Originally Posted by
cooker
Agreed.
Agreed.From that link:
Fly in the Ointment
Our walking or biking economies look pretty decent stacked up against cars—especially if we considered consuming foodstuff as potent as gasoline. This is all well and good until one appreciates that because of the way Americans grow, harvest, distribute, and prepare their food, every one kilocalorie of food eaten has consumed about 10 kcal of fossil fuel energy (dominated by oil).
My point is this: when advocates of cars, and especially advocates of very efficient cars, make statements about how biking uses [more/similar amounts/almost as much] fossil fuel as driving, they're actually right! However we both agree, the solution is not to drive more. Instead, we need to optimize the fuel efficiency of the bike.
Plus, energy used per mile is only one comparator, and it doesn't take into account the myriad other factors that favour the bike.
Yes.
But the article accounts for the fossil energy needed to produce and transport the food used by the cyclist. But it doesn't figure in the energy used to produce and transport the fossil fuel used by the cager. If it takes energy to grow wheat in North America and ship it to Asia, it also takes energy to mine oil in Asia, refine it, and ship it to North America. You have to count both or neither.