By Peter Jebautzke

Getting caught speeding changed my life — for the better.

It inadvertently turned me into a devoted bike commuter, has saved me lots of money, aggravation — and even saved the world a little bit of carbon dioxide to boot. Since giving up the car for my daily commutes by bike to work in August, I’ve also lost about 2 kilos and now look forward to my daily 16 km journeys each way to and from the office.

Other colleagues who cycle to work had long tried to encourage me to try out commuting by bike. We’ve even got a little shower here where I work in the centre of Berlin. But it was always so much easier to jump into the car.

In April, I jumped into the car and stepped on the gas a bit too hard. I got a late-night call from the office and had to get there in a hurry. The motorway was clear so I got up to 117 kph. That was 37 kph over the 80 kph limit. The police caught me — and I lost my driver’s licence for a month.

I tried commuting via the underground for a few days but I didn’t like feeling like a sardine. So I bought a mountain bike and cycled the 16 km home one day. It was exhausting but somehow delightful as well. It took me 77 minutes. Within a few days I was down to 56 minutes and within two weeks I had cut my time to about 48 minutes. I got to work and home feeling
invigorated by the fresh air and cardio workout.

I’ve since cut my best commuting time to 35 minutes — when I push the pace. That’s even two minutes faster than my previous commuting time in the car. Even when I don’t push the pedals too hard I can make it under 40 minutes.

So the net result is: no CO2, better fitness, far lower commuting costs and less wear and tear on my car. The only thing that I wonder about is: Why didn’t I think of this sooner?

(Peter Jebautzke is a project engineer working for Reuters in Berlin)

Stuart Gaffin is a climate researcher at Columbia University  and is a regular contributor with his blog “Exhausted Earth”. Reuters is not responsible for the content — the views are the author’s alone.

An interesting environmental debate is taking place with regard to the growing proliferation of synthetic turf sports fields in outdoor settings.

These fields are modern versions of the original “AstroTurf” installed inside the Houston Astrodome in the late 1960s, after it was found living turf grass would not survive there. Synthetic fields are becoming increasingly popular as outdoor recreational fields, usually replacing grass fields.

In cities they are also becoming popular as playground surfaces, instead of the old “asphalt jungle” pavements. Concerned individuals from many different quarters, including environmental scientists and park advocates, health researchers, parents and community groups, are raising many questions about the potential environmental and health consequences of unmitigated synthetic turf usage.

A good summary article can be found in the March 2008 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives .  Among the main health concerns is the fact that a large component of the synthetic field is made of crumb rubber pellets derived from recycled vehicle tires. 

 Tires contain a number of known chemical toxins that prevent them from being placed even in landfills. Ground-up tire pellets are therefore even more worrisome as they tend to erode even faster and leach into groundwater. Parents are naturally concerned when they see their children in direct contact with the crumb on the fields, possibly ingesting it and bringing it home on their clothing and shoes.

To make matters worse, I and other scientists have recently been reporting how hot these playing surfaces are on summer days. A graph of synthetic turf temperatures I measured last summer, compared to a nearby grass field, is shown at the end of this blog. I often find that synthetic turf fields run 60° F hotter than grass fields on sunny afternoons, easily reaching temperatures of 140° F or more. This is close to the temperatures I have recorded on black ‘tar beach’ rooftops. So, when children play on synthetic turf fields in the summer heat, it may be like sending them to play on a rooftop surface.

Which brings me to the interesting science question: Since synthetic turf fields look like grass fields and have a similar dark-green color, how do grass fields and plants in general manage to avoid reaching such high temperatures and dying as a result?

 The answer is evaporation of soil moisture through their leaves. Plants are nature’s “geniuses” when it comes to evaporating water to stay cool in the sunlight. They need sunlight for photosynthesis of course so they perfected mechanisms of evaporation to avoid burning up. So what can plants do for those burning hot tar beach roofs? The answer is “a lot” in the form of “green roofs”, which I’ll post about next time.

Graph showing surface temperatures over time: Ambient air temperature 78 F on July 3, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. The blue line, starting at just above 140 F, is the temperature for artificial turf and the lower green line, starting at 90F, is grass. Temperatures in Fahrenheit (vertical scale), time (30 minutes) (horizontal)