CO2 impact of bikepacking travel or an event

[jameso]

https://badlands.cc/ultracycling-carbon-footprint/

I found this while browsing CO2 footprint info out of interest in the cost of flying-to-ride point. While I'm not sure if directing CO2 impact per flight / rider to an event is helpful (as many of us will fly to ride something if not one event then another) it's still an interesting breakdown with detail on transport and hotel averages, etc and as we know, flights are the majority of the impact.

They got further than I did for the TNR. I had a cost for offsetting flight averages for the 150 or so riders but wasn't sure about the validity of the various offset schemes. In not knowing what to do, plus the pandemic breaking a cycle, I've just stopped flying to ride. It's a lot easier to see a future where I only pedal to places - isn't that the whole point of cycle travel? Doesn't really seem right to fly around to go places and think what a lovely world it is.. I've flown as far as Canada to ride in the past and to Europe quite a few times (Nepal was tagged onto a work trip both times but still, it's a lot of air miles). That 1 return flight between UK and Europe is the same CO2 as what's said to be the max per person to avoid the impact of warming. I also think focusing on one aspect eg flights or SUVs might be a distraction from looking at the total we're responsible for and how we lower it - but clearly a flight to Europe stuffs anything else you might be doing. Not an easy one to face up to when we spend a lot of time looking at images of 'dream destinations'.

You can't stop a destination having appeal because it looks amazing but you can alter how you perceive and value places that are more easily accessed? Or you can travel further less often by different means - trains, pedalling only if you have time, etc.

Are event organisers partly to blame? (I think we are but I don't know quite how or where the line is drawn)

How long until leisure flights are not socially acceptable?

[Richard G]

How long until leisure flights are not socially acceptable?

Already happening to some extent. I'm lucky enough to be able to afford to offset my CO2, but I'd have some meaningful angst if I couldn't.

I wish train travel was more bike friendly, but it really isn't, at least not near me. I miss the old guard carriages where at least I knew my bike wasn't potentially getting in someone's way (and there was no fear of there not being room).

[Lazarus]

How long until leisure flights are not socially acceptable?

Some of us have not done them for decades for the reasons you mention[ and I number 2 in my life* ]
We have been at the point where humans feel guilty but wont act for a number of decades now and i dont think we will act when we are angle deep in sea water.

[Bearbonesnorm]

How long until leisure flights are not socially acceptable?

In the greater scheme, I don't think it ever really will. Not many members of the population will readily give up their 2 weeks in the sun ... self sacrifice really isn't that catchy a tune for most.

The cynical side of me also enjoys the spectacle of seeing people fly all over the world to stand in a room and tell other people not to fly all over the world.

[javatime]

Interesting to see this raised, has definitely been the elephant in the room. I will never ride them, but I am increasingly uncomfortable with events like the Great Divide and Silk Road with some riders flying a long long way to participate.

Would like to know more about carbon offsetting schemes from anyone who uses them. Can they ever act as a get get out of jail card ?

[Bearbonesnorm]

Would like to know more about carbon offsetting schemes from anyone who uses them. Can they ever act as a get get out of jail card ?

I was just thinking the same. Are they not in someway simply a conscience easing exercise for those who can afford it - after all, they don't actually change behaviour?

I'll openly admit that I'm slowly (but ever accelerating) reaching the point where my hope is that our species will entirely snuff itself out before making the planet uninhabitable for other far less dickish life. If you consider how long we've actually been here and look at what we've 'achieved' in that time, it kind of makes you think our demise is and always was inevitable ... it's in our very nature.

[Richard G]

Would like to know more about carbon offsetting schemes from anyone who uses them. Can they ever act as a get get out of jail card ?

I was just thinking the same. Are they not in someway simply a conscience easing exercise for those who can afford it - after all, they don't actually change behaviour?

Yes and no. At the end of the day there are a couple of legit options out there that do what they say on the tin (actually capture the CO2 rather than just pay for credits for forests / savings etc that already exist). Same goes for not being able to 100% give up plastics, so I donate to companies that are cleaning the oceans / rivers.

