Listen to Dori Monson weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Dori Monson


Bike Seattle
State Rep. Ed Orcutt reportedly told a Tacoma bike shop owner in an email that he believes bicyclists actually pollute when they ride. (AP Photo/File)

Rep. Orcutt says bicycles aren't environmentally friendly

BY MyNorthwest.com  on March 4, 2013 @ 5:43 am (Updated: 3:47 pm - 3/5/13 )

We've heard from drivers that bicyclists blow through stop signs and red lights and that they get all the benefits of using the roads without paying for them. But we've never heard that bikes are bad for the environment, until now.

Last week, House Democrats announced their proposals to raise more tax money for transportation projects, including phasing in a 10-cent per gallon gas tax increase. Rep. Ed Orcutt of Kalama, the top Republican on the House Transportation Committee was among the Republicans opposed to it.

He opposed it in part because he thinks we should find ways to build roads cheaper. "In some cases, we're two, two-and-a-half times as much for similar projects to what's being paid in other states," said Orcutt.

But it turns out Orcutt is not opposed to all transportation taxes. He does support the proposed bicycle tax which would require everyone who buys a bike worth more than $500 to pay a $25 fee.

Defending an idea to tax some bicycle owners $25 to pay for the roads, Orcutt told a Tacoma bike shop owner in an email last week that he believes bicyclists actually pollute when they ride.

The email stated bike riders put out CO2 as they ride because of their increased breathing - which means bike riding isn't as environmentally friendly as people think.

Read the email

Orcutt apologized for the comment on Monday, but he didn't retract his claim that cyclists contribute to climate change with their "increased heart rate and respiration." He did admit it was inflated language.

Orcutt told KIRO Radio's Dori Monson his email was "poorly worded" and "off the cuff."

Orcutt says the truth however, is that bike riding reduces emissions by 90 percent, but not entirely.

"That's the study that I saw on the Seattle Bicycle blog," Orcutt told Dori. "That's higher than I would imagine."

Orcutt said his comments weren't meant as any disrespect for bicyclists, who are doing their part to reduce greenhouse gases.

"They're riding in the rain, heat, wind," he said. "That's how passionate they are about reducing CO2 emissions."

Regardless of the CO2 emissions, Orcutt still feels that bicyclists sharing the roads with cars should pay their fair share. "My feeling is if we are going to take money out of the transportation account for things dedicated to bicycles, it would make sense for them to pay some of that."

A brief search for the emissions of bicyclists on the Seattle Bike Blog (not Seattle bicycle blog) only found a recent post that referred to this story from BikePortland.org.

A report by KIRO Radio's Chris Sullivan and Seattle's Morning News host Dave Ross.

MyNorthwest.com, Staff report
The team that brings you MyNorthwest.com
More Dori Monson

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (51)


  • Add A Comment

  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    It's the uncontained methane releases isnt it?
    March 4, 2013 2:56 pm
    Maybe Washington cyclist should be required to wear fartbags to capture this pollution. They could then deposit the gas at a special multi-million dollar taxpayer funded Fartposetory facility in exchange for methane credits. It would then be used as energy for the capitol.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ironhdron wrote...
    Tax Em All
    March 4, 2013 3:51 pm
    If you ride a bike on the roads, pay a TAX. If you slow down my bus ride loading your dam bike instead of riding it, pay the Tax. Want change road cut down lanes for a bike lane pay the TAX....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Nervoso wrote...
    CO2 aside
    March 4, 2013 4:46 pm
    they pollute the roads with their very existence.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Johan In Burien wrote...
    Understanding Greenhouse Gases
    March 4, 2013 6:05 pm
    The representative does not understand what makes a gas a "greenhouse" gas. The correct answer to the question of how much greenhouse gas is emitted by a bucycle rider is zero. The same would be true of a biodiesel automobile. While a bicycle rider and a biodiesel fueled vehical both emit CO2, the CO2 emitted by those two sources are not greenhouse producing emissions. The difference is the source of the original carbon that was in the fuel that was burned. If I chop down a tree, and burn the logs for heat, the CO2 is being released from the logs into the atmosphere. But it's the atmosphere that was the source of the carbon in the tree. The tree pulled the CO2 out of the air and stored it as cellulose. When the cellulose is burned it is returning to the atmosphere where it came --so the net gain is zero. When the carbon is extracted from deep within the earth's crust --as with crude oil, coal or natural gas --it is being released from where it was stored. It took the better part of a billion years for that layer of carbon to form in the earth's crust (sorry...the world in NOT 10,000 years old), and it was happy to go on being stored there. By artificially drilling or mining into the earth to extract that carbon and burning it there is a net gain to the CO2 in the atmosphere. There is nothing inherently wrong with burning gasoline, diesel fuel and natural gas (methane). The problem is where we get it from. If you could manufacture gasoline or diesel fuel from a source other than fossil fuels it would not contribute to greenhouse gasses. This is what is inherently wrong with the conservative mantra (expressed by Dori Monson) that climate cycles are natural and nothing to fear. There is nothing natural about drilling into the earth or mining the earth and extracting huge amounts of carbon based fuels. That is entirely unnatural --and the reason why whatever happened in the past is not a good predictor of how such extractions and burning of fossil fuels will affect the atmosphere. The representative simply does not understand what makes one form of CO2 a greenhouse gas and what makes other forms not a greenhouse gas. Its all about where it comes from. Hope that helps... Johan in Burien
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    Angry Monkey
    March 4, 2013 6:15 pm
    ill give you a break, get right on my bumper ?????? ill give you a break, all four to the floor.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    What's funny is we have someone that believes a "carbon footprint " exists.
    March 4, 2013 6:59 pm
    No such thing exists.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • tlmbrt wrote...
    He was
    March 4, 2013 11:00 pm
    simply taking one the rabid global warmers' talking points and sending it back their way. It was meant to be tongue in cheek, not literal! Carbon Dioxide has been called a "pollutant" by rabid environmentalists, despite the fact that it is a naturally occurring gas that animals produce, then trees and foliage take in and convert back to Oxygen. The bicycle activists think they are morally above those who drive cars, and think that car owners should foot the bill for infrastructure that only benefits THEM!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    when they say they are SORRY
    March 5, 2013 4:08 am
    it means they are up for reelection.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }