this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
229 points (95.3% liked)

Cool Guides

4692 readers
2 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Today@lemmy.world 74 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Carbon footprint is a term that was made up by oil companies to shift blame from them to us.

[–] ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz 38 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Doesn't change the fact that some forms of travel are objectively worse for the environment than others. If you can reasonably take a train or a bus instead of a plane or car, you should do so.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 6 months ago

instructions unclear: purchased a bus and am now using it to commute to work instead of an f-150

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

There's too much data missing though. What were the emissions for creating, maintaining, and disposing of these modes of travel?

[–] nofob@lemmy.today 12 points 6 months ago

Oil companies sell oil and manipulate national policy to promote its use. Consumers buy it and support policy to promote its use. There's at least a bit of room for personal responsibility there.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 months ago

And yet, here we are using this metric to discuss how to use less oil. How is this supposed to benefit them?

[–] EndHD@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

what term can I use to put the blame back on them?

[–] exocrinous@startrek.website 8 points 6 months ago

Carbon somebody else's problem

[–] peg@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

There's no denying that you're part of the problem though. You're not of the hook just because someone's worse than you.

[–] kurikai@lemmy.world 39 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So bicycles are not a major form of transport?

[–] DuskyRo@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 43 points 6 months ago (3 children)

You're breathing more intensely than usual, so there is some overhead. But then again walking would take longer and may produce more carbon overall for the same distance

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago (2 children)

And don't forget the methane from your farts.

[–] Risus_Nex@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There is also tyre wear particles to be considered! /s

[–] lolrightythen@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I understand your /s, but I find the metrics interesting regardless of why they were created. I'd be interested in my ebike's impact.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tarsn@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago

Just gotta eat seaweed like those cows

[–] general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I did some random calculations and with the assumption that cycling uses 300kcal/h @15km/h that makes it use about 20 kcal/km. Assuming it is burned by consuming carbohydrates(glucose)(4.5Kcal/g) and it converts 1:1 into CO2 that makes cycling emit about 5g CO2/km making it about as climate friendly as using eurostar trains.(assuming you dont want to exercise ever)

[–] LynneOfFlowers@midwest.social 5 points 6 months ago

Hmm, thinking about it, I think maybe the direct CO~2~ exhaled during exercise may not be the most useful metric for human-powered travel. Every atom of that carbon was recently removed from the atmosphere by the plants you ate or that went to feed the animals you ate. It isn't carbon that was underground for millions of years as is the case with fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, growing the food does involve carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Taking this page's number of 2.5t/yr for the typical American diet which they assume to be 2,600 kcal/day that works out to 2.6g of CO~2~ / kcal (2.5t / 365 / 2600 = 2.6E-6 t = 2.6g), or 52.7 g / km for cycling, or similar to an electric car if the chart is at all comparable (I don't know the chart's methodology; for example for the fossil fuel transport options does it count the carbon cost of producing and transporting the fuel or just the tailpipe emissions?). Changing one's diet looks like it would improve this; the best-case would be a vegan diet which would result in 31.6 g / km.

Now that's just based on numbers from that one source, so I don't know how reliable they are. It does say it includes the large amount of wasted food in the final number, and I don't know if the numbers in the original chart are that level of conscientious. Regardless I think the takeaway here isn't that cycling is bad, it's that our food production system is terrible and it badly needs to become way less carbon-intensive.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 10 points 6 months ago

Interestingly research actually shows electric bikes to have less of a carbon footprint than manual bikes even when accounting for the electricity, battery, motor, etc. due to the rider needing to consume fewer calories to provide the muscle power. But we're talking numbers so small that it's really not worth worrying about in the grander scheme of things. So if you're feeling some guilt about the extra components in your ebike you don't need to, but if you're looking at an ebike to replace your regular one don't make the decision purely based on carbon footprint, but instead focus on if you need/want it.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yes, and food consumed from exertion. Simon Clarke actually did a really interesting video on bikes and ebikes and how good/bad they are for the environment, now and looking towards the future.

https://youtu.be/HW5b8_KBtT8

Tldw; a vegan on an ebike is one of the most energy efficient modes of transportation on the planet, haha.

[–] SnipingNinja 4 points 6 months ago

I get what you meant but just to avoid any confusion, it's not the most energy efficient but the one with the smallest carbon footprint.

