livedarklions

BS. You don't even know what "pure math" means. You plugged in numbers and drew an absurd conclusion that had no relationship to what the numbers actually represented.

livedarklions

Are you familiar with the concept of "lying with statistics"?

That's what you did.

rydabent

I have been bicycling ever since I started to ride to the third grade. I will be 84 this year, and will continue to bike until it is physically impossible to do so.

That said, I do disagree with the fact that a bike is as environmentally green as everyone thinks it is. Look at the fact that diesel fuel is used to mine the iron and coal to make it, and coke is used to refine the steel. Therefore a LOT of the dreaded CO2 has been produced to build a bike.

Koyote

Your post ignored the simple fact that CO2 and other greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.

Math is a toolkit; it’s only useful if you also have conceptual knowledge and understanding.

livedarklions

That's actually a fair point to debate, but I don't think you really know how green everybody thinks it is. I recognize that the manufacturing of everything including shoes has a carbon footprint (no pun intended), so the question is what you're comparing the size of that footprint to.

I honestly don't know if encouraging cycling will net a reduction in carbon emissions, and to the extent that a non-political discussion could occur in this thread, that's something worth looking at. But that's worlds away from arguing about whether there's a real problem with manmade global climate change.

mr_bill

Sigh.

Peak estimates of the carbon footprint of manufacture and transportation to point of sale for a bicycle is 150 Kg CO2 equivalent.

That's about 60 gallons of gasoline. Or less than three full tanks in an Escalade. (P.S. The Escalade didn't magically appear without a carbon footprint either. I don't know if you've checked out the weight in steel of an Escalade, but it's a wee bit heavier than a bicycle.)

Are you riding SINGLE USE bicycles? Then worry about the carbon footprint of your bicycle manufacturing. Otherwise, it's noise.

(Next, you'll be complaining about your increased methane output if you ride a bike instead of drive.)

-mr. bill

livedarklions

I don't think the question is whether the production and operation of a bicycle has a smaller carbon footprint than a car, the real question is whether the bicycle's production and subsequent use actually causes a reduction in the dirty car use/production big enough to offset the bike's footprint. I'm not sure how the math on that might work.

We definitely agree bike production is not a huge contributor to global warming, but I really don't know that encouraging more bicycle use will actually reduce emissions overall. My guess is probably, but not by a huge amount.

Koyote

You really think it produces more CO2 to build a 20 pound bike than it does to build a 4000 to 5000 pound automobile?

Your posts just get wackier and wackier.

UniChris

That's a rather wacky thing for you to post, because nobody has argued that.

What is true, is that a bike that isn't used to displace a meaningful number of vehicle miles, consumes energy and resources and has a carbon footprint that makes it a net negative.

To be a win, a bike has to actually be ridden - and not just for fun of exercise, but to replace a substantial number of vehicle miles which would have otherwise been driven.

Those that are, are truly wonderful. But the majority of those sold which are merely a nice idea that doesn't get follow through, or used only for fun and exercise rather than utility...