Active modes of travel are not “zero emitters” when it comes to greenhouse gases, according to a new study. Researchers conclude that while cycling is better than walking, active travel may result in people eating more. This could mean that switching from driving to car-sharing could reduce emissions more than switching from driving to walking. (But it probably doesn’t.)

The study, published in the Scientific Reports (link is external) journal, aimed to demonstrate that assessments of emissions associated with different forms of travel should take into account emissions associated with that person possibly eating more in response to their increased physical activity..

While conceding that, “studies of active transport do not currently provide us with definitive information on the extent or nature of compensatory food intake in response to increased walking and cycling,” researchers assume that a person who shifts from a passive mode of transport (e.g. driving) will eat a little more.

They base their calculations about the emissions cost of this on Mike Berners-Lee’s 2010 book, The Carbon Footprint of Everything. This estimated that a mile cycled in the United Kingdom generates emissions of between 65 gCO2e and 2,800 gCO2e, depending on what the journey was powered by (bananas or air-freighted asparagus).

Clarifying this detail, they write: “The notion that energy expended from a cycle ride may be substituted directly by air-freighted asparagus is far-fetched, but underlines the point that there is a high carbon cost of modern food systems.”

The study estimates that in the UK, emissions resulting from walking could range from 0.05 to 0.25 kgCO2e/km and from 0.03 to 0.13 kgCO2e/km for cycling.

(It’s worth pointing out that they found wide variability between countries for this, representing nearly a five-fold difference between the most and least economically developed countries.)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that emissions from cars range from 0.15 kg/km to 0.26 kg/km based on a ‘well-to-wheel’ life cycle assessment.

Based on the extreme ends of these estimations, the researchers at one point write that, “Taking account of walking and cycling emissions may suggest that car share schemes could have a bigger positive emissions impact than increasing walking.”

This – we are astonished to report – is the detail the Daily Mail has picked up on, resulting in its headline, “Walking to work is WORSE for environment than car sharing because it makes you eat more leading to higher greenhouse emissions, new study finds.”

In reality, the study only really concludes that emissions from food required for walking and cycling are “not negligible” in economically developed countries and that they should therefore be considered when estimating net-emissions impacts from transport interventions.

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-better-walking-saving-planet-finds-study-274461

On 24/08/2022 05:45 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Active modes of travel are not “zero emitters” when it comes to greenhouse gases, according to a new study. Researchers conclude that while cycling is better than walking, active travel may result in people eating more. This could mean that switching from driving to car-sharing could reduce emissions more than switching from driving to walking. (But it probably doesn’t.)
>
> The study, published in the Scientific Reports (link is external) journal, aimed to demonstrate that assessments of emissions associated with different forms of travel should take into account emissions associated with that person possibly eating more in response to their increased physical activity.
>
> While conceding that, “studies of active transport do not currently provide us with definitive information on the extent or nature of compensatory food intake in response to increased walking and cycling,” researchers assume that a person who shifts from a passive mode of transport (e.g. driving) will eat a little more.
>
> They base their calculations about the emissions cost of this on Mike Berners-Lee’s 2010 book, The Carbon Footprint of Everything. This estimated that a mile cycled in the United Kingdom generates emissions of between 65 gCO2e and 2,800 gCO2e, depending on what the journey was powered by (bananas or air-freighted asparagus).
>
> Clarifying this detail, they write: “The notion that energy expended from a cycle ride may be substituted directly by air-freighted asparagus is far-fetched, but underlines the point that there is a high carbon cost of modern food systems.”
>
> The study estimates that in the UK, emissions resulting from walking could range from 0.05 to 0.25 kgCO2e/km and from 0.03 to 0.13 kgCO2e/km for cycling.
>
> (It’s worth pointing out that they found wide variability between countries for this, representing nearly a five-fold difference between the most and least economically developed countries.)
>
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that emissions from cars range from 0.15 kg/km to 0.26 kg/km based on a ‘well-to-wheel’ life cycle assessment.
>
> Based on the extreme ends of these estimations, the researchers at one point write that, “Taking account of walking and cycling emissions may suggest that car share schemes could have a bigger positive emissions impact than increasing walking.”
>
> This – we are astonished to report – is the detail the Daily Mail has picked up on, resulting in its headline, “Walking to work is WORSE for environment than car sharing because it makes you eat more leading to higher greenhouse emissions, new study finds.”

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Hilarious..!

All of the above nonsense flows from the mistaken view that how a
citizen lives (as long as is lawfully and considerately) is the business
of other, self-appointed, people.
>
> In reality, the study only really concludes that emissions from food required for walking and cycling are “not negligible” in economically developed countries and that they should therefore be considered when estimating net-emissions impacts from transport interventions.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-better-walking-saving-planet-finds-study-274461

In short, lifestyles "have" to revert to what they were in
mid-nineteenth-century Britain (at best).

You are welcome to try to sell it to the electorate (as long as you do
so honestly and do not pretend that life was better in 1835 than it is
in 2022).

the funny part i found, last night i cycled 40 miles from bournemouth to portland, including quite a few hills, average speed 16.9 mph, two hours 22 minutes. The same route on my motorbike, 1 hour 20 minutes. So the engine powered vehicle is just one hour faster over 40 miles. Thats insane in my head. A car would actually be the same as the motorbike, if not slower in day time due to traffic, traffic lights etc, but would be costing far more than my 300 quid carrera. The bicycle is by far the most effecient and the one we should be looking to get more people onto safely. If you wanted to walk that same distance, it would take you at least ten hours, if not more. Bicycles are amazing designs.

Nobody is a zero emitter, but active travel, esp cycling is the most efficient from a calorie per mile measure. Petrol/diesel is far more inefficient. And whilst engaged in active travel those calories aren't ending up clogging arteries that then have to be processed by the NHS at huge expense to us all.

