Living Car Free - Carbon footprint of cycling

I just scored a copy of How Bad are Bananas (http://www.amazon.com/How-Bad-Are-Bananas-Everything/dp/1553658310) at the library and have been completely engrossed.

To my surprise, the author provides the following information about riding a bike 1 mile.


If your cycling calories come from cheeseburgers, the emissions per mile are about the same as two people driving in an efficient car

The good news is that cycling that mile under the influence of a banana has a footprint of about a quart of the cheeseburger. I believe powering with oatmeal calories emit even fewer grams of carbon dioxide.

I guess I have been pretty smarmy about cycling vs motoring, but now will remind myself that it is only an efficient means of transportation if my diet is also not too wasteful of food resources.

The people in the car probably ate a cheese burger apiece. They are just storing the calories rather than burning them up.

Is that an example of carbon sequestration?

Never forget that sometimes people just make stuff up.

This sounds like an example.

Don't be too gullible.

Roughly speaking, it takes about 40 calories to ride a bike one mile, and there are about 300 calories in a small cheeseburger.

The carbon in the cheeseburger itself is more or less neutral, since it comes from the atmosphere and is quickly returned to the atmosphere. Of course, that doesn't take into account the petroleum required to produce the cheeseburger and deliver it to the consumer, which comes from the ground and is emitted into the atmosphere.

Roughly speaking, it takes about 40 calories to ride a bike one mile, and there are about 300 calories in a small cheeseburger.

The carbon in the cheeseburger itself is more or less neutral, since it comes from the atmosphere and is quickly returned to the atmosphere. Of course, that doesn't take into account the petroleum required to produce the cheeseburger and deliver it to the consumer, which comes from the ground and is emitted into the atmosphere.

The point is to consider the fuel itself along with the all the energy that goes into its manufacture. Of course, of all meat sources, beef consumes more energy and emits quite a large amount of methane which is the worst greenhouse gas. The author goes to some pains to explain the complexity of the calculation and admits it probably could be improved if more inputs were known. His technique is to attempt to apply all calculations equally across a number of common human activities, like eating a banana, washing dishes, getting to work, that sort of thing.

My takeaway is that you should not pride yourself on being "green" even if you ride everywhere on bike and eat a vegetarian diet if, at the same time, you are taking a transatlantic airplane trip every year. Or, as stated, if you ride to work on cheeseburgers. :)

The point is to consider the fuel itself along with the all the energy that goes into its manufacture. Of course, of all meat sources, beef consumes more energy and emits quite a large amount of methane which is the worst greenhouse gas. The author goes to some pains to explain the complexity of the calculation and admits it probably could be improved if more inputs were known. His technique is to attempt to apply all calculations equally across a number of common human activities, like eating a banana, washing dishes, getting to work, that sort of thing.

My takeaway is that you should not pride yourself on being "green" even if you ride everywhere on bike and eat a vegetarian diet if, at the same time, you are taking a transatlantic airplane trip every year. Or, as stated, if you ride to work on cheeseburgers. :)

Yes, beef in particular does require a lot of energy to produce. The manufacture of beef requires tremendous amount of energy from pesticides and fuel to grow the grains that the cows eat. It also requires a huge amount of antibiotics to keep the cows from dying due to living in overcrowded conditions. Cows need vast amounts of water, and not to forget the treatment of all that sewage. Many groundwater systems have been permanently contaminated by the feces of pigs and cows.

It is better to get protein the same way that chimpanzees, elephants and cows do...from plants. This is a much more efficient way to get the energy we need. Just skip the middle man, er...animal....:)

Why are so many threads in Living Car Free about cars?

Why are so many threads in Living Car Free about cars?

There are some threads about cars, but this isn't one of them. This thread is about cheeseburgers. :)

Yes, beef in particular does require a lot of energy to produce. The manufacture of beef requires tremendous amount of energy from pesticides and fuel to grow the grains that the cows eat. It also requires a huge amount of antibiotics to keep the cows from dying due to living in overcrowded conditions. Cows need vast amounts of water, and not to forget the treatment of all that sewage. Many groundwater systems have been permanently contaminated by the feces of pigs and cows.

