• Gsus4@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Embedded CO2 for a bike is like 100kg (that’s what 4 trees in your backyard absorb a year), which over a lifetime of 30 years is negligible.

      • tomi000@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You say negligible, but what you mean is negligible on a scale of the CO2 emissions we are used to. Human body CO2 emission is just as negligible on that scale.

        Ill do some quick maths: According to the first source on google, an average human burns 3kcal/min walking and 5kcal/min biking at 15km/h, which is about 3x as fast as walking. Considering that, we arrive at a difference of 1.33kcal/min by walking instead of biking. Estimates suggest 1.3g CO2-equivalents per kcal for average consumption (much lower for vegans), so thats 1.73g CO2/min. 100kg CO2 for bike production would take 57,800min of walking, thats almost 963h. An average bike will probably be used more so I guess you are right and bikes are indeed more efficient than walking :D

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          CO2 emissions that fall within natural cycles in terms of scale, are negligible.

          • tomi000@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree, but the question at hand was not whether one or the other was negligible, but which is more efficient: walking or biking.