Technically if enough money was poured into those solutions right now we could achieve something meaningful... but it's never going to happen, mostly because poorer people can't, and richer people tend not to give a feck.

But yeah, in reality I'm just easing my conscience by not making the problem worse.

[Lazarus]

Technically if enough money was poured into those solutions right now we could achieve something meaningful.

Carbon capture is not carbon offsetting and like nuclear fussion we are only[always] a decade away from it working
Offseting is doing something "nice" whilst doing something bad - think plant a tree for every mile you driver that sort of thing - its not scalable and its never ever going to work - in the sense it will stop C02 levels rising.
https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/ins ... etting-con
The idea we can continue as we are and technology will allow us to "offset " the consequences is just not true. We need a massive and unpalatable change in how we mange humanity that inevitably means less shiny bikes bits and less world travel not to mention hundreds of other unpalatable choices humans , even those who care, dont and wont make- like Stu i am not optimistic for humanity

I'm just easing my conscience by not making the problem worse.

What I try but realistically my gas powered 25 year oid car is just ruining the planet slower rather than achieving any good and whilst i can heat my home with " waste" wood its not a solution for everyone - and is terrible in terms of particulates.
There are no simple or clear solutions even when you deeply care, [ and you need 6 Billion other people to do the same.

I am not calling out any individual and i include myself in this ; i am not free of this and am also part of the problem

[jameso]

^ Sure, same here and the bigger picture is 'this whole thing' here isn't sustainable for 6 billion people.

Technically if enough money was poured into those solutions right now we could achieve something meaningful... but it's never going to happen, mostly because poorer people can't, and richer people tend not to give a feck.

Businesses need to #bemorepatagonia, capitalism might be the only thing that could generate enough change, if you could also change or re-balance the rewards people got from it.

Not many members of the population will readily give up their 2 weeks in the sun ...

Or time on a bike or the ski slopes.
I'm a ray of sunshine today aren't I It's just a growing realisation of how great bike touring really is as well as the flipside of all that travel to ride/race stuff. Touring can have almost no negative impact, it's available to most of us from our front door in any time we have spare, it increases our awareness of our surroundings and rewards us for going a bit further each time. I've a frustration with so much of the industry surrounding it who can't find ways talk about those aspects well because it's not as marketable as something more epic/distant (The Racing Collective being an exception in all that in terms of events and message). So travel overseas becomes a normal part of it all - it's a normal part of a beach holiday too but we should be closer to all this and have the ideal alternative right here in front of us.

[RIP]

Have mentioned before that the very words "cheap flight" leave me stone cold. Cheap maybe but there's always a payback for these things.

[Bearbonesnorm]

I think John touches on this - there's no such thing as 'a bit green'. Something either is or it isn't and if it isn't then it's part of the problem. not the solution.

Trouble is, everything is part of the problem. As an example, the more people who discover the joys of cycle touring from their door, then the more bikes will be sold. In turn that's more manufacturing and more long distance transport required. Obviously it's better than owning a car but in reality, that person will still likely own a car, so them discovering touring might actually be worse than if they never did.

See what I mean ... there's no winning unless life changes pretty much beyond recognition and we would wipe ourselves out sometime before that actually happened.

EDIT: something I've just remembered which I thought was interesting and it ties in a little, was that, running an old 2 stroke strimmer, saw etc for half an hour creates more harmful pollution than driving a modern diesel car 2000 miles. I don't know whether it's true but it could be.

[JackT]

Interesting discussion. I've a lot of thoughts that I can't really set out in detail, but in brief, I think it's good that some event organisers are thinking about this and reflecting their concerns in their rules for participation, that offsetting isn't the solution, and doorstep adventures probably are the solution, that train travel with a bike can be a hassle but can also be part of the adventure.

How long until leisure flights are not socially acceptable?

In the greater scheme, I don't think it ever really will. Not many members of the population will readily give up their 2 weeks in the sun ... self sacrifice really isn't that catchy a tune for most.

