Are we good or bad for the environment?

[LanghamP]

2 hours ago, rolekl said:

Interesting, I must have missed that thread... or forgotten it... 😨. It's a complex calculation however you think about it.

My take though is that if we use the wheels for actual "necessary" transport that otherwise would've happened in cars (e g commuting), we're all good. As @meepmeepmayer wrote, "Go find the nearest car and leave me alone!". If we're just faffing around doing "unnecessary" mileage then perhaps the statement "PEVs are good for the environment" begins to fade. I was just curious what kind of usage the wheels see.

We cannot safely ride our wheels in most cities in the US, because most US cities are built around the high speed urban road (the stroad) and enormous parking lots. So to get around using wheels/bicycles/scooters instead of cars turns into a simple geometry problem and a complex lifestyle situation. Geometry because there's not enough space to fit all cars, and lifestyle because most US cities don't have true low speed streets, public transportation outside of city centers, and walkable suburbs that would allow us to safely use our wheels. When most municipalities forbid using eBikes/wheels/scooters on public streets and sidewalks despite their incredibly low death rate (usually caused by being squished by a driver), then we know which form of transportation has been chosen over all others.

One of the great success stories of the 21st century is Uber/Lyft. Not only is Uber used by virtually everyone (20 to 40% of extra cars on the road are rideshares), but the founder recently cashed out over a billion dollars. Uber is many things to many people, but at its heart Uber is simply an application that charges drivers a toll to use free public roads. One wonders why the US government doesn't immediately illegalize all rideshares, then mandate all drivers use their Uber like application; that would expose road users to the true cost of road usage. Uber doesn't make a profit because the cost of insurance (basically an estimation of risk) and depreciation of cars is so great. Auto loans, which average 69 months, shields drivers from the shock of car ownership without reducing it.

[mrelwood]

 

18 hours ago, rolekl said:

My take though is that if we use the wheels for actual "necessary" transport that otherwise would've happened in cars (e g commuting), we're all good.

A funky thought: If PEVs consume less energy than walking/jogging, and since jogging is generally ”unnecessary” as a way of transport, isn’t just riding for pure fun on a PEV more green than jogging/walking for the same reason? 

(Yeah I know, excercise and cost of bad health...)

[travsformation]

On 1/5/2020 at 2:02 AM, Mono said:

Producing the extra food for walking is almost certainly much less environmental friendly than producing the electricity for riding the same distance.

I don't think I can get behind those numbers, there are too many variables involved, chiefly, one's diet. Compare a meat-heavy diet with a more plant-based one, and you have a massive difference. Compare in-season fruit and veggies with produce imported from the other side of the globe. Organic or agroforestry vs GMO + heavy pesticide use...it all affects the numbers. I know the above are probably very polarizing subjects, but it's undeniable they have an impact on the environment.

And all the same, I'm not sure how it would stack up against the hidden environmental costs of energy production (even renewable), from mining to manufacturing, transportation, and end-of-life waste...

[ir_fuel]

You should only eat vegetables and fruits grown in your own garden and fertilised with your own poo.

[travsformation]

21 minutes ago, ir_fuel said:

You should only eat vegetables and fruits grown in your own garden and fertilised with your own poo.

Who said I don't? And who said I'm not working on a way to convert my biomASS into energy that I can use to charge my wheel?

A diet rich in legumes (beans, etc.) would also increase flatulence incidence, which will give me an extra speed boost with no increased battery drain. It's a win-win situation. Or it would be if I didn't like steak so much...

[RockyTop]

Science with Rocky Top:

Cows eat gRaSs. The R becomes Ribeye and the S becomes stake. The remaining (gas) is released into the atmosphere.  

When I eat fruit and veggies I release the gas instead of the cow. Most people prefer when the cow does that for me.  

