Comments on: How much carbon does bike-sharing save?

By: istealllamas

istealllamas — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 06:41:23 +0000

To the guy who said “CityRyde is going to sell carbon offsets to generate revenue for its business eh?” — No.

CityRyde is going to sell the methodology to generate carbon offsets to sustainable transportation initiatives in order to help them generate revenue to support the construction of sustainable infrastructure. As someone who’s actually followed the company, I can tell you that generating funding for green transportation is precisely what they’re trying to do.

By: AardvarkGumbo

AardvarkGumbo — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 21:35:43 +0000

A nice calculator for bike vs car travel emissions is here:
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/ener gy.html

In any case, firstly, organisms are quite efficient at energy production compared to machines. Second, bicycling is a very efficient mode of transport even among human-powered modes. Third, can you really believe that moving a ton or two of steel around with you in it is more efficient than moving yourself with 20 pounds of bike?

By: DaveKrentz

DaveKrentz — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:48:25 +0000

“For the carbon emitted by someone cycling themselves is higher than the carbon emitted from gasoline used to transport said people.”

But people also emit carbon while driving …

By: politicalcalcs

politicalcalcs — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:30:34 +0000

Perhaps the bike-share companies could improve their green credentials by incorporating this kind of technology on their equipment:

http://tinyurl.com/2eb9an6

(aka, Felix, meet your iPhone!)

By: ddpalmer

ddpalmer — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:59:22 +0000

So they expect $111 or more per ton. Yet before it shut down for lack of interest, the Chicago Climate Exchange (which was the only legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America) had a metric ton of carbon listed at between 5 and 10 cents, That is over 1000 times less than CityRyde is projecting.

By: ChillyWillie

ChillyWillie — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:40:03 +0000

While I agree carbon emissions should be decreased, I do not agree increasing the cost of them is fair.
7 months of the year, bikes…electric cars..walking are impossible where I live. I suppose if we all lived in Arizona it would be a great idea. Many of us live in cold climates and have to rely on fuels to survive.
I hate the fact I have to pay for a gas guzzler and heating bills that compare to some peoples rent, but the die is cast for my life and moving is not the answer.
I suppose we could all return to riding horses for transportation or just stay home on the couch until our solar panel power failed for our XBoxes.

By: Mike.Gayner

Mike.Gayner — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:47:58 +0000

“For the carbon emitted by someone cycling themselves is higher than the carbon emitted from gasoline used to transport said people.”

What complete, utter nonsense.

By: iflydaplanes

iflydaplanes — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:59:06 +0000

CityRyde is going to sell carbon offsets to generate revenue for its business eh? That is the most diabolically brilliant scheme I have heard of yet. Carbon offsets as the concept appears to me are totally arbitrary, made up devices for a way to solve a problem nobody is really sure of how to actually solve (or even if it exists) and hold no real value whatsoever. CityRyde is going to take these valueless, made up devices and “sell” them for real funds to generate revenue for its company. And not to make donations or further research for “green” technology (no where on its website does it state that is what it wants to do) but to simply cover costs and turn a profit as any private business strives to do. Who can claim that that is not absolutely genious? Ya know, I am going to go buy a Prius, feel good that I am doing my part to be “green”, then “sell” carbon offsets to those who still drive Hummers so I can pay off the car loan. Thanks for the idea CityRyde!

By: Greycap

Greycap — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 17:30:37 +0000

“… the carbon emitted by someone cycling themselves is higher …”

Exactly! That’s why societies with higher bicycle usage must consume much more fossil fuel per capita, in order to support their wasteful, bike-riding habits. Oh wait, they don’t.

The study on which this fanciful proposition is based was debunked the moment it was published. But since it provides a convenient rationalization for being fat and lazy, its appeal will never fade.

By: TimWorstall

TimWorstall — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:43:48 +0000

Sadly, this doesn’t work at all.

For the carbon emitted by someone cycling themselves is higher than the carbon emitted from gasoline used to transport said people.

The problem is that human beings are really very very inefficient consumers of energy: and we get our energy from a very inefficient process known as agriculture.

By: TSTS

TSTS — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:33:35 +0000

What a complicated solution. This post illustrates to me why carbon offsets are unlikely to do much. If you want to reduce emissions, you need to make carbon emissions more expensive, instead of handing out credits for certain fairly arbitrarily defined forms of “good behavior”. If I read a book, should I get a carbon offset subsidy? After all, I could be skydiving instead, so I am definitely saving carbon by reading, and also sequestering carbon from dead trees in my bookshelves. Or should we restrict book subsidies to former skydivers?

Carbon offsets seem arbitrary and uncheckable and easily gamed. I am afraid the main impact of such offsets is to make people feel better about themselves while the climate goes to hell.