▲ 230 ▼ A cool guide to the carbon footprint of major travel methods (i.redd.it) submitted 2 years ago by partybot@lemmy.ca [B] to c/coolguides@lemmy.ca 62 comments fedilink hide all child comments Author: /u/eyeballs20 Link Shared on Reddit Original Reddit Comments
[–] kurikai@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago (1 child) So bicycles are not a major form of transport? permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DuskyRo@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) Does it produce CO₂? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 43 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're breathing more intensely than usual, so there is some overhead. But then again walking would take longer and may produce more carbon overall for the same distance permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (2 children) And don't forget the methane from your farts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is also tyre wear particles to be considered! /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolrightythen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I understand your /s, but I find the metrics interesting regardless of why they were created. I'd be interested in my ebike's impact. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago This is in German and looks at Germany only. The comparison from page 10 on is very interesting. They look at microplastic emissions. Spoiler: shoes (109) have higher emission than bikes (15,6). Wind Turbines have even less (0,02). I'm mentioning that, because some people here seem to think, that wind turbines are bad for the environment because they have abrasion... https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/umsicht/de/dokumente/publikationen/2018/kunststoffe-id-umwelt-konsortialstudie-mikroplastik.pdf permalink fedilink source parent [–] tarsn@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago Just gotta eat seaweed like those cows permalink fedilink source parent [–] general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did some random calculations and with the assumption that cycling uses 300kcal/h @15km/h that makes it use about 20 kcal/km. Assuming it is burned by consuming carbohydrates(glucose)(4.5Kcal/g) and it converts 1:1 into CO2 that makes cycling emit about 5g CO2/km making it about as climate friendly as using eurostar trains.(assuming you dont want to exercise ever) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LynneOfFlowers@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago Hmm, thinking about it, I think maybe the direct CO2 exhaled during exercise may not be the most useful metric for human-powered travel. Every atom of that carbon was recently removed from the atmosphere by the plants you ate or that went to feed the animals you ate. It isn't carbon that was underground for millions of years as is the case with fossil fuels. Unfortunately, growing the food does involve carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Taking this page's number of 2.5t/yr for the typical American diet which they assume to be 2,600 kcal/day that works out to 2.6g of CO2 / kcal (2.5t / 365 / 2600 = 2.6E-6 t = 2.6g), or 52.7 g / km for cycling, or similar to an electric car if the chart is at all comparable (I don't know the chart's methodology; for example for the fossil fuel transport options does it count the carbon cost of producing and transporting the fuel or just the tailpipe emissions?). Changing one's diet looks like it would improve this; the best-case would be a vegan diet which would result in 31.6 g / km. Now that's just based on numbers from that one source, so I don't know how reliable they are. It does say it includes the large amount of wasted food in the final number, and I don't know if the numbers in the original chart are that level of conscientious. Regardless I think the takeaway here isn't that cycling is bad, it's that our food production system is terrible and it badly needs to become way less carbon-intensive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 10 points 2 years ago Interestingly research actually shows electric bikes to have less of a carbon footprint than manual bikes even when accounting for the electricity, battery, motor, etc. due to the rider needing to consume fewer calories to provide the muscle power. But we're talking numbers so small that it's really not worth worrying about in the grander scheme of things. So if you're feeling some guilt about the extra components in your ebike you don't need to, but if you're looking at an ebike to replace your regular one don't make the decision purely based on carbon footprint, but instead focus on if you need/want it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wahots@pawb.social 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yes, and food consumed from exertion. Simon Clarke actually did a really interesting video on bikes and ebikes and how good/bad they are for the environment, now and looking towards the future. https://youtu.be/HW5b8_KBtT8 Tldw; a vegan on an ebike is one of the most energy efficient modes of transportation on the planet, haha. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago I get what you meant but just to avoid any confusion, it's not the most energy efficient but the one with the smallest carbon footprint. I assume that's the case but I'll watch the video and get back in case I'm wrong (I might not have left this comment if I wasn't wont to forget about leaving a comment at all but people can reply and get me notified to update this in a day or two) permalink fedilink source parent [–] MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Does that factor in the enormous clouds of Smug that they emit? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DuskyRo@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) Does it produce CO₂? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 43 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're breathing more intensely than usual, so there is some overhead. But then again walking would take longer and may produce more carbon overall for the same distance permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (2 children) And don't forget the methane from your farts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is also tyre wear particles to be considered! /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolrightythen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I understand your /s, but I find the metrics interesting regardless of why they were created. I'd be interested in my ebike's impact. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago This is in German and looks at Germany only. The comparison from page 10 on is very interesting. They look at microplastic emissions. Spoiler: shoes (109) have higher emission than bikes (15,6). Wind Turbines have even less (0,02). I'm mentioning that, because some people here seem to think, that wind turbines are bad for the environment because they have abrasion... https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/umsicht/de/dokumente/publikationen/2018/kunststoffe-id-umwelt-konsortialstudie-mikroplastik.pdf permalink fedilink source parent [–] tarsn@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago Just gotta eat seaweed like those cows permalink fedilink source parent [–] general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did some random calculations and with the assumption that cycling uses 300kcal/h @15km/h that makes it use about 20 kcal/km. Assuming it is burned by consuming carbohydrates(glucose)(4.5Kcal/g) and it converts 1:1 into CO2 that makes cycling emit about 5g CO2/km making it about as climate friendly as using eurostar trains.(assuming you dont want to exercise ever) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LynneOfFlowers@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago Hmm, thinking about it, I think maybe the direct CO2 exhaled during exercise may not be the most useful metric for human-powered travel. Every atom of that carbon was recently removed from the atmosphere by the plants you ate or that went to feed the animals you ate. It isn't carbon that was underground for millions of years as is the case with fossil fuels. Unfortunately, growing the food does involve carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Taking this page's number of 2.5t/yr for the typical American diet which they assume to be 2,600 kcal/day that works out to 2.6g of CO2 / kcal (2.5t / 365 / 2600 = 2.6E-6 t = 2.6g), or 52.7 g / km for cycling, or similar to an electric car if the chart is at all comparable (I don't know the chart's methodology; for example for the fossil fuel transport options does it count the carbon cost of producing and transporting the fuel or just the tailpipe emissions?). Changing one's diet looks like it would improve this; the best-case would be a vegan diet which would result in 31.6 g / km. Now that's just based on numbers from that one source, so I don't know how reliable they are. It does say it includes the large amount of wasted food in the final number, and I don't know if the numbers in the original chart are that level of conscientious. Regardless I think the takeaway here isn't that cycling is bad, it's that our food production system is terrible and it badly needs to become way less carbon-intensive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 10 points 2 years ago Interestingly research actually shows electric bikes to have less of a carbon footprint than manual bikes even when accounting for the electricity, battery, motor, etc. due to the rider needing to consume fewer calories to provide the muscle power. But we're talking numbers so small that it's really not worth worrying about in the grander scheme of things. So if you're feeling some guilt about the extra components in your ebike you don't need to, but if you're looking at an ebike to replace your regular one don't make the decision purely based on carbon footprint, but instead focus on if you need/want it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wahots@pawb.social 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yes, and food consumed from exertion. Simon Clarke actually did a really interesting video on bikes and ebikes and how good/bad they are for the environment, now and looking towards the future. https://youtu.be/HW5b8_KBtT8 Tldw; a vegan on an ebike is one of the most energy efficient modes of transportation on the planet, haha. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago I get what you meant but just to avoid any confusion, it's not the most energy efficient but the one with the smallest carbon footprint. I assume that's the case but I'll watch the video and get back in case I'm wrong (I might not have left this comment if I wasn't wont to forget about leaving a comment at all but people can reply and get me notified to update this in a day or two) permalink fedilink source parent [–] MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Does that factor in the enormous clouds of Smug that they emit? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 43 points 2 years ago (3 children) You're breathing more intensely than usual, so there is some overhead. But then again walking would take longer and may produce more carbon overall for the same distance permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (2 children) And don't forget the methane from your farts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is also tyre wear particles to be considered! /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolrightythen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I understand your /s, but I find the metrics interesting regardless of why they were created. I'd be interested in my ebike's impact. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago This is in German and looks at Germany only. The comparison from page 10 on is very interesting. They look at microplastic emissions. Spoiler: shoes (109) have higher emission than bikes (15,6). Wind Turbines have even less (0,02). I'm mentioning that, because some people here seem to think, that wind turbines are bad for the environment because they have abrasion... https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/umsicht/de/dokumente/publikationen/2018/kunststoffe-id-umwelt-konsortialstudie-mikroplastik.pdf permalink fedilink source parent [–] tarsn@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago Just gotta eat seaweed like those cows permalink fedilink source parent [–] general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did some random calculations and with the assumption that cycling uses 300kcal/h @15km/h that makes it use about 20 kcal/km. Assuming it is burned by consuming carbohydrates(glucose)(4.5Kcal/g) and it converts 1:1 into CO2 that makes cycling emit about 5g CO2/km making it about as climate friendly as using eurostar trains.