State lawmaker says bicycling is not good for the environment
seattlebikeblog.com
seattlebikeblog.com
The primary thing that makes a bicycle more efficient than a car is that it weighs around an order of magnitude less than the passenger, rather than the other way around. The second most important factor is that it travels at (and is optimized to travel at) relatively low speeds.
The fact that it's powered, essentially, by food calories is actually one of its least efficient aspects (raw food vegan locavores potentially excepted).
The cool thing is that means you can power a small electric vehicle essentially for free (both financially and environmentally). So people who are unwilling or unable to work up a sweat on the way to work can still take part in most of the benefits of cycling.
And if you put 4 people in that car, it wins easily, even with a somewhat more average car.
People like bikes mainly because people eat and exercise anyway, so they might as well do some useful work for it. But purely from the environment, and assuming people only bicycle for need, not exercise, it's not an automatic win.
It's obvious that a cyclist will use more calories than someone not moving. The calculations are done using only the extra calories, not the baseline.
Widespread car usage is enormously destructive in this sense, because of insane amounts of space it requires (and the degree of danger it introduces). The bicycle, well, not so much (and pedestrians even less, of course).
The negative environmental effects of cars is well-publicized (and apparently politically effective) but it's hardly the only, or even the most significant, problem with widespread car use.
You are saving gym time/portion control willpower by biking more and driving less.
But most people ignore it because people need to eat anyway. And people exercise anyway.