{"id":434,"date":"2021-09-23T06:00:41","date_gmt":"2021-09-23T06:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kevinfell.ca\/?p=434"},"modified":"2023-10-12T09:17:44","modified_gmt":"2023-10-12T09:17:44","slug":"why-arent-more-big-bike-firms-tracking-their-environmental-impact","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/kevinfell.ca\/index.php\/2021\/09\/23\/why-arent-more-big-bike-firms-tracking-their-environmental-impact\/","title":{"rendered":"Why aren\u2019t more big bike firms tracking their environmental impact?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Trek, one of the world\u2019s biggest bicycle brands, recently released its sustainability report for 2021<\/a>. Remarkably, this appears to be the first time a major bike company has published such a document.<\/p>\n While some other manufacturers make broad sustainability pledges or tout their success in reducing packaging waste, Trek\u2019s report offers an ambitious array of concrete environmental commitments and a comprehensive analysis of the carbon footprint of its bikes.<\/p>\n This fills in an important gap in data. But many companies in other sectors have been releasing such environmental impact assessments for years. Why is this the first time we are seeing such a report from a major bicycle company, especially given that cycling is so widely touted as green?<\/p>\n That perception is a big part of the answer. Bike manufacturers have had a free ride in terms of tracking their own environmental impacts largely because of the assumption that biking is inherently environmentally friendly.<\/p>\n To be sure, cycling is one of the least environmentally impactful forms of transportation. Trek mentions this in its report, claiming, \u201cIf you ride about 430 miles you would have otherwise driven, you\u2019ve saved the carbon equivalent of what it took to make your bike.\u201d And Trek is right: in comparison with cars there is no contest.<\/p>\n An older and widely cited figure (based on a Dutch study<\/a> and used by the European Cycling Federation<\/a>) for the manufacturing footprint of bicycles is 96kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2<\/sub>e). According to Trek, the production of a basic model of its bestselling bike \u2013 an entry-level mountain bike \u2013 emits about 100kg of CO2<\/sub>e.<\/p>\n The report provides a new figure for e-bikes. While the ECF estimates<\/a> a manufacturing carbon footprint of 134kg, Trek\u2019s figures show that electrifying any bike adds about 65kg of CO2<\/sub>e to production emissions. Making a basic commuter e-bike would therefore produce about 165kg of CO2<\/sub>e.<\/p>\n But compared with the manufacturing impact of a car, the differences between a conventional bike and an electric one are marginal. Making a small hatchback produces about 5.5 tonnes of CO2<\/sub>e<\/a>. An electric version adds another 2-4 tonnes owing to the battery and electric motor. And manufacturing an SUV produces up to 13 tonnes.<\/p>\n A lifecycle analysis makes the disparities even starker. Assuming a lifetime travel of 19,200km, a bicycle\u2019s emissions come out at about 25-35g CO2<\/sub>e\/km (depending on food footprint, which can be highly variable<\/a>). With Trek\u2019s updated figure and assuming an EU average electricity mix, e-bikes come in at 21-25g CO2<\/sub>e\/km (yes, e-bikes can be less carbon intensive than conventional bikes, assuming the rider is doing less work).<\/p>\n A typical car produces<\/a> about 220g CO2<\/sub>e\/km over 180,000 lifetime kilometres. Electric vehicles are better, averaging about 160g CO2<\/sub>e\/km (depending on a country\u2019s electricity emissions). There is little data on the lifecycles of e-scooters, but an estimate<\/a> of a typical case in Germany is about the same as an electric car, at 165g CO2<\/sub>e\/km.<\/p>\n