• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

E bikes better for the environment than conventional bicycles

I agree to a degree, but disagree more. Go ahead and make your case.
We could start with carbon obsession. No matter what other environmental damage it may cause, anything deemed carbon reducing is deemed good by the alarmist.
 
We could start with carbon obsession. No matter what other environmental damage it may cause, anything deemed carbon reducing is deemed good by the alarmist.

Make your case that global warming isn't a top environmental priority.
 
Make your case that global warming isn't a top environmental priority.
Been done a thousand times in this forum. You asked me to make my case about real pollution being shoved aside by Climate change alarmism and I did so. Now its time for you to respond.
We could start with carbon obsession. No matter what other environmental damage it may cause, anything deemed carbon reducing is deemed good by the alarmist.
 
Been done a thousand times in this forum. You asked me to make my case about real pollution being shoved aside by Climate change alarmism and I did so. Now its time for you to respond.

Actually, in my first reply I didn't specify, but in my second reply I did specify global warming.

You haven't made your pollution nor global warming case. And there's really no way for you to make your global warming isn't a top environmental priority case because I'm not going to believe someone on the internet versus the scientific community that studies and reports on global warming.

Another response to your comments that I've replied to in this thread is that it's not an either-or environmental issue: We have all kinds of environmental issues that are high priority, but it looks like global warming is the highest priority. They should all be worked on like we would work on an emotional popular war (sound familiar?): By trying to save our asses from what we've done to the planet and everything on it that supports our lives. The enemy isn't Russia nor China, the enemy is arrogance (mostly industrial) with regard to Earth.
 
Actually, in my first reply I didn't specify, but in my second reply I did specify global warming.

You haven't made your pollution nor global warming case. And there's really no way for you to make your global warming isn't a top environmental priority case because I'm not going to believe someone on the internet versus the scientific community that studies and reports on global warming.

Another response to your comments that I've replied to in this thread is that it's not an either-or environmental issue: We have all kinds of environmental issues that are high priority, but it looks like global warming is the highest priority. They should all be worked on like we would work on an emotional popular war (sound familiar?): By trying to save our asses from what we've done to the planet and everything on it that supports our lives. The enemy isn't Russia nor China, the enemy is arrogance (mostly industrial) with regard to Earth.
So as I said as long as it reduces carbon emissions you are for it no matter what other environmental damage it may cause.
 
So as I said as long as it reduces carbon emissions you are for it no matter what other environmental damage it may cause.
The problem with that type of thinking is that it does not address the cause of the emissions, which is our
demand for a high energy density container, i.e. hydrocarbon fuels.
If we could get the same capacity of energy storage, without the emissions, we would, but
likely 70% of our population is dependent of that energy density, for it's very survival.
 
This year's Juiced RipCurrent S comes with a 1000W hub and is only $2500. That's what I have my sights set on. Later this summer I'll be moving to a place that's only a 15 minute ride to my office so I'll be happily using it to commute on good days.
After watching this I'm sold! Just ordered mine.


 
Great fun! For something that is supposed to be “green” it was packed in a huge amount of foam rubber. Arrived perfect shape though.
 

Attachments

  • CC4E3FB3-1187-460D-96A6-5E13D5A35594.jpeg
    CC4E3FB3-1187-460D-96A6-5E13D5A35594.jpeg
    126.6 KB · Views: 6
  • F5016C32-F243-46CE-AE7F-04416B468424.jpeg
    F5016C32-F243-46CE-AE7F-04416B468424.jpeg
    127 KB · Views: 6
Didn't we used to call these "mopeds"?
 
Didn't we used to call these "mopeds"?
Mopeds were mostly mo very little ped. These you pedal like a regular bike with motor assistance at different levels from none to throttle only. Flat ground I ride in eco which gives minimal assistance. Up hills I go to level 2 for assistance. Just for fun I’ll sometimes put it in race mode and pedal like hell which gets me 32mph.
 
Yes, these are the same people who will hector us by saying "Ya know, the world's supply of fossil fuels is not unlimited!" as they pretend the world's stores of lithium and rare earth metals needed for the current generation of renewable energy systems are.
I've never once heard a person say lithium supplies are unlimited. Post a link?
 
Back
Top Bottom