Carbon footprint of cycling a mile, according to the Guardian

tomasrojo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/08/carbon-footprint-cycling

The carbon footprint of cycling a mile:
65g CO2e: powered by bananas
90g CO2e: powered by cereals with milk
200g CO2e: powered by bacon
260g CO2e: powered by cheeseburgers
2800g CO2e: powered by air-freighted asparagus

Not sure how porridge would score.

tomasrojo

I assume the e after CO2 is "equivalent".

abcdggs

could someone throw up the equivalent of driving?

DualFrontDiscs

And the baseline footprint for being alive, which should be added to the car equivalent and subtracted from the cycling one (presumably).

DFD.

DirkVoodoo

I normally cycle on kebabs, burgers and tonight...pizza.

I am the cycling equivalent of a Hummer, I don't do it for the economical benefits.

sy

monument

"A comparison of carbon dioxide emissions associated with motorised transport modes and cycling in Ireland" gives some details on this topic.

It says, the output from a 75 kg person cycling at:

• less than 16 kph (leisure, to work) is 0.005 Kg CO2/Km
• General (mixed intensity) is 0.008 Kg CO2/Km
• c22 kph leisure, moderate effort, prolonged is 0.009 Kg CO2/Km
• c26 kph racing, fast, vigorous effort, prolonged is 0.010 Kg CO2/Km

Here's the totals including direct and indirect for different modes

Mode | at normal occupancy
Cyclist* | 0.011 Kg CO2/Km
Dart | 0.029 Kg CO2/Km
Intercity bus | 0.031 Kg CO2/Km
Dublin Bus | 0.034 Kg CO2/Km
City bus | 0.053 Kg CO2/Km
Private car | 0.149 Kg CO2/Km
SUV | 0.242 Kg CO2/Km

*example one as above, would be slightly higher for faster cyclists.

The Dart matches cycling when it is at max, everything fairs better at max occupancy but still comes no where near matching cycling. I also think comparing Dart and buses at max to cycling is flawed as public transport system run at peek and off peek. It's also unclear if maintenance is taken into account.

The main reason cycling is matched by Dart is the research paper uses a high indirect cost it gives to bicycles "The estimate is based on an aluminium frame bicycle with a functional life of 10 years" compared to a Dart with at least a 30 year life span (the first Darts have lasted that long, but will all of them?). And older bikes and second hand bikes would have an overall lower total.

Also, the car and SUV calculations seem to be based on an average speed of 66km/h for both (when cars can be more efficient). So both are likely to have higher emissions at lower speeds in rush hour or even general city or town driving.

Lumen

monument wrote: »

less than 16 kph (leisure, to work) is 0.005 Kg CO2/Km

16kph commute? You'd need to be get up early for that.

If I ever get my Lambo I'll be running it on fermented peasants. It'll be the only way to sustain my carbon footprint.

ednwireland

damn there go my peruvian asparagus fuelled rides

Lumen

ednwireland wrote: »

damn there goo my peruvian asparagus fuelled rides

If we eat enough air-freighted asparagus (or even better, bacon from pigs fed on air-freighted asparagus), the resulting climate change will mean that we can eat home grown asparagus all year round.

Problem solved!

ednwireland

Lumen wrote: »

If we eat enough air-freighted asparagus (or even better, bacon from pigs fed on air-freighted asparagus), the resulting climate change will mean that we can eat home grown asparagus all year round.

Problem solved!

i was just hoping they had some blood doping effect (you know grown at altitude );)

el tel

Carbon Footprints....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Apart from the Guardian. Who give's a flying f@@k?

manwithaplan

el tel wrote: »

a flying f@@k

I would be concerned about the carbon footprint of that.

cdaly_

monument wrote: »

c26 kph racing, fast, vigorous effort, prolonged is 0.010 Kg CO2/Km.

Yahoo! According to this my average commute speed counts as racing.



