Human beings literally exhale CO2. This makes me curious what the actual carbon efficiency is when using a calorie to CO2 analysis factoring in the carbon footprint of the diet needed to fuel said travel.
Because IIRC carnivores are only 10% efficient, so this feels like a complicated problem. And then of course the carbon footprint of the manufacturing of various methods of transport and break even points over what periods of time.
This is an argument for ebikes, though not the strongest one, I think. The carbon output per mile traveled on an ebike is actually a bit lower than a regular bike because the food you eat has a carbon output. Yes, this includes charging the ebike from a coal power plant.
It does output more CO2 during initial manufacturing, though. Never does quite catch up with a regular bike over their expected lifetime. Both are better than cars and it’s not even close.
Interesting, I never knew that was an argument for ebikes, but as you say, if they never break even it’s a moot point. Unless… Perhaps having the ebikes promoted more cycling over driving, then perhaps it changes it enough.
The only important carbon part is the carbon used in transporting and growing the food in the form of fuel. We’re not releasing trapped carbon when we’re eating food as the only way we would save carbon in that situation is if we grew the food and buried it. Worrying about raw energy efficiency gets nonsensical because soon you’ll be factoring in the solar energy conversion efficiency between growing and eating plants vs growing and burying plants to turn them into oil.
The better point is just that a bicycle is an incredibly efficient machine for moving a person in terms of energy input to work done compared to the hunks of metal cars are.
Well the meat industry is a large source of emissions isn’t it? So if our meat consumption increased due to increased caloric intake, that should have a carbon impact right?
Human beings literally exhale CO2. This makes me curious what the actual carbon efficiency is when using a calorie to CO2 analysis factoring in the carbon footprint of the diet needed to fuel said travel.
Because IIRC carnivores are only 10% efficient, so this feels like a complicated problem. And then of course the carbon footprint of the manufacturing of various methods of transport and break even points over what periods of time.
This is an argument for ebikes, though not the strongest one, I think. The carbon output per mile traveled on an ebike is actually a bit lower than a regular bike because the food you eat has a carbon output. Yes, this includes charging the ebike from a coal power plant.
It does output more CO2 during initial manufacturing, though. Never does quite catch up with a regular bike over their expected lifetime. Both are better than cars and it’s not even close.
Interesting, I never knew that was an argument for ebikes, but as you say, if they never break even it’s a moot point. Unless… Perhaps having the ebikes promoted more cycling over driving, then perhaps it changes it enough.
The only important carbon part is the carbon used in transporting and growing the food in the form of fuel. We’re not releasing trapped carbon when we’re eating food as the only way we would save carbon in that situation is if we grew the food and buried it. Worrying about raw energy efficiency gets nonsensical because soon you’ll be factoring in the solar energy conversion efficiency between growing and eating plants vs growing and burying plants to turn them into oil.
The better point is just that a bicycle is an incredibly efficient machine for moving a person in terms of energy input to work done compared to the hunks of metal cars are.
Well the meat industry is a large source of emissions isn’t it? So if our meat consumption increased due to increased caloric intake, that should have a carbon impact right?
Sure but if you’re using anything but carbs and fats to power exercise you’re doing it wrong.