[Scubadragonsan]

I use my wheels for commuting daily as well as for fun. My commute to work riding motorcycle used to cost me around USD50, now KS18S only USD2, minimal pollution. Making errands to the store used to be a 15 mins walk, now 2-3 mins on KS18L, lazy me. Love them! However, I am still concerned with retired wheels as garbage/pollution. How re-cyclable are they? Does the benefit of using wheels outweigh the cost of junking wheels? I see some countries that are using e-bikes, a lot of these bikes become litter on the streets. A word about China's role in the green movement. I think if I have my facts straight. She is contributing more to the green movement than the US. US didn't even sign on to Kyoto Protocol.

[atdlzpae]

1 hour ago, scubadragosan said:

US didn't even sign on to Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol is about greenhouse gasses, which IMO aren't a big issue. At least for the next 100 years. We'll probably have nuclear fusion by then.
I think that all those carbon taxes are only just another tax, hidden from the consumer. It makes no sense why every country prices a ton of CO2 differently.

As to "didn't even sign" - actions matter, not words. According to Wikipedia China has 67.9% of electricity generation from Coal+Natural Gas, while USA had 62.57%. So on this front USA is slightly greener.
Also, ten states already implemented carbon tax, while China didn't. They are working on it, but it looks like USA is currently ahead.

Edited January 7, 2020 by atdlzpae

[seage]

Im not as smart as you guys when it comes to this stuff, but I do know, nothing is truly green. Well nothing powered, haha. I got yelled at by a guy driving a huge truck about that fact. I told him to stop talking to me and pretending like he cared, as he had just filled up with almost $100 worth of gas. We may have to charge up and whatnot, but at least we're not shooting off emissions into the atmosphere the entire time we ride. And our batteries are small enough that we're not doing too much damage when charging. Now, disposal is another topic. 

But yeah. I feel like we're doing something, regardless of if we ride for fun or not. Gotta remember. Some of the people who see us zoom by become so intrigued by what we're riding, that they go and look up PEVs, and some of those few end up getting one. And thats possibly one more vehicle off the road. Or at least not on the road as much, depending on how they use it. 

For me, my wheel is my main source of transportation. I no longer ride the public bus, drive, or take uber. Only the train and the wheel. And sometimes i skip the train and just ride the whole way to my downtown destinations. 

[Mono]

12 hours ago, mrelwood said:

A funky thought: If PEVs consume less energy than walking/jogging, and since jogging is generally ”unnecessary” as a way of transport, isn’t just riding for pure fun on a PEV more green than jogging/walking for the same reason? 

(Yeah I know, excercise and cost of bad health...)

I don't know why that is funky. The distinction between necessary and unnecessary is probably much less insightful than one would think. After all, neither heating nor cooling are strictly necessary and moving to see our boy or girl friends isn't as well. Maybe the notion of substitution with little (or no) loss of benefits is a better view.

7 hours ago, travsformation said:

I don't think I can get behind those numbers, there are too many variables involved, chiefly, one's diet.

Just take the numbers of your diet, that would be enough. I don't think you have more than a tiny chance to get below the impact of the necessarily electricity (which also can either come from coal or from a wind farm). Even comparing reasonable lower bounds for diet with reasonable upper bounds for electricity won't make the cut (they may get into the same order of magnitude though). Average numbers do not become useless just because they have a large variance and some uncertainty.

29 minutes ago, atdlzpae said:

The Kyoto Protocol is about greenhouse gasses, which IMO aren't a big issue.

ouups.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Mono

[atdlzpae]

6 minutes ago, Mono said:

ouups

???

[LanghamP]

25 minutes ago, atdlzpae said:

Kyoto Protocol is about greenhouse gasses, which IMO aren't a big issue. At least for the next 100 years. We'll probably have nuclear fusion by then.
I think that all those carbon taxes are only just another tax, hidden from the consumer. It makes no sense why every country prices a ton of CO2 differently.

How do you convince any country to reduce their lifestyle and hence their carbon emissions? It's impossible to convince even the most Liberal environmentalist to forgo their yearly flight vacation or not put their bicycle on their car every weekend.