<me heads to Mullingar for Weds crit...>

yop

el tel wrote: »

a flying f@@k?

And at altitude (according to some program on TV) you can't conceive, so you flying *bleep* won't make our next Sean Kelly
Way off topic

Ch*ist but they must be bored in the Guardian! :cool:

monument

Lumen wrote: »

16kph commute? You'd need to be get up early for that.

It was based on the average cycling commute per the last census, 5.47 km. And that distance at 16km/h is done in just 20mins and 30 seconds. Even with the 16km/h being an average speed under half hour is doable.

tomasrojo

el tel wrote: »

Who give's a flying f@@k?

manwithaplan wrote: »

I would be concerned about the carbon footprint of that.

You should consider sexual congress on a ferry instead, if time allows.

Lumen

monument wrote: »

It was based on the average cycling commute per the last census, 5.47 km. And that distance at 16km/h is done in just 20mins and 30 seconds. Even with the 16km/h being an average speed under half hour is doable.

OK, but no-one actually cycles at 16kph. Those average speeds take into account traffic delays which significantly increase energy consumption.

Anyway, I can't find a free source for the document you quoted, but maybe you can tell me...why does the Irish study estimate only 11g Co2 per km, whereas the Guardian estimates between 40g and 1750g per km?

manwithaplan

Romance on the high seas. Like Leo and Kate. Or that Duran Duran video.

I will suggest it in those terms to the missus as she might be put off if I propose a quick ride in the jacks of the HSS.

GlennaMaddy

Given that a Google search is estimated 0.007g/C02, a boards.ie post is probably around the same figure, so I propose we close this thread and save the planet

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

OK, but no-one actually cycles at 16kph. Those average speeds take into account traffic delays which significantly increase energy consumption.

Anyway, I can't find a free source for the document you quoted, but maybe you can tell me...why does the Irish study estimate only 11g Co2 per km, whereas the Guardian estimates between 40g and 1750g per km?

I think the Guardian is summing up all the CO2 costs involved in the food you eat. So for the amount of energy a cyclist expends through a kilometre, the amount of a burger that satisfies this energy will have emitted however much C02 from raising and feeding the cow, then killing it, processing and packaging the meat, shipping it and finally cooking and eating it, no?

It's silly really, lazy people eat burgers too, they just do nothing with the energy, except fart and get fatter.

That's my understanding of it anyway, I think Monument's figures are based only on perhaps respiration?

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I think the Guardian is summing up all the CO2 costs involved in the food you eat. So for the amount of energy a cyclist expends through a kilometre, the amount of a burger that satisfies this energy will have emitted however much C02 from raising and feeding the cow, then killing it, processing and packaging the meat, shipping it and finally cooking and eating it, no?

It's silly really, lazy people eat burgers too, they just do nothing with the energy, except fart and get fatter.

That's my understanding of it anyway, I think Monument's figures are based only on perhaps respiration?

Here's an easy way to calculate it.

The average American's diet is responsible for about 2.19 tonnes of CO2 per annum based on 3,800 calories a day (here). So that's 1.6g CO2 per calorie.

My commute takes 30 minutes for 15km at about 200W (excluding stoppages), so assuming 1 calorie=1KJ, that's 24 calories per km.

So I make that 38g CO2 per km for commuting cycling, if my diet is similarly constituted to that of the average American.

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

Here's an easy way to calculate it.

The average American's diet is responsible for about 2.19 tonnes of CO2 per annum based on 3,800 calories a day (here). So that's 1.6g CO2 per calorie.

My commute takes 30 minutes for 15km at about 200W (excluding stoppages), so assuming 1 calorie=1KJ, that's 24 calories per km.

So I make that 38g CO2 per km for commuting cycling, if my diet is similarly constituted to that of the average American.

I can't believe the average american eats that much, that's disgusting, especially if you aren't exercising.