It is better to get protein the same way that chimpanzees, elephants and cows do...from plants. This is a much more efficient way to get the energy we need. Just skip the middle man, er...animal....:)

The CO2 calculation by the author is also based on the fact that cows, like sheep, are ruminates. As they digest their food, they belch out methane... one of the worst greenhouse gases. This little quote describes it



The FAO report [a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)] found that current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of "CO2-equivalent" greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.

from:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger

if you ride to work on cheeseburgers. :)

I tried that once. The rolling resistance was terrible.

The people in the car probably ate a cheese burger apiece. They are just storing the calories rather than burning them up.

Is that an example of carbon sequestration?

This is my point...the US is effectively in the midst of an obesity epidemic, how they can figure that a transportation cyclist is going to have a carbon foot print larger than the overweight guy behind the wheel is beyond me. I don't ride enough, I have taken to walking 2-3 miles a day just to make sure I am getting enough exercise and to keep from gaining weight due to a job position change. I watch what I eat and lean towards the veggie side of things. Then get in a relatively efficient car and drive 1500 miles a week :P Damned if I do and Damned if I don't...

Aaron :)

There are some threads about cars, but this isn't one of them. This thread is about cheeseburgers. :)

But cheeseburgers and cars go well together.

http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/car_chase/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/drivein.jpg

Since I'm down to 1-2x burger meals per week, and I ride 6, I'll declare that I'm OK.

Which I would have done anyway.

Since doing those 'carbon footprint' tests all over the www, I figured out that my carbon footprint is doubled just by having my family live with me; well, to hell with THAT, carbon will just have to build up. I've grown rather fond of my sister and our assorted kids.

I tried that once. The rolling resistance was terrible.

Studded tires maybe ? :innocent:

Since I'm down to 1-2x burger meals per week, and I ride 6, I'll declare that I'm OK.

Which I would have done anyway.

Since doing those 'carbon footprint' tests all over the www, I figured out that my carbon footprint is doubled just by having my family live with me; well, to hell with THAT, carbon will just have to build up. I've grown rather fond of my sister and our assorted kids.

Your carbon footprint may be higher by having your family live with you, but lower overall if everyone lived in their own homes. Your family's overall carbon footprint is reduced, I'm sure, by sharing resources.

You can enjoy your family and have a lower family carbon footprint!:)

Studded tires maybe ? :innocent:

If it's cheeseburgers, maybe a 'fatbike' would be more appropriate. :)

If it's cheeseburgers, maybe a 'fatbike' would be more appropriate. :)

Touché. :D

So if someone went on a starvation diet could they drive a car and be carbon neutral? :)

I like all of these carbon calculators. Each one is flawed in some way. They make me think.

The problems with our environment are just relative. If you look at the Earth from the perspective of it being in a solar system and don't look deeper, the planet is doing fine and humans have no effect on its continuing to orbit the star. It is only when we delve into the aspect of humanity and how it is changing the planet that changes can be seen.

If humanity had a goal with which we all agreed, there could be a standard for how we operate on Earth.

All physical life forms need energy. Most get it from the sun. Some get it from other life forms. Who gets what and how much has never been figured out. As of now if you can get it you can have it.

I don't feel it's necessary for me to compare my bicycle or moped usage to what I would use if I had a car. No matter what, I know my methods use less energy and resources. My method is better than owning and using a car in regards to energy used.

Using a bicycle is much less expensive than walking. Bicycles save wear on shoes and use the food we eat more efficiently when that energy is put into locomotion.

Knowing how much energy one gets out of a banana and how much carbon went into getting it to me is still interesting. I've eaten two of them today.

No matter what, I know my methods use less energy and resources. My method is better than owning and using a car in regards to energy used.
You suspect your methods use less. And they probably do. The book points out that if you were say a big eater of asparagus flown in from Peru and maybe those tomatoes grown in Canada in greenhouses in the winter, you'd probably be wrong.

But I'm guessing a lot of your fuel comes from oatmeal and bananas... both pretty reasonable food sources from a resource usage point of view. I find many of those high energy vegetables like tomatoes don't taste too good. And I'm not fond of cheeseburgers.

The book also confirmed that my annual plane trip cross country is comparable to a short car commute in an efficient car over a whole year.

Of course some of the computations are not accurate, mainly because there are just too many possible factors involved, but it's good to look at the big picture of our transportation, food, leisure, travels.... our whole lives.

I feel better now knowing that there are smarmy Prius owners out there who may have a lower carbon footprint than myself. :)

You suspect your methods use less. And they probably do. The book points out that if you were say a big eater of asparagus flown in from Peru and maybe those tomatoes grown in Canada in greenhouses in the winter, you'd probably be wrong.

