Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

keith.seas.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 55 posts

Re: Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

#31

Post by dakrootie »

thinkmilitant wrote: post #16
millettjon wrote: post #13

This completely ignores the fact that grain fed factory cows are a problem but pastured cows actually store carbon in the grass roots and also reduce emissions by not tilling, and using less fossil fuels, fertilizers, and herbicides. Protein doesn't directly fuel exercise. Most people on paleo type diets target a specific number of grams of protein for muscle maintenance and use carbs or fat to fuel the exercise. So…

As someone who has been shifting their diet over to vegetarian for environmental reasons, I am interested in this. Can you provide any support for your claim that pasture cattle are less damaging then factory cattle? I know that pasture raised cattle are not sustainable to feed the masses, but at this point I would just be glad to enjoy a guilt free steak every now and again. ;-)

I don't know if this answers your question, but do read The Vegetarian Myth when you get a chance. It is one of the most profound and wonderful books I've ever read about the subject of sustainability/ethics for vegetarianism vs. omivoreism. Lierre Keith, while rather radical, makes a beautiful argument as to why meat (in moderation and humanely raised) is preferable to a veg-only diet. This is one of the top five books that's changed the way I see the world. Cheers!

Re: Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

#32

Post by dakrootie »

antisthenes wrote: post #29
squidfood wrote: post #10

In my city, they've just taken some two lane roads down to one lane and eliminated car turning lanes, to add bike lanes. Those bike lanes see maybe 1 bike every 15 minutes, while the cars are now significantly more backed up (I've noted an extra 5-10 minutes of idling to travel a mile during busy times, no idea how many cars total in a day). Without denigrating the need for bike safety and separated lanes, I really w…

Not enough incentives to use bikes in the policy then. Not all countries and people are the same, so what maybe be enough incentive for 1 person or culture ( oh, they made bike lanes? I'm going to bike to work now! versus oh, the road still has cars on it? I'm not biking, because it's not safe! ) is not enough for another. Either way, the only one to blame here is the local government for either not doing enough rese…

Dude, I'd actually pay a toll to have safe, isolated bike lanes wherever I wanted to go. If there's not enough demand/money for bike lanes I'm sure others would pony up too. The lack of human-navigable roads in my neck of the woods (Florida) is astounding.

Re: Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

#33

Post by jogjayr »

gbrown wrote: post #6
d--b wrote: post #2

It doesn't count what the impact of extracting gasoline is, or the effect of transporting it on a supertanker. And what about feeding all those people working in the oil industry? and the energy used by lobbyists to convince people to drill in Alaska. And aren't they eating meat themselves? And the BP leak? How much km of cycling did that cost? This kind of study is completely bogus.

Not to mention whether exercise is substituted. What about a driver who runs on a treadmill, or does some equivalent amount of exercise without getting transportation in return? Plus, did I miss something, or was food not counted as a renewable resource? While agriculture is not carbon neutral, it's also not a 100% carbon source.

Not to mention that all the additional biking will improve people's health, thereby reducing the costs (and emissions) of healthcare and medication.

Re: Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

#34

Post by timthelion »

squidfood wrote: post #22
timthelion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really comes down to a "moral health of the citizenry". In Germany and the Netherlands these programs work. In the US, less so. If you were to take a %100 data based approach, and not take into account the choices of people, you would no longer be studying sociology but rather mind control. If you have a way, that actually is effective at changing peoples behavior, regardless of what the people want then that is…

In this city's case, they've dragged their heels on public transport - nothing near what I found in Amsterdam, for example. Slowing down car drivers by 5 minutes will not get them to switch to the public transport that would add 30+ minutes. Include better public transport, and more people would switch. But throwing up obstacles without providing alternatives doesn't do the job (and based on my city, there would have…

This is a difficult one. The selfish behavior of Americans does seem to be causing a real world crisis. Per capita, a few countries (the middle east and the US) produce significantly more CO2 emissions per capita than the rest of the world [1]. This is expected to cause everyone significant problems and is already taking a major toll on the forestry and fishing industries. Theres not a lot that the rest of the world can do to put pressure on the US. A war would only create more polution and wars suck. Trade embargos are difficult given the US's geopolitical possition. This may well be, in the end, a tragedy situation of game theory in which everyone loses and there is no way out. There is no real way to privatise the atmosphere to get rid of the tragedy of the commons going on there.

It actually kind of reminds me of the old "nuclear deterent" theory. The idea that if you attack me, I'll create nuclear armagedon. If there was a way for Germany to produce so much CO2 that everyone would die, then maybe Germany could tell the US, "if you don't stop producing CO2, we'll produce a lot of it ourselves". Really, I don't know though. So far, I'm not optimistic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

Re: Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

#35

Post by andylei »

alephnil wrote: post #8

You can't turn off the body, and you need exercise to stay healthy. Thus it does not really make sense to compare cycling to driving like the article does. If you are driving to the gym, and then using the energy you would have used biking at the gym, you will cause the combined emissions of both cycling and driving. The only way to get away from that is to be more passive, so that you would require less food, and th…

if you read the article as an argument about eating meat, its a lot more compelling than it is as an argument about biking.

