Carbon footprint is a term that was made up by oil companies to shift blame from them to us.
Doesn’t change the fact that some forms of travel are objectively worse for the environment than others. If you can reasonably take a train or a bus instead of a plane or car, you should do so.
instructions unclear: purchased a bus and am now using it to commute to work instead of an f-150
There’s too much data missing though. What were the emissions for creating, maintaining, and disposing of these modes of travel?
Oil companies sell oil and manipulate national policy to promote its use. Consumers buy it and support policy to promote its use. There’s at least a bit of room for personal responsibility there.
And yet, here we are using this metric to discuss how to use less oil. How is this supposed to benefit them?
what term can I use to put the blame back on them?
Carbon somebody else’s problem
There’s no denying that you’re part of the problem though. You’re not of the hook just because someone’s worse than you.
So bicycles are not a major form of transport?
Does it produce CO₂?
You’re breathing more intensely than usual, so there is some overhead. But then again walking would take longer and may produce more carbon overall for the same distance
And don’t forget the methane from your farts.
There is also tyre wear particles to be considered! /s
I understand your /s, but I find the metrics interesting regardless of why they were created. I’d be interested in my ebike’s impact.
This is in German and looks at Germany only. The comparison from page 10 on is very interesting. They look at microplastic emissions. Spoiler: shoes (109) have higher emission than bikes (15,6).
Wind Turbines have even less (0,02). I’m mentioning that, because some people here seem to think, that wind turbines are bad for the environment because they have abrasion…
Just gotta eat seaweed like those cows
I did some random calculations and with the assumption that cycling uses 300kcal/h @15km/h that makes it use about 20 kcal/km. Assuming it is burned by consuming carbohydrates(glucose)(4.5Kcal/g) and it converts 1:1 into CO2 that makes cycling emit about 5g CO2/km making it about as climate friendly as using eurostar trains.(assuming you dont want to exercise ever)
Hmm, thinking about it, I think maybe the direct CO2 exhaled during exercise may not be the most useful metric for human-powered travel. Every atom of that carbon was recently removed from the atmosphere by the plants you ate or that went to feed the animals you ate. It isn’t carbon that was underground for millions of years as is the case with fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, growing the food does involve carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Taking this page’s number of 2.5t/yr for the typical American diet which they assume to be 2,600 kcal/day that works out to 2.6g of CO2 / kcal (2.5t / 365 / 2600 = 2.6E-6 t = 2.6g), or 52.7 g / km for cycling, or similar to an electric car if the chart is at all comparable (I don’t know the chart’s methodology; for example for the fossil fuel transport options does it count the carbon cost of producing and transporting the fuel or just the tailpipe emissions?). Changing one’s diet looks like it would improve this; the best-case would be a vegan diet which would result in 31.6 g / km.
Now that’s just based on numbers from that one source, so I don’t know how reliable they are. It does say it includes the large amount of wasted food in the final number, and I don’t know if the numbers in the original chart are that level of conscientious. Regardless I think the takeaway here isn’t that cycling is bad, it’s that our food production system is terrible and it badly needs to become way less carbon-intensive.
Interestingly research actually shows electric bikes to have less of a carbon footprint than manual bikes even when accounting for the electricity, battery, motor, etc. due to the rider needing to consume fewer calories to provide the muscle power. But we’re talking numbers so small that it’s really not worth worrying about in the grander scheme of things. So if you’re feeling some guilt about the extra components in your ebike you don’t need to, but if you’re looking at an ebike to replace your regular one don’t make the decision purely based on carbon footprint, but instead focus on if you need/want it.
Yes, and food consumed from exertion. Simon Clarke actually did a really interesting video on bikes and ebikes and how good/bad they are for the environment, now and looking towards the future.
Tldw; a vegan on an ebike is one of the most energy efficient modes of transportation on the planet, haha.
I get what you meant but just to avoid any confusion, it’s not the most energy efficient but the one with the smallest carbon footprint.
I assume that’s the case but I’ll watch the video and get back in case I’m wrong (I might not have left this comment if I wasn’t wont to forget about leaving a comment at all but people can reply and get me notified to update this in a day or two)
Does that factor in the enormous clouds of Smug that they emit?
I wish riding a bike in my city was easier, it’s basically suicide with more steps, my municipal policy forces bikes to share the road with motorist and it’s 90% stroads.
On the upside, dying saves a lot of carbon emissions /s
I could have these problems. Bad policies are better than no policies. Driving with any vehicle seems like suicide in India.
Where can I purchase one of these fancy Eurostar trains ?
I assume the author says Eurostar because it’s essentially a French TGV service that extends to London. The rest of our rail network is made up of constantly overwhelmed, Victorian-era infrastructure and is perpetually on the verge of shutting down, especially in the North of England and in the South East. So unlike France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc we only have a single, modern, high-speed railway, and it’s called Eurostar.
It also has National Rail and the London Underground on there separately. Seems the data is UK-centric which makes it weirder that they referred to petrol cars as “gas”.
