Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
An analysis of greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile traveled shows the environmental benefits of cycling and walking Source: ##http://www.pietzo.com/storage/downloads/Pietzo_LCAwhitepaper.pdf##MIT##

Slate's Brian Palmer wrote in an article this week that he's thinking of switching his commute "from four wheels to two" but he's concerned about the environmental impact of bicycling: specifically, "about all the energy it takes to manufacture and ship a new bicycle." He wants to know how many miles he would "bike the drive" before he's gone "carbon neutral."

He estimates the average carbon cost of the manufacture of a new bike at about 530 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalents, based on a research paper published last year by MIT scientist Shreya Dave [PDF]. But Palmer never asks about the carbon cost of his car. According to an analysis by The Guardian, manufacturing a new mid-size car produces more than 17 tons of CO2e -- about 75 times what it cost to make that bike. A top-of-the-line Land Rover would pollute twice as much, or 150 times the carbon footprint of the bicycle.

Palmer discounts the argument that bicycle "fuel" also harms the environment, since cyclists burn more calories and need to eat more. "As the Pacific Institute has shown, you'd have to be eating an all-beef diet to offset the environmental benefits of walking or bicycling," Palmer said. "Given a 'typical U.S. diet,' you would have to ride your bike instead of driving for around 400 miles to cover the bike's initial carbon footprint."

The food argument also assumes that if you didn't bicycle, you wouldn't do any exercise at all that would require more caloric intake. Do people who don't exercise really eat less? And either way, is an exercise-free planet really a healthier planet?

Adding up carbon output from fuel, infrastructure, maintenance, manufacture, and operation, Shreya Dave's research doesn't even bother with the food-as-fuel argument and puts the bicycle's fuel carbon footprint at zero per passenger mile, though it does consider a relatively high operational carbon footprint since "a conventional bicycle requires the operator to work harder and breathe more heavily." The data also claims, shockingly, that the carbon output of the manufacture of a bicycle, per passenger mile, is twice that of a Boeing 737, and that the infrastructure required to run the bicycle is 50 percent greater.

Still, Dave says that building, paving, and maintaining roads for cars emits almost four times the greenhouse gases as doing the same for bike lanes -- in those special places where dedicated bicycle facilities even exist. And of course, Palmer writes in Slate, "your bike isn't exactly tearing up the asphalt." Weighing in at less than one percent of the weight of a Prius, a bicycle just isn't responsible for the kind of road maintenance that cars are.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

The Most Expensive Bikeshare in the U.S. Is…

The price of a yearly Citi Bike membership has grown by 77 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since the bike-share program launched 2013, the Independent Budget Office said.

November 19, 2025

Wednesday’s Headlines Have Their Head in the Sand

The Trump administration doesn't want to fund transit, know how many people ride it, or acknowledge the impacts of getting rid of it.

November 19, 2025

Report: Traffic Injuries Increase Near Amazon Last-Mile Warehouses

Injuries are increasing near last-mile warehouses and advocates want to change the model for more accountability.

November 18, 2025

Breaking: Trump Admin Seeks To Decimate Federal Transit Funding

"When you're talking about taking away money from transit, your proposal is flawed from the get-go," said one expert.

November 18, 2025

Tuesday’s Headlines Lost the Battle but Won the War

A Politico long read details how bureaucracy slowed down but couldn't stop the conversion to EVs.

November 18, 2025
See all posts