Comments on: Cycling Can Be Less Sustainable than Driving, Argues Harvard Researcher

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 15 Mar 2019 05:08:19 +0000

Typical arguments against cycling that don’t hold water.

By: Brian F Malarski

Brian F Malarski — Sat, 19 Jan 2019 04:30:19 +0000

While it’s true, when looking at the carbon footprint of cycling, you do need to look at all the factors, including increased food intake, you also need to do so for motorized vehicles too. I’m a long-term cyclist, I race, tour, commute, and use bikes for commercial applications…as well as I love my motorcycles and motorized vehicles. Years ago I did bring this up to the board of a company I was a COO at, that pushed they were a zero-fossil fuel company. I brought up the fact that the cyclists we employed, consumed extra food to cover the caloric expenditures from the rigorous activity of peddling 1000 pounds around up and down hills for 5-8 hours a day. That food is produced often using fossil fuels. While many cruise ships use electric motors to power the propellers, there are diesel engines producing the electricity to run the electric motors, therefore they can’t claim they are using zero fossil fuels to drive their ships. Additionally, most bikes were produced using fossil fuels. That being said, no matter how you slice it, cycling will always have a lower carbon footprint, no matter how you slice it.

By: D Smith

D Smith — Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:09:39 +0000

His numbers for calories consumed on a bike are wildly out. If it really was 50kcal/km on a bike then I’d nearly have to double my food intake when cycle commuting. I don’t. I hardly eat any extra, despite my daily commute being 40km of reasonably hilly terrain. I suspect he’s included the energy you need just to stay alive in all of that. Really he should be subtracting that because the only way of not using most of that energy is to be dead.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:22:17 +0000

In the end footnotes he says he doesn’t factor in the energy to mine fossil fuels and metals, or transportation of the materials, or pollution etc…. imho, driving a car, either internal combustion engine or even electric will always consume more energy, and yeah who the heck eats paleo and bikes much, very few i would assume.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 29 Dec 2017 16:22:57 +0000

Really, how many paleo diet bikers are there? Long term cyclists don’t need gimmick diets to lose weight. Also, why compare a double occupancy Prius to a single rider commuter bike? The comparison should be a single occupancy prius with a bike (or at least compare a tandem bike). Also, I think the long term carbon costs of being physically unfit should not be underestimated. Unfit people take elevators, don’t walk for errands, have knee replacements, take all kinds of medications, etc. I don’t know if anyone’s put a number on it, but I’d bet it’s higher than we would expect.

By: Martin Halvorson

Martin Halvorson — Sat, 04 Nov 2017 11:10:58 +0000

In reply to Rider X. Great analysis. And let's not forget that there is a LOT more to sustainability that greenhouse gases. Air quality and water quality are far more important in the short and long term, and the cyclist is using 100% renewable energy, where the Prius is "fueled" completely bu NON renewable energy.

By: Bung

Bung — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:10:25 +0000

Whatever you eat, whomever or whatever you screw, and god(s) you believe or don’t believe in, you’re weird.

Thanks for your offensive judgement

By: Emmanuel

Emmanuel — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 04:40:46 +0000

No matter how wrong or right the numbers might be, this researcher misses one very important point: what matters is not how much CO2 you produce (or GHG in general, but let’s stick to CO2 since this is what human produce), but how much CO2 you ADD to the atmosphere. That is, your net contribution.

CO2 emissions from food and humand body are RECYCLED, while those from burning fossil fuels ADD to current level. Indeed, all carbon in food, no matter how long the food chain, comes from CO2 in the air to start with. Fossil fuels carbon comes pretty much from the same place, but several millions (to nearly a billion) years ago. That might be recycling on a geological scale, but not for current life forms that have changed quite a lot over a billion years.

So, on total, the NET CO2 addition to the atmosphere from riding is 0, while anything burning fossil fuel is obviously much greater. That’s the point that should be made.

By: Paul Hoffman

Paul Hoffman — Fri, 05 May 2017 14:13:21 +0000

This analysis is awesome! Most cycling done in the U.S. is recreational. I am an avid recreational cyclist, and regular contributor to a cycling magazine. I argue that it is not a “green” activity because of all the extra pavement and asphalt laid out so people like me and play. The lack of drainage created along with heat added by tens of thousands of miles of roadway must surely can’t be offset by the few miles ridden in place of an automobile. The numbers above will give me more to ponder…I have an economics background so I suspect I can poke holes in a few, but I never thought of the arguments laid out in the article.

By: Bob B

Bob B — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:09:58 +0000

The environmental cost of producing the Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries for a Prius is huge, but is rarely mentioned because it flies in the face of the Green agenda. From mining, transporting to various processing and manufacturing facilities around the world, they finally reach the Toyota factory with their own ugly footprint.

Replacement cost (from Wiki) is said to be between $2,200- $2,600. Add to that the danger to emergency responders in the case of an auto crash (electrocution) and the Prius altar is significantly cut down to size.

I’ll take a bike, and a steak to go with it… thank you very much.