Cycling is the most sustainable form of transportation, but the bicycle is becoming increasingly damaging to the environment. The energy and material used for its production go up while its life expectancy decreases.

A great read+great magazine.

TL;DR: Old bikes last way longer than new bikes. From a production standpoint, steel bikes have a smaller carbon footprint than aluminum or carbon frame bikes. Conventional bikes use fewer consumables over their usable life than electric bikes. Among electric bikes, cargo bikes use the most resources to run and maintain.

  • @cactus@beehaw.orgEnglish
    8•1 year ago

    I’m not really convinced that lifecycle carbon emissions are the right measurement for most people in the US (and maybe other developed countries, idk). A car is already a given for most people and is a possible option for every trip you take so the best bike is the bike that replaces the most car trips.

    A steel frame bike might release less lifetime ghg than an aluminum frame cargo ebike but it doesn’t take that long for the ebike to catch up if the limitations of the steel frame means choosing the car more often.

    napkin math:

    (ebike_mfg_ghg - steel_mfg_ghg)/(car_ghg_per_mi - ebike_ghg_per_mi) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=(320kg-35kg)%2F(400g%2Fmi-(41kg%2F15000km))

    An aluminum ebike only has to replace 720 miles of car trips that the steel frame wouldn’t to cancel out it’s additional manufacturing emissions. In my experience that really not a crazy number when ebikes:

    • expand your radius of effective trips
    • reduce the time it takes to make trips
    • expands the number of destinations (don’t want to be too sweaty or tired)
    • can safely carry much more (grocery or shopping trips)

    In the long term with changes to infrastructure or density (or if you already live in NYC or similar) then I think lifetime emissions of bikes starts to become a more effective measure to watch.