Other than nuclear war, I fear carbon emissions more than anything else, for the simple reason that oceanic hypoxia was predicted 20 plus years ago, and now we are seeing the results of hypoxia. Right now, our oceans are in the midst of The Great Dying, as more oceanic species die off than land species. Within our lifetime, and likely within a few short years, we shall see the rest 1/3 of the Great Barrier Reef die off (2/3 is dead).

I have no problem with the governments of the world putting the smackdown on its citizens in order to reduce CO2. Ban flight and the private automobile, forbid steaks (that's the thing that makes me cry, cause I love me a juicy steak), charge the suburbs for road usage, and give away bicycles/EUC/eScooters. Screw your rights, we're in this for the species, boys and girls.

Kinda like this guy...

 

[LanghamP]

Damn Luxemburg! The below graph over the past 80 years shows the USA and China barely breaking the top ten for CO2 per capita.

Quite different when looking at electricity per capita.

But then we (the USA)  look like total assholes when it comes down to total emissions (see below graph). Amusingly, since I'm partially Chinese I can claim the top two countries...

 

[RockyTop]

I will just say that green is quite often not as green as one may think. We need to do what we can. Sometimes it gets worse before it gets better. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices. Other times it is pure control tactics by interest groups. We need to look at the numbers and facts not the propaganda. We need to accept that some of our beliefs or ideas on a subject might be wrong. That is the scientific way. We are trying to do what is best for the planet and future generations of people, animals and plants. We should not sacrifice these things to an idea or political party. 

I have studied much of the data and find: data tampering, cherry picking and misrepresented information. One side in particular “seems” to be very misleading. 

 listen to both sides and make your own decisions. 

[Mono]

19 minutes ago, RockyTop said:

One side in particular “seems” to be very misleading. 

Let's put it more bluntly: one side is most of the time intentionally misleading. There is really not much doubt about it, at least if you go back to the original source of the information (misinformation can also be spread unintentionally though).

Edited January 7, 2020 by Mono

[Scubadragonsan]

Hmmm... Who is the biggest culprit here, but least bashed in the media?

Edited January 7, 2020 by scubadragosan

[travsformation]

1 hour ago, LanghamP said:

I have no problem with the governments of the world putting the smackdown on its citizens in order to reduce CO2.

Supposing they were actually taking it seriously and not just green-washing everything while they bend to lobby's demands...

1 hour ago, LanghamP said:

Ban flight and the private automobile, forbid steaks (that's the thing that makes me cry, cause I love me a juicy steak), charge the suburbs for road usage, and give away bicycles/EUC/eScooters. Screw your rights, we're in this for the species, boys and girls.

I entirely agree. I enjoy steaks, the debates in this forum, riding my wheel, recording my tours on the Insta360, editing and posting them...but if "energy rationing" were put in place, or meat were banned, I'd be more than willing to accept the sacrifice of cutting back on the things I enjoy. And I don't even have kids...I have trouble understanding how people with kids and grandchildren are unwilling to yield even in the slightest in terms of giving up a small fraction of commodity or convenience in exchange for their kids/grandkids having a planet to enjoy and non-toxic air to breathe...

Edited January 7, 2020 by travsformation

[travsformation]

46 minutes ago, RockyTop said:

One side in particular “seems” to be very misleading

Flat-earthers? I'm still trying to ride off the edge and still haven't managed...

[RockyTop]

10 minutes ago, travsformation said:

Flat-earthers? I'm still trying to ride off the edge and still haven't managed...

[Joker10]

3 hours ago, LanghamP said:

 

I have no problem with the governments of the world putting the smackdown on its citizens in order to reduce CO2. Ban flight and the private automobile, forbid steaks (that's the thing that makes me cry, cause I love me a juicy steak), charge the suburbs for road usage, and give away bicycles/EUC/eScooters. Screw your rights, we're in this for the species, boys and girl.

