• 5 Card Draw@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    And remember, biking or walking is no more environmentally sound - per person-km travelled, using a typical western diet - than a fuel-efficient automobile with a single passenger

    That’s not right. This studyabout biking vs driving with different diets. inflates the carbon output for bikers by subtracting the calories for car drivers, but not for bicyclists.

    It assumes too much and is so generalized nothing can really be gleaned from the findings.

    Walking and biking are more environmentally sound than driving

    Not everyone drives a “fuel-efficient” car (25 mpg according to the article), in fact the most popular car being sold are Ford F150s with mpg around 15-20. And even mpg is not a constant if you consider traffic or inclination.

    I 100% agree that the wealthy are killing us much much faster.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      These type of things always crack me up because we all know that just living most of us are using 2k calories or so and if you ever used one of these excersise bikes that tracks calories burned it takes tons to do like 100 calories.

    • Michaelmitchell@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also it assumes the increase in consumption from needing more calories will be uniform when my guess is it’s not. Most people would have two servings of meat a day as a base augmented by a bunch of starches, sugars and fats to cover most of the calories, and any increases would probably be snacks of those starches and sugars that are way less co2 per calorie. If your diet is a stereotypical cheeseburger and fries, and your still hungry, your probably not gonna order another 1/4 cheeseburger and 1/4 fries, you’ll probably just get another order of fries.