I'm not surprised though, I remember getting a bagel with cream cheese in work one morning (on J1) and each side of the bagel was separated by about an inch of cream cheese. I had to scoop most of it out.

EDIT: As for the article it is completely misleading codswollop! If he is following that route then he has to apply the same rules to other forms of transport. A car with 4 passengers, all of whom have eaten at mcdonalds, should be subject to the same rules. Or are they simply not processing the food?

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

EDIT: As for the article it is completely misleading codswollop! If he is following that route then he has to apply the same rules to other forms of transport. A car with 4 passengers, all of whom have eaten at mcdonalds, should be subject to the same rules. Or are they simply not processing the food?

I think it is reasonable to examine only the additional effort required to operate your chosen mode of transport.

Junior

Lumen wrote: »

if my diet is similarly constituted to that of the average American.

Ahh come on - your not an average american say for instance like this guy

DirkVoodoo

I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Statements like this:

At the ridiculous high end of the scale, however, is getting your cycling calories by piling up your plate with asparagus that has been flown by air from the other side of the world. At 2.8kg per mile this is like driving a car that does six miles to the gallon (a shade over a mile per litre). You'd be better off in a Hummer.

Are quite misleading to the man in the street, no?

Lumen

Junior wrote: »

Ahh come on - your not an average american say for instance like this guy

I'm not sure my diet is qualitatively that much different, I just eat smaller quantities.

I've always wondered why couch potatoes on 3500 calorie/day diets don't just continue growing until they explode. I assume that there comes a point where equilibrium is reached - it takes as much energy to waddle to the fridge and back as you get from the sweet delights contained within.

Bluefoam

Junior wrote: »

Ahh come on - your not an average American say for instance like this guy

I thought he was Scottish?!

... Just saying...

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Statements like this...Are quite misleading to the man in the street, no?

Sitting in a car requires no additional food - the CO2 is from the fuel burned in the engine.

Therefore it is reasonable to compare the CO2 emissions of the car with the CO2 embedded in the additional food required by the cyclist. Although presumably you'd need to take account of the CO2 required to explore, drill, pump, refine and transport the fuel to the filling station.

FWIW, I think obsessing about global warming is a waste of CO2, but since I don't care about global warming I also don't care that I waste energy discussing it.

niceonetom

What's the carbon foot print of carbon fiber?

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

it takes as much energy to waddle to the fridge and back as you get from the sweet delights contained within.

I'd say the lymphedema that traps you in your bed would make this difficult.

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

Sitting in a car requires no additional food - the CO2 is from the fuel burned in the engine.

Therefore it is reasonable to compare the CO2 emissions of the car with the CO2 embedded in the additional food required by the cyclist. Although presumably you'd need to take account of the CO2 required to explore, drill, pump, refine and transport the fuel to the filling station.

FWIW, I think obsessing about global warming is a waste of CO2, but since I don't care about global warming I also don't care that I waste energy discussing it.

Yes, but my point was that people who eat Asparagus are going to eat this anyway, not because it is required to fuel a cyclist on a bike, so saying that it makes a bike as efficient as a hummer is rubbish.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Yes, but my point was that people who eat Asparagus are going to eat this anyway, not because it is required to fuel a cyclist on a bike, so saying that it makes a bike as efficient as a hummer is rubbish.

Right, but if they cycle they need to eat more of it.

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

Right, but if they cycle they need to eat more of it.

Unless they are American? I do seem to eat more these days for sure, but I also drive a lot less...hmmm, so maybe there is some merit to the article.

I'm very confused now, should I care? Should I carry on cycling and buy more local produce? Move into a hippy commune?

DualFrontDiscs

I think this chart should help clarify the situation:



The Guardian article supporting the uptake of piracy as a career to help reduce global warming is expected shortly

DFD.

cdaly_

niceonetom wrote: »

What's the carbon foot print of carbon fiber?

Ah, no problem there. Carbon fibre is a money carbon sink. The more the better...