But I'm guessing a lot of your fuel comes from oatmeal and bananas... both pretty reasonable food sources from a resource usage point of view. I find many of those high energy vegetables like tomatoes don't taste too good. And I'm not fond of cheeseburgers.

The book also confirmed that my annual plane trip cross country is comparable to a short car commute in an efficient car over a whole year.

Of course some of the computations are not accurate, mainly because there are just too many possible factors involved, but it's good to look at the big picture of our transportation, food, leisure, travels.... our whole lives.

I feel better now knowing that there are smarmy Prius owners out there who may have a lower carbon footprint than myself. :)

I think your footprint would still be smaller if you ate asparagus and cheeseburgers, but rode a bike instead of a car.

The consensus seems to be that the best ways to reduce your personal carbon footprint, in order from greatest reduction to least, are:


Reduce energy consumption in your home through insulation, conservation and efficiency.
Become a vegetarian or at least eat less meat.
Quit driving a car, or at least drive a lot less..


Home energy savings are expensive and a lot of work, and I would miss cheeseburgers a LOT if I gave up meat. But the great thing about Number 3 is that I get to do less of an activity that I don't like, and more of something I do enjoy.

I haven't eaten two cheeseburgers in years. Cheeseburgers are a rare indulgence for me these days and I hate to think of the havoc two'd play on my middle-aged GI tract.

Let's just say this: there'd be emissions issues (sorry!)!

Your carbon footprint may be higher by having your family live with you, but lower overall if everyone lived in their own homes. Your family's overall carbon footprint is reduced, I'm sure, by sharing resources.

You can enjoy your family and have a lower family carbon footprint!:)

I failed to mention that I did THEIR 'test', as well, and yep, it's lower with us being together; some members of my extended family are conspicuous consumers. They'd be OBSCENE on their own!

Reduce energy consumption in your home through insulation, conservation and efficiency.
Become a vegetarian or at least eat less meat.
Quit driving a car, or at least drive a lot less..



This pretty much describes what needs to happen in G-20 countries.

the details and numbers can be debated until the earth crashes into the sun, but no one can argue the basics...

A- riding a bicycle is greener than driving a car. in fact only walking is (arguably) greener.
B- eating locally grown foods is greener than foods that are transported large distances.
C- eating lower on the food chain is greener than eating higher on the food chain.

so, being a vegan on a bicycle, I WIN :D

seriously, though, i lose points for being in NZ. although i'm partial towards locally grown foods, i still eat a lot of imported stuff. some things just aren't grown in NZ.

I have malabsorption syndrome, I can't eat meat anyway.

I have rented an electric car before. I can't decide if that makes me evil or not.

Do any of these calculators account for all the energy needed to create and support the infrastructure needed for cars? The comparable infrastructure for bicycles would be a tiny fraction of that.

I think some calculations do try to factor in indirect energy. But it's a pretty complex equations. You have the cost of fuel. But you also have the cost of maintaining armies to protect your fuel. You have the cost of refining gasoline, but how do you make an estimate of the cost of damage to the environment you live in? I'm guessing it's a bit overwhelming trying to figure it out.

Do any of these calculators account for all the energy needed to create and support the infrastructure needed for cars? The comparable infrastructure for bicycles would be a tiny fraction of that.

I think some calculations do try to factor in indirect energy. But it's a pretty complex equations. You have the cost of fuel. But you also have the cost of maintaining armies to protect your fuel. You have the cost of refining gasoline, but how do you make an estimate of the cost of damage to the environment you live in which you've sort of transferred to another generation?

I'm guessing it's a bit overwhelming trying to figure it out.

Hello,

I too have just read 'How Bad Are Bananas: The carbon footprint of everything'. Page 23 is where it claims that cycling a mile is responsible for a minimum of 65 grams of co2 - that being the carbon footprint of the banana you would consume to cover that distance.


But clearly this doesnt make any sense because cycling 1 mile wouldnt actually require the consumption of anything at all, not when it's only 3 or 4 minutes of exercise. So i'm trying to work out a more accurate figure for emissions per mile so i can present the information to the author of the book. When i do my long ride at the weekend, it is usually about 60-80 miles and I take with me 1 banana, a protein bar, and two bottles of psp22. My water bottles are 1 litre capacity and they have about 75grams of psp22 in each one. So i'm probably getting through 3 grams of psp22 per mile, at an endurance intensity with a corresponding HR of about 140bpm.



