Bicycles and the environment

[CycloErgoSum]

I had a look through this forum and couldn't find anything relating to this subject. My apologies if it has been covered.

We've all heard the proscriptions to 'ride more and drive less' from both a fitness and an environmental standpoint. Many people these days express satisfaction that they're helping both themselves and the environment by riding a bike for fitness or commuting.

Whilst it's true that riding bicycles is far less damaging to the environment than driving a car, just how damaging is the bicycle industry?

Bikes are made almost entirely from materials sourced in mining and a majority of them are produced in developing countries whose CO2 emissions are rising disproportionately to the rest of the world. Also, many more bicycles are made every year than cars, therefore offsetting any end-user energy savings.

Has anyone noticed how top-end bikes are a lot more expensive now? There can be only two reasons for this: greater labor time and costs, and use of more exotic, expensive and refined (read: polluting) materials. Is the 'less is more' approach to bicycle weight actually having a negative environmental impact?

It's clear that just riding a bike might make you feel like you're doing something to help the problem, but a much more substantial approach is needed and the recent Copenhagen shenanigans were depressing for all concerned except perhaps for that city's prostitutes (or maybe them too; politicians are real pigs). Some authors also argue that a wholesale 'return to nature' approach wont save the environment as we're too far gone for that. Essentially, there's just too many of us around consuming and farming was the original environmental 'sin' (see review of Stewart Brand's new book here) http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/appleyard_12_09.html

So, what do you think? I have no knowledge on the subject beyond these few ideas presented here. Anyone have any knowledge on the bicycle industry or is an environmental scientist? Where do you stand on the climate change debate?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I had a look through this forum and couldn't find anything relating to this subject. My apologies if it has been covered.

We've all heard the proscriptions to 'ride more and drive less' from both a fitness and an environmental standpoint. Many people these days express satisfaction that they're helping both themselves and the environment by riding a bike for fitness or commuting.

Whilst it's true that riding bicycles is far less damaging to the environment than driving a car, just how damaging is the bicycle industry?

Bikes are made almost entirely from materials sourced in mining and a majority of them are produced in developing countries whose CO2 emissions are rising disproportionately to the rest of the world. Also, many more bicycles are made every year than cars, therefore offsetting any end-user energy savings.

Has anyone noticed how top-end bikes are a lot more expensive now? There can be only two reasons for this: greater labor time and costs, and use of more exotic, expensive and refined (read: polluting) materials. Is the 'less is more' approach to bicycle weight actually having a negative environmental impact?

It's clear that just riding a bike might make you feel like you're doing something to help the problem, but a much more substantial approach is needed and the recent Copenhagen shenanigans were depressing for all concerned except perhaps for that city's prostitutes (or maybe not even them). Some authors also argue that a wholesale 'return to nature' approach wont save the environment as we're too far gone for that. Essentially, there's just too many of us around consuming and farming was the original environmental 'sin' (see review of Stewart Brand's new book here) http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/appleyard_12_09.html

So, what do you think? I have no knowledge on the subject beyond these few ideas presented here. Anyone have any knowledge on the bicycle industry or is an environmental scientist? Where do you stand on the climate change debate?

Some of us ride because we like it and are not interested in what it is costing the environment (others will strongly disagree). Before you start looking at man made climate change - consider that almost the entirety of North American was at one time covered with ice, little chance that man had anything to do with the ice age at all at that time, obviously something melted the ice covering North America (again not man made). I have no doubt that man has caused dirty air (it is particularly bad in my area) through farming and industry, but changing the temperatures is another matter.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Some of us ride because we like it and are not interested in what it is costing the environment (others will strongly disagree). Before you start looking at man made climate change - consider that almost the entirety of North American was at one time covered with ice, little chance that man had anything to do with the ice age at all at that time, obviously something melted the ice covering North America (again not man made). I have no doubt that man has caused dirty air (it is particularly bad in my area) through farming and industry, but changing the temperatures is another matter.

Climate change is the big polarising issue of our times. It is a political issue and possibly even a religious one too, for one's view of it places us in to one camp or the other.

I am not a scientist and I cannot even make sense of my phone bill, let alone meteorological, environmental and climate data. One can only listen to the experts and the experts say we are responsible for altering the earth's climate because of our voracious burning of the earth's contents since the industrial revolution and mass-farming.

Having said that, as young psychology and philosophy student I studied the epistemology of science. There is a way of thinking and operating in science called 'paradigms'. The paradigm is the orthodox theory of the moment and if you, as a young scientist trying to attract research grants or applying for a place in the academy, do not acquiesce to it, you find yourself out on your ear. Is the climate change debate the current paradigm or is it the truth? Time will tell.

Perhaps the ugliest aspect of this whole saga though is the denial and other self-defense mechanisms people display by saying 'I don't care.' How self-important can people be? If you face a challenge and are presented with evidence to support a change, it's a moral failing to ignore it. Apparently we're important enough not to have to worry about it, yet not important enough to be causing the damage in the first place.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

I have no doubt that man has caused dirty air (it is particularly bad in my area) through farming and industry, but changing the temperatures is another matter.

