US politician apologises for saying cyclists' heavy breathing helps cause global warming

[[[[[ Heavy breathers? Methinks Mr.Orcutt conveniently forgets the Bates family---Daddy Bates, Mummy Bates, and of course young Master Bates.
P.R.

Well, coming from a politician in the country where one of the same said a female can shut down her body to prevent pregnancy when she has been raped, and the answer to the guns problem is more guns, what do you expect?

USA is a big country with extremes of everything, including ignorance.

I can see what you are all saying but maybe he has a point when you take the Danish seat-wa*ker and all his heavy breathing into account. Surly that's the responsibility of bicyclists as well?

'What's a Bicyclist?'

one who rides a bicycle. Not difficult, that one.

like an automobilist but differenter.

What's a Bicyclist?

It's in the glorious GOP tradition of fuckwitted comments about pollution, the best example being President Reagan's famous comment that "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

It seems increasingly acceptable for politicians - and public figures in general - to make ridiculous and unfounded statements that are later retracted, specifically in the hope that some of the original lie will stick in the minds of the gullible. The US Republicans seem to have taken this to a new level though as this example demonstrates.

On the topic of the carbon emissions of cycling have a look at this article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/08/carbon-footprint-cycling
and before you get on your high horse (or carbon horse) bear in mind the emissions involved in manufacturing and shipping all that metal, composite and technical fabric you own.

Much as I'd like to believe that Senator Haircutt, and his UK equivalents like North Somerset councillor Elfan Ap Rees (who described cyclists who ride on 40 mph roads as "arrogant"), are genuinely convinced that cycling damages the environment, I doubt this is the case.

Instead his comments are a debating-society rebuttal to cycle campaigners, kind of a more mature version of "I know you are but what am I?". They're not intended to stand up to scrutiny; instead they're aimed at pleasing his car-dependent constituents and getting back-slapped at the next Tea Party fundraiser.

There's a N missing in his surname.

Actually, all he needs is a middle initial of L and he would be an Utter Clod, which is even more fitting, and "family" friendly, but it probably isn't an idiom that would be familiar to many Americans.

So the representative studied science at University and then says "My point was that by not driving a car, a cyclist was not necessarily having a zero-carbon footprint"
Carbon dioxide emitted as a result of metabolism is not a contributing factor in human induced global warming

A glowing recommendation fro the American education system

Quote:

Republican party Representative Ed Orcutt

If only his name was Ned Ircutt it would have made for a very apt anagram (apologies to those complaining about bad language.)

I'm sure an obese person who does no exercise will also end up with a higher breathing rate and CO2 output than a "normal" resting individual, too.

The "make cyclists pay for cycle infrastructure" thing is a little flawed, though. By and large, existing cyclists are those who are willing to take on traffic. Infrastructure is much more about people who currently don't cycle, but who want to, and about those who don't think they want to but may stand to be surprised by how agreeable it is once you actually try it on decent infrastructure.

So who should pay? Existing cyclists? Those who become cyclists after construction of infrastructure? Everyone? It's not really a cycling question, it's a broader tax ideology question. The right-of-centre view tends to be that the more you take the more you pay (so you make cyclists contribute an above-average level) whilst the left-of-centre view is that there should be less of a link between tax and expenditure (so you don't).

The progressive view, of course, is that it's not just cyclists who benefit - and certainly not just *existing* cyclists. Building infrastructure means higher uptake, which means less traffic, less congestion, less pollution, more disposable income to spend elsewhere, higher spend on high streets, reduced oil dependency (how much does a Gulf War cost these days?), fewer incidences of chronic health issues and associated costs, fewer and less serious RTIs with resultingly fewer deaths and fewer medical costs, and so on.

So *now* who do you tax? Some ripple effects may be greater or more direct than others, but it's the sort of Interconnectedness of All Things that makes the right-of-centre ideology look pretty blinkered. And when you start actually valuing all those collateral benefits - which are significant, though admittedly in the US economy where healthcare is private they will be of less significance to the govenrment - it actually becomes counter-productive to start charging people more for them. If you value those, then it makes more sense to charge the people who *don't* use them.

But far be it from me to suggest that Republicans are in any way short-sighted or suffer from any kind of cognitive dissonance.

A "levy" on Bikes, really? LOL, this planet has gone crazy.

'Murica