An academic study found that "the top 20% of flyers are responsible for 75–76% of all flights. If we had been able to consider emissions, this figure could be even higher if longer flights are also more concentrated at the top of the distribution of flights". There are many people who don't fly at all. As you'd expect, propensity to fly is closely correlated with income.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7X21000466

The era of cheap flights and mass air travel is relatively recent. If people could manage to do amazing journeys on bikes in the years before EasyJet and Ryanair came along, why can't we now? Well, many of the people on this form already do - and that's why I like it here.

[jameso]

As an example, the more people who discover the joys of cycle touring from their door, then the more bikes will be sold. In turn that's more manufacturing and more long distance transport required. Obviously it's better than owning a car but in reality, that person will still likely own a car, so them discovering touring might actually be worse than if they never did.

That got me thinking.. The manufacturing CO2 cost of a bike is suggested to be 100kgs or so but the transport may be many times that - I don't know the figure, a lot of fuel to power a ship but you could fit 2.5 million bikes on an av container ship. I suspect that if the bike enables or inspires 2? or 3? domestic holidays replacing an average return flight at up to 1000kg CO2, it could become carbon negative fairly easily?

[jameso]

If people could manage to do amazing journeys on bikes in the years before EasyJet and Ryanair came along, why can't we now?

So true. And if the RSF ways can be romanticised or appreciated now in a time when we have all the tech we need and more, so can other aspects of that era.

Goran Kropp on his way from Sweden to Everest to do a bit of climbing -

[Bearbonesnorm]

it could become carbon negative fairly easily?

Maybe James, I honestly don't know.

[Richard G]

Technically if enough money was poured into those solutions right now we could achieve something meaningful.

Carbon capture is not carbon offsetting and like nuclear fussion we are only[always] a decade away from it working

To be clear, I'm specifically talking about capture. Which we can do currently, but it's expensive, and not large scale.

But obviously the more people that invest, the more likely it becomes.

[jameso]

Maybe James, I honestly don't know.

Interested to see how the numbers add up. Just thinking how you could in theory offset the carbon of a lot of things by not flying, but a bike is one of the few things that really can offer an alternative to flying somewhere.

[Lazarus]

Which we can do currently, but it's expensive, and not large scale.

Capitalism summed up in a nutshell - we will save the planet but only when we can make money out of it
I am also no personally convinced that we can use technology to get out of this mess

Future generations will view our treatment of the environment as we view slavery

[Bearbonesnorm]

Future generations will view our treatment of the environment as we view slavery

You'd perhaps think so but I don't see many 18 years olds shunning cars or not wanting to buy the latest disposable fashion items, gadgets etc. Will there be anyone left in 150 years?

[JackT]

Sometimes the most powerful motivating factor is our idea of ourselves, of the kind of person we are, the kind of person we aspire to be. I could easily drop litter and convince myself I'd not done any real harm - after all there's already litter everywhere and my bit adds a negligible amount and it'll soon blow away. Likewise, a campfire, what difference does a square foot of scorched ground make? After all the world's a very big place. But I like to see myself as the kind of person who 'leaves no trace': it's an ethic and an aesthetic with which I identify.

I don't quite know how to square 'leave no trace' with sitting on an aircraft that's putting of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, given all I know about climate breakdown, melting glaciers, sea levels, acidifying oceans, habitat loss etc etc.

Everything we do leaves a trace of some kind. It appears that everyone has their own way of deciding which traces are acceptable to leave and which are not. These judgments seem quite personal / arbitrary to me.

Back to jameso's original post, it can only be a good thing that the organisers of this event are evaluating the climate impact of the event, are making positive changes at the margin, and are being as open as they can be about their analysis and actions.

[In Reverse]

How long until leisure flights are not socially acceptable?

There's a decent chance we'll have hydrogen engines in Easyjet planes by 2030 so that ^ may never happen

[jameso]

I don't quite know how to square 'leave no trace' with sitting on an aircraft that's putting of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere

- Agreed Jack, that's it.

[johnnystorm]

Maybe James, I honestly don't know.

Interested to see how the numbers add up. Just thinking how you could in theory offset the carbon of a lot of things by not flying, but a bike is one of the few things that really can offer an alternative to flying somewhere.

Assuming that Trek's figures were anywhere near correct didn't they say that using a bike (Trek Marlin) to replace 400 miles of car driving made it carbon neutral. So replacing flights should be similarly efficient?

