Motocross track up Mt. Loop

[max]

Biodiesel does result in a net decrease in CO2

 

So where does the carbon go? I know very little about biodieel, but I'm pretty sure it's a hydrocarbon. Any insight to share?

 

 

[Fairweather]

My limited understanding:

 

Biodiesel is "new carbon", that is, from recently harvested organics. These harvested crops very recently absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere during their growth cycle. Carbon out. Even though burning biodiesel does release carbon - carbon in - it is carbon only recently taken from the atmosphere. It is not "old carbon" (like oil) that has been bound up in the Earth's crust for eons, but, rather, a zero sum gain on a scale of less than one year. (Not counting the old carbon spent harvesting, processing, and delivering biodiesel to market.) The stated "decrease" comes from the simple fact that by burning new carbon in your vehicle, old carbon will be spared.

[ClimbingPanther]

wow this is the lamest internet argument evar. people arguing with other people who actually understand and support their cause and are trying to help. weird.

[AlpineK]

I don't believe those folks who, "are supporting their cause," understand that much about the subject.

 

The vast majority of biodiesel made today comes from corn or soy which was originally grown for food. Those sources of fuel take energy to produce, and there has been quite a bit of research done that points to those sources being almost as bad in terms of CO2 release as petroleum diesel. There are other sources of biodiesel that may in fact be much better when it comes to CO2, but those sources are much harder to get for the average person.

 

That being said I have burned biodiesel in my dump truck and chipper for the past 4 years. The main reason I did this is biodiesel releases less of the standard pollutants than regular diesel. For me this was always a concern since when you stand behind a chipper chipping brush you're sucking in fumes of burned fuel. Both my employee and I would do this for hours while working. I don't buy into the hype about carbon reduction.

 

I just started putting biodiesel in my pickup since it is now off the manufacturers warranty. The last time I got biodiesel the station was at a standard gas station with a taco truck in the same lot.

 

One of the guys who started going off about the race track even admitted that he was trying to get people involved since CO2 reduction is a hot issue.

 

I would be interested if somebody came up with a biodiesel chain saw; until then it's all about 2-cycle.

[tvashtarkatena]

hiding your dislike for motocrossers behind global warming facts... is less noble

 

It is precisely the dislike for motocrossers that must be rallied. It is widespread among backcountry enthusiasts (throw snowmobilers in there, too), and the key to winning this fairly simple us verses them battle. Stop playing nice by finding 'common ground' with the global warming issue and tap into the anger those who give a damn about the backcountry feel towards this destructive sport. And ally yourselves with larger organizations that have some reach, if you haven't already.

[climbaround]

I'm glad my initial post got this debate going. We all need to think about our actions and how they affect others/the planet - every little bit helps (or hurts). This should also influence our political action to make big changes that will really have an impact.

 

When I lived in Europe one of my best climbing friends refused to visit the alps because of the long drive and the negative environmental impact he felt tourism had on their mountains. I continued, but he convinced me not to take any more weekend trips where I was driving as much as climbing. His commitment still influences me, so I try to save distant climbs for longer trips when it will be worth the "carbon footprint" price my driving has. Of course if I was fully committed I wouldn't drive at all, but I'm a selfish mt. addict. I wish that "motorheads" whose choosen sports burn mass quantities of fuel would have similar thoughts that might influence their choices.

 

The location of this motocross track will not have much if any impact on planetary global warming. The dirt bikers will just have to go somewhere else. Trying to stop it is actually pure NIBYism, but if more people did so it might actually get the riders to rethink their impact (I'm not holding out any great hope of that though). I just don't want my backyard mountain ruined. While I loved the easy access in the Alps, and took full advantage of trams and huts, I was very glad to return to the wilderness of the Cascades. I will do what I can to stop similar development here.

[Dechristo]

I'm glad my initial post got this debate going. We all need to think about our actions and how they affect others/the planet - every little bit helps (or hurts). This should also influence our political action to make big changes that will really have an impact.

