Harvard guy says cycling just not "sustainable..."
#1
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Harvard guy says cycling just not "sustainable..."
Frankly, I think he is clueless...
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-...rd-researcher/
Great, now factor in vegetarian cyclists, and the fact that even if a Prius only uses 8X more energy than a bike, that is still 8X more, and it still requires more road. Sheesh
Bike on my friends, this is an old and poorly supported argument.
Basically, your bacon-fueled bike commute is killing the planet, so you best be trading in that Schwinn for a Prius and a pile of chickpeas.
Thorpe’s conclusion is drawn by using a measure called carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which enables scientists to provide a unit-for-unit comparison of different kinds of gases based on their “Global Warming Potential” (GWP), and thereby analyze more complex scenarios that involve emissions of multiple different types of gases in order to more accurately gauge their environmental impact.
Thorpe’s conclusion is drawn by using a measure called carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which enables scientists to provide a unit-for-unit comparison of different kinds of gases based on their “Global Warming Potential” (GWP), and thereby analyze more complex scenarios that involve emissions of multiple different types of gases in order to more accurately gauge their environmental impact.
Great, now factor in vegetarian cyclists, and the fact that even if a Prius only uses 8X more energy than a bike, that is still 8X more, and it still requires more road. Sheesh
Bike on my friends, this is an old and poorly supported argument.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Southeast US
Posts: 921
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked 149 Times
in
104 Posts
One counter-argument (against that author) is that the exercise we do when biking -- or equivalent -- is necessary for our health, and should be taken as a baseline when we budget for sustainable emissions. And if we can't afford -- in terms of sustainability -- for everyone to be living healthy then there are too many of us.
#4
Tragically Ignorant
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613
Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,098 Times
in
5,054 Posts
In the comments, section, one commenter points out that to make his numbers work, you had to assume a 440 pound rider on a paleo diet vs. a Prius driver while not figuring in the carbon impact of producing the car, the batteries and disposing of same after the car's end of usefulness.
A couple of silly assumptions built into this analysis, even if you ignore the clear math errors:
He assumes people's calorie consumption closely tracks their activity levels--we have an obesity trend in this country that makes it clear that isn't the case.
He assumes that if one wasn't riding a bike, one's energy needs would diminish. One of the reasons people bike to work is it turns their commute into a fitness program. He has to assume that such people would not, if they were not biking, going to find some other way to burn those calories while exercising. I don't know about you guys, but when it's not biking season around here (New England), I spend an awful lot of time burning calories churning an elliptical machine. When I'm doing that, I'm also driving to the gym instead of just hopping on my bike and starting my routine.
A couple of silly assumptions built into this analysis, even if you ignore the clear math errors:
He assumes people's calorie consumption closely tracks their activity levels--we have an obesity trend in this country that makes it clear that isn't the case.
He assumes that if one wasn't riding a bike, one's energy needs would diminish. One of the reasons people bike to work is it turns their commute into a fitness program. He has to assume that such people would not, if they were not biking, going to find some other way to burn those calories while exercising. I don't know about you guys, but when it's not biking season around here (New England), I spend an awful lot of time burning calories churning an elliptical machine. When I'm doing that, I'm also driving to the gym instead of just hopping on my bike and starting my routine.
#5
genec
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
It's a dumb argument supported by marginal assumptions and lazy math.
#6
Non omnino gravis
The entire thing is based on a flawed premise from the get-go-- I'm not petite by any means, and while in full-hammer mode I burn around 50kJ/km.
On Friday, I rode 112km at a fairly brisk pace of 31.5km/hr, doing 2,304kJ of work. That's 20.6kJ/km. So on that day, a Prius would have used 20x as much energy, and a typical car 42x as much.
In simpler terms, 42 people on bikes doing 20mph use the same energy as one car. They better put a whole lot of people in that car to improve that offset.
I would imagine a bike commuter, unless conditions were particularly difficult, or they were combining their commute with a workout, might use 10-12kJ/km. So the "study" could be off by as much as factor of five.
On Friday, I rode 112km at a fairly brisk pace of 31.5km/hr, doing 2,304kJ of work. That's 20.6kJ/km. So on that day, a Prius would have used 20x as much energy, and a typical car 42x as much.
In simpler terms, 42 people on bikes doing 20mph use the same energy as one car. They better put a whole lot of people in that car to improve that offset.
I would imagine a bike commuter, unless conditions were particularly difficult, or they were combining their commute with a workout, might use 10-12kJ/km. So the "study" could be off by as much as factor of five.
#7
On Holiday
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,014
Bikes: A bunch of old steel bikes
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
12 Posts
This study seems to ignore the fact that motorists also burn food energy and produce CO2 while driving. Wouldn't you need to add that to the amounts produced by the vehicle?
In any case, the publication is prefaced with this note:
The bigger issue is that the news media may present these "findings" in a way that misrepresents reality. In this context, "may" means "yep, you better believe they will". How is the normal citizen supposed to understand these complex climate issues when sensationalism sells better than a boring presentation of reasonable thought?
