this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
350 points (96.5% liked)

Europe

5646 readers
1396 users here now

News and information from Europe ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to any of the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org
350
Cycling is ten times more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities (theconversation.com)
submitted 19 hours ago by HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org to c/europe@feddit.org
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] Kekzkrieger@feddit.org 51 points 16 hours ago

What else would help is making companies fucking liable (and not just that, their CEOs directly!) for the environment damage they cause.

Oil spill because of neglected maintenance ? Straight to jail for the responsible CEO.

Fake tests for car emmissions? Straight to jail.

The high pay of the C-levels is often argued with the big responsibility they have, when in reality the have none. They should be directly and personally responsbile, thats their job.

[โ€“] HubertManne@piefed.social 21 points 18 hours ago

Im really annoyed they did not do an electric bike thing in the ombudsman bill and just did electric cars.

[โ€“] shekau@lemmy.today 16 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Or at least use e-bike or e-scooter

[โ€“] Owlboi@lemm.ee 7 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

only 10x? cycling has 0 climate impact besides the manufacturing of said bycicle itsself.

electric cars not only require 100x crazier manufacturing but also run on electricity which is made in power plants.

frankly you couldve said a million times more important and it would still be a low ball.

[โ€“] x00z@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago

There's tire particles that are released and occasional grease and repairs. So it'll never be 0 climate impact after manufacturing. Just a little nitpick.

But it's still the best choice.

[โ€“] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Electric bikes ruin the climate impact ratio. They are still much better than electric cars tho.

[โ€“] hsr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 hours ago

Yes, e-bikes take more resources to manufacture, especially the battery, but:

While manufacturing an e-bike is more resource intensive than a pushbike, lifetime CO2 emissions of an e-bike can be lower, because a motor is more efficient than human muscles.

If someone has an E-bike, depending on how they use it, it's possible that it will replace more car trips than a pushbike would. E-bikes also require less physical fitness, which again can increase uptake among people who aren't as fit or have health problems, for example.

This video is worth a watch: Simon Clark - How bad are electric bikes for the environment?

[โ€“] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 17 hours ago (6 children)

Paradoxically there are actually some indications that the calories burned while bicycling, especially from a meat-heavy diet, lead to more carbon emissions per mile than powering an electric car with anything other than coal. https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1108357_electric-cars-vs-bicycles-which-has-a-higher-carbon-footprint There are still a wide variety of societal benefits to more bicycling but it's not quite accurate say "zero" impact I think.

[โ€“] Wahots@pawb.social 2 points 1 hour ago

That's why ebikes are considered better than analog bikes by some metrics. Outside of electrified trains, there's pretty much nothing as efficient as an ebike for distance /calories burned + electricity usage (minimal, compared to EVs)

https://youtu.be/HW5b8_KBtT8

[โ€“] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 10 hours ago

We've made fun of that weird propaganda piece when it came out though.

[โ€“] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

It's like these people are eating minimum amount of food in the first place.

[โ€“] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 6 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

That completely ignores the fact that a human being needs at least half an hour to one hour of light exvercise / physical movement daily to stay healthy at all. If you do not cycle or run, you'd need to go to a gym / fitness studio.

Also, if you care at all about CO2 emissions, eating vegan or vegetarian food is the way.

Also, driving 3 or 4 kilometers to a supermarket to get a veggie pizza needs way more energy and CO2 for the drive, thsn for the food itself. You can compute that from the fuel consumption of a car - about 180 Grams of CO2 per person per kilometer, so 1.4 kilograms for 4 kilometers each way.

Also, often the danger of cycling is stressed. That's rubbish because of the health effect of physical exercise - the most dangerous aspect of modern life is lack of exercise, and if you use a bike instead a car you are wayyy less likely to die of cardiovascular problems, which are the real killer, not accidents.

[โ€“] Nalivai@lemmy.world 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The link to the raw data is dead, and it contradicts some other research, and also is an article on something that is called"green car reports". Those are indications of maybe not the most unbiased data

[โ€“] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

"At the extremes, a vegan cyclist will produce only 5% of the emissions a conventional pickup truck will produce, while a meat-loving cyclist will actually produce 42% more GHGs than the most efficient EV. " http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2022/ph240/schutt2/

I'm sure the exact numbers are a little open to interpretation but I've seen it mentioned more than once in different places. That said, I absolutely try to commute on my ebike as much as possible

[โ€“] tivi@lemm.ee 6 points 11 hours ago

I saw this page some long time ago. I also find it hard to believe actually. One big thing to note is that even though this is on a Stanford domain, it is probably written by a student "Submitted as coursework for PH240". It is also not peer reviewed, so experts haven't challenged the methodology or results. One criticism which comes to my mind is that the manufacturing of an electric or ICE car usually emits several tons of CO2e, while the bicycle manufacturing emits around 100 kg as cited on the website. Usually the car emissions are then calculated by assuming that the car will be used for some 100 thousand kms, thus the per km CO2 emissions are relatively low. This might not be the case for someone using their car only in cities or not owning a car but using train and bus for long distances.

[โ€“] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's feels very absurd to see that electric car could be almost twice as efficient with co^2 emissions than vegan riding bicycle, especially considering moving the vehicle 18 times as heavy (driver included).

Would be interesting to see the data used, but looks like the source sheets have been deleted:(

I'd imagine optimizing the bike and rider's physique and diet would likely affect the results dramatically. Dutch style grandma bike is hella lot less efficient than a commuter built for higher speeds, and a rider with more time in the saddle in long term is going to be more efficient on it than a (irr/)regular commuter

[โ€“] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You're making so many assumptions about the diet and equipment used by your statistically significant cyclist that it's almost cherry-picking, my dude. You realize that, right?

[โ€“] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, that was literally a cherry picking example, showing that in ideal situation, something a person could in theory work for, could be a lot better than the given numbers suggested.

This was all based on assumptions because there was no data available anymore used for that mini study, just laying out thoughts there for my own amusement.

[โ€“] mierdabird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 15 hours ago

Definitely a ton if variability in what you'd actually put out depending on bike type, speeds, diet etc

[โ€“] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

It would be cool if it was an option everywhere. I've cycle commuted. Hell I commuted on a skateboard for two years. But it is not an option where I live now. We can't let mandates get ahead of real world options. Let's make it an option everywhere. The next Dem president will champion this, right?

Right?

Edit just realized this was posted to the europe community. I've lived there a couple of years. You're light years ahead of anywhere else in the world on this stuff. Good job! But don't forget the rest of the world needs at minimum a few decades of massive infrastructure investment to come anywhere near what you already have. If we punish people for not riding bikes where riding a bike is impossible, we only lose support.