 

When I lived in Europe one of my best climbing friends refused to visit the alps because of the long drive and the negative environmental impact he felt tourism had on their mountains. I continued, but he convinced me not to take any more weekend trips where I was driving as much as climbing. His commitment still influences me, so I try to save distant climbs for longer trips when it will be worth the "carbon footprint" price my driving has. Of course if I was fully committed I wouldn't drive at all, but I'm a selfish mt. addict. I wish that "motorheads" whose choosen sports burn mass quantities of fuel would have similar thoughts that might influence their choices.

 

 

Thanks for helping to offset the 190k miles I've put on my truck (and the 35k miles on the car) in the past five years.

[Fairweather]

hiding your dislike for motocrossers behind global warming facts... is less noble

 

It is precisely the dislike for motocrossers that must be rallied. It is widespread among backcountry enthusiasts (throw snowmobilers in there, too), and the key to winning this fairly simple us verses them battle. Stop playing nice by finding 'common ground' with the global warming issue and tap into the anger those who give a damn about the backcountry feel towards this destructive sport. And ally yourselves with larger organizations that have some reach, if you haven't already.

 

1) We're not talking 'backcountry' in this instance.

 

2) Your 'us vs them' approach does not bear long-term fruit. The motor heads are better organized than climbers and hikers.

 

 

 

 

[JasonG]

Well, although this is a pretty silly debate, I think I will try and wade in a bit to try and move things in a more productive direction. As a fish biologist who works on the Stillaguamish every day (for the Tribe), one of the main threats facing South Fork salmon RIGHT NOW is fine sediment from roads, landslides, ag fields, 4X4 wallers, etc. Seems to me that most dirt bike tracks have the potential to erode a good bit of dirt into streams if not engineered just so . . . Especially in an area that is as wet as Mount Pilchuck. So, the whole environmental impact side to things is something I think most folks could agree is something that should be watched closely. Give the whole global warming thing a rest, and focus on the actual impacts on the landscape. There are also endangered (protected under ESA) murrelets and owls that call Pilchuck home, so noise pollution is more than just a human nuisance. Anyway, these are avenues that I think folks could pursue to make sure this track is put under the scrutiny it deserves. I am not sure if the Tribe is aware of this proposal, but they soon will be and I'm sure will have some comments. Spray away . . .

 

JG

[Kitergal]

old news man....they've been working on this for 3-4 years already. It keeps getting shot down, which is a shame. Maybe if the dirt-bikers had a place to play, they wouldn't be such a problem on other trails!?? and the noise....wouldn't bother most. It's not like it's SIR or what-ever it's called now where they have V-8 engines drag racing down the street. They're dirt-bikes! Ever rode one? Mine is quieter than my 40mpg honda civic!

[JasonG]

Maybe your four-stroke bike is, but two-strokes are quite loud in anyone's book. Especially if you happen to be wildlife. There are several studies linking motorized use (logging trucks, ATV's, etc.) to impacts on nesting murrelets and owls (mainly causing the moms to abandon the young prematurely). You're suggesting that the track will only allow 4-stroke machines?

 

jg

[archenemy]

I wish that "motorheads" whose choosen sports burn mass quantities of fuel would have similar thoughts that might influence their choices.

 

I am glad this debate got going too. Both sides have good points. I just want to throw one in there too.

 

I am a motorhead. I have a sportscar that I take to the track. I have a vintage truck I take to car shows. I have a pickup I take through the mountains. I burn a lot of fuel.

 

In a normal year, I also spend a fair amount of time living off the grid. My home is pretty much self-sufficient and requires little power. I also spend time camping, hiking, climbing, fishing, doing all that fun outdoor shit.

 

There are a lot of people who have the same range of varied interests as I do. Your argument seems to ignore that fact. It is not an us-vs-them because often, the us and the them are the same person. However, we try hard not to get sanctimonious about our "carbon footprint" and bike rides.

