I like this idea in principle, but the annual CO2 emissions for 2018 was about 35 billion tons. This makes the drop barely even impact our total production, let alone be enough to stop global warming.
It’s still a worthy goal, but we’d be better off focusing on bigger wins, where even a few percent of carbon reductions would dwarf this number (or pushing for both).
This may work in the Netherlands, but in my country (Canada) where it’s a 2 hour drive to the next city, it simply isn’t feasible. I do, however, wish that my city was much more bicycle friendly and we had easier and cheaper options for bikes that could be enclosed from the weather.
This may work in the Netherlands, but in my country (Canada) where it’s a 2 hour drive to the next city, it simply isn’t feasible.
It’s probably safe to assume that the vast majority of bike trips in the NL are intra-city, not inter-city. Quoted from “Cycling Facts 2018”, released by the NL government:
- Of all trips involving a distance up to 7.5 kilometres, one-third are made by car and one-third are made by bicycle.
- Of all trips involving a distance ranging from 7.5 to 15 kilometres, 70 per cent are made by car and 15 per cent are made by bicycle.
- Between 2005 and 2015, the use of bicycles in first-mile transport to the main Dutch train stations (top 16 of embarking and disembarking passengers) has increased from 36 per cent to 44 per cent.
- Bicycle use for last-mile transport also shows some (slight) growth: from 10 per cent in 2005 to 14 per cent in 2015. This upward trend has been boosted by the introduction of rental bicycles for season-ticket holders: in 2008, such rental bicycles were used for 0.5 million rides, versus 1.9 million in 2015 and an impressive 3.2 million in 2017.
It doesn’t really matter how much non-city is between your cities, you can bike in town and use public transport for long distances. If the infrastructure has been invested in.
I do, however, wish that my city was much more bicycle friendly and we had easier and cheaper options for bikes that could be enclosed from the weather.
Yes, that’s key!
We need high speed trains between cities with a car for storing bicycles
I think we need electric trains across the whole country and into the arctic and territories. Encourage more eco tourism. We can barely access northern Ontario much less the territories. This would require nuclear power, and as a byproduct, tritium which is needed for next generation fusion reactors. We could become the next Saudi Arabia.
Count me in!
It would also help if expensive private jets and yachts had to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Oil industries and others need to pay for their pollution too and certainly can’t claim government money as they pollute.
It’s kinda insane how many cruises there are that don’t even really make any stops. Just giant inefficient hotels. I feel like there has got to be a set of incentives to get rid of the majority of these a hotel with a no phone policy (or located somewhere remote) would replace 90% of the appeal.
Cruises have two major benefits (for the owner) over resorts:
- Their workers are half a step up from indentured servants.
- Land is expensive.
There are cleaner fuels available, but they cost more, so it’s only used when not in international waters as mandated by the government of wherever they’re going. Until we, as a worldwide collective, agree to stop selling and using bunker fuel, there’s not a lot that can be done, because cruise ships are basically free money for their owners.
The great news is that infrastructure to make cities more walkable and bikeable is actually really cheap. Like, compared to car infrastructure that can move a similar amount of people it’s nothing. It’s mostly an issue of political will to actually build the stuff.
Cool. Now how do we make winter more amenable to cycling?
YouTube: Not Just Bikes - Why Canadians Can’t Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can)
how do we make winter more amenable to cycling?
See chapter 5: ‘Second: proper winter maintenance’.
Here’s the thing. Everyone will bike like the Dutch and the Dutch will bike even more. It’s not a question of “if.” We are already past peak oil. There will only be more wars and more climate change. Those who survive will be relying on bikes because petroleum won’t be an option anymore and electric cars are not a real solution. Cities will become more dense, suburbs will decay, in all likelihood huge parts of the US will completely collapse because life will be impossible without cars. We know petroleum is finite and there is no other technology that will replace this.
We can prepare by rolling out infrastructure now, or we can just keep going and crash as hard as possible in to a wall. No matter what we do, we’re going to stop using gas. I hope we do it on our terms rather than waiting for tons of people to die before we fix it, but I honestly don’t have a lot of hope. But hey, some people are starting to wake up so maybe we can keep that going and save millions of lives.
I agree we’re probably past peak oil, but i think i disagree a bit on cities becoming more dense - i think video conferencing and remote work put much less impotus on people to congregate like we once did, and yes that likely will mean more strain on the roads, but i also think the electric cars will be more like a spreading out of electric storage and transmission than 100% used for transportation. (Again due to increasing popularity of remote work) having a store of electricity will be posh and help guard with the rolling brownouts due to climate change and terrorism interrupting the grid.
