Cycling is good for the environment, right?
Yes, when looking at first-order effects. If you’re on a bike, rather than in a car, train, or bus, you’re emitting less carbon into the atmosphere.
But once second-order effects are taken into account, paradoxically we may emit more carbon in the long run by taking up cycling.
A 2009 study from Karl Ulrich at the Wharton School found, “The environmental benefits of human power are, however, strongly coupled to the environmental costs of increased population, due to increased longevity of those who engage in physical activity… Human-powered transportation is therefore less an environmental issue and more an issue of public health… The interplay between longevity and environmental impact is a central feature of the conflicting societal objectives of improving human health and increasing environmental sustainability.”
There are limitations with a studies like this though. For example, we don’t know what average emissions per person will be in the future. It may be worse than today, or technological advances may reduce our impact in the decades to come.
Regardless of its limitations, it’s a fascinating example of second-order effects, and how a perceived improvement in one area may lead to worse effects in the long run.
Our world, our actions, and the consequences of those actions are often much more complex and nuanced than what seems apparent at first glance.