Sure, but my point is that I think it's an exaggerated issue. The number of people who need to be completely sweat free through the day is very low, and don't really need to be considered in transit/city planning.

The goal should be getting the greatest number of people out of their cars as possible, whether that's through better pedestrian infrastructure, better cycling infrastructure, or better public transit, we have to reduce the amount of pollution we create via transportation.

>Who is forcing everyone to do anything?

If you look at North American planning, the only thing that ever gets funded is single family sprawl and car infrastructure. Public transit gets barely any budget and bike infrastructure isn't even considered. So car dependency is forcing me to drive everywhere, and it's mandated by the government.

> a car runs on your schedule & can leave anytime you want.

So do bikes, and good public transit can be just as convenient, if not moreso, than cars, because bikes and trains are much more efficient at moving people and don't get stuck in traffic.

See, that's where I think this is an exaggeration. Plenty of people spend time outside on cold days, or on incredibly hot days. Some do it for work, some do it for fun, some do it just because, and some do it because they have no choice.

Forcing everyone in society to be in a car to get anywhere, on the off chance that they might not want to be hot or cold, is far more harmful for those who either don't care, or can't afford or use a car for whatever reason.

That is why I say reducing car use isn't necessarily going to reduce people's quality of life, because a lot of people's quality of life is already miserable because there are no alternatives to car use.

Mind you, this is a very North American (plus some Australia/NZ/UK) perspective, so it doesn't fully apply globally, but many countries around the world are attempting to model the US' car dependent infrastructure, which will have disastrous effects, not only climate-wise, but also quality-of-life wise.

I think we're talking past each other here, because I do agree that there's a public perception that bikes are inferior, but from my perspective, it's generally the policymakers who refuse to build bike infrastructure, even when there's strong support for it.

I think also your perspective coming from a different country is a bit different from mine. In the US and Canada, and to an extent, Mexico, we've destroyed our cities in favor of the car. You literally cannot walk in places in the US because if how dangerous our road design is.

When I say reducing car usage and increasing bike usage won't decrease quality of life, I'm saying that car-dependency has decreased our quality of life and reducing that car dependency will help bring quality of life up.

But I will concede that it's a very North American point of view and might not apply globally, because most of the globe didn't recklessly destroy their cities to build highways.

Riding a moped in a hot, humid environment is surely going to make you sweaty.

As the other poster noted, most of their coworkers would rather take an uber to meetings than walk because they have clients to meet and want to stay fresh. That is definitely a niche group of individuals with specific needs, and if they feel they want to drive everywhere, so be it.

But they shouldn't dictate to the rest of society that biking and walking places can't be done.

I get that there's an air of appearance that needs to be maintained, and I understand where that's coming from, but that's only for certain industries, right?

If you need to present a certain way to succeed then go for it, but don't hold back those who don't need to do that.

And I'm not suggesting you are holding anyone back, but your arguments here seem to be complaining that we can't change the status quo, and only looking at it through the lens of your personal experience.

I'm not saying that you need to convert your coworkers, what I'm saying is that you should support bike infrastructure for those who need it. Surely not everyone who lives in your city needs to be completely sweat free for work, right?

Also, work commutes are only a part of people's daily movements. Why can't more people bike to get groceries? Or bike to go shopping? It's all a part of reducing our footprint.

My point is that there are lots of jobs where you're going to get sweaty during the day. Hell, many tropical climates have lots of people on mopeds. Surely you're getting sweaty on a moped in a similar fashion to a bike?

I hear this narrative about being sweaty often, but I really don't understand it. I work in a place that gets hot as hell during the summer, and while I'm in air conditioning, many of the people who work in the shop floor are not. So they're getting sweaty anyways.

Why does it matter if they build up a sweat before work, or during?

I suppose if you work in an office all day and never leave, then sure, take your car and just sit in climate control as much as you want, but do you then never go outside? Take a walk? It just doesn't make sense as a point against biking infrastructure.

Also, I'm not really sure why the bike parking is brought up. I'm assuming you're not from the US, but we dedicate insane amounts of space to car parking, so bike parking should be a non-issue. If your city has any sort of car parking, then bike parking is easily solved as well.

I disagree that rail and bicycles reduce people's standards of living, but I do agree that it's a hard sell. It's a hard sell because there are a lot of vested interests in the status quo car dependent fossil-fuel consumption driven economy.

That being said, nuclear power and renewables are a good thing, and I hope to see more investment in that realm.

Absolutely. Fossil fuels, or in this case biofuels, will always have a place in modern society. But we should still work to reduce our reliance on them as much as we possibly can.

Less driving, less flying, more rail and public transit, or just walking and biking will bring much greater climate protection over time, but that doesn't mean that cars, trucks and planes won't have a place, even if we go as green as possible in the future.

Oh, I agree, but even corn for ethanol was only supposed to be using waste products and not corn grown for ethanol, but once you give the industry an inch to grab onto, they'll take all they can get.

This is a fair point and one that I never really considered in thinking of this issue before. However, as with any process, there are certain to be losses. How sustainable is this process for converting coffee into fuel? Is the limiting factor simply time?

I know you probably don't have the answer, but I'd be surprised if this was actually able to cover fuel needs.

One item that I want to contest with your point, which I know is not actually part of the point you made, is that even if we find a truly sustainable fuel source, we should still consider cutting down our use of combustive technologies to power our cities.

This is more of a localized issue, but pollution and waste is still an issue with biodiesel, and using combustion vehicles inside of cities can lead to poor outcomes for this cities.

I know this is a bit off-topic to the point you were making, but I still feel it needs to be said that even though this specific tech is carbon neutral, it enables other technologies that are harmful to society overall.

Not to mention, if it's valuable enough, there will probably be coffee production specifically to produce biodiesel that never gets made into consumer coffee. Similar to the vast amount of corn grown strictly for ethanol production.