• Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand that you are joking, but when you think about it, trains aew very likely more efficient and cleaner than a human (per kill metertravelled).

        We need water, cooling, rest, food (that food needs water etc etc).

        Just thinking out loud.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I once saw a calculation. If someone rode a bicycle from London to Bournemouth (UK), fueled primarily by beef steak, it’s actually more CO2 emissions than driving a small efficient car. That was years ago too, so likely gotten even better.

          I believe a more vegetarian based diet still wins however.

          • Maturin@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But the traveler is going to eat roughly the same amount whether he rides the bike or drives so there is little marginal carbon impacts from riding while 100% of the car emissions are marginal (since the alternate scenario produces none).

            • cynar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It was the energy differential that was calculated. It was, originally, mostly a dig at how carbon inefficient beef farming was.

            • texas@lemmy.fmhy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But the traveler is going to eat roughly the same amount whether he rides the bike or drives so there is little marginal carbon impacts from riding while 100% of the car emissions are marginal (since the alternate scenario produces none).

              the part I think you are missing is the human can only eat so much because it takes not as long to go by car or train as opposed to walking

              inb4 challenge accepted

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            People eating a wholely natural diet and biking on cleanly made bikes is carbon neutral, most other forms of travel aren’t and won’t be as efficient because of it.

        • HeckingShepherd@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are might be right but idk. It would be interesting because by walking the humans are getting exercise. If the humans would instead by getting exercise by running on a treadmill or playing a sport the inputs wouldn’t really change. You also have to account for the environmental costs of manufacturing the train and spread that over the km per person travelled

      • Nioxic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wasnt there an MIT study that proved on short distances walking is worse than driving?

    • Ronno@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It depends on how many passengers it can transport in an area. Building a train infrastructure only for 100 people to use it will be less economically viable than having those people buy cars and build a road for them. It is all about perspective and every situation is different