering support for key priorities such as health care reform, the Recovery Act, and legislation to reduce carbon emissions to slow climate change. One of the earliest congressional supporters of President Barack Obama, Rep. Johnson served as co-Chair of the Obama Campaign in Georgia.

This makes perfect sense to me as I never breath while driving my car.....

TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Cars give off CO2 now?

HotIgneous Intruder: Ah, the "Bicycles are a Mooslin Kenyan Conspiracy to Take Our Freedom!" thing again.
They have a deep well of mental illness from which to draw the derp.

Dude, what article did you read and were you snorting bath salts againi?

JonPace: Cars give off CO2 now?

A lot:

2 C₈H₁₈ (octane) + 25 O₂ --> 16 CO₂ + 18 H₂O

This doesn't surprise me. This is the same legislature that said "We need to encourage people to buy electric cars... let's give EVs a complete exemption from the state sales tax", followed by "Wait, EVs don't pay the gas tax... we need to charge a special yearly registration tax so they don't wear out the roads."

johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use?

heypete: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

Exactly. I'd have no problem with a bike tax that'd add or improve bike lanes, trails, bike racks, etc. so long as the money really went to those things.

Claiming that people breathing is somehow polluting (particularly when compared to a car) is both silly and stupid.

He should know that every turn of the pedal cleans the air.

JonPace: TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Cars give off CO2 now?

Pretty much all combustion of hydrocarbons ends up with CO2 and H2O as the main products. This isn't a *now* thing... it has always been that way, and you have always failed chemistry class.

MBooda: We clearly need fewer cyclists out there and more pirates.


What about pirates on bicycles, though?

badhatharry: Cute troll but don't give the warmtards any ideas. They will soon want everyone to to breathing.

... as opposed to people who DON'T want everyone to be breathing?

Billions of year of changing climate, weather data collected for a hundred years and the ivory tower wonks think "we got this down, man." Local still weather reports can't forecast 6 days out accurately.

Common sense vs billionaires really interested in taxing us for breathing and farting is the argument of our time. Hilarious. What will they do with more money from our paychecks to control the weather?

Goggle terms for fun. "Maunders Minimum" "Medieval warming period" "University of East Anglia email scandal" "Sun spot cycles" "Plants and CO2"  "Russian weather station cherry picking" "Carbon tax" "Lord Mockton looks like Marty Feldman"

If I am not censored again, let the establishment derp fest begin!

More than seven billion people breathing out CO2, maybe he's on to something. We need a nice genocidal war to thin out the population some.

badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.

A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.

Most of the $500 bikes will be bought by the middle class (with a predominance by the upper middle class).
A billionaire will pay $25.  A middle-class person will pay $25.  The tax is regressive.

Ok sure. It's a regressive luxury tax.

You consider a $500.00 bicycle a luxury? How many decades has it been since you've shopped for a bicycle?

As a supporter of both bicycling and global warming, I have to say that this is wonderful news!

flypusher713: benbenbenbenben: This guy is gunning for a spot on the Republican science committee

An ignorant comment about evolution could put him over the top.

That or a comment about how women's bodies shut down when raped.

Krieghund: firefly212: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use?

One of the major sources of road funds is gas taxes. If you aren't driving you aren't paying gas taxes.

So now they are just asking you to pay a small fraction of what you would pay in gas taxes to build things that you would use.

Only a tiny percentage of cyclists don't own/use autos. By far, most of us are paying those taxes just like everyone else.

ciberido: flypusher713: benbenbenbenben: This guy is gunning for a spot on the Republican science committee

An ignorant comment about evolution could put him over the top.

That or a comment about how women's bodies shut down when raped.

But if they shut down, how will they pee on the attacker to get them to stop? Would this shut down also negate the vomiting?

badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.

A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.

That's the war cry of regressionists. Nickle and dime the poor to death.

badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: badhatharry: TheMysteriousStranger: ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

This is not a tax on billionaires and on the odd chance there is a billionaire cyclist, a one-time twenty-five buck tax is both inconsequential for billionaires and regressive.

A $25 tax on a $500 bike is not going to burden the poor. Except the guys that build $500 bikes.

Most of the $500 bikes will be bought by the middle class (with a predominance by the upper middle class). 
A billionaire will pay $25.  A middle-class person will pay $25.  The tax is regressive.

Ok sure. It's a regressive luxury tax.

Ummm, it's primary transportation for a lot of people.

Krieghund: firefly212: johnryan51: This guy is a loon but a bike tax used to build better bike lanes would probably be supported by bikers.

I already pay tons of money that goes towards roads, why is it that none of that money could be used towards something that I would use?

One of the major sources of road funds is gas taxes. If you aren't driving you aren't paying gas taxes.

So now they are just asking you to pay a small fraction of what you would pay in gas taxes to build things that you would use.

This has been thoroughly debunked, especially when you factor in wear of bikes vs cars.

Hes wrong, since man made global warming does not exist.  That said, if the idea that increased C02 in the atmosphere is causing global warming were correct, he would be spot on.  Heavier breathing would cause the bicyclists to expel more C02 relative to just sitting around and relaxing.

badhatharry: give me doughnuts: JonPace: TwowheelinTim: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

And idiots like you don't understand that the car is doing all the work. Of course the lazy assed driver isn't giving off as much CO2 as the cyclist, but the automobile carting his fat ass around is giving off more exponentially.

Cars give off CO2 now?


