zlacker

But use transport daily. Ironically, at least in the typical North American city, you can’t do anything without a machine to take you over long distances.

In the rural area, you maybe travel once a week to stock up but otherwise don’t need transportation at all.

>>random+(OP)
The bicycle machine emits nothing and can be used pretty easily in cities.

>>Whoppe+k
Emits nothing only if you ignore the engine. Some studies suggest that human CO2 emissions increase eightfold while exercising.

>>Whoppe+k
> The bicycle machine emits nothing

The tires and some types of brakes still emit micro plastics.

>>random+g1
A car is more or less efficient than cycling, depending on the food, car and source of electrical power, and manufacturing CO2 production. The bicycle production emits a less CO2 than the car production, tilting the comparison at the beginning of the lifecycle of both.

The GHG emissions associated with food intake required to fuel a kilometre of walking range between 0.05 kgCO2e/km in the least economically developed countries to 0.26 kgCO2e/km in the most economically developed countries.

A Tesla model 3 according to WLTP test cycle uses

0.191 kWh / km * 0.434 kgCO2e/kWh = 0.083 kgCO2e / km

Sources

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66170-y https://www.tesla.com/de_DE/support/european-union-energy-la... https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/co2-emissionen-pro-kil...

>>lo0dot+He
The alternative is to stay close to home, not drive a vehicle of any kind. But the North American city, strangely, scatters everything over large distances, making life impractical without a machine to carry you.

>>random+g1
(I will reply in 9gag-style)

Hi, CO2 and work-out Captain here. I don't know how much CO2 you typically exhale when you do push ups but it is nothing near the exhaust fumes by your 5lt gasoline SUV built in 1990.

>>HenryB+3h
It’s funny how travel has become so ingrained into the urban psyche that it doesn’t occur that not travelling is an option.

It’s especially funny as you would think the whole reason people want to live so close to other people is because they don’t want to travel far to engage with other people… Yet it is always about how to get as far away from them as possible, whether by bike or train or whatever it takes.

>>random+ij
They are running away from the landowners of the city centre.

>>pxeboo+ge
How much? If that's 1% of car (making this up), would this be a real practical issue?

By the way this argumentation is great to sabotage any argument to keep the statusquo. When someone argues for a way better solution, tell why it's still not 100% perfect to make people to believe it has the same flaws than the previous state. Repeat until someone finds a 100% perfect solution (hint: there is never such a thing).

>>random+g1
Which made me learn today that electric bikes might produce less emissions overall than traditional bikes https://www.bikeradar.com/features/long-reads/cycling-enviro...

>>random+g1
Riding a bike for 2 miles emits roughly half as much CO2 as does walking the same distance, and a car with an ICE produces an order of magnitude more (even ignoring manufacturing).

https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archiv...

>>teamon+Jz1
But, as always, the question is not what mode of transport is more efficient, but why are you travelling at all?

Historically, the whole reason for a city's existence was so that everything was right there. But cities, especially North American cities, for someone reason have to decided to become rural areas for people too poor be able to afford to live in actual rural areas.

It's bizarre.

>>maigre+au1
> By the way this argumentation is great to sabotage any argument to keep the statusquo.

Exactly. The direction we need to head is obvious: Stop treating cities like wanna rural areas for poor people and turn them into actual cities, where everything is right there and travel isn't necessary – not by car, not by train, not by bike, not by anything.

But, indeed, a move from the status quo is uncomfortable, so we get silly things like "But, but, my bike is better than a car!", completely missing the forest for the trees.

>>maigre+au1
I am not arguing against biking, just pointing out that with current materials, there is still pollution emitted. As you said, cars are likely exponentially worse.

Shoes have the same problem, except for some very expensive artisan brands. They may actually be worse per mile than biking.