[anon_d]

While the article is clearly setting up the calculation in a very slanted way, I think the point they are making is still interesting.

I definitely don't think this is (or even an attempt to be) an effective criticism of the environmental value of biking.

However, even with a biased setup like this, the fact that the numbers can be massaged into the same ballpark really shatters my intuition here. I think my take-away is that I've clearly been underestimating the climate impact of meat consumption, and that's interesting.