• @NateNate60@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 years ago

    The bike’s production has a non-zero carbon footprint. A very small footprint, but one that is there nonetheless. The carbon footprint of walking is negligible in comparison.

    • @yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      102 years ago

      Shoe production has a non-zero carbon footprint, especially with the vast majority of shoes being a “single use” product (i.e. not resoleable) and with a very limited amount of miles

      • Uranium3006
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        I’m surprised by how fast I wear holes in my shoes from walking.

    • Uranium3006
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      this is true, although they all round down to 0 when compared to car travel so past a certain point we don’t have to worry about it

    • @SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Debatable, and largely depends on a person’s diet and some other factors like how much travel is getting done. If someone is fueling their biking (or walking) by flying in beef from the other side of the world, I think it is pretty safe to say that their carbon footprint is worse than a typical gas car, (because air travel and beef are just that bad) or if not that at least an electric car from renewables and ethically sourced materials. For everything else in between, we’d just be speculating and we’d have to factor in source and type of car fuel, and the source and type of additional food consumed by a cyclist where that “additional food” line lies exactly.

      Controlling for diet, distance and purpose of travel, I think cycling virtually always wins over walking.