Can Bicycling Really Damage the Environment?
Contrary to popular opinion, bicycling can potentially damage the environment due to the increased longevity of people engaged in physical activity, says Karl Ulrich, a Wharton Business School professor.
Ulrich argues that the greatest environmental peril society may face is the looming prospect of slowing the aging process, and bicycling potentially contributes to slowing aging.
- » See also: Swine Flu: First Case of Pet Cat Contracting H1N1
- » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.
Put simply, Ulrich says there is an underlying conflict between human-powered transportation, longevity, and environmental impact, which needs to be highlighted as the world seeks to find green solutions.
“The bicycle is a remarkable machine, allowing humans to transport themselves much more efficiently than by most other means. At the same time, physical activity, fitness, and health are almost axiomatically worthy objectives,” says Ulrich.
“And yet, the steady improvements in human health and longevity have a tremendous impact on the energy use and environmental impact of the human population.”
In a paper titled, “The Environment Paradox of Bicycling,” Ulrich argues that energy savings due to the use of human powered transportation may be offset by the increased energy used by living longer due to better health.
According to Ulrich’s analysis, each person-year of human-powered transportation by a previously sedentary individual offers an average increase in longevity of 0.029 years, which basically means people live longer, allowing them to inflict greater damage on the environment through increase energy consumption.
“It is axiomatic among environmentalists that substitution of human-powered transportation for single-occupant automobile trips provides environmental benefits,” states the paper.
“Yet, given the current state of the automobile-driving population, particularly in the United States, first-order environmental benefits can result in high second-order environmental costs due to increased longevity of those engaging in increased physical activity.”
A basic premise of the argument is that as more sedentary individuals engage in physical activity, they can potentially live longer and therefore exert more pressure onto the environment.
Ulrich labels his analysis a “bizarre Swiftian argument” but provides complicated mathematical calculations to substantiate his theory that bicycling makes people live too long for the good of the environment.
“As a society, we value longevity more than long-term environmental impact. If we did not, we might provide incentives for risky behaviors such as smoking, drug abuse, and driving without seat belts,” states the paper.
“Thus, even if human-powered transportation does not provide a significant net environmental benefit, it provides other benefits we seem to value even more.”
Having said that, Ulrich does state that those who adopt the bicycle as a means of transportation could potentially develop an increased awareness of the environmental impact of their actions and may over their lifetimes reduce energy consumption substantially in their other, non-transportation activities.
Image credit: psd at Flickr under a Creative Common Licence.
[...] Can Bicycling Really Damage the Enviroment? At the same time, physical activity, fitness, and health are almost axiomatically worthy objectives,” says Ulrich, “And yet, the steady… Published in Fitness [...]
Now I think you’ve gone too far. I’ve given up driving, red meat, air travel, conspicuous consumption and all sorts of other conveniences in life in an effort to tread lightly in the environment. Now I can’t even ride my bike!?!? I don’t believe it! You’re saying that the fact that I even exist and I wanting to stay alive is an environmental hazard. Even if that is true, would you prefer I commit suicide right now? Well, disposing of my body will increase my carbon footprint too. The hearse will burn fuel to haul me away. My family will fly in from far and wide for the funeral. And I’ll decompose in the ground and my carbon atoms will find their way back to the atmosphere.
If I shouldn’t ride my bike, then tell me exactly what you think I should do instead, smart guy. Get Buggered.
The obvious solution is to kill yourself when you hit age 65, which has the added benefit of not needing to bother saving for retirement.
Your tongue is buried MUCH TOO FAR into your CHEEK(S).
An interesting perspective, and I agree that overpopulation is an issue that needs addressing. Still, it seems to me that living more healthy lives by not polluting is hardly bad. I think the last paragraph is key here.
I suspect the calculations are flawed, but going along with this, he seems to have neglected the infertility possibly associated with cycling (which would lead to fewer offspring).
The bicycle isn’t damaging the environment, it’s the person. You might as well have said:
is damaging the environment.
The argument is that fit people live longer, so then any physical activity one engages in is damaging the environment.
I guess you could also conclude that health care is bad for the environment, or putting homicidal killers in jail is bad for the environment.
The short answer to the health of the planet is simple - we need to live within the resources available and leave a significant amount to allow for biodiversity to be maintained. The problem is a lack of understanding and will. I’d suggest “Ecological Footprinting” or “Limits to Growth: The 30-year update” for an understanding about living within our limits.
A clear case for encouraging bicycling and abolishing helmet laws.
The environment is adynamic entity. It has never remained teh same in all its hostry of five billion years and will not remain the same in the future. It is a natural progression for environment to change. why are we so hell bent on keeping it unchanging? one can argue that by trying to keep teh environment unchanging, we humans with good intentions are actually interfering with teh future survival and adaptability of our race. the environment will change and so will our ability to adapt to it. let us not be one track minded in our pursuit of an unchanging environment. we humans too are natural. we are not artificial. our activities are part of teh cycle of change.