(assuming you dont want to exercise ever) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LynneOfFlowers@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago Hmm, thinking about it, I think maybe the direct CO2 exhaled during exercise may not be the most useful metric for human-powered travel. Every atom of that carbon was recently removed from the atmosphere by the plants you ate or that went to feed the animals you ate. It isn't carbon that was underground for millions of years as is the case with fossil fuels. Unfortunately, growing the food does involve carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Taking this page's number of 2.5t/yr for the typical American diet which they assume to be 2,600 kcal/day that works out to 2.6g of CO2 / kcal (2.5t / 365 / 2600 = 2.6E-6 t = 2.6g), or 52.7 g / km for cycling, or similar to an electric car if the chart is at all comparable (I don't know the chart's methodology; for example for the fossil fuel transport options does it count the carbon cost of producing and transporting the fuel or just the tailpipe emissions?). Changing one's diet looks like it would improve this; the best-case would be a vegan diet which would result in 31.6 g / km. Now that's just based on numbers from that one source, so I don't know how reliable they are. It does say it includes the large amount of wasted food in the final number, and I don't know if the numbers in the original chart are that level of conscientious. Regardless I think the takeaway here isn't that cycling is bad, it's that our food production system is terrible and it badly needs to become way less carbon-intensive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 10 points 2 years ago Interestingly research actually shows electric bikes to have less of a carbon footprint than manual bikes even when accounting for the electricity, battery, motor, etc. due to the rider needing to consume fewer calories to provide the muscle power. But we're talking numbers so small that it's really not worth worrying about in the grander scheme of things. So if you're feeling some guilt about the extra components in your ebike you don't need to, but if you're looking at an ebike to replace your regular one don't make the decision purely based on carbon footprint, but instead focus on if you need/want it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (2 children) And don't forget the methane from your farts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is also tyre wear particles to be considered! /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolrightythen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I understand your /s, but I find the metrics interesting regardless of why they were created. I'd be interested in my ebike's impact. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago This is in German and looks at Germany only. The comparison from page 10 on is very interesting. They look at microplastic emissions. Spoiler: shoes (109) have higher emission than bikes (15,6). Wind Turbines have even less (0,02). I'm mentioning that, because some people here seem to think, that wind turbines are bad for the environment because they have abrasion... https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/umsicht/de/dokumente/publikationen/2018/kunststoffe-id-umwelt-konsortialstudie-mikroplastik.pdf permalink fedilink source parent [–] tarsn@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago Just gotta eat seaweed like those cows permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) There is also tyre wear particles to be considered! /s permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lolrightythen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I understand your /s, but I find the metrics interesting regardless of why they were created. I'd be interested in my ebike's impact. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago This is in German and looks at Germany only. The comparison from page 10 on is very interesting. They look at microplastic emissions. Spoiler: shoes (109) have higher emission than bikes (15,6). Wind Turbines have even less (0,02). I'm mentioning that, because some people here seem to think, that wind turbines are bad for the environment because they have abrasion... https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/umsicht/de/dokumente/publikationen/2018/kunststoffe-id-umwelt-konsortialstudie-mikroplastik.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lolrightythen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) I understand your /s, but I find the metrics interesting regardless of why they were created. I'd be interested in my ebike's impact. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago This is in German and looks at Germany only. The comparison from page 10 on is very interesting. They look at microplastic emissions. Spoiler: shoes (109) have higher emission than bikes (15,6). Wind Turbines have even less (0,02). I'm mentioning that, because some people here seem to think, that wind turbines are bad for the environment because they have abrasion... https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/umsicht/de/dokumente/publikationen/2018/kunststoffe-id-umwelt-konsortialstudie-mikroplastik.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago This is in German and looks at Germany only. The comparison from page 10 on is very interesting. They look at microplastic emissions. Spoiler: shoes (109) have higher emission than bikes (15,6). Wind Turbines have even less (0,02). I'm mentioning that, because some people here seem to think, that wind turbines are bad for the environment because they have abrasion... https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/umsicht/de/dokumente/publikationen/2018/kunststoffe-id-umwelt-konsortialstudie-mikroplastik.pdf permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tarsn@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago Just gotta eat seaweed like those cows permalink fedilink source parent
