Not so sure about that, when peddling hard up hill they emit methane.
Wotan
cyclists
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Wotan
Sponsored Links
cyclist produce more CO2 when they are cycling than a regular person since they are breathing harder and faster, so don't tell me they're not increasing emissions..
On yer bike!
there was an advert with a fish on a bike a year or so ago would that help??
i think insurance should be compulsory!!
Sponsored Links
Eddie, Eddie, Eddie,...Each to their own ...and all that....
BUT ....on the other 'hoof' id say 'hay' thats 'nayeeeeeaa' problem
ColJack said:
This is true. Moreover, although plants consume atmospheric CO2, food is not carbon neutral. It is, mostly, grown with the aid of factory produced fertilizer, harvested with the aid of a tractor and, finally, delivered to the shops by lorry.
So here's an interesting question: Given that we sometimes need to travel from A to B, what mode of transport creates the least amount of extra CO2? Cycling is four times more efficient than walking but what about driving? Has anybody actually done the sums on this? How does the petrol used by the car - including the cost of extracting the oil, refining it and getting it to the pump - stack up against the extra food consumed by the cyclist? I wouldn't be at all surprized if somebody told me that the car generates more CO2 but what about a far more efficient means of transport, namely the train?
An individual train journey (or a bus journey, for that matter) may well be more energy efficient than the same journey by car. IF there are enough people on that train (or bus) so that their individual shares of the total energy consumption is lower than that of a car. AND IF the train routing is reasonably direct so that the passengers aren't having to travel twice as many miles zig-zagging across the country to get to their destination. AND IF each passengers onward journey from the station to their final destination is neither too long nor taken using an energy inefficient method of transport, such as poorly used bus service or a taxi.
BUT, since buses and trains need a whole infrastructure to support them and have to run to timetables, you also have to factor in the energy usage of all of the services which run with few or no passengers, the energy useage of buses and trains returning to depots and workshops when not in service, as well as things like the transmission losses in the power lines on electrified tracks (which happens 24 hours a day, whether trains are running or not), the energy used by staff getting to work to man stations and drive trains, and the energy used to keep stations lit and heated.
When you factor all of these in, then the private motor car - which only consumes energy when it's doing something useful - doesn't look quite such the bad guy.
BUT, since buses and trains need a whole infrastructure to support them and have to run to timetables, you also have to factor in the energy usage of all of the services which run with few or no passengers, the energy useage of buses and trains returning to depots and workshops when not in service, as well as things like the transmission losses in the power lines on electrified tracks (which happens 24 hours a day, whether trains are running or not), the energy used by staff getting to work to man stations and drive trains, and the energy used to keep stations lit and heated.
When you factor all of these in, then the private motor car - which only consumes energy when it's doing something useful - doesn't look quite such the bad guy.
In which case, the outright winner is ---
The bike!
Sponsored Links