I assume that's the case but I'll watch the video and get back in case I'm wrong (I might not have left this comment if I wasn't wont to forget about leaving a comment at all but people can reply and get me notified to update this in a day or two)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] franklin@lemmy.world 38 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I wish riding a bike in my city was easier, it's basically suicide with more steps, my municipal policy forces bikes to share the road with motorist and it's 90% stroads.

[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 17 points 6 months ago

On the upside, dying saves a lot of carbon emissions /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.ml 28 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Where can I purchase one of these fancy Eurostar trains ?

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I assume the author says Eurostar because it's essentially a French TGV service that extends to London. The rest of our rail network is made up of constantly overwhelmed, Victorian-era infrastructure and is perpetually on the verge of shutting down, especially in the North of England and in the South East. So unlike France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc we only have a single, modern, high-speed railway, and it's called Eurostar.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] n3ur0n@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Ferry super sus. Like a cruise ship, but starts and stops more? Doesn't make sense.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

A ferry is dense. It packs a lot of people into a small space on boats that were made to effectively haul people between two docks at a relatively short distance.

A cruise ship is huge, and given the amount of amenities they host, the density of PASSENGERS on board is vastly lower, yet has a lot of added weight from service crew, pools, dining halls, water slides, slot machines and what not.

Ferries can be electric too. Never heard of an electric cruise ship before.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

There is many small ferries in the UK which are basically a floating platform that get's dragged through the water on a cable. If you run that off an electric motor those can be quite efficent.

Maybe they are thinking about those.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Heh. "Gas Car, 170 tonnes / km / passenger, based on occupancy.

Most cars are single-occupancy despite having 4 more seats. So they're RATED at 170/km/p but they're more 850t/km each car during rush hours with no car-pooling.

And no one car-pools, effectively.

[–] zakobjoa@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

I really hope they're right and it's grams, not tons.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

What about a private plane like a Gulfstream?

Edit: so I decided to do some wild napkin math, but Trump, for example, has a B757, which uses older and most likely more inefficient engines. So take a short haul flight which is 246g/km/person, and a standard short haul flight can hold about 130 people. So if he only travels with say 13 people on board (a tenth of that) it would increase the amount tenfold and give 2,460 g/km/person.

I think the goes a long way in showing that the 0.1% blow things out of the water comparatively speaking.

[–] bobburger@fedia.io 4 points 6 months ago

The 0.1% definitely blow things out of the water comparatively speaking.

It's still important for the 99.9% to know where our co2 emissions are coming from so we can find ways to reduce our own emissions and put pressure on the 0.1% to reduce theirs as well.

Spreading awereness is also important so more people will know the impact their choices have on global co2 emissions which will hopefully encourage them to make smarter choices and pressure the 0.1% and corporations to reduce their emissions as well.

[–] WarlockLawyer@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What is the definition of short haul vs medium haul flight?

[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

IATA defines short haul as a total flight length under three hours, medium haul as 3-6 hours, long haul as 6-16 hours, and ultra long haul as 16 hours and above.

ICAO has other definitions, and doesn't consider medium haul as a separate category. Some airlines and airports also have their own, distance-based definitions.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

😑 reading this on a short haul flight for work

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

So 113 x This

This is just from a small part of my city.

[–] Beastlygr@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I’m surprised everyone is wearing a helmet.

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Well it's the law.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

😳 Is that a daily occurrence?

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Pretty much during morning and afternoon rush hours.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 9 points 6 months ago

At least half of these are not available in my general area for my normal travel.

I'd like to be able to make better choices, but my options are limited by factors beyond my control.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 7 points 6 months ago

This is good, but neglects the bike and ebike categories, which a considerable amount of the world also uses.

[–] notaviking@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Like what motorcycle are they looking at, like sports or commuter? Because my commuter motorcycle (KTM 390 duke) gives me like 30-35km/L easy, no way a hybrid is more efficient. Got it once to 45km/L by falling into the slip stream of the vehicle in front of me, but that shit is dangerous.

[–] TonyOstrich@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

This is from memory from a while ago, so take it with a massive block of salt. Although motorcycles are a lot more fuel efficient than most other forms of transport, they don't have to comply with the same kinds of emission standards and as a result have "nastier" emissions. Again from memory I thought that was primarily NOx, which I thought was more of an air quality thing than a greenhouse gas thing, but maybe there is something else as well?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Total carbon?

Carbon per person?

Carbon per mile?

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I'm going to venture a guess and say it's grams of CO2e per passenger over 1km

[–] And009@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 6 months ago

The prophecy is true

[–] slipperydippery@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

How many passengers in the car?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›