[–] general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did some random calculations and with the assumption that cycling uses 300kcal/h @15km/h that makes it use about 20 kcal/km. Assuming it is burned by consuming carbohydrates(glucose)(4.5Kcal/g) and it converts 1:1 into CO2 that makes cycling emit about 5g CO2/km making it about as climate friendly as using eurostar trains.(assuming you dont want to exercise ever) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LynneOfFlowers@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago Hmm, thinking about it, I think maybe the direct CO2 exhaled during exercise may not be the most useful metric for human-powered travel. Every atom of that carbon was recently removed from the atmosphere by the plants you ate or that went to feed the animals you ate. It isn't carbon that was underground for millions of years as is the case with fossil fuels. Unfortunately, growing the food does involve carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Taking this page's number of 2.5t/yr for the typical American diet which they assume to be 2,600 kcal/day that works out to 2.6g of CO2 / kcal (2.5t / 365 / 2600 = 2.6E-6 t = 2.6g), or 52.7 g / km for cycling, or similar to an electric car if the chart is at all comparable (I don't know the chart's methodology; for example for the fossil fuel transport options does it count the carbon cost of producing and transporting the fuel or just the tailpipe emissions?). Changing one's diet looks like it would improve this; the best-case would be a vegan diet which would result in 31.6 g / km. Now that's just based on numbers from that one source, so I don't know how reliable they are. It does say it includes the large amount of wasted food in the final number, and I don't know if the numbers in the original chart are that level of conscientious. Regardless I think the takeaway here isn't that cycling is bad, it's that our food production system is terrible and it badly needs to become way less carbon-intensive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LynneOfFlowers@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago Hmm, thinking about it, I think maybe the direct CO2 exhaled during exercise may not be the most useful metric for human-powered travel. Every atom of that carbon was recently removed from the atmosphere by the plants you ate or that went to feed the animals you ate. It isn't carbon that was underground for millions of years as is the case with fossil fuels. Unfortunately, growing the food does involve carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Taking this page's number of 2.5t/yr for the typical American diet which they assume to be 2,600 kcal/day that works out to 2.6g of CO2 / kcal (2.5t / 365 / 2600 = 2.6E-6 t = 2.6g), or 52.7 g / km for cycling, or similar to an electric car if the chart is at all comparable (I don't know the chart's methodology; for example for the fossil fuel transport options does it count the carbon cost of producing and transporting the fuel or just the tailpipe emissions?). Changing one's diet looks like it would improve this; the best-case would be a vegan diet which would result in 31.6 g / km. Now that's just based on numbers from that one source, so I don't know how reliable they are. It does say it includes the large amount of wasted food in the final number, and I don't know if the numbers in the original chart are that level of conscientious. Regardless I think the takeaway here isn't that cycling is bad, it's that our food production system is terrible and it badly needs to become way less carbon-intensive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 10 points 2 years ago Interestingly research actually shows electric bikes to have less of a carbon footprint than manual bikes even when accounting for the electricity, battery, motor, etc. due to the rider needing to consume fewer calories to provide the muscle power. But we're talking numbers so small that it's really not worth worrying about in the grander scheme of things. So if you're feeling some guilt about the extra components in your ebike you don't need to, but if you're looking at an ebike to replace your regular one don't make the decision purely based on carbon footprint, but instead focus on if you need/want it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yes, and food consumed from exertion. Simon Clarke actually did a really interesting video on bikes and ebikes and how good/bad they are for the environment, now and looking towards the future. https://youtu.be/HW5b8_KBtT8 Tldw; a vegan on an ebike is one of the most energy efficient modes of transportation on the planet, haha. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago I get what you meant but just to avoid any confusion, it's not the most energy efficient but the one with the smallest carbon footprint. I assume that's the case but I'll watch the video and get back in case I'm wrong (I might not have left this comment if I wasn't wont to forget about leaving a comment at all but people can reply and get me notified to update this in a day or two) permalink fedilink source parent [–] MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Does that factor in the enormous clouds of Smug that they emit? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago I get what you meant but just to avoid any confusion, it's not the most energy efficient but the one with the smallest carbon footprint. I assume that's the case but I'll watch the video and get back in case I'm wrong (I might not have left this comment if I wasn't wont to forget about leaving a comment at all but people can reply and get me notified to update this in a day or two) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MY_ANUS_IS_BLEEDING@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago Does that factor in the enormous clouds of Smug that they emit? permalink fedilink source parent