It’s an interesting scenario, but why count out electric cars?
Because there isn’t enough lithium in the entire solar system to actually support everyone using electric cars at least with current technology. Even with projected advancement this won’t happen. We’re going to need better batteries using different materials. We’ll probably get to a point where renewables will supplant the current tech but it’s going to be rough.
Also, it is very important to understand that we have probably been in the first stages of collapse for a while now. About 30 years. We just haven’t really noticed because the rot is uneven and even as societies collapse they still often continue to progress for some time in various ways. It’s just now becoming evident because it can no longer be ignored.
As for bikes, it won’t be so bad. We’re adaptable creature and we’ll find a way to make it work. Cities will get denser and greener, but with less cars they will become quieter and more welcoming places. Public transit options will begin to become viable for the majority of people once again. There’s some hope that necessity will help drive a better future. If there is one thing humans are good at, it is adapting to their conditions.
But that would require a small amount of effort. Seriously though I get some cities aren’t bike friendly (they could be though) but worked in a city that was pretty great for bikes. Small/medium sized manufacturing plant with a bunch of rednecks and almost all of them lived within 5 miles. Of course they were crying like hell when gas skyrocketed and other than me there was 2 people that biked. I think the best part is a good chunk drove gigantic trucks.
Although the practicality is questionable, I think the takeaway is that we will have to rethink mobility and dense environments with good cycling infrastructure will be the most sustainable ones. Public transportation which is great too, also requires a certain density to be feasible.
The practicality isn’t questionable.
Of course there are outliers and places/people it wouldn’t work for but the vast majority should be absolutely fine.
It is questionable though in most states in the US atleast. Not sure how someone who lives a 20 minute drive from the nearest town in the middle of nowhere is supposed to ride a bike around. The whole world isn’t urbanized
You’re right that currently it’s hard many places in the US thanks to suburbs, terrible zoning, car focused laws and so on.
But it’s not like biking itself is the issue here, it’s that you are in dire need of better infrastructure, zoning, public transport and laws.Yes, but even in the US, most trips are so short in distance, they could easily be done by bike.
There will always be trips and distances for which a car is the best option. It’s fine to take a car then. The call is to take a bike when a bike is feasible, which is way more often than currently. Not for all people, but for a whole lot.
Even if it’s not practical right away, that’s just a reason to vote to put people in charge who would make it practical and convenient.
It’s also possible to join a non-profit that engage with the public and local governments to make bicycle-friendly infrastructure happen.
I was in Copenhagen for a layover and left airport to go for lunch and a beer. I HAD to go get a beer. I have beer all over the globe.
Anywho…as I enjoyed the beer, it was fascinating to watch the bike lanes. Seperated from cars, own light controls…so many people. Cambridge and Boston are making improvements for sure.
From the article:
Dutch people cycle an average of 2.6 kilometres each per day. If this pattern was replicated worldwide, the study suggests, annual global carbon emissions would drop by 686 million tonnes. This mammoth figure exceeds the entire carbon footprint of most countries, including the UK, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Australia.
I think a lot of people see “cycle like the Dutch” and think it means we must all abandon all other forms of transportation. Instead this article says if every nation’s national average for cycle miles traveled per day was at least 1.62 miles, we could greatly curb our carbon emissions. 1.62 miles is a very achievable goal in my mind. It doesn’t necessarily mean every individual must reach that amount per day (unless I’m misunderstanding), it just means the average overall. Others may go more, others less. Others could forgo it entirely, opting instead for walking, public transit, electric car (if it’s the only option), or a combination of all four. I’m certain that not every single person in the Netherlands rides a bicycle, either. We need people to understand this and push for increased safety and funding for alternative forms of transit, so that people can choose to do so safely. Especially in sprawling countries like Australia, Canada, and the USA.
Yes but not everyone lives in a flatland like the dutch do, I believe I could fully transition to a bicycle if cars weren’t the top priority on my city, but I know many friends that live in parts of the city that are basically mountains.
Id say the car-centric city design is a huge factor as well. At least in the US, most large cities had electric trains, and we tore it down for parking lots. Fixing that problem would be incredibly daunting.
Id say a good step would be to have high speed rails that go between major cities, coupled with bringing some of those electric trolleys back. As a Michigander, I think a good line would be Detroit -> stops along I96 -> Grand Rapids -> Benton Harbor -> More stops along 131/I94 -> Chicago.
Ebikes are definitely the answer. Much easier to ride up hills and very accessible for regular people to start riding. Plus they are significantly cheaper than cars when you account for insurance and registration and maintenance, etc.
