Karl T. Ulrich, a professor at the Wharton School of the Business at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that there are environmental costs associated with increased longevity of those who engage in physical activity. Ulrich reasons that because cyclists live longer they will produce more carbon emissions over the course of their extended life.
"Substituting bicycling for driving is frequently promoted as a means of reducing energy consumption and the associated degradation of the environment," writes Ulrich. While bicycles have "dramatically lower energy requirements" than cars, "the environmental benefits of human power are, however, strongly coupled to the environmental costs of increased population, due to increased longevity of those who engage in physical activity... Human-powered transportation is therefore less an environmental issue and more an issue of public health. The interplay between longevity and environmental impact is a central feature of the conflicting societal objectives of improving human health and increasing environmental sustainability."
Despite this stance, Ulrich concedes that his theory might be undermined in practice due to increased environmental awareness among people who trade their cars for bikes.
"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," he writes.
Ulrich's paper -- still a work-in-progress -- has been criticized by bloggers including Andrew Leonard in his July 18 "How the World Works" column in Salon. Nevertheless, his work provides an interesting comment on the environmental impact of lengthening human life spans.
See for yourself, read the paper [PDF]
END NOTE: Ulrich, an avid bicyclist who rides to work on his bicycle "every day, in the snow, rain, or sweltering heat," founded a carbon offset program at the University of Pennsylvania. Within its first year the program, called TerraPass, registered over 2,400 members and reduced 36 million pounds of CO2 emissions.
This article used quotes and information from "THE ENVIRONMENTAL PARADOX OF BICYCLING" by Karl T. Ulrich.
Mongabay.com is an environmental science and conservation news web site. It is a Premier Content Partner of SustainLane.
Don Bosch says:
I'd like to see data on how TerraPass actually got rid of 36,000,000 pounds of CO2. Like not "paid for" but actually GONE...
Ed G. says:
Is this a joke?
Elizie F. says:
I am so confused. This has to be a joke. I mean really. Its a BIKE vs. CAR. I need to see this data, and not stats. thanks.
Stephen S. says:
Did he factor in the cost of the people who live shorter and more sickly vs the longer life and more productive?
Who's dumb enough to say everyone should die younger? We could just roll back the clock to 1587 and the average lifespan can be 40. And what else dies while create a contaminated environment to kill the humans at 60?
Eliza G. says:
Maybe companies that encourage employees to bicycle to work should ask them to start smoking at the same time.
While I think it's always important to explore and expose unintended consequences, this analysis sounds totally idiotic.
Charles K. says:
Has anyone here even bothered to read the paper?
Ed G. says:
Because no one who actually read the paper could fail to recognize its stellar qualities?
Sorry - I read the paper before writing my original comment. And, yes, I still think it ought to be a joke.
Elli A. says:
So his point is that basically if you are alive you are an environmental problem, so you should live less to help the environment. In line with many other theories that link population size and environmental impact.
What does that have to do with bicycle riding? Nothing. This can be applied to anything you do that can affect your life span. For example eating healthier foods may prolong your life and cause environmental damage.
Is this considered science? Things have changed since I graduated.
Ken O. says:
He gets a little free press and we are distracted from solutions for a few minutes.
One really neat idea lately is Transition Towns.
See: transitionus.ning.com/
Bill S. says:
Ken, you're spot on. It's nothing more than a silly headline to grab a few eyeballs.
Lloyd M. says:
I think the proposition that he makes is simply abstract and quite obviously not practical. If this was to subtly put in the article it clearly states that, "...concedes that his theory might be undermined in practice due to increased environmental awareness among people who trade their cars for bikes".
The theory, obviously not practical, is logical and although it may seem to some that it is merely a waste of energy writing such a paper it is obviously a hint that solutions to environmental problems that might not seem quite so obvious at the moment. Like say the use of asbestos in fire safety design in buildings.