Are Bike Brands Greenwashing? We Asked An Expert
A lot of companies claim to care about the environment, but when I asked over forty bike brands if they have plans to measure and reduce their CO2 emissions, their responses were a mixed bag. I was glad to see some companies had put serious thought into this subject, though, and a few made big claims about cutting carbon and even going "carbon neutral" in the near future. But climate change is a complex topic and it's tough to distinguish genuine improvements from greenwashing.
Fortunately, Pinkbike's comments section can be an illuminating place. The top comment on that article was from professional sustainability consultant Mike Bascombe. He called out some brands for only discussing their direct emissions and ignoring their supply chains, where the vast majority of the CO2 is released. I messaged him directly to find out more and he agreed to answer some follow-up questions to help me see the wood from the carbon-offsetting trees - which brands have a credible plan to reduce their environmental impact, and which claims aren't as impressive as they sound?
 | This moral reasoning doesn't need to exist at this stage. There is more than enough business-based justification. It's adapt or die for companies now. |
First off can you tell us a bit about your background and your credentials?
I work for a specialist sustainability consultancy called Avieco where my role focuses on strategies to reduce carbon emissions and helping clients adopt sustainable practices in the tech, culture, sport and media sectors. Bikes have always been a huge part of my life and my heart is firmly in the off-road community. To me, cycling holds answers for some of the biggest sustainability questions, but the industry needs an introspection that is emerging now. I am first and foremost an environmentalist and want cycling to be a force for preserving wilderness and appreciating it rather than contributing to its decline.
How do you see the role of companies, as opposed to individuals or governments, in tackling climate change?
Companies play a vital role in mitigating climate change but the three groups are really interlinked. Businesses are reliant on an economy and market forces driven by customers (individuals) and regulation governments) so they can't be considered in isolation. There is clearly a move towards sustainability. Whilst there are some well-established brands that are known in this space (Patagonia for example) there is still room for pioneering brands to take a lead, especially within cycling.
Companies will soon be forced to adapt, the writing is on the wall. As the financial buying power moves to millennials and on to Gen Z sustainability becomes even more of a market force. These groups consider climate-related credentials as a key influence in which brands they are willing to spend and companies that don’t engage in sustainability will lose any connection with their customers. As disclosure projects like CDP are forced on companies by investors it becomes easier for anyone to rate a company on its climate credentials. Consumers won't buy a less sustainable option if there's a choice of equal value.
Sustainability is good business. Aligning your company to sustainable values makes you more attractive to both customers and investors at the same time as mitigating risks in your business model by addressing the threats to supply chains. Being aware of climate-related threats is in essence just awareness of resource availability. Awareness of the risks posed by climate change and mitigating them needs to be a core activity for any manufacturing business. The current supply issues the bike industry is experiencing due to COVID are small in comparison to the disruption that regular climate emergencies will cause.
Government regulation is backing up market forces by codifying the need to disclose through mechanisms like TCFD (Taskforce for Climate Related Disclosure) which forces companies to treat climate change as a financial threat and significant risk to business. Here in the UK, you cannot win a government contract over a certain size without having a Net Zero plan in place now, so business development is tied into sustainable practice. Companies that can't react to these evolving requirements simply won't get invested in, won’t win any work or will lose their customer base.
Look at Larry Fink at Blackrock, one of the biggest funds in the world, completely divesting from fossil fuel related investments purely from a risk perspective. Whilst I personally believe there is a moral imperative to do what you can to limit climate change on an individual and company level, this moral reasoning doesn't need to exist at this stage. There is more than enough business-based justification. It's adapt or die for companies now.
Which brand(s) do you think gave the best response on their emissions targets or reporting?
Looking at the responses in the article I have to applaud Trek here for producing a full sustainability report that included all 3 scopes (see below for more detail on these). Disclosing a footprint can be a painful process at the start. It shines a light on things that don't necessarily support sales or brand strength. Revealing that carbon frames are significantly worse from an emissions perspective than alloy versions is not something Trek's marketing team would want to highlight but the numbers are out in the open now. They have first-mover status and deserve the kudos for this.
What we will hopefully see now is the rest of the industry matching this ambition. Companies that don't report fully will soon be the outliers and the associated negative perception will kill the brands involved. The bar has been raised.
I think Cotic should be included too in their honesty and for clearly understanding the need for improvement. Decarbonising is not an easy thing. Companies will have to undergo massive transformation to reach the necessary levels but that all starts with an appreciation of the real status quo.