I live in a hilly area and got an e-bike exactly for some of these monsters. I love it. Makes me feel like a kid again. I’m not out of shape by any means but I’m 60 lbs heavier then I was and it’s just not feasible unless I train for that purpose which I’m not trying to do. I just want to enjoy my bike ride at a leisurely pace.
Now my biggest issue is where I live isn’t exactly bicycle friendly. Sucks when you can’t really move to the side for cars to pass and when the sidewalks are all skinny and uneven.
Additionally all the cars are just noisy as shit. I can’t even enjoy the ride unless I take side roads which is impossible to always do to get where I want to go.
Lastly, a lot parks around here only allow bicycles on the road and not on paved paths.
Pisses me off. Like where am I supposed to go? I just want to ride my bike around from destination to destination and enjoy nature and seeing people out and about.
Oh yeah, when you bring the price thing in to it you could buy a really nice new ebikes every year for the average cost of keeping a car legal and on the road.
That’s why bikes have gears. You should be able to go up any reasonable hill with a bike that has more than one gear.
E-bikes are another option, but not a necessity.
Ebikes have really helped flatten things out in my area. I see plenty of couples in their 70s and 80s tooling around.
However they’re not cheap, and I think there should be tax incentives for buying them.
In Canada I’ve seen some places advertising a 500$ rebate for ebikes.
In BC it’s up to $1400 scaling with income!
As a Dutchie, I can only agree. I do have to say the road infrastructure in a lot of countries will have to change too to make this feasible… I have been to Edinburgh, Scotland last week and it feels completely suicidal to ride a bike there, barely any bike lanes and a very big dislike towards cyclists.
If anyone wants to know more about how we do roads in the Netherlands, I totally recommend Not Just Bikes
I do question how this statement of carbon emissions reduction holds up with the large change towards electric bikes, but electric scales better to green energy then cars I guess.
During 40 years, everything has been done for cars. But it’s ridiculous to use a 5 persons transport (car) for only one person. The ecological problem is not only thermal vs electric, it’s also cars versus 2 wheels transport
Yeah right, keep putting this problem on “everyone” because those bigger poluting companies can do nothing to change their course of action.
Aside from emissions, cycling is also healthier, safer, more pleasant for everyone else.
I see it less of a question of “where to put the blame?” as more “in what environment we want to live?”.
Cycling puts also less money in the pockets of bigger polluting companies, and you can still blame them on the ride for all the good reasons.
I think this shouldn’t be read as an individual call to action as in ‘everyone has to do their part and start cycling’.
Rather, it should be a call for governments to support a changing traffic and transportation infrastructure.It’s a chicken and egg problem. No one cycles because cycling infrastructure sucks, so politicians don’t care about cyclists so cycling infrastructure sucks. To break the pattern we need to soften things at every link of the chain. That means going somewhat our of our way to cycle and to pressure politicians to improve things.
Personally I am currently I the process to moving to a more walkable city where I will be able to cycle to do most chores. It will increase my commute dramatically but I don’t go in every day and that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make in order to be free of my car. I tried biking in my current city but it was simply too dangerous. I was having near collisions weekly.
You can ride a bike to work or the store around here, but you’ll be walking home. Bikes are way too easy to quietly steal.
Bicycle theft is also a problem in the Netherlands, but they still do it. There are also lots of people not in the Netherlands who bike to work and don’t have their bikes stolen.
That’s not the problem. The problem is car culture.
In the Netherlands they have functional bike parking, which makes it a lot harder to steal bikes. They also use wheel locks, which are much harder to cut without damaging the bike. There are also sites like bike index that let you track your bike serial number in case it gets stolen. If you use bike index and your bike is stolen there’s actually a pretty good chance it will be returned. Also, if you buy a bike check it on bike index first to see if it’s stolen.
Oh we’re doing the anti-bike thing? Fun! Riding a bike to work for me would take 3 hours. Not everyone fits in the same mold.
Riding a bike to work for me would take 3 hours. Not everyone fits in the same mold.
Then we are mostly talking about other people. Most car trips are so short in distance, they could easily be done by bike.
Yes, certainly. Beyond just talking about bikes most new urbanists are trying to encourage walkable cities and transit oriented development. Walkable cities, which also tend to also be bikable, are cities designed like they were a hundred years ago, where it’s possible and even encouraged for most people in the area to be able to walk between home, work, dining, entertainment, shopping, and recreation.
Transit oriented development is urban planning that locates the above destinations in proximity to public transit stops. Furthermore public transit is prioritized above car traffic through the use of separate rights of way so that when car traffic backs up the public transit is not delayed.