That dirty air is the greenhouse effect and is apparently what's doing all the damage. Carbon-based gases are trapped in the atmosphere and heat it up like a big a big greenhouse.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Perhaps the ugliest aspect of this whole saga though is the denial and other self-defense mechanisms people display by saying 'I don't care.' How self-important can people be? If you face a challenge and are presented with evidence to support a change, it's a moral failing to ignore it. Apparently we're important enough not to have to worry about it, yet not important enough to be causing the damage in the first place.

When it comes to riding a bike I just do not care if it pollutes more for the carbon than the aluminum - I enjoy riding. Also, I doubt the the bike produces as much pollution over a life time than a motorcycle would if used for the same amount of mileage.

Considering every aspect of ever decision can make one stagnant and lifeless, sometimes you have just to go out and do something without considering whether it costs more to produce one bicycle over another.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

That dirty air is the greenhouse effect and is apparently what's doing all the damage. Carbon-based gases are trapped in the atmosphere and heat it up like a big a big greenhouse.

Again, what melted the ice covering North America?

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Again, what melted the ice covering North America?

The earth heating up, evidently. It wasn't our doing then, but it appears it's our doing now. The last ice age lasted 100,000 years and thawed gradually. It didn't begin and end melting within any Cro-magnon's lifetime. We are now seeing a rapid change by geological terms, so fast we can actually see it happening in our own lifetimes.

In the little I've read it gets very arcane very quickly. I was reading something about 'Atlantic isotopes' and their influence on the melting of icebergs. Apparently the isotopes are affected by the atmosphere. There's no other natural cyclical cause or relationship that could be heating the place up but modern industry.

It's kind of scary and very challenging to have to change. Instead of seeing it as an imposition and source of anxiety, we should try to use it as a uniting force as it affects all of us. For too long we've been divided by our interests.

 

[TheDude]

This probably belongs in the Cafe. You have already gotten the global warming deniers (and there are those that still claim the earth is flat). I'm going to leave that alone, the evidence is there and no need to repeat it.

A bicycle requires processing of what, about 20 pounds or less of material. Steel frames probably are the least resource intensive and lease pollution generating, and carbon fiber the most - but for the quantity of resources that goes into a bike, I wouldn't worry about the difference. I have chosen to commute by bike rather than car or bus, I'm sure I saved the energy to make my aluminium frame in the first month of riding it compared to driving that month.

If you are really worried, pick up a used bike. Everything is a sunk cost.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

This probably belongs in the Cafe. You have already gotten the global warming deniers (and there are those that still claim the earth is flat). I'm going to leave that alone, the evidence is there and no need to repeat it.

A bicycle requires processing of what, about 20 pounds or less of material. Steel frames probably are the least resource intensive and lease pollution generating, and carbon fiber the most - but for the quantity of resources that goes into a bike, I wouldn't worry about the difference. I have chosen to commute by bike rather than car or bus, I'm sure I saved the energy to make my aluminium frame in the first month of riding it compared to driving that month.

If you are really worried, pick up a used bike. Everything is a sunk cost.

Well said. When isolating the climate change issue as it applies to cyclists, the problem is not with the end-user, the cyclist. It is more a problem for the bicycle-makers and how 'clean' their operations are. Could we see a time when the green credentials of a bike maker is a major selling point? I think Cannondale are trying this out at the moment.

 

[LugHugger]

Again, what melted the ice covering North America?

Interesting line of argument. I guess that the Mojave Desert happened to be the most unlikely location for nuclear fission to happen.

Weird

 

[elapid]

CycleErgoSum, your OP brings up some interesting points. However, the major components of a bike, whether it be carbon fiber, steel, or aluminium, are used in such higher volumes in the manufacture of other transport (cars, trucks, motorcycles, and even boats) that I doubt that the increased production of bikes would account for a fraction of a percent of the pollution being produced during the manufacture of other means of transport.

I would also disagree with your premise that more exotic and expensive material = more refined = more polluting. Carbon fiber is the material of the moment, but this is not more refined or more polluting than either steel or aluminium. In fact, I would imagine the production process for both steel and aluminium to be much more pollutant than that for carbon fiber having seen both steel and aluminium smelters first-hand. Carbon fiber is just a more expensive raw material than either steel or aluminium. (I could only find one site discussing the pollutant potential of carbon fiber [www.anguil.com/cs_temp.php?indid=66] and none comparing carbon fiber to either steel or aluminium).

While more bikes are being manufactured, bikes are also probably kept for much longer than cars. The average lifespan of a car is 13 years, but some manufacturers are offering trade in deals for much younger cars (5-10 years). I cannot find the average lifespan for a bicycle, but considering their simplicity, corrosion resistance, and the lifetime warranty offered by many high end bike manufacturers, I would hazard a guess that it is longer than 13 years. I would also guess that bikes are turned over not because of them breaking down, but because the owner wants a new bike because they are lighter, faster, etc. Their old bikes would still be in the bike pool rather than being crushed into a little box and recycled like dead cars. Look at how many old bikes are used by university students or are being converted to single speeds. There is always new life in an old bike, but not so for old cars.

