Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cycling can contribute more to global warming than driving, argues Harvard researcher

You are what you eat ... and drive or ride, says climate change scientist

One argument sometimes used to counteract accusations that cyclists “don’t pay road tax” is to point out that even if vehicle excise duty applied to people on bikes, they would pay nothing, just as drivers of the least polluting motor vehicles do.

The common assumption underpinning that is that someone pedalling a bike must by definition produce lower emissions than any motor vehicle.

But a climate change researcher at Harvard University’s Keith Group has challenged the idea, and says that some cyclists may actually be more harmful to for the environment than some cars.

Specifically, graduate student Daniel Thorpe singled out cyclists who follow the Paleo Diet, which have menu plans that are focused heavily on meat and animal protein, as contributing more to global warming than someone following a different diet who drives a fuel-efficient, low-emission vehicle.

His detailed findings are in published on the Keith Group’s blog on the Harvard website. He starts by noting the energy required to power a bike – 0.2 MJ/km against a typical car driven in the US, 3.3 MJ/km, and a Toyota Prius 1.7 MJ/km.  

Thorpe’s hypothesis instead uses a measure called carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) which enables scientists to provide a like-for-like measure of different kinds of gases based on their “Global Warming Potential” (GWP) and thereby gauge the environmental impact of complex scenarios, such as here where both mode of travel and type of diet are being compared.

As an example, 1 gram of methane, associated with livestock, is equivalent to 300 grams of carbon dioxide in terms of global warming potential, giving a reading of 300 gCO2e. Nitrous dioxide, also a factor in agriculture, has a value of 30 gCO2e. Thorpe writes:

This doesn’t matter a lot for estimating the impact of cars, where 90+% of the emissions are CO2, but it does matter for the agriculture powering a bike ride, where there are substantial emissions of N2O and CH4, which have GWP’s around 30 and 300, meaning we usually count 1 gram of CH4 emissions as equivalent to ~30 grams of CO2 emissions.

By Thorpe’s calculations, typically a car in the US will emit 300 gCO2e per kilometre driven, while a Prius emits 150 gCO2e/km. Based on average daily calorie intake of a cyclist in the US of 2,600 kcal/day he says the typical cyclist will have a reading of 130 gCO2e/km. 

Someone following the Paleo Diet, however, will emit 190 gCO2e/km, “likely higher than the Prius, though the uncertainties in these estimates are large,” admits Thorpe, who adds that a vegan’s emissions will be much lower at 80 gCO2e/km.  

The researcher said that his calculations suggested that two cyclists following the Paleo diet would actually do less damage to the environment than if they car-pooled.

He acknowledges that there are some qualifications, writing:

The first is that we found biking to have a surprisingly similar impact to driving on a per kilometer basis. But of course, cars enable you to travel much faster and much farther than bikes, so someone with a bike and no car almost surely has a much lower impact by virtue of covering a lot less distance.  When I owned a car in rural Virginia I drove 20,000 km/yr, and now that I only own a bike in urban Cambridge, Massachusetts I bike about 1,500 km/yr.

The other qualification is that while GWP is based on a 100-year cycle, the period of radiative forcing of individual gases differs; 10 years for methane and 100 years for nitrous dioxide, but millennia for carbon dioxide.

That means that while nearly all of the impact of methane and nitrous dioxide is captured in the GWP calculation, it “ignored hundreds of years of CO2’s influence after this century.  

“There are reasons to think we should care more about short-term warming, since we’ll have an easier time adapting to slower changes farther in the future, but it seems odd to completely neglect everything more than 100 years away,” Thorpe argues.

He concludes that “agricultural impacts on the environment really matter,” and that “biking has a surprisingly similar impact to driving on a per kilometre basis, and depending on your diet can cause noticeably more emissions and land use.”

He adds: “Our analysis certainly doesn’t prove that you shouldn’t do more biking instead of driving, but it does help us know more clearly the environmental impacts of making the switch.” 

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

111 comments

Avatar
L.Willo | 8 years ago
0 likes

Even by road.cc standards there is a spectacular level of thickery below the line.

For the hard of thinking, pay close attention to the following:

Store away all of your daft assumptions, it will stop you making a knee-jerk ass of yourself.

This research pure looks at the energy required to power a car and the energy required to power a bicycle and compares the emissions and land use required to do both. Last time I checked, driving (not for sports) is not considered to be exercise and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to ignore the emissions from an activity that barely impacts on the metabolism.

So compared with a vegan cyclist a Prius is more polluting. Compared with a meat and dairy hound, a Prius is less polluting. A Nissan Leaf powered by clean energy wipes the floor with both.

Yes the production, transport and distribution of cars and bicycles cause pollution, your fat mate in accounts might eat more than you even though he drives to work and someone in the US eats burgers, these facts are 100% irrelevant to the actual research. You have missed the point, ... spectacularly.

Why is this research important? There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more. Which means greater emissions if those extra calories are sourced from meat and dairy. Methane is worse than CO2 for the environment.

Also, as mentioned previously and studiously ignored by the ostriches on here, there are huge implications for sport. There is a huge irony that Formula One has been carbon neutral since 1997 while the Tour de France continues to be an environmental catastrophe.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/tour-de-france-sust...

Even worse, the first line of that article turns out to be spectacularly wrong:

Cycling is as green as it gets. There are no emissions,.......

WRONG, Think again. Excellent research makes you do that. Assuming you have an open mind, admittedly a crazy assumption in these parts .....

 

 

 

 

Avatar
tritecommentbot | 8 years ago
5 likes

Oh no, we get that Willbert.

 

We understand that devoid of all context and rationality you can make a case for anything in the name of science. The only thing that's interesting is the motivation behind it. There's nothing new or profound about the study in the slightest.

 

Bunkum is bunkum. Right up your street though Willbert. No surprise you got on well with it. 

 

 

Avatar
bikebot | 8 years ago
4 likes

There are qutie a few long term members of road.cc, who else remembers Northstar? Previous title holder of greatest bellend. I seem to remember that eventually he was "muted" rather than banned, and was left to yell abuse at people that they never got to see, which of course annoyed him no end.

Anyhow, just raising that now as there's a problem with a new bellend. It's fairly obvious that if you join a community solely to insult that community, sooner or later they'll invite you to fuck off.

Avatar
efail | 8 years ago
6 likes

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Avatar
Carton | 8 years ago
6 likes

Given that Mr. Thorpe's blog post proved to ignite some interesting conversation, I'll run the same calculations under slightly different assumptions. A 200lb male (average US weight) at a light cycling (10-12mph) level of excercise would consume 455 Cal/hour vs 91Cal/hour driving (which would seem to work out at basically less than the average caloric expenditure for an american male, but nevermind). That leaves a delta of 364 calories/hour (what you would burn instead of driving/idling), which works out to 33Cal/mile @11mph or 20.5Cal/km. Let's furthermore adjust those fuel efficiency numbers to include all cars (not just new cars that average 25mpg) which works out to 22.7mph, plus, since this is a commute we're talking about, lets add a 37.5% additional fuel usage factor. That works out to about 16.5mpg for a normal car and 3.6L/100km for a Prius. 

Your results matrix would look as follows:

Biking, vegan diet: 33 gCO2e/passenger-km

Biking, avg US diet: 53 gCO2e/passenger-km

Biking, paleo diet: 78 gCO2e/passenger-km

Prius, double occupancy: 103 gCO2e/passenger-km

Prius, single occupancy: 206 gCO2e/passenger-km

Typical US car, single occupancy: 454 gCO2e/passenger-km

Again, this does not include all sorts of second order effects like the cost of infrastructure, manufacture and congestion. But under any assumption, I'd rather focus on getting people on bikes or at least hybrids, rather than making sure every Prius has five people crammed into it and every cyclist is a vegan. But YMMV.

Avatar
CygnusX1 | 8 years ago
0 likes

GCN made a video comparing cycling vs an electric car a while ago...

https://youtu.be/YN1i2a5wtuo4

 of course, it wasn't peer reviewed research published in a scientific journal so make of it what you will.

Avatar
sfichele | 8 years ago
2 likes

This is so much bullshit.

If you look at the original blog, they use a value of 50 kcal per km for the cyclist.
This is about a factor of 3-4 out. Check out bikecalculator.com, it's more like 15 kcal per km.

An example, a cyclist, who weighs ~80kg, on 12kg, doing around 12 mph, uses around 70 watts, which is around 13,000 joules per km. Assuming food is only 20% efficient this is 65,200 joules of food energy, which is 15.6 kcal/km.

But lets how highlight how stupid this all is by considering the energy it takes to acclerate a car, beause the numbers quoted in the blog are for steady state driving, and it's important to look at the starting of stopping of cars.

A car weighing 2000kg, needs to gain 180,000 joules of energy to get from 0-30 mph (1/2*m*v*v). Assuming petrol is around 20 % efficient this is around 818,000 joules of petrol energy.

How many kilometres can a cyclist travel using that energy if it were food? 
818,000/65,200 = 12.5 km.

So the energy it takes a typical car to make one single acceleration is the equivalent of what might be the cyclist's entire commute to work and back.

And yet the blog tries to convince us using exceptionally skewed data that a cyclist can be more deterimental to the enivornment that a 2000kg car. Are you kidding me. And this is from "climate scientists". They really should take the blog down before other scientists start ridiculing them.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to L.Willo | 8 years ago
1 like

L.Willo wrote:

There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. As has been alluded to before here and elsewhere, the reason for the reduction in obesity when moderate excercise regimes increase (such as walking and cycling) is that the existing excess calorific intake is being used to fuel the activity. There is no mandatory requirement for more energy input in general, and indeed the opposite may be true in some cases as excercise can promote less un-necessary snacking, better diets and a reduction in perceived hunger.

Avatar
Leviathan replied to efail | 8 years ago
3 likes

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

What's an 'O' level?

I think someone on this forum is underestimating the scientific literacy of the posters. If this paper was rigorous it wouldn't be so easy to criticise. After all the beauty of science is if it is correct it can't be proved wrong. Or perhaps someone is just a contrarian and wants the attention of getting replies and stirring the pot. It wouldn't b the first time.

Avatar
L.Willo replied to fukawitribe | 8 years ago
0 likes

fukawitribe wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. As has been alluded to before here and elsewhere, the reason for the reduction in obesity when moderate excercise regimes increase (such as walking and cycling) is that the existing excess calorific intake is being used to fuel the activity. There is no mandatory requirement for more energy input in general, and indeed the opposite may be true in some cases as excercise can promote less un-necessary snacking, better diets and a reduction in perceived hunger.

That is a fair point as the relationship between food consumption and energy output is a complicated one. For sure examples like Michael Phelps eating 6000 calories per day while in training are not relevant to a massively obese person starting an exercise programme.

But I do still think that this sort of research adds to our collective pool of knowledge and might, perhaps should, influence the types of exercise that is promoted using public funds. Bodybuilding? Probably not.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to L.Willo | 8 years ago
5 likes

L.Willo wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. As has been alluded to before here and elsewhere, the reason for the reduction in obesity when moderate excercise regimes increase (such as walking and cycling) is that the existing excess calorific intake is being used to fuel the activity. There is no mandatory requirement for more energy input in general, and indeed the opposite may be true in some cases as excercise can promote less un-necessary snacking, better diets and a reduction in perceived hunger.

That is a fair point as the relationship between food consumption and energy output is a complicated one. For sure examples like Michael Phelps eating 6000 calories per day while in training are not relevant to a massively obese person starting an exercise programme.

But I do still think that this sort of research adds to our collective pool of knowledge and might, perhaps should, influence the types of exercise that is promoted using public funds. Bodybuilding? Probably not.

