Overstating cycling’s carbon credentials
OPINION: By the end of Wednesday, my cycling to and from work, and to meetings, had saved the 32 kilograms of CO2 emissions that I would have pumped out had I been in a car.
At least that’s what the Aotearoa Cycle Challenge log of my activities told me.
Could that really be correct? I don’t ride to cut my carbon footprint. That’s a happy by-product.
I ride to stay fit, never have to diet, and to save money, and also because I enjoy being out in the air and weather.
It turns out while I may be a carbon-lite commuter, I’m not quite so virtuous as made out by the challenge website.
The calculation of the 32kg of CO2 I did not emit by not driving 158 kilometres, took no account of the energy I was using to propel myself along.
There are a couple of lungbusting hills on my 14km round trip between Epsom and Ponsonby. I have to carry gear, and my lunch, nd often my laptop.
Because I cycle, I eat more, but the carbon footprint of my extra calorie intake is not included in the challenge calculation.
Researchers at Manchester University recently carried out the first ever carbon footprint of sandwiches.
Had I fuelled by trip with a British bacon and egg sandwich, I would have used a fuel equivalent to driving 19kms, the UK’s Guardian newspaper reported.
Fuelling my trips with meat would bring a higher carbon footprint than with veges, Greeneatz.com says.
Cereal and milk (my chosen breakfast) was reasonably low carbon, but if I wanted to keep my cycling footprint really low, I would fuel myself with lentils.
Cyclists don’t mind feeling a little bit virtuous about their carbon footprints.
But we don’t need to have the carbon credentials of cycling oversold to us.