Do we as cyclists reduce the carbon footprint? Only if we commute or use our bicycle for household chores that we would otherwise use a car for, such as shopping. While most of us enjoy cycling for exercise and racing, I would venture that a smaller percentage of us regularly use our bike for chores. I used to commute everyday, but I am now a wimp and do not commute throughout the Canadian winter. I am embarrassed to say that I also rarely use my bike to go shopping or go out, certainly much less than I used to. This is where the big difference is made, and this is where people in North America and Australia are woeful compared to people in Europe. Most European cities have an excellent infrastructure for cycling, the bikes are designed for commuting, shopping and social occasions, and these kind of activities are ingrained in European culture. However, the automobile is ingrained in North American culture and cars are frequently used to make trips of less than 5km rather than bikes. While this is sad, town planners have contributed to this phenomenon by moving affordable housing further and further away from workplaces and amenities and not implementing sensible public transport alternatives and thus making car travel almost essential.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

CycleErgoSum, your OP brings up some interesting points. However, the major components of a bike, whether it be carbon fiber, steel, or aluminium, are used in such higher volumes in the manufacture of other transport (cars, trucks, motorcycles, and even boats) that I doubt that the increased production of bikes would account for a fraction of a percent of the pollution being produced during the manufacture of other means of transport.

I would also disagree with your premise that more exotic and expensive material = more refined = more polluting. Carbon fiber is the material of the moment, but this is not more refined or more polluting than either steel or aluminium. In fact, I would imagine the production process for both steel and aluminium to be much more pollutant than that for carbon fiber having seen both steel and aluminium smelters first-hand. Carbon fiber is just a more expensive raw material than either steel or aluminium. (I could only find one site discussing the pollutant potential of carbon fiber [www.anguil.com/cs_temp.php?indid=66] and none comparing carbon fiber to either steel or aluminium).

While more bikes are being manufactured, bikes are also probably kept for much longer than cars. The average lifespan of a car is 13 years, but some manufacturers are offering trade in deals for much younger cars (5-10 years). I cannot find the average lifespan for a bicycle, but considering their simplicity, corrosion resistance, and the lifetime warranty offered by many high end bike manufacturers, I would hazard a guess that it is longer than 13 years. I would also guess that bikes are turned over not because of them breaking down, but because the owner wants a new bike because they are lighter, faster, etc. Their old bikes would still be in the bike pool rather than being crushed into a little box and recycled like dead cars. Look at how many old bikes are used by university students or are being converted to single speeds. There is always new life in an old bike, but not so for old cars.

Do we as cyclists reduce the carbon footprint? Only if we commute or use our bicycle for household chores that we would otherwise use a car for, such as shopping. While most of us enjoy cycling for exercise and racing, I would venture that a smaller percentage of us regularly use our bike for chores. I used to commute everyday, but I am now a wimp and do not commute throughout the Canadian winter. I am embarrassed to say that I also rarely use my bike to go shopping or go out, certainly much less than I used to. This is where the big difference is made, and this is where people in North America and Australia are woeful compared to people in Europe. Most European cities have an excellent infrastructure for cycling, the bikes are designed for commuting, shopping and social occasions, and these kind of activities are ingrained in European culture. However, the automobile is ingrained in North American culture and cars are frequently used to make trips of less than 5km rather than bikes. While this is sad, town planners have contributed to this phenomenon by moving affordable housing further and further away from workplaces and amenities and not implementing sensible public transport alternatives and thus making car travel almost essential.

Good post but I think you have to also consider no bike or bike part is only carbon fiber. It's also a bunch of glue, which is very energy intensive to make and quite 'dirty', in terms of disposal.

 

[mherm79]

interesting thread.

a couple of thoughts that come to mind. Carbon footprints I 'think' are calculated from start to finish of a product. so we would have to include:

1. Extract of raw materials,
2. transportation of raw materials,
3. production,
4. packaging,
5. transportation of final product to store,
6. CO2 impact of storage (including at the bike shops, lights, heating/cooling etc),
7. Transportation to customer,
8. maintenance (storage and replacement parts such as tyres, chains, brake pads. some are highly recyclable, others not)
9. disposal (again includes transportation, CO2 created as materials degrade over time.)

Taking the world average for each would give us the avg CO2 per bike.

We then offset CO2 attributable to the average trips for work / chores / entertainment as mentioned by CycleErgoSum to give us the footprint.

If we where able to do that I think we'd find that bikes aren't as friendly as we think because we don't use them enough in place of other modes of transport.

with that said, i'll also add that I'm sick to death of joining fun rides and seeing the 100km plus of road side covered with empty drink bottles, food wrappers and tubes from thoughtless cyclist that think the same road they enjoy the beauty of when riding should be made to look like a tip.