This is the point that really concerns me about this, and about which I get very angry: "might, perhaps should, influence the types of exercise that is promoted using public funds. ".  I spend my professional life trying to get people to take aerobic exercise, and running studies on how best to get people to take aerobic exercise. Both experience and the trials suggest that getting people to incorporate walking or cycling into their daily activities is by far the best method, and 'research' that puts this at risk pisses me off thoroughly, particularly this sort of 'research' based on fantasy numbers andmeaningless comparisons.

Yes, aerobic exercise necessarily involves CO2 emission, both directly and from the food consumed. It is also, so far as we can tell, essential for healthy life, and giving it up in favour of a Nissan Leaf 'because of CO2' is bonkers. By all means, switch to a vegan diet, you may well reduce your impact on global warming, and may well be healthier. But that is a different argument from the one this 'research' will be used to support (indeed that you are perilously close to supporting).

The hyper-specialisation that allows Mr Thorpe to produce work focussed so narrowly on immediate climate change effects, with no thought for consequent effects, other pollutants, or human health is, of course, a familar hazard of academia. That doesn't excuse his, and your, deliberate blindness to likely consequences.

 

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to L.Willo | 8 years ago
2 likes

L.Willo wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. As has been alluded to before here and elsewhere, the reason for the reduction in obesity when moderate excercise regimes increase (such as walking and cycling) is that the existing excess calorific intake is being used to fuel the activity. There is no mandatory requirement for more energy input in general, and indeed the opposite may be true in some cases as excercise can promote less un-necessary snacking, better diets and a reduction in perceived hunger.

That is a fair point as the relationship between food consumption and energy output is a complicated one. For sure examples like Michael Phelps eating 6000 calories per day while in training are not relevant to a massively obese person starting an exercise programme.

But I do still think that this sort of research adds to our collective pool of knowledge and might, perhaps should, influence the types of exercise that is promoted using public funds. Bodybuilding? Probably not.

 

Shitting hell - 230 posts in and you have made a half decent one!

 

I only ride a couple of miles each day to work and certainly don't increase my intake for this, 60 to 100 miles on the weekend and I do have a few more carbs, pack a banana. You can certainly state that my travel to work routine is far better than any motorised transport and extropolated across 64m or so UK adults my research finds 100% of people should travel to work by bike.

 

As a counter argument, my weekend miles are pointless as they fall under enjoyment, let's extropolate again. All the Prius drivers are making essential trips to garden centres and Frankie and Benny's whilst moaning on Facebook about sitting in a jam or not finding a parking space. We should all be this person, and book a one way ticket to Swizerland!

 

 

Avatar
giff77 replied to fukawitribe | 8 years ago
1 like

fukawitribe wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more.

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. As has been alluded to before here and elsewhere, the reason for the reduction in obesity when moderate excercise regimes increase (such as walking and cycling) is that the existing excess calorific intake is being used to fuel the activity. There is no mandatory requirement for more energy input in general, and indeed the opposite may be true in some cases as excercise can promote less un-necessary snacking, better diets and a reduction in perceived hunger.

Exactly as fukawitribe says. Me personally. I'm cycling roughly 200 miles a week. And that's base mileage. I don't eat any extra food to sustain this and my weight sits at a steady 65kg. The only time I bulk up is when I do a long weekend cycle followed by a juicy steak as my reward.  Oh I should add that I'm on my feet all day at work doing lots of lifting so I'm not sedentary at all  in fact I possibly walk around 10 miles a day (work and  out of work) 

The vast majority of people who are being encouraged to exercise are those who are overweight/obese and actually need to reduce their calorie intake to allow exercise to be effective in assisting weight loss. And in some cases a brisk walk unless supervised could be dangerous to their heart. As things balance out you will find that these same people will be able to continue to exercise and not increase their calorie intake once the unnecessary snacking and processed food is cut out. And unless you are going to be moving towards competitive sport only then will your diet change to facilitate this. 

Avatar
L.Willo replied to giff77 | 8 years ago
0 likes

giff77 wrote:

Exactly as fukawitribe says. Me personally. I'm cycling roughly 200 miles a week. And that's base mileage. I don't eat any extra food to sustain this and my weight sits at a steady 65kg.

Of course you do eat extra food to support your cycling otherwise your weight would be falling. The questions for you are:

  • if you didn't cycle 200 miles per week, would you continue to eat the same volume of food and be happy to get fatter and fatter and eventually obese? No. Thought not. So your cycling lifestyle does influence the calorific value of the food that you eat.
     
  • if you didn't cycle 200 miles per week and ate less to maintain a steady 65KG, and drove a Nissan Leaf, would your greenhouse gas emissions be lower or higher than those caused by your current cycling lifestyle?

That is a very interesting question, a complex one, but the answers do have implication for public planning.

 

 

 

Avatar
giff77 replied to L.Willo | 8 years ago
2 likes

L.Willo wrote:

giff77 wrote:

Exactly as fukawitribe says. Me personally. I'm cycling roughly 200 miles a week. And that's base mileage. I don't eat any extra food to sustain this and my weight sits at a steady 65kg.

Of course you do eat extra food to support your cycling otherwise your weight would be falling. The questions for you are:

  • if you didn't cycle 200 miles per week, would you continue to eat the same volume of food and be happy to get fatter and fatter and eventually obese? No. Thought not. So your cycling lifestyle does influence the calorific value of the food that you eat.
     
  • if you didn't cycle 200 miles per week and ate less to maintain a steady 65KG, and drove a Nissan Leaf, would your greenhouse gas emissions be lower or higher than those caused by your current cycling lifestyle?

That is a very interesting question, a complex one, but the answers do have implication for public planning.

Wow! What a huge assumption. That to maintain my weight I would be having to consume more because I cycle 200 miles per week. I'm speechless. I didn't realise you had access to my fridge and larder or sit and watch me having my various meals over the week.  My commutes which make up my base miles aren't mashed out. I go out. Enjoy myself. I smile if it's sunny and grumble about the wind and have a wry smile when it rains. My long rides are the same. I go and enjoy the countryside or the coast or wherever  I find myself.  There's absolutely no need to up my intake to 5000+ calories. 

To answer your questions: 

If I jacked in cycling and maintained my current diet. No I wouldn't loose weight. Because I'm eating a balanced diet and I'm not a desk jockey. And my cycling doesn't involve mashing out sweaty 6.7mile commutes. As I said  I only  load up with carbs for my long cycles.

if I reduced my intake I would actually start to loose weight especially if driving the Nissan Leaf. As for expending CO2 the levels would be negligible between my sitting on my arse behind a wheel and on a saddle. Meanwhile the emissions caused by having to charge up said vehicle would be pretty high compared to my bikes which are both over 10 years old and have paid for themselves.

 

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to giff77 | 8 years ago
2 likes

giff77 wrote:

Wow! What a huge assumption. That to maintain my weight I would be having to consume more because I cycle 200 miles per week. I'm speechless. I didn't realise you had access to my fridge and larder or sit and watch me having my various meals over the week.  My commutes which make up my base miles aren't mashed out. I go out. Enjoy myself. I smile if it's sunny and grumble about the wind and have a wry smile when it rains. My long rides are the same. I go and enjoy the countryside or the coast or wherever  I find myself.  There's absolutely no need to up my intake to 5000+ calories.

So you manage to cycle 200 miles a week without consuming any extra calories?

Someone get thermodynamics on the phone.

Avatar
giff77 replied to vonhelmet | 8 years ago
0 likes

vonhelmet wrote:

giff77 wrote:

Wow! What a huge assumption. That to maintain my weight I would be having to consume more because I cycle 200 miles per week. I'm speechless. I didn't realise you had access to my fridge and larder or sit and watch me having my various meals over the week.  My commutes which make up my base miles aren't mashed out. I go out. Enjoy myself. I smile if it's sunny and grumble about the wind and have a wry smile when it rains. My long rides are the same. I go and enjoy the countryside or the coast or wherever  I find myself.  There's absolutely no need to up my intake to 5000+ calories.

So you manage to cycle 200 miles a week without consuming any extra calories?

Someone get thermodynamics on the phone.

Yep, I am that machine smiley

But in all seriousness. Day to day cycling. The miles do add up. The commute, the shopping run, trip to the cinema.  And when you're not strava hunting, mashing a big gear or doing some serious training then you don't really need to up your calorie intake. As I said further up the thread it's only when I'm doing big rides I load up on carbs and even then not by much.

 

 

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to giff77 | 8 years ago
0 likes

giff77 wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

giff77 wrote:

Wow! What a huge assumption. That to maintain my weight I would be having to consume more because I cycle 200 miles per week. I'm speechless. I didn't realise you had access to my fridge and larder or sit and watch me having my various meals over the week.  My commutes which make up my base miles aren't mashed out. I go out. Enjoy myself. I smile if it's sunny and grumble about the wind and have a wry smile when it rains. My long rides are the same. I go and enjoy the countryside or the coast or wherever  I find myself.  There's absolutely no need to up my intake to 5000+ calories.

So you manage to cycle 200 miles a week without consuming any extra calories?

Someone get thermodynamics on the phone.

Yep, I am that machine smiley

But in all seriousness. Day to day cycling. The miles do add up. The commute, the shopping run, trip to the cinema.  And when you're not strava hunting, mashing a big gear or doing some serious training then you don't really need to up your calorie intake. As I said further up the thread it's only when I'm doing big rides I load up on carbs and even then not by much.

Unless you're freewheeling downhill, then you are using more calories than you would be otherwise... That's just physics.

Avatar
schlepcycling replied to giff77 | 8 years ago
0 likes

giff77 wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

giff77 wrote:

Wow! What a huge assumption. That to maintain my weight I would be having to consume more because I cycle 200 miles per week. I'm speechless. I didn't realise you had access to my fridge and larder or sit and watch me having my various meals over the week.  My commutes which make up my base miles aren't mashed out. I go out. Enjoy myself. I smile if it's sunny and grumble about the wind and have a wry smile when it rains. My long rides are the same. I go and enjoy the countryside or the coast or wherever  I find myself.  There's absolutely no need to up my intake to 5000+ calories.

So you manage to cycle 200 miles a week without consuming any extra calories?

Someone get thermodynamics on the phone.

Yep, I am that machine smiley

But in all seriousness. Day to day cycling. The miles do add up. The commute, the shopping run, trip to the cinema.  And when you're not strava hunting, mashing a big gear or doing some serious training then you don't really need to up your calorie intake. As I said further up the thread it's only when I'm doing big rides I load up on carbs and even then not by much.

 

 

But surely all that cycling irrespective of how fast or hard it maybe has to be fuelled in the same way that just existing has to be fuelled.  So the question is if you weren't doing 200 miles a week cycling (which for sake of argument less say burns 1000 calories) and ate the same amount food each week then surely you would put on weight because you are not using the 'extra' 1000 calories that the cycling used, unless of course you replaced the cycling with some other activity that burned the same 1000 calories.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to L.Willo | 8 years ago
4 likes

L.Willo wrote:

Also, as mentioned previously and studiously ignored by the ostriches on here, there are huge implications for sport. There is a huge irony that Formula One has been carbon neutral since 1997 while the Tour de France continues to be an environmental catastrophe.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/tour-de-france-sust...

Even worse, the first line of that article turns out to be spectacularly wrong:

Cycling is as green as it gets. There are no emissions,.......

WRONG, Think again. Excellent research makes you do that. Assuming you have an open mind, admittedly a crazy assumption in these parts .....

I'd agree that excellent research can make you question previously held beliefs, but this is not an example of excellent research. This is an example of someone armed with a calculator and using lots of assumptions. He hasn't really performed any research as there wasn't any experiment performed - he just ran some numbers.

I'd be more interested if someone evaluated diet/lifestyle choices over a course of weeks/months/years to figure out the relative carbon footprints of different modes of transport (e.g. train, bus, car, cycle, scooter, walking). This particular "research" is just some cherry-picked numbers which might as well be a political statement for all the value that it has.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to efail | 8 years ago
5 likes

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

 

Compared to Willo, you're a genius.

Avatar
CygnusX1 replied to L.Willo | 8 years ago
4 likes

L.Willo wrote:

Even by road.cc standards there is a spectacular level of thickery below the line.

For the hard of thinking, pay close attention to the following:

Store away all of your daft assumptions, it will stop you making a knee-jerk ass of yourself.

This research pure looks at the energy required to power a car and the energy required to power a bicycle and compares the emissions and land use required to do both. Last time I checked, driving (not for sports) is not considered to be exercise and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to ignore the emissions from an activity that barely impacts on the metabolism.

So compared with a vegan cyclist a Prius is more polluting. Compared with a meat and dairy hound, a Prius is less polluting. A Nissan Leaf powered by clean energy wipes the floor with both.

Yes the production, transport and distribution of cars and bicycles cause pollution, your fat mate in accounts might eat more than you even though he drives to work and someone in the US eats burgers, these facts are 100% irrelevant to the actual research. You have missed the point, ... spectacularly.

Why is this research important? There are all sorts of initiatives aimed at getting people to exercise more. That means eating more. Which means greater emissions if those extra calories are sourced from meat and dairy. Methane is worse than CO2 for the environment.

Also, as mentioned previously and studiously ignored by the ostriches on here, there are huge implications for sport. There is a huge irony that Formula One has been carbon neutral since 1997 while the Tour de France continues to be an environmental catastrophe.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/tour-de-france-sust...

Even worse, the first line of that article turns out to be spectacularly wrong:

Cycling is as green as it gets. There are no emissions,.......

WRONG, Think again. Excellent research makes you do that. Assuming you have an open mind, admittedly a crazy assumption in these parts .....

Well it appears that L Willo has now completed his correspondence course with Harvard that he signed up for yesterday, and now is able to lecture us from his far more superior understanding of environmental issues, sports nutrition, public health policies and the scientific method.

I for one, with my mere Diploma from University of Life have been put firmly in my place and will from now on defer to his superior intellect and reasoning.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to efail | 8 years ago
3 likes

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Hypothetical case, but if Willo needed brain surgery, would you be available?

Avatar
Leviathan replied to burtthebike | 8 years ago
1 like

burtthebike wrote:

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Hypothetical case, but if Willo needed brain surgery, would you be available?

I hear Ben Carson is available.

Avatar
efail replied to burtthebike | 8 years ago
1 like

burtthebike wrote:

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Hypothetical case, but if Willo needed brain surgery, would you be available?

I've got my apron on and auger sharpened!

Avatar
DavidJ replied to burtthebike | 8 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Hypothetical case, but if Willo needed brain surgery, would you be available?

Presumably micro surgery?

Avatar
DavidJ replied to burtthebike | 8 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:

efail wrote:

I've got 'O' level woodwork. Can that count as a credential?

Hypothetical case, but if Willo needed brain surgery, would you be available?

Presumably micro surgery?

Avatar
Snake8355 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Well I'm astounded! 

I can't believe that not only the author of the original report got it wrong but so have all of you! 

CO2 emissions are higher for cyclists for the following reason.

 

Bananas. 

They cost shit loads to import.  

Beer. 

It costs shit loads to make. 

I'm not even going to mention coffee. 

And! 

We all know Prius drivers all share with three of their friends. 

 

 

However fuck it all. I'll continue enjoying my hobby/pastime until it's banned.

and let's not forget how much carbon cyclists now take out of the environment via their lush new bikes. 

Avatar
RMurphy195 | 8 years ago
2 likes

Isn't the vehicle emmision ADDITIONAL TO  that of its occupants, rather than instead of? Which nullifies the whole nonsensical theory!

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to RMurphy195 | 8 years ago
1 like
RMurphy195 wrote:

Isn't the vehicle emmision ADDITIONAL TO  that of its occupants, rather than instead of? Which nullifies the whole nonsensical theory!

In short, no.

The study looks at the additional calories that a cyclist would burn relative to a driver.

Pages

Latest Comments