In any case, the publication is prefaced with this note:
NOTE #1 : this is a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the marginal impact of biking or driving a kilometer, looking only at the fuel for each (food and gasoline). Our goal is only to stimulate quantitative thinking about what drives carbon emissions (e.g., transportation vs diet). It’s not an evaluation of whether biking or driving best overall, and it’s not peer-reviewed research.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
He leaves out the emissions cost of producing the Prius, overestimates the energy cost of cycling, neglects the lowered calorie requirements of more fit and less obese individuals, and makes a dubious assumption about cyclists' diet .
#9
Full Member
In addition to many of the criticisms made above, it would be interesting to consider a cradle to grave analysis. The manufacture, repairs and disposal of a car must be a big negative contributor to the environment.
#10
20+mph Commuter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Greenville. SC USA
Posts: 7,516
Bikes: Surly LHT, Surly Lowside, a folding bike, and a beater.
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1434 Post(s)
Liked 331 Times
in
219 Posts
Obviously it would be more efficient to just put fossil fuels in the gas tank than burn the fuel at a remote plant to convert it to electricity (which uses energy in the process), then waste energy pumping that power miles though power lines, then have the car convert that energy into turning the wheels. Fossil fuels are darned efficient. This is why we use them.
I'm certain most of us know that nuclear power comes with a price to pay in harmful byproducts and hydroelectric dams are generally environmental nightmares that destroy rivers and natural habitats for all sorts of creatures. Windmills slice and dice migrating birds like there is no tomorrow and are regionally specific. Solar energy comes pretty close to Pixie dust and about as close to a free lunch as we can get so far, but how many electric cars are 100% powered by solar these days?
Don't even get me started on the environmental impacts of battery manufacture and disposal.
The gas-powered Geo Metro was the answer. An electric version would have been cool as well. But the American people opted for monster trucks instead. We had our chance but chose the shortest road to disaster.
Electric cars are not the answer. Fewer cars is the answer. Fewer people though ZPG (zero population growth) would be a big help to the environment as well, and a nice start to fewer motor vehicles. If we cut our emissions in half but double the population, what's the point?
Last edited by JoeyBike; 03-04-19 at 09:57 AM.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,992
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2494 Post(s)
Liked 738 Times
in
522 Posts
Don't electric cars run on Pixie dust? Or do they run on power that comes from burning fossil fuels, nuclear fission, hydroelectric, wind, or solar PRODUCED energy?
Obviously it would be more efficient to just put fossil fuels in the gas tank than burn the fuel at a remote plant to convert it to electricity (which uses energy in the process), then waste energy pumping that power miles though power lines, then have the car convert that energy into turning the wheels. Fossil fuels are darned efficient. This is why we use them.
I'm certain most of us know that nuclear power comes with a price to pay in harmful byproducts and hydroelectric dams are generally environmental nightmares that destroy rivers and natural habitats for all sorts of creatures. Windmills slice and dice migrating birds like there is no tomorrow and are regionally specific. Solar energy comes pretty close to Pixie dust and about as close to a free lunch as we can get so far, but how many electric cars are 100% powered by solar these days?
Don't even get me started on the environmental impacts of battery manufacture and disposal.
The gas-powered Geo Metro was the answer. An electric version would have been cool as well. But the American people opted for monster trucks instead. We had our chance but chose the shortest road to disaster.
Electric cars are not the answer. Fewer cars is the answer. Fewer people though ZPG (zero population growth) would be a big help to the environment as well, and a nice start to fewer motor vehicles. If we cut our emissions in half but double the population, what's the point?
Obviously it would be more efficient to just put fossil fuels in the gas tank than burn the fuel at a remote plant to convert it to electricity (which uses energy in the process), then waste energy pumping that power miles though power lines, then have the car convert that energy into turning the wheels. Fossil fuels are darned efficient. This is why we use them.
I'm certain most of us know that nuclear power comes with a price to pay in harmful byproducts and hydroelectric dams are generally environmental nightmares that destroy rivers and natural habitats for all sorts of creatures. Windmills slice and dice migrating birds like there is no tomorrow and are regionally specific. Solar energy comes pretty close to Pixie dust and about as close to a free lunch as we can get so far, but how many electric cars are 100% powered by solar these days?
Don't even get me started on the environmental impacts of battery manufacture and disposal.
The gas-powered Geo Metro was the answer. An electric version would have been cool as well. But the American people opted for monster trucks instead. We had our chance but chose the shortest road to disaster.
Electric cars are not the answer. Fewer cars is the answer. Fewer people though ZPG (zero population growth) would be a big help to the environment as well, and a nice start to fewer motor vehicles. If we cut our emissions in half but double the population, what's the point?