Exactly. If the journey is going to be made, then the most efficient form of transport should be used, which is inevitably the bicycle for short trips. A point which seems to have completely escaped the notice of the authors of this study.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-better-walking-saving-planet-finds-study-274461

It can be taken that everyone has spotted the statistical sleight of hand
used in the above report?

The one where CO2 produced is measured in g/km for cyclists, and cars and
walking in kg/km?

--
Spike

David9694 wrote:

really not sure why we're even debating this one...

Because the msm will use it to try to undermine cycling's green credentials; when they get around to noticing cycling at all that is. Has there been any coverage of Bike Week? I've seen none.

On 24/08/2022 06:53 pm, Spike wrote:

> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> [Del Boy Mason] wrote:
>
>> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-better-walking-saving-planet-finds-study-274461
>
> It can be taken that everyone has spotted the statistical sleight of hand
> used in the above report?
>
> The one where CO2 produced is measured in g/km for cyclists, and cars and
> walking in kg/km?

:-)

Typical fairy-cyclists!

Given obesity is such a problem in our society, I think it's fair to say a good proportion of the population eat significantly more calories than strictly required to fuel the mode of transport they use.

For me, when I cycle, using active transport, I become a lot more conscious of my choice of food, as I want to reinforce the health benefits of this exercise. In contrast, when not cycling, I pay less attention, and at times, over eat - more so than when I cycle.

While I understand more energy is required to fuel active transport, if we accept many people over fuel regardless (obesity), I don't think it should be assumed that there needs to be any actual increase in calory consumption, at all, from active transport.

Comparing obesity levels in active versus passive travellers could suggest whether passive travellers really do eat less calories. I think it's far too simplistic, given psychological and other factors, to assume higher daily calory usage leads to higher calory consumption, unless we assume that everyone only eats exactly what they burn in any given day, which would be a simplistic yet typically academic way to consider the issue.

Surely it's a blatantly obvious statement to say that to eat more is to increase one's carbon footprint? Isn't the conclusion, as stated elsewhere, that to reduce carbon footprint, we all, active and passive travellers together, should eat food sourced eat less carbon intensive methods? Not that we should sit in a car versus exercising?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> David9694 wrote:

> really not sure why we're even debating this one...

> Because the msm will use it to try to undermine cycling's green
> credentials; when they get around to noticing cycling at all that is.
> Has there been any coverage of Bike Week? I've seen none.

Do you mean Big Week?

The campaign by the USAAF and Bomber Command to bring up the Luftwaffe so
they could be decimated ahead of Overlord?

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Given obesity is such a problem in our society, I think it's fair to say
> a good proportion of the population eat significantly more calories than
> strictly required to fuel the mode of transport they use.

That reminds me of a comment made by a cyclist about the time of the Snake
Pass trespass earlier this year. Apparently he got to the pub too late for
the bacon baguettes, so had a steak sandwich and a couple of pints. On
getting home his evening meal was plenty of potatoes and sausages.

I’d suggest that if he wants to live longer and more healthily, he chucks
the bicycle and learns something about diet and nutrition, instead of
loading his bicycle with cameras, monitors, GPS, Hornits, blinding lights,
phone mounts and the rest, and reading the rubbish at road.cc and the like.

--
Spike

It's the dragging around of a fairly pointless one and a half tonnes of stuff that gets me. I have a relatively heavy bicycle, but it still weighs less than an "executive" car seat. Trust the Daily Mail, or rather don't....

Couple of observations if I may be so bold; a 25 stone sedentary driver, is likely to eat more than a 10 stone cyclist as the driver has a huge metabolism to support which consumes calories despite them being inactive.
Secondly the Daily Mail completely ignores the point that extra walking, which may involve extra calorie 'use', will greatly lower the possibility of disease (diabetes, obesity, cancer, stroke, heart attack etc etc etc) and therefore 'Protect the NHS'. How quickly recent lessons are forgotten.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's the dragging around of a fairly pointless one and a half tonnes of
> stuff that gets me. I have a relatively heavy bicycle, but it still
> weighs less than an "executive" car seat. Trust the Daily Mail, or rather don't....

> Couple of observations if I may be so bold; a 25 stone sedentary driver,
> is likely to eat more than a 10 stone cyclist as the driver has a huge
> metabolism to support which consumes calories despite them being inactive.

> Secondly the Daily Mail completely ignores the point that extra walking,
> which may involve extra calorie 'use', will greatly lower the
> possibility of disease (diabetes, obesity, cancer, stroke, heart attack
> etc etc etc) and therefore 'Protect the NHS'. How quickly recent lessons are forgotten.

I’m not sure who wrote that piece, but it’s unusual to find a senior
consultant that is simultaneously expert in so many fields. A rare bird
indeed.

--
Spike

No one should be powering their cycle ride with air freighted asparagus, British asparagus is a fine and indeed gourmet product, it is in season at the moment, though is about to come to an end. Wonderful fat spears.

I believe that there is about a week to go in the recognised season, at least according to the internet.

I occasionally visit the Hardwick Veg Shed, I ride there, it is shockingly muddy in parts during the winter but at the moment the route is dry and busy, or it was last time I went. Just up the Thames. Unfortunately quite expensive, but grown well and very tasty. We might be coming out of the spring gap, I could only get their strawberries last visit but they were fantastic. As the summer gets going, becoming the autumn and then winter the growing gets good. Their sprouts are fantastic, their squashes are strange. It is thier pumkins I carve at Halloween. Their Lady Balfour potatoes just make the best roast spuds, though I haven't managed to get them for Christmas for the past couple of years. My slaw is not the same without grated black radish. I only buy the stuff they have grown on the estate and ride it home. The food miles could only be lower if I could grow it myself.