Re: Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

#36

Post by millettjon »

thinkmilitant wrote: post #16
millettjon wrote: post #13

This completely ignores the fact that grain fed factory cows are a problem but pastured cows actually store carbon in the grass roots and also reduce emissions by not tilling, and using less fossil fuels, fertilizers, and herbicides. Protein doesn't directly fuel exercise. Most people on paleo type diets target a specific number of grams of protein for muscle maintenance and use carbs or fat to fuel the exercise. So…

As someone who has been shifting their diet over to vegetarian for environmental reasons, I am interested in this. Can you provide any support for your claim that pasture cattle are less damaging then factory cattle? I know that pasture raised cattle are not sustainable to feed the masses, but at this point I would just be glad to enjoy a guilt free steak every now and again. ;-)

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss574

Also Google Soil Carbon Cowboys.

There used to be many tens of millions of bison living on North American grasslands.

Re: Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

#37

Post by maxerickson »

timthelion wrote: post #14

Things the author failed to include in the study: 1) Road land use, a bike lane is narrower than a car lane. 2) The energy invested in building the car. Aluminium parts, which cars are made of, have very significant energy investments. 3) CO2 emissions of asphalt used to pave the roads that cars drive on. 4) CO2 emissions of the cars tires vs the bikes tires 5) Calorie consumption of the person driving/riding in the…

The recent Ford F-150s with aluminum bodies were huge news. The frame is still steel.

Personal vehicles are mostly made of steel.

Re: Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

#38

Post by timthelion »

maxerickson wrote: post #37
timthelion wrote: post #14

Things the author failed to include in the study: 1) Road land use, a bike lane is narrower than a car lane. 2) The energy invested in building the car. Aluminium parts, which cars are made of, have very significant energy investments. 3) CO2 emissions of asphalt used to pave the roads that cars drive on. 4) CO2 emissions of the cars tires vs the bikes tires 5) Calorie consumption of the person driving/riding in the…

The recent Ford F-150s with aluminum bodies were huge news. The frame is still steel. Personal vehicles are mostly made of steel.

And steel actually produces even more CO2 to cast. Carbon steel, melting point 1500C vs aluminium, just 600C. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals...

Re: Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

#39

Post by toomuchtodo »

andylei wrote: post #35
alephnil wrote: post #8

You can't turn off the body, and you need exercise to stay healthy. Thus it does not really make sense to compare cycling to driving like the article does. If you are driving to the gym, and then using the energy you would have used biking at the gym, you will cause the combined emissions of both cycling and driving. The only way to get away from that is to be more passive, so that you would require less food, and th…

if you read the article as an argument about eating meat, its a lot more compelling than it is as an argument about biking.

TL;DR Adding a specific species of seaweed to bovine and sheep diets reduces their methane production by 99 percent and 70 percent, respectively. Easy win. Far easier than convincing the developed world to cut meat consumption. (EDIT: I have not explored the difficulty level of cultivating this species of seaweed in an aquaponics setup, but its on my TODO list.)

"An obvious solution to the problem, of course, is to simply give up raising cattle and eating beef. Gidon Eshel, professor of environmental physics at New York’s Bard College, in a recent research paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calculated that each American who drops beef-eating saves us the annual emissions equivalent of burning 61 gallons of gas or 580 pounds of coal. Better yet, go vegan, since dairy cows not only produce more methane than beef cattle, but outnumber them by a ratio of 10 to 1 in the United States.

Or we could start adding a sprinkle of seaweed to livestock feed.

The crucial research, by Robert Kinley of CSIRO and Rocky De Nys, professor of aquaculture at Australia’s James Cook University, and colleagues, involved testing some 20 different species of seaweed in artificial cow stomachs—that is, a mix of rumen and microbes that mimics the behavior of a cow stomach in a bottle. When grass or feed is added to this in vitro tummy, fermentation takes place and the scientists are able to measure the resulting methane output. In the presence of Asparagopsis taxiformis—described by De Nys as “a real stand-out” among the tested seaweeds— methane production was cut by 99 percent. Experiments in sheep showed that if dried Asparagopsis taxiformis seaweed made up just 2 percent of total feed, methane emissions drop by 70 percent. It can be added as a sprinkle, De Nys says, just as you might add a smattering of herbs to roast chicken."

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/th...

Research paper: http://www.publish.csiro.au/an/AN15576

Re: Climate Impacts of Biking vs. Driving

#40

Post by maxerickson »

timthelion wrote: post #38
maxerickson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recent Ford F-150s with aluminum bodies were huge news. The frame is still steel. Personal vehicles are mostly made of steel.

And steel actually produces even more CO2 to cast. Carbon steel, melting point 1500C vs aluminium, just 600C. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals...

The specific heat is also important, not just temperature.

You also have to look at refining (it takes a huge amount of energy to produce raw aluminum) and recycling (steel is really, really recyclable).

Post reply on HN