No way the carbon footprint of buying a new E-bike is lower than me going to a local upcycling place, fixing up an old bike from the 1970s using spare parts, and using that as my daily driver.

The logic of repairing and using an old beater car might work out on emissions, but not with acoustic bikes. There are a lot of assumptions being made in these calculations and there are a lot greener ways to acquire an acoustic bike than buying a new one from a store. Upcycling a bike will always be greener than a new one and the classic steel frames just keep going so long as you can find parts. I suspect their improved ergonomics over modern bikes also contribute to less human energy needed to drive them. I’m not really using significantly more calories biking to and from work than I am walking.

Creative assumptions and manipulations of data to reach conclusions that are obviously misleading and likely incorrect without these manipulations. In the long term, replacement batteries for an E-bike will easily make the manufacturing emissions outweigh those of a new analog bike.

I support more bikers and E-biking gets some people into it that otherwise wouldn’t, but this reeks of attempting to justify and prop up tech in ways that it does not need and that will ultimately fuel more emissions in the long run. Better urban design and seasonal maintenance can largely offset the justification for needing an E-bike.