About 14% of the total .amount of auto exhaust is carbon dioxide
If you discout the nitrogen (not a pollutant), then it is the largest somponent of auto exhaust.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

It magically became one when the EPA said as much

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

I ride my bike 25 miles a day and I don't eat any extra calories.

So just to keep those people who did not read the article up to speed...

Dumbocrats propose a $25 fee on bikes.
A Republitard points out the stupidity of it with sarcasm.
Bike snobs go full retard saying the Republitards be taxin our stuff!

madcan34: Why not just have them pay a smaller excise tax like car owners do?

They already do. It's called sales tax.

/in states that have a sales tax

badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

You evidently don't understand how the carbon cycle works. Allow me to explain.
Carbon dioxide in your breath is produced from the food you eat - i.e. plants and/or animals that have fed on plants. Said plants get their carbon from CO₂ in the air. Normally the sum total of carbon in the air and living things would remain more or less unchanged, as it continues to cycle from one to the other and back; burning plant matter - such as wood or biodiesel - doesn't affect this, since it's effectively the same, from the cycle's point of view, as eating it. This is what "carbon neutral" means - it doesn't change the amount of carbon in the cycle.
There are two ways this can be changed, however. The amount of carbon in the cycle can go down if some of it is converted into a non-edible, non-biodegradable form - like coal or oil. There used to be way, way more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now; life as we know it would not have been able to exist under those conditions. The fact that so much has been removed over millennia is why the planet currently has an atmosphere - and a climate - we can tolerate. Burning fossil fuels dumps that extra carbon back into the cycle.

jaytkay: I ride my bike 25 miles a day and I don't eat any extra calories.


What? How do you know you're not eating more than if you weren't riding 25mi a day?

/work, effort, fuel, consumption, weight, calories, error error

Rich Cream: jaytkay: I ride my bike 25 miles a day and I don't eat any extra calories.


What? How do you know you're not eating more than if you weren't riding 25mi a day?

/work, effort, fuel, consumption, weight, calories, error error

he could be doing amphetamines to stunt the hunger

shotglasss: Lots of people missed the point here.

The Rapeublican is an idiot?  We knew that before he derped

ComicBookGuy: But I thought Reoublicans were against new taxes?

They are against science and environmentalism more so have no problem with this reasoning which is somewhat ironic since being a Republican means he probably does not believe in climate change let alone change caused by humans. Next up I understand is a new tax on sneakers because runners are using the streets and sidewalks.  Following that will be a tax on suits because most politicians wear them and are known to blow enormous amounts of hot air contributing greatly to global warming.

I Ate Shergar: badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

You evidently don't understand how the carbon cycle works. Allow me to explain.
Carbon dioxide in your breath is produced from the food you eat - i.e. plants and/or animals that have fed on plants. Said plants get their carbon from CO₂ in the air. Normally the sum total of carbon in the air and living things would remain more or less unchanged, as it continues to cycle from one to the other and back; burning plant matter - such as wood or biodiesel - doesn't affect this, since it's effectively the same, from the cycle's point of view, as eating it. This is what "carbon neutral" means - it doesn't change the amount of carbon in the cycle.
There are two ways this can be changed, however. The amount of carbon in the cycle can go down if some of it is converted into a non-edible, non-biodegradable form - like coal or oil. There used to be way, way more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now; life as we know it would not have been able to exist under those conditions. The fact that so much has been removed over millennia is why the planet currently has an atmosphere - and a climate - we can tolerate. Burning fossil fuels dumps that extra carbon back into the cycle.

so at what % of atmosphere does co2 have to be befaore we all die?

Smeggy Smurf: shotglasss: Lots of people missed the point here.

The Rapeublican is an idiot?  We knew that before he derped

No, dummy....

Benjimin_Dover: So just to keep those people who did not read the article up to speed...

Dumbocrats propose a $25 fee on bikes.
A Republitard points out the stupidity of it with sarcasm.
Bike snobs go full retard saying the Republitards be taxin our stuff!

Get it?

gilgamesh23: badhatharry: gilgamesh23: It can't be repeated often enough. CO2 from breathing, bonfires, and biodiesel is 100% carbon neutral

Please repeat it all you want. Maybe you'll realize it doesn't make sense. Burning fossil fuels is just as "carbon neutral" as your breath.

Here is the difference: the carbon dioxide I exhale may have come from a steak or a salad, but either way the carbon came out of the atmosphere. I'm just putting it back into circulation. The fossil fuels we burn release carbon that came out of the ground, and hasn't been a part of the biosphere for millions of years. The species that currently live on this planet have adapted to cooler temperatures than were around those millions of years ago, because as carbon has been fossilized the temperatures have become cooler. The planet is no longer a humid, fern-covered world populated with giant lizards and dragonflies the size of your arm. It's now a world of mammals and trees with ice-covered poles and varied climates.

If this doesn't make sense, that's more on you than me.

So if we do this we can burn all we want?

amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

What studies like that conveniently leave out is the fact that cycling, especially for commuting, can replace other forms of exercise. Which you should be doing anyway.

workaholicandy: amquelbettamin: There was a study in the UK that showed biking or running added more CO2 than driving. The reason was farming, transport, and storage of food was very inefficient. The extra calories needed did, in fact, cause more global warming than sitting on your keister in a car.

except that it didn't

http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/ECF_CO2_WEB.pdf  if you want to read it

It doesn't if you're by yourself.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/

But if you are talking about MPG per person, a car or bus that's loaded to capacity actually is more efficient.