• 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.