Apparently bikes are really bad for the environment being slow, low occupancy road vehicles? I think if are taking upon yourself to advise people you should advocate greener forms of transport such as existing public transit links, walking.

A bike consumes much less pavement space then a car, increasing corridor capacity.

No it is the same. They cannot occupy the same space unless there are dedicated lanes. I guess even then it is single occupancy. A bicycle is a single space same as a car with only a driver. I wish I had the link now, sorry.

You don't have the link because it is wrong. More bicycles can pass a given plane in a certain width than cars can over a length of time. As for dedicated lanes we hand over lanes to parking.

It must be my poor English. I've never said that bikes are bad for environment.

No sorry - I didn't mean to imply you had. I read a study on hackernews the other day. Unfortunately I cannot remember teh link as always. Single occupancy vehicles see, much better to have everyone in one clean bus instead - bikes are bad apparently.

I don't know what the numbers are like, but bicycling regularly increasing calorie requirements, which would have an environmental impact.

No idea how this compares to the scale of taking a bus or a solo car, but there is an increased cost. Growing food (often with fertilizers, harvest machinery, etc) in order to bring it to the market for you to consume and convert into motion doesn't seem like it's particularly energy efficient.

I bike a lot, it's better for me physically and mentally, but I do wonder how the carbon impact is affected. (Of course, this ignores the fact that petroleum is a limited supply.)

The main input to agriculture energy consumption is Haber-Bosh process ammonia.