Rights are not to be screwed with.  There are people on this planet who believe that people need to be eliminated to save the Earth.

[LanghamP]

8 minutes ago, Joker10 said:

Rights are not to be screwed with.  There are people on this planet who believe that people need to be eliminated to save the Earth.

Problems with solutions gradually turn into predicaments with outcomes. History and archeology is full of situations where people exceeded the carrying capacity of their local environment, as well as plenty of civilizations that could see into the future and curtailed excessive consumption before they become predicaments.

That's why I think most survivalists are going about this is the absolute wrong way. A survivalist who has read historical examples of collapsing civilizations would know the guy with the most connections, resources, and cold-blooded killers is the family most likely to survive. The commune near an army base is where you want to be, not the rugged individual.

Our civilization seems based upon rampant consumption, while denying such consumption has any effect upon the environment's carrying capacity. Green-washed sources of information even correctly argue that plants grown in high CO2 environments grow faster, yet ignore that such plants are doomed to die when their polleinators can't survive in such a environment. For example, the insect apocalypse (where somewhere between 50% to 90% of our insects have died off within the past ten years) is likely due to pesticides, invasive species, and high CO2 content.

In many ways it's the USA that are the bad guys in this, for the two simple reasons that most US citizens don't believe in man made global warming AND that the USA's total carbon output is nearly greater than the next ten countries combined. It'd be impossible to change such public/private policy until we see a really big collapse. And when the happens 100% of the people around you will advocate eliminating people, somewhat akin to people in a lifeboat "volunteering" that the other guys get thrown overboard.

[travsformation]

54 minutes ago, LanghamP said:

Problems with solutions gradually turn into predicaments with outcomes. History and archeology is full of situations where people exceeded the carrying capacity of their local environment, as well as plenty of civilizations that could see into the future and curtailed excessive consumption before they become predicaments.

That's why I think most survivalists are going about this is the absolute wrong way. A survivalist who has read historical examples of collapsing civilizations would know the guy with the most connections, resources, and cold-blooded killers is the family most likely to survive. The commune near an army base is where you want to be, not the rugged individual.

Our civilization seems based upon rampant consumption, while denying such consumption has any effect upon the environment's carrying capacity. Green-washed sources of information even correctly argue that plants grown in high CO2 environments grow faster, yet ignore that such plants are doomed to die when their polleinators can't survive in such a environment. For example, the insect apocalypse (where somewhere between 50% to 90% of our insects have died off within the past ten years) is likely due to pesticides, invasive species, and high CO2 content.

In many ways it's the USA that are the bad guys in this, for the two simple reasons that most US citizens don't believe in man made global warming AND that the USA's total carbon output is nearly greater than the next ten countries combined. It'd be impossible to change such public/private policy until we see a really big collapse. And when the happens 100% of the people around you will advocate eliminating people, somewhat akin to people in a lifeboat "volunteering" that the other guys get thrown overboard.

Can I "volunteer" climate deniers be thrown overboard pre-emptively....as in NOW? 

[jonm42]

42 minutes ago, travsformation said:

most US citizens don't believe in man made global warming

Where, specifically, are you sourcing this statistic from?

[travsformation]

40 minutes ago, jonm42 said:

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

most US citizens don't believe in man made global warming

Where, specifically, are you sourcing this statistic from?

Forum glitch. That quote isn't mine...

[LanghamP]

34 minutes ago, jonm42 said:

Where, specifically, are you sourcing this statistic from?

I said that, but my recalled information was slightly out of date, as within the past five years the minority of man made deniers turned into believers. Even Fox News went to the believers side, although they occasionally argue the impact is minimal (but to be fair, they often argue the impact will be severe and soon).

I don't think US citizens will bother doing anything about climate change despite the majority believing in it. They've gone from denialism to nihilism, where they don't believe anything can be done about climate change.