 

Wanting some peace and quiet in the woods appeals to most folks. Putting out a rational plea to allow that pleasure to remain in place makes sense. The rest of everything else just sounds like bullshit.

 

Good luck to your effort; I truly hope that area remains a haven for hikers.

[Serenity]

hiding your dislike for motocrossers behind global warming facts... is less noble

 

It is precisely the dislike for motocrossers that must be rallied. It is widespread among backcountry enthusiasts (throw snowmobilers in there, too), and the key to winning this fairly simple us verses them battle. Stop playing nice by finding 'common ground' with the global warming issue and tap into the anger those who give a damn about the backcountry feel towards this destructive sport. And ally yourselves with larger organizations that have some reach, if you haven't already.

 

Yeah, tap into your anger, until someone gets in your face, and then tap into your attorney.

[OrganDonor]

Maybe your four-stroke bike is, but two-strokes are quite loud in anyone's book. Especially if you happen to be wildlife. There are several studies linking motorized use (logging trucks, ATV's, etc.) to impacts on nesting murrelets and owls (mainly causing the moms to abandon the young prematurely). You're suggesting that the track will only allow 4-stroke machines?

 

jg

 

Obviously he's never riden a 2-stroke. Just the sound puts a smile on my face.

 

Had to add this, most of our synthetic climbing gear is made from plastics of some sort, plastics are a byproduct of oil. So if you truly worried about the use of oil, you might want to consider that everytime you take a drink out of a plastic bottle, or put on a fleece sweater your supporting the use of oil.

 

There was a documentary not to long ago on how oil came about and its uses. From when it was discovered, its uses, and where we would be without it. In that documentary it estimates that we all use roughly 2 gallons of oil a day, we use 1 gallon in our cars, and another gallon in plastic packaging, clothing, etc..

 

Here are just a few things that are made from oil, or its by products from distilling oil. all plastics, food additives, vitamins, clothing(especially if its synthetic, which happens to be what most mountaineers prefer), DVD's and CD's, ink, candles, our climbing slings and rope, harnesses, packs, the list goes on and on.

 

So before you b**** about the use of two-strokes and there pollution, maybe you should take a look around your house at your carbon footprint. Not any of us have the right to complain, because we all use oil.

 

So you might want to throw out all your climbing gear and clothing before you complain about how others use oil, kinda hypocrtical if you ask me.

[SMU]

A few neutral thoughts from an outsider passing by. I'm an avid backcountry skier/hiker. I do commute around town on a motorcycle (65 mpg if you're keeping track), but I don't ride motocross.

 

Some comments:

 

- Motocross is a legitimate sport. You may not like it, but it is nonetheless a sport that some folks DO enjoy. Others enjoy synchronized swimming (hey, it's Olympic season! ;>). Speaking of that, I wonder how much energy is needed to maintain an olympic pool?

 

- As for global warming, this is an absurd argument and you should lose it. Trees are cut every day. We all live in wood houses, and I'm sure the timber lost for park construction will be sold to the highest bidder. If trees are not cut to allow park construction, then trees will simply be cut someplace else. Heck, for all we know the proposed location IS designated for tree harvest regardless of the MC park.

 

- I'm guessing the MC park has chosen a location that would minimize noise impact to most people, i.e., they are located far from residential areas. By choosing a location in "the middle of nowhere", they are now "impacting" folks who enjoy being "the middle of nowhere." Where should the MC park go?

 

As an aside, there's a MC park several miles from my house in Idaho. It was built many years ago, far from housing developments, but close enough to drive to. In the past 5 years some high-end housing projects were built within eye and ear-shot of the MC park. Guess what? The new homeowners want the park to move someplace else.

 

- Fuel consumption: aside from getting to the MC park, most MC bikes will burn just a few gallons of fuel during a typical day of riding. Most of my bicycle racing friends burn way more gas when they travel inter-state for their bike races. We all use fuel for a variety of reasons, and it's a bit arrogant for any of us to decide what is the most legitimate use of that fuel.

 

Edited March 12, 2008 by SMU