Electric cars that are simply gasoline cars with electric motors are better than nothing but ... what about electric cars that are built out of composites rather than steel and aluminum? Instead of weighing 3500lbs they would weigh (empty) 700lbs! If cars were built like velomobiles using bicycle drivetrain components and bicycle based structural elements you wouldn't have to reduce the number of cars they would be a fraction of the weight, size and energy requirement. And, since you haven't noticed ... we are doing better than ZPG in the U.S. We are in negative population growth for the first time ever and not for any good reason. We've never had so many Americans in the 30 - 50 age group killing themselves in recorded history and that's just one reason. There is zero danger of the population doubling and a much greater chance for a catastrophic population crash going forward. Still, if the overall attitudes towards birth control and sex education remain mired in the Victorian Era ... ... The present administration has de-funded any aid organizations operating in the Third World that do not promote an abstinence only birth control protocol. Individually most people want everyone to behave themselves and stop having sex. They want less people around, not more. This freaks out the ruling class because as it is every day there are fewer and fewer people buying gasoline, cars, car accessories, car insurance ... ... they want more people around, not less. It's over my pay grade to resolve but it doesn't appear that the average guy understands what they are dealing with. Things are the way they are because people much more powerful and influential than you are WANT them that way. Did someone say /thread?
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
Thorpe determined that a cyclist who consumed mostly meat could ultimately be contributing more to climate change than a vegan or vegetarian driving a low-emission vehicle
And I didn't dig into it much, but does the study account for the Prius driver's diet? What if the Prius driver eats mostly meat?
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
Harvard Study Indicates Gasoline Powered Cars Better for Environment than Bicycling
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,232
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18409 Post(s)
Liked 15,525 Times
in
7,325 Posts
One more reason I am glad I went to Penn, not Harvard.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 6,202
Bikes: ...a few.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2010 Post(s)
Liked 408 Times
in
234 Posts
I've seen this a few years back. Pretty silly stuff.
What about the energy used to extract the fuel from the ground in the first place? Oil sands? What about refining it? Transporting it? Environment impact of pipelines, development, roads, etc. in addition to the manufacturing cost of the vehicles in the first place?
We should just all grow our own vegetables in the backyard of our mini-house or balcony of our mini-condo, and find a job that's within walking distance of said condo/house.
What about the energy used to extract the fuel from the ground in the first place? Oil sands? What about refining it? Transporting it? Environment impact of pipelines, development, roads, etc. in addition to the manufacturing cost of the vehicles in the first place?
We should just all grow our own vegetables in the backyard of our mini-house or balcony of our mini-condo, and find a job that's within walking distance of said condo/house.
#16
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,971
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,534 Times
in
1,044 Posts
You must have been reading the LCF - Save the World mantra, proselytizing asceticism on the LCF list by a few "critical thinkers".
#18
Bad example
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Seattle and Reims
Posts: 3,062
Bikes: Peugeot: AO-8 1973, PA-10 1971, PR-10 1973, Sante 1988; Masi Gran Criterium 1975, Stevenson Tourer 1980, Stevenson Criterium 1981, Schwinn Paramount 1972, Rodriguez 2006, Gitane Federal ~1975, Holdsworth Pro, Follis 172 ~1973, Bianchi '62
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 823 Post(s)
Liked 205 Times
in
93 Posts
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,487
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7650 Post(s)
Liked 3,473 Times
in
1,834 Posts
As far as I know an internal combustion is about 33 percent efficient, with the loss being mostly heat. From what I have heard, electric cars In Operation are still using less fossil fuel than a gasoline-powered car. However, those batteries .....
As for the topic of the OP ... I refuse to even acknowledge it further than this. i do not deliberately step in dog waste while walking .... or browsing the internet.
As for the topic of the OP ... I refuse to even acknowledge it further than this. i do not deliberately step in dog waste while walking .... or browsing the internet.
#21
On Holiday
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,014
Bikes: A bunch of old steel bikes
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
12 Posts
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
Originally Posted by Authors
NOTE #1 : this is a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the marginal impact of biking or driving a kilometer, looking only at the fuel for each (food and gasoline). Our goal is only to stimulate quantitative thinking about what drives carbon emissions (e.g., transportation vs diet). It’s not an evaluation of whether biking or driving best overall, and it’s not peer-reviewed research. As many enthusiastic readers have pointed out, bikes provide exercise, impose less danger on others when driven, take much less energy to manufacture, etc. Please keep riding your bike, David and I do so daily :) [Emphasis mine]
-mr. bill
Last edited by mr_bill; 03-05-19 at 07:38 AM.
#23
Firm but gentle
It sounds like study funded by the fossil fuel industry. I don' t think I have ever seen such a great example of what science calls "cherry picking data". A truly steaming pile of horse manure. Doesn't matter anyway, the only level of technology that is truly sustainable is stone age technology.
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,902
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4802 Post(s)
Liked 3,923 Times
in
2,552 Posts
It sounds like study funded by the fossil fuel industry. I don' t think I have ever seen such a great example of what science calls "cherry picking data". A truly steaming pile of horse manure. Doesn't matter anyway, the only level of technology that is truly sustainable is stone age technology.
Ben