Heh. "Gas Car, 170 tonnes / km / passenger, based on occupancy.
Most cars are single-occupancy despite having 4 more seats. So they’re RATED at 170/km/p but they’re more 850t/km each car during rush hours with no car-pooling.
And no one car-pools, effectively.
I really hope they’re right and it’s grams, not tons.
Ferry kinda sus.
Ferry super sus. Like a cruise ship, but starts and stops more? Doesn’t make sense.
A ferry is dense. It packs a lot of people into a small space on boats that were made to effectively haul people between two docks at a relatively short distance.
A cruise ship is huge, and given the amount of amenities they host, the density of PASSENGERS on board is vastly lower, yet has a lot of added weight from service crew, pools, dining halls, water slides, slot machines and what not.
Ferries can be electric too. Never heard of an electric cruise ship before.
deleted by creator
There is many small ferries in the UK which are basically a floating platform that get’s dragged through the water on a cable. If you run that off an electric motor those can be quite efficent.
Maybe they are thinking about those.
What is producing the electricity? If it’s clean energy, maybe. It shouldn’t be “thinking about those,” but rather trying to compare similar load to energy cost per person. If the underground, rail, etc can’t beat something that has to push through water that doesn’t really make sense.
What is producing the electricity?
That question can be applied to all the electric forms of transportation of the chart though.
But if we assume it’s the about the same energy mix as for the tube or trams, then it isn’t that surprising. Volecity is major factor in the drag equation and ferries move very slow but have high capacity, so even with the additional drag, moving on cables should be closer to rail efficency than to a ship which has to use propellers.
It’s still odd that it’s below those other two, but I would have assumed they are in the same ballpark.
What about a private plane like a Gulfstream?
Edit: so I decided to do some wild napkin math, but Trump, for example, has a B757, which uses older and most likely more inefficient engines. So take a short haul flight which is 246g/km/person, and a standard short haul flight can hold about 130 people. So if he only travels with say 13 people on board (a tenth of that) it would increase the amount tenfold and give 2,460 g/km/person.
I think the goes a long way in showing that the 0.1% blow things out of the water comparatively speaking.
The 0.1% definitely blow things out of the water comparatively speaking.
It’s still important for the 99.9% to know where our co2 emissions are coming from so we can find ways to reduce our own emissions and put pressure on the 0.1% to reduce theirs as well.
Spreading awereness is also important so more people will know the impact their choices have on global co2 emissions which will hopefully encourage them to make smarter choices and pressure the 0.1% and corporations to reduce their emissions as well.
What is the definition of short haul vs medium haul flight?
IATA defines short haul as a total flight length under three hours, medium haul as 3-6 hours, long haul as 6-16 hours, and ultra long haul as 16 hours and above.
ICAO has other definitions, and doesn’t consider medium haul as a separate category. Some airlines and airports also have their own, distance-based definitions.
😑 reading this on a short haul flight for work
So 113 x
This is just from a small part of my city.
I’m surprised everyone is wearing a helmet.
Well it’s the law.
😳 Is that a daily occurrence?
Pretty much during morning and afternoon rush hours.
At least half of these are not available in my general area for my normal travel.
I’d like to be able to make better choices, but my options are limited by factors beyond my control.
Like what motorcycle are they looking at, like sports or commuter? Because my commuter motorcycle (KTM 390 duke) gives me like 30-35km/L easy, no way a hybrid is more efficient. Got it once to 45km/L by falling into the slip stream of the vehicle in front of me, but that shit is dangerous.
This is from memory from a while ago, so take it with a massive block of salt. Although motorcycles are a lot more fuel efficient than most other forms of transport, they don’t have to comply with the same kinds of emission standards and as a result have “nastier” emissions. Again from memory I thought that was primarily NOx, which I thought was more of an air quality thing than a greenhouse gas thing, but maybe there is something else as well?
Because my commuter motorcycle (KTM 390 duke) gives me like 30-35km/L easy, no way a hybrid is more efficient
My prius c can get 20 km/l at the minimum, about 25 km/l on average, and about 30 km/l on a really good day. Winter is the worst due to the need for the heater on startup. Granted, it’s not a plug in hybrid, so it isn’t getting the maximum efficiency as it could.
Currently trying to switch over to a bike, gonna try to get it a mid drive upgrade. Should have a fraction of a percent of the carbon output of my car.
I can understand L/100 km and MPG but km/L is just wack.
3l/100km then
This is good, but neglects the bike and ebike categories, which a considerable amount of the world also uses.
Total carbon?
Carbon per person?
Carbon per mile?
I’m going to venture a guess and say it’s grams of CO2e per passenger over 1km
The prophecy is true
How many passengers in the car?
I walked down to the store and it was 526 cabin footprints.
I would like to know how Plug-in hybrids are calculated.
Just recently there was another report how they pollute more in real life than previously expected. Source
Thank you. I will saving this to my phone.
