I thought that April 1st is in about a month but after I read this article today, I am not so sure anymore.
Long story short, State Rep. Ed Orcutt, who is convinced that bicycling should be taxed, wrote in an email that riding a bike leads to increased respiration. This means that biker produces much more CO2 than e.g. a walking person, and this, according to Mr. Orcutt means that cycling is not environmentally friendly at all and "bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride".
I can't even find words to comment on this idea so I decided to quote a few comments from Slashdot instead:
geekmux summarizes Mr. Orcutt's concept:
NEDHead pointed out something important:Yeah, you're right, because the concept of taxing breathing now makes sense. How about the dog who takes twice as many breaths as I do walking? Should we start taxing the animals too? Be careful if you do, those blue whales are gonna all swim to the Cayman Islands to avoid their tax.
What is remarkable about this exchange is not that bike riders are enhanced CO2 producers, but that a republican legislator has acknowledged the CO2 needs to be recognized as a greenhouse gas, which in excess is bad. It is a start...SimonTheSoundMan has the solution:
I don't know why they don't just drag some trees from the back of aeroplanes. Or perhaps a small shrubbery on the roof. That'll get rid of the CO2 in the stratosphere, surely?And finally, Bill_the_Engineer gives Mr. Orcutt an advice:
By his own reasoning, Rep Ed Orcutt needs to lower his CO2 production by keeping his mouth shut. He would do both the planet and his colleagues a favor.