If you know of anyone who has worked out the carbon footprint of sports drinks and energy bars that would be very helpful.



I'm also interested in knowing more about the carbon footprint of the materials that go into making a bike. Im more of a traditionalist myself and like a steel frameset with lugs, but i wondered if a hand-made steel frame from a small local framebuilder is better for the environment than a carbon-fibre frame from a factory in China?


I dont expect to ever reach a conclusive figure because there are so many variables, but good accurate information would be very useful.

Thanks.

I'm also interested in knowing more about the carbon footprint of the materials that go into making a bike. Im more of a traditionalist myself and like a steel frameset with lugs, but i wondered if a hand-made steel frame from a small local framebuilder is better for the environment than a carbon-fibre frame from a factory in China?

In one sense, CF (like all plastics made from petroleum) actually sequesters carbon from the atmosphere. That means that the carbon that goes into the bike frame can't go into the atmosphere and therefore can't contribute to climate change. I believe that steel also contains some carbon, but it probably wouldn't be sequestered for as many years as the carbon in CF.

If your cycling calories come from cheeseburgers, the emissions per mile are about the same as two people driving in an efficient car

The whole cycling thing is a red herring. Clearly active and fit people will consume more, irrespective of whether they cycle or drive. I don't think that anyone would argue that we should attack sustainability and carbon emissions by striving to be as sedentary as possible. All the author is really saying is that Cheeseburgers have a high carbon footprint.

Meat is notorious for it's high carbon foot-print, but that's also because Americans eat far more meat than is nutritionally essential.

In regards to biking on a cheeseburger, you could make the model even more complex by comparing the relative health of a cyclist and a driver, and factor in how much carbon is used to feed and transport the doctors that gave them the triple bypass, fed the scientists and engineers that had to design the stint, the list goes on.

For even more complexity, while meat is an energy intensive food to produce, but it is also a generally highly efficient food source (your body uses 64% of the protein in tofu, while it uses 74.3% of the protein in beef, and can use a whopping 96% of the total protein in whey). So if soy is 2/3 as efficient a nutrient source as whey, you would need to eat 1.5 times as much tofu as whey to get the same nutritional value.

The short of this is these books do quick and dirty calculations the more reflect the assumptions of the author than the intricate and complex reality of the situation.

I think the last two posts really got to the meat of the issue. :D

Carbon emissions are not the end all be all of everything though. Something that for some reason a lot of people seem to be oblivious to.

Think about the bike Vs. a car. 4000lbs. of material vs. 20-25lbs. of material. Think about tires. Most scrapped tires are burned. Then you have batteries - actually modern car batteries can be recycled in their entirety, but a whole lot of older ones cannot be. Used motor oil? Some of it is recycled. Some of it is burned. Some of it leaks into the ground.

It's a lot more complicated of an issue than fuel in, emissions out.

Cars require magnitudes more materials - thousands of pounds of metal, hundreds of pounds of rubber, and exhaust isn't the only pollution a motor vehicle makes.

It's a lot more complicated of an issue than fuel in, emissions out.


I think it would be exactly that simple. But the problem is figuring out all the inputs. Of course, bicycles are wonderful machine, but they will use some fossil fuel in their manufacture and of course parts do wear out.

Not only that but the energy to ride is not free. If you do a century ride some day, you'll probably notice the difference when you sit down for dinner and starting inhaling your food.

Nonetheless, in terms of bang for the buck, a bicycle is an almost perfect distance vehicle.

The original premise is stupid. The 2 people in the car also ate a cheeseburger - they just got in a car instead of riding a bike. They wasted the cheeseburger energy because it was either turned to fat or excreted. It also ignores the carbon footprint of manufacturing the car verses manufacturing the bike.

Yes, the industrial food system is wasteful. That point could be made in a much better way. Also, a vegan diet isn't always the "greenest" diet although it usually is when strictly talking about industrial civilization. Hunter gatherers that kill their own meat are much greener than any vegan munching on slabs of tofu.

I'll remember this thread when I meet a motorist who doesn't eat any food at all. :p

Hunter gatherers that kill their own meat are much greener than any vegan munching on slabs of tofu.


I'll remember this thread when I meet a motorist who doesn't eat any food at all. :p

I'll remember these posts next time I eat a motorist :p