When you add more lanes to accommodate more car traffic on a road that gets too many cars, you attract more car traffic until that road is just as congested as it was before. But this induced demand works both ways. If you add more walking and bike infrastructure that’s actually usable and feels safe to get from where you are to where you want to go you’re more likely to walk or take a bike. If taking the bus or train is faster, easier, cheaper, etc than driving a car a lot more people will take that transit.
There is a very impressive set of reasons why we could and should encourage less CO2 intensive forms of transport, indeed many actions. However, these arguments always seem to me to take the pattern of picking the extreme example of whatever good we are hoping to achieve and then implying that everyone else could easily make the switch. There is always a wide and natural variety in things and this is true for differences between nations too. Extreme examples used like this often just end up making a bigger divide between people because the discussion misses all of the important differences that constrain choices and shape outcomes. We just end up talking from our own perspectives and experiences rather than exploring the complicated and difficult questions of how we can produce localised and regional responses to CO2 emissions drawn from fossil fuels.
Riding bikes really isn’t very extreme
Don’t put the burden on people. Cities worldwide are hostile to cyclists and even pedestrians.
Cities worldwide are hostile to cyclists
They aren’t all the same. See, of the 20 most bike friendly cities, the top 4 are in the Netherlands.
Which of course is because they have started to invest in excellent bike infrastructure decades ago, and made it a priority. So it isn’t really putting the burden on people. I wouldn’t expect people to bike in a hostile environment. But I hope we create friendlier environments.
It’s a chicken and egg problem, unfortunately. Cities won’t improve conditions for cyclists if they only see car traffic and people will avoid cycling under bad conditions.
This is EXACTLY the problem.
I was speaking with city planners for a project they were working on (proposed road widening) , and every time I brought up the need for cycling infrastructure in certain areas, they would say something like “not enough cyclists use that route”, and I’d always follow up by saying “because that route is too dangerous or inconvenient without cycling infrastructure.”
The addage “if you build it, they will come” applies completely to cycling infrastructure.
Cycling is cool but that’s small-fry compared to if we all went vegan (or even just vegetarian)…
While I’m a card carrying bike nut and plant-based eater, I feel we can make more of a difference encouraging people to do things that are less all in.
Work commute too far right now? Maybe start replacing the small car trips with bike trips.
Veganism unthinkable? Maybe try a meatless day or two a week.
Something people can wrap their heads around, and after trying, realise they haven’t died.
While I’m also a card carrying bike but and plant-based eater, I think that in many places the answer is also better public transport. When I lived in a big city, busses, subway stations, trams, etc were always 5-10 minutes away, both walking and waiting for the next one.
I live in a smaller town now of ~40,000. However, only ~13,000 live in the actual “town”, roughly 20 minutes of walking. The rest of the people live anywhere from 10-60km away. Grocery stores can be anywhere from 10-30km away. Iove biking into work when the weather is nice, but it also snows six months out of the year. Even for a “small trip”, you’re looking at 20km round trip in hilly terrain to the nearest anything that isn’t a neighbor. Busses exist, but out in the countryside they’ll come twice around 6am and then twice around 6pm, and none at all during weekends. So if you’re not working in the middle of the week, you’re SOL unless you’re prepared to spend 12 hours in town.
It’s also a chicken and egg problem though, everyone has a cat because public transport isn’t great. But public transport isn’t great because there’s no demand, because everyone has a car.
This issue is definitely not only in my town, 70% of the country is dotted with small towns like this and the same issues. Not everyone is physically capable of biking 20km on a summers day, let alone in -20°C on a half meter of snow, so they have almost no choice but to drive.
And that is nothing compared to corporate emissions and air travel, but the internet LOVES telling you that how you live your life is wrong for moral reasons or due to some panic.
I say this as a chef that’s generally vegan friendly. We gotta stop blaming each other when we’re a drop in the bucket compared to big business. They got you attacking other people so they can do what they want with impunity.
Vegan (or even just vegetarian) is cool, but that’s small-fry compared to if we just stopped having freaking kids.
Well… I mean I’m not having kids either, but someone has to to continue the species, nobody needs to eat meat.
someone has to to continue the species
Why?
“Willful extinction” is not a productive way to end climate change.
You won’t convince people, so it’s DOA, but it’s also philosophically weak in the face of alternative views. Alternatives which also theoretically have humans in them and don’t obliterate the environment exist, meaning you are on the back foot here to justify an anthropocentric philosophy.
“Why do you think people should exist?” Can be an interesting discussion, but as an argument it’s not a great one.
