Riding a bike for 2 miles emits roughly half as much CO2 as does walking the same distance, and a car with an ICE produces an order of magnitude more (even ignoring manufacturing).
But, as always, the question is not what mode of transport is more efficient, but why are you travelling at all?
Historically, the whole reason for a city's existence was so that everything was right there. But cities, especially North American cities, for someone reason have to decided to become rural areas for people too poor be able to afford to live in actual rural areas.
A car is more or less efficient than cycling, depending on the food, car and source of electrical power, and manufacturing CO2 production. The bicycle production emits a less CO2 than the car production, tilting the comparison at the beginning of the lifecycle of both.
The GHG emissions associated with food intake required to fuel a kilometre of walking range between 0.05 kgCO2e/km in the least economically developed countries to 0.26 kgCO2e/km in the most economically developed countries.
A Tesla model 3 according to WLTP test cycle uses
0.191 kWh / km * 0.434 kgCO2e/kWh = 0.083 kgCO2e / km
The alternative is to stay close to home, not drive a vehicle of any kind. But the North American city, strangely, scatters everything over large distances, making life impractical without a machine to carry you.
Hi, CO2 and work-out Captain here. I don't know how much CO2 you typically exhale when you do push ups but it is nothing near the exhaust fumes by your 5lt gasoline SUV built in 1990.
It’s funny how travel has become so ingrained into the urban psyche that it doesn’t occur that not travelling is an option.
It’s especially funny as you would think the whole reason people want to live so close to other people is because they don’t want to travel far to engage with other people… Yet it is always about how to get as far away from them as possible, whether by bike or train or whatever it takes.