[whitestone]

That got me thinking.. The manufacturing CO2 cost of a bike is suggested to be 100kgs or so but the transport may be many times that -

That seems pretty low to me - unless it's just the actual assembly of all the bits in the factory. It doesn't appear to account for the extraction and shipping of the raw materials (iron ore for steel, bauxite for aluminium or the materials for carbon fibre) and production of the actual bits.

Just worked out that for Cath and myself to get to Llanbrynmair and back this weekend, total journey of 460km we'll generate 50.14kg of CO2 (that's assuming the vehicle is still as efficient as claimed by the manufacturer during testing), rather curiously the 5speed gearbox version of the vehicle produces 5% less emissions than the 6speed.

Using those figures, since we don't have any other candidates, at 0.109kg/km I'd have to ride 100/0.109 = 917km to offset the manufacturing cost of a bike, over double what Trek claim.

A quick, i.e. unverified, search brought up this:

"According to the European Environment Agency, rail travel accounts for 14 grams of CO2 emissions per passenger mile, which is dwarfed by the 285 grams generated by air travel, and the 158 grams per passenger miles from journeys in cars."

That 158g/mile isn't that far off the claimed 109g/km for our van so the figures probably aren't too far out. I used to commute 20km each way either by bike or by train. So the train journey "cost me" 175g each day meaning I would have had to ride into work for 285 days to offset the carbon cost of the bike. That's actually a hard sell especially when compared to the financial savings: it was £5 return on the train so my £600 commuter would only take 120 days of commuting to break even. I rarely (as in maybe four times in five years) used the car. The car to bike comparison is even more stark: that commute by car generates 3.95kg of CO2 so just 25 days of riding would offset the bike. Of course there were all the other benefits like health and fitness that came from riding the bike.

[jameso]

Assuming that Trek's figures were anywhere near correct didn't they say that using a bike (Trek Marlin) to replace 400 miles of car driving made it carbon neutral. So replacing flights should be similarly efficient?

Sounds about right but I think that's just the manufacturing impact of the bike in Asia, not inc the shipping and distribution. If cars are approx 120g CO2 per km average it's about 800km or 500 miles driving to equal the general figure for CO2 produced in making a bike. US cars maybe a bit higher output?

That seems pretty low to me - unless it's just the actual assembly of all the bits in the factory. It doesn't appear to account for the extraction and shipping of the raw materials (iron ore for steel, bauxite for aluminium or the materials for carbon fibre) and production of the actual bits.

It does seem low relative to car use, and seems low when you see a factory making steel tubes or an aluminium frame heat treatment facility - but I'm going off 'that's a very big oven..' impressions not any manufacturing efficiency or costs knowledge.

Seb Stott is a smart guy who compiled this for BikeRadar, there's a report quoted in the article and that's where the ~100kg cost I had in mind came from.
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/long ... al-impact/

This article has it at more than 100kg, suggests 240kg -
https://slate.com/technology/2011/08/ho ... print.html

It’s tough to say exactly how much greenhouse gas making a bicycle requires, since none of the major manufacturers has released data on their energy consumption. Independent analysts have used a couple of different measures. Shreya Dave, a graduate student at MIT, recently estimated that manufacturing an average bicycle results in the emission of approximately 530 pounds of greenhouse gases (PDF). Umbra Fisk, a research associate at Grist, came up with a total carbon footprint of one ton of carbon dioxide-equivalents for every $1,000 of manufacturing cost. These two estimates intersect at a bike that costs $265 to build—well within the range of manufacturing costs for the wide variety of bicycles on the market.

$265 of manufacturing would seem to to include everything from raw materials through to the bike packed in a box. The frame and fork and factory assembly of parts in a basic but decent entry level hybrid could be around $20-30 of manufacturing costs - as a very approx estimate taken from BOM breakdowns. So 1/10th - even if my estimates were off there's still a big difference there.

A range of 100-240kg is roughly equal to 1000km driven in cars with emission figures ranging from averagely efficient to 'pretty bad but not an Aston Martin or F350'.