Ibis choosing to avoid air freight inbound is a huge deal and they have studied their supply chain in detail from a carbon perspective. They also have a healthy scepticism of offsets which is important.
Canyon are doing good work too. Aligning with the Science Based Targets initiative is really the best standard. It will be interesting to see which particular pathway they signed up for, however. So far there is just a commitment. I don't doubt their intentions but there is still a long process for them to get a real decarbonisation target approved and a pathway designed.
Both Endura and Pole have a focus on local manufacturing. This is a significant move and will greatly reduce the emissions overall because shipping is always such a large proportion. It also of course supports local industry and craftsmen.
Were there any misleading claims, in particular, you'd like to call out?
Programs like GoGreen from DHL offer offsets equal to the carbon value of the shipping route. There are usually a number of issues with projects like these in the accuracy of carbon calculations and the quality of projects associated with them. Tree planting schemes don’t factor in several key issues which I discuss below. Even if the best projects are supported it doesn’t change the fact that offsetting without the company making any real decarbonisation themselves isn’t helping. Schemes like these can give companies a false sense of achievement in mitigating climate change, or can be manipulated to give the impression more is being done than reality would suggest. Offsetting has its place but only as a small part of a bigger change.
Any of the companies who report on only scope 1 and 2 whilst not mentioning 3 are choosing a very limited range of their operations to report on publicly. This won't include the majority of their footprint (more detail below) and could be considered misleading.
Similarly, any of the companies without a defined time frame are behind the curve. Without an endpoint, they can't have defined a yearly target to reduce emissions, which means they don't have a concrete reduction strategy. Lots of commitments and even "internal audit" but these ultimately mean very little.
What do you think about bike companies buying offsets to reduce or neutralise their carbon emissions? Is that cheating, or a step in the right direction?
Neutralisation of some emissions is inevitable. No company will realistically be able to completely decarbonise as that would negate manufacturing on any scale and make it unrealistic for companies to engage in change. The real question is at what point should offsetting, compensating or neutralisation happen.
The recent evolution of the Net Zero standard is a good example of considering this in real terms. Previously we had "carbon neutral". This is pretty meaningless in terms of actually reducing emissions or mitigating the climate crisis in a material way as a company could simply work out its emissions and buy offsets equal to that. No change in behaviour, no guarantee of offset quality or efficacy. Net Zero is far more stringent and forces companies to actually decarbonise to certain levels at certain time frames before neutralising or compensating.
The Science Based Target initiative has just released their definition for Net Zero which is great news as it standardized the process for companies and provides a roadmap. The other factor is the quality of the offset. There are good standards out there, The Gold Standard and VERRA for example, but many companies buy products that have little if no real benefit. Something people forget to include in many discussions are the time lags involved. Planting trees is an easy example as trees take time to mature to reach a certain level of CO2 absorption that is assumed by the offset calculation. The tree planting example also demonstrates how looking at an offset in isolation is rarely beneficial for the planet.
Old-growth forests are vital for biodiversity, soil health and are essentially irreplaceable, in any timeframe we're now working to, relating to global warming. Creating acres of fast-growing pines and claiming a similar positive effect purely looking at decarbonisation potential simply doesn't represent reality. If companies want to use neutralisation it needs to be thought out very thoroughly, ideally creating a bespoke project that the company can take ownership of throughout their decarbonisation journey.
There is unfortunately scope for offsetting to be abused. Some projects promise carbon sequestration based on misinterpreted or false data. The market is still not fully regulated so it is left to companies to find projects of real value and legitimacy. There are many people working in offsetting with a genuine desire to do good and there are projects offering real climate and social benefits but it is still too easy for some to take advantage.
As to whether offsetting can be a negative force in itself, that is certainly possible. If companies see it as purely a marketing tool, or if it in any way replaces actual decarbonisation then it is not part of the solution.
That being said there needs to be a recognition that companies are on a journey. Whole business models are needing to be reworked and global business realigned. Rapid decarbonisation is the priority and whilst this is underway there is a genuine case for compensating current operating emissions with good quality programs.
Similarly, once a company reaches the maximum decarbonisation it can (the current SBTi Net Zero standard puts this at a 90% reduction versus the baseline carbon emissions) the remaining operating emission should be neutralised. Offsets can not only serve to reduce carbon emissions but also support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These are aimed at supporting global social development and any company that claims to be based on any sort of social value should be using these as a framework. Good offsetting projects should support these goals at the same time, so it's not a straightforward carbon question. None of this is really. Climate change is inherently linked to global inequality, debt and racism. Companies who are leading in this space combine their environmental efforts with social ones too.
If a company is serious about reducing their emissions, where should they start?
A deeply integrated footprint that covers all 3 scopes as defined by the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Protocol that is made publicly available. Many companies, especially in the manufacturing sector, only report on scopes 1 and 2. Scope 1 is direct emissions; company facilities and company cars. Scope 2 is electricity usage. Looking at these two only leaves out the vast majority of a company's emissions profile. Scope 3 has 15 categories and makes up the largest part of a carbon footprint for most companies. Scope 3 includes travel, purchased goods and services and critically for the bike industry transport and shipping among others. [According to Trek's sustainability report, shipping made up about 6% of their total emissions while bicycle manufacturing made up about 83%. Much of this could be counted under Scope 3 emissions.]
If any company is serious about making a positive change they will have to know where their hotspots are, where are the worst areas for emissions. Only a proper footprint can provide this. From there the company can strategise how best to change what they can within their own operations, and influence their value chain to reduce emissions. We are past the time for commitments now. Action is needed. You can't change what you don't know.
Thanks to Mike for giving up his time for this interview.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
I honestly think that while there is plenty of greenwashing and business-over-environment decisions, a lot of people I know in the industry do genuinely care too.
Its all crap, we're all going to die, it looks like a Session.
Unchecked capitalism is the cause, but well regulated capitalism can be part of the solution. The regulated free-market is the most effective way we have to solve problems fast.
We are the end-consumers, it's not hopeless, we do have power to force change with the choices we make.
Power to the people!
For example, electric cars are just a way of changing nothing in terms of consumption, the car companies continue to make their money, they're still producing loads. Instead lets keep people employed by keeping the cars we have now running. Remove the huge amount of energy and waste to produce them.
I think there is an economic model that would work! Not medieval, but just reduce the massive corporations. We might not have quite as fancy iPhones, but I can live with that for a better planet!
More recently we've had huge changes in the treatment of women and minorities, the way we talk about many things and hugely reduced the use of CFCs. Those were all movements that started with a few vocal people that then caught fire as people realised the sense.
Everything starts somewhere. The quicker more of us become vocal, stop buying cr*p, encourage our friends to do the same, stop giving social media props to people's grams from their forth overseas holiday of the year, their never to be worn again xmas jumper, their fidget rubix cube etc. the quicker things start to change.
Lead by example?
Hopefully this realization will help you live guilt free if (when) you forget to factor in the “greenness” of a product the next time you make a purchase.
www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth
Why did they have to stop manufacturing for 2 weeks before the Olympics?
Can keep going on and on, want to talk about Chinese fishing fleets?
CCP doesn't care about the planet or any other country, until the world gives it the middle finger, it will continue as it pleases.
How many of the environmental pressure groups will give up global travel to protest on the grounds of its bad for the environment for them to travel? COP26 shows the answer to that is very few and they are supposed to be the group that cares the most
Ever heard of Kyoto protocol? Yup, US dropped out and yes, it's about cutting greenhouse gases.
And, just a quick aside, having someone who makes a living off climate change fear, whether that fear is justified or not, is the equivalent of having the bike manufacturers submit their own reviews for publication. Every claim he makes, especially about the surveys about future people's future buying habits, can be easily disputed, but instead is stated as fact. Pshaw
Also, knowing that what you have is all there will be, and there is no tomorrow, kinda changes the rules from being an infinite game to suddenly becoming finite. We arent too good at playing those cooperatively.
Sort by per capita descending. China is way behind Australia, also behind Germany or Poland. And only few positions ahead of US. They have terrible coal pollution, because they have x5 population living on x0,5 area (east of Heihe–Tengchong Line), compared to US.
Honestly, i dont like defending those guys. But when it comes to GHG and climate, it is the problem of the developed world (for now).
Why bother spending time reading up on things? Everybody’s an authority in a free land.
If anyone needs me, I’ll be sitting naked under a bush, holding my breath and breathing only when necessary, drinking only when it rains and eating the occasional bug that crawls by.
I guess, as consumers, we can influence the demand signal and just be more disciplined rather than keeping up w the Jones’s (don’t know them, but we race each other apparently), but I also think it’s key that the manufacturers don’t create a false sense of need in the market. Yep, they need to sell bikes and “value” is what drives that: seat tube angles, leverage curves, weight, idlers and high pivots. But maybe we strike a better balance.
Maybe I’ve said nothing.
Blackrock talks about "engaging with policy" (setting policy to favour companