Is commuting by bike worse for climate change than driving a small car?

NorthCascades

janejellyroll wrote: »

littlegreenparrot1 wrote: »

mtaratoot wrote: »

I just want to thank everyone for engaging in this thread.

There's lots of good ideas and words here. I think we likely all agree that the specific issue of additional greenhouse gasses from adding physical activity and fueling it with certain foods is out of context. One point that I don't think has come up is that a bicycle is the most efficient means of transportation known to humans. If one were to walk the same distance to commute instead of riding a bike, walking would generate more greenhouse gas all else being equal no matter what you eat to fuel the burn.

It's also out of context because, as many have pointed out, there are other issues aside from the one that started this dialogue. Materials production. Air pollution. Water pollution from tires/brake dust and fluid leaks. Injuries from high-speed crashes or people not paying attention.

And riding a bike is just plain fun.

Thanks again for humoring me and responding respectfully to a silly question. Even if the statement is true, it's not the whole story.

Maybe I'll go for a ride later.

I'm not trying to argue the point, but am a bit baffled by this.

Why would walking generate more greenhouse gas than cycling?

I think what's being referenced here is that due to the energy difference needed to fuel walking a specific distance versus biking, the additional food needed to fuel the walking would wind up making a greater impact regardless of the food chosen to provide the additional energy.

(Note: I haven't seen the math for this statement, but that's what I read it as).

The math checks out, at least if you only consider the energy required to move you around. Wheels are drastically more efficient than legs. You get to sit down while you ride, basically taking weight out of the picture (except uphill obviously, and even then hills are energy storage devices 🙂 - I can cover 20 miles on 0 calories).

Add in manufacture and shipping of the bike, and who knows?

janejellyroll

NorthCascades wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

littlegreenparrot1 wrote: »

mtaratoot wrote: »

I just want to thank everyone for engaging in this thread.

There's lots of good ideas and words here. I think we likely all agree that the specific issue of additional greenhouse gasses from adding physical activity and fueling it with certain foods is out of context. One point that I don't think has come up is that a bicycle is the most efficient means of transportation known to humans. If one were to walk the same distance to commute instead of riding a bike, walking would generate more greenhouse gas all else being equal no matter what you eat to fuel the burn.

It's also out of context because, as many have pointed out, there are other issues aside from the one that started this dialogue. Materials production. Air pollution. Water pollution from tires/brake dust and fluid leaks. Injuries from high-speed crashes or people not paying attention.

And riding a bike is just plain fun.

Thanks again for humoring me and responding respectfully to a silly question. Even if the statement is true, it's not the whole story.

Maybe I'll go for a ride later.

I'm not trying to argue the point, but am a bit baffled by this.

Why would walking generate more greenhouse gas than cycling?

I think what's being referenced here is that due to the energy difference needed to fuel walking a specific distance versus biking, the additional food needed to fuel the walking would wind up making a greater impact regardless of the food chosen to provide the additional energy.

(Note: I haven't seen the math for this statement, but that's what I read it as).

The math checks out, at least if you only consider the energy required to move you around. Wheels are drastically more efficient than legs. You get to sit down while you ride, basically taking weight out of the picture (except uphill obviously, and even then hills are energy storage devices 🙂 - I can cover 20 miles on 0 calories).

Add in manufacture and shipping of the bike, and who knows?

I never really thought about it before this thread, but it does make sense.

NorthCascades

Road bikes are actually one of the most energy efficient forms of transportation known. It depends a little how you define "energy efficient" for that because sailing and rafting down a river use 'free' energy.

Eventually (not in my lifetime) we'll put a swarm of satellites with giant solar panels and futuristic wireless charging in orbit around the sun. Humans are requiring more and more energy, we'll eventually get to the point where the entire planet won't be able to power our gadgets. A Dyson swarm will get us almost unlimited clean energy. I can make 280 watts for hour on a bike, the sun puts out 4×10^26 W for the rest of our existence.

mtaratoot

NorthCascades wrote: »

Road bikes are actually one of the most energy efficient forms of transportation known. It depends a little how you define "energy efficient" for that because sailing and rafting down a river use 'free' energy.

Eventually (not in my lifetime) we'll put a swarm of satellites with giant solar panels and futuristic wireless charging in orbit around the sun. Humans are requiring more and more energy, we'll eventually get to the point where the entire planet won't be able to power our gadgets. A Dyson swarm will get us almost unlimited clean energy. I can make 280 watts for hour on a bike, the sun puts out 4×10^26 W for the rest of our existence.

I think bikes are THE most efficient form of transportation period.

I am a whitewater rafter. Let me tell you that the current can help propel you, but it isn't always going where you want. Rowing is work. In the afternoon, there's often something that starts with a W that blows upstream and can be really hard to row against. I remember day one of my last Grand Canyon trip. It was blowing sideways so hard that I basically had to point the bow at the cliff wall and just keep pulling away from it while the current slowly moved us along.

Sailing: Hours of tedium punctuated by moments of sheer terror.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Motorsheen

This thread makes me want to drive a monster truck.... with flames.

Blue Flames.

JessD9031

Motorsheen wrote: »

This thread makes me want to drive a monster truck.... with flames.

Blue Flames.

SHOTGUN!"

heybales

I think you'd drive right over a bike rider without touching them.

nooshi713

Biking definitely does less damage and causes less pollution than driving, 100%. It is not a feasible option for everyone though. What drivers can do is try to drive more fuel efficient cars, instead of gas guzzlers.

nossmf

I wish I could ride a bike to work, but with a commute of 66 miles each way to work, not an option. And while the grocery store is only a mile away from the house, feeding a family of six (or seven, when my son's girlfriend eats with us) requires the ability to tote far more grocery bags than would be feasible either walking or bike riding.