Filed under: Transportation Alternatives, On Two Wheels, Green Daily, Japan
Velotaxis print now how much CO2 you saved
Next time you're in Japan, feel free to step into a velotaxi - those rickshaw-like vehicles which have become popular in some city centers - and calculate how much CO2 you saved by reading your receipt. The new receipts, which are being already provided on 17 vehicles in Tokyo and three in Kyoto, show the amount of carbon a regular car would have produced along the route just taken, if the user had chosen an ICE engine vehicle that produces 230 grams of CO2 per km instead of a human-powered vehicle. As a side benefit, velotaxis are allowed in pedestrian areas where regular cars (or some weird hybrids) would never be allowed and produce no pollution and no noise. Using the 230 number seems a bit steep for the comparison, doesn't it?
[Source: Japan for Sustainability]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
meme 5:36PM (8/19/2008)
And do they subtract from that the amount of CO2 produced in the process of producing food consumed for the calories burned by pedaling the vehicle? I doubt it. People love to pretend that our energy-inefficient means of producing and transporting food (esp. meat) and then our energy-inefficient metabolization of said food energy to kinetic energy is a freebie.
Reply
Scatter 7:00PM (8/19/2008)
Still a lot better than burning fossil fuel in a combustion engine though.
Reply
meme 8:26PM (8/19/2008)
What do you think farm equipment and transport trucks do?
Creating a kilogram of beef causes the emissions of the average European car driving 155 miles (source: National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science). It also contains around 2,600 calories. Biking hauling one of these things around at 10mph is probably a 1,000 calorie an hour activity. Hence, you'd go 26 miles to the kilogram of beef, making biking six times less efficient on a per-mile basis than driving the average European car. Now, if your cyclist is vegan, it's probably a wash. Still, I find it ridiculous how the "common knowledge" that human power is somehow more eco-friendly discounts the very significant environmental impacts of producing food. Take a look at our planet some time in Google Earth and get an idea of how ridiculously much of our planet's habitat has been turned into monoculture for producing food -- especially meat.
Reply
Scatter 3:02AM (8/20/2008)
Thanks for the patronising response. I'm fully aware that modern agriculture is a fossil fuel intensive industry.
Firstly there's no way that cycling on a recumbent bike burns 1,000 calories per hour.
Secondly, and most importantly, you're never going to fuel yourself on beef alone - using beef (the most carbon intensive of all the meats) distorts things massively.
Thirdly, cars in urban situations burn a lot more fuel than driving around for 155 miles with average emissions.
I fully agree that the carbon intensity of agriculture must be reduced and we need to move away from meats, but it is not better to tool around in a car than cycle.
Reply
meme 11:34AM (8/20/2008)
"Firstly there's no way that cycling on a recumbent bike burns 1,000 calories per hour."
If you look at the calorie consumption for biking at a moderate pace, if I recall the numbers correctly, a 140 pound person burns ~500 calories an hour at 10-13mph and a 200 pound person burns ~750. Here, you have a person hauling around a carriage, which has to significantly increase the caloric consumption. 1000 an hour seems about right. Oh, and if you want to get to your destination quickly, biking faster *dramatically* increases caloric consumption. A racing cyclist can burn thousands of calories per hour.
"Secondly, and most importantly, you're never going to fuel yourself on beef alone - using beef (the most carbon intensive of all the meats) distorts things massively."
Which is why I mentioned that it'd probably be a wash with a vegan, rather than six times worse. I figured that the average person could tell that eating a mix of meat and vegan foods would be in-between those two numbers. I guess I overestimated you.
"Thirdly, cars in urban situations burn a lot more fuel than driving around for 155 miles with average emissions."
If you have a problem with combined cycle ratings, I'm not the person to complain to.
Phil 5:41AM (8/20/2008)
I'm not an expert, but here's my estimate:
70 kg person running at 10km consumes 2.45 litres /min O2 = 14.7 l /km O2 = 21g O2 per km. Combining this with carbon means 29.1 g CO2 / km being exhaled. I know running is harder than cycling...
Condsidering that producing and transporting food to the point of consumption is CO2 intensive, this could be considered equal to burning fossil fuel in a car.
Therefore 4 people running produce more CO2 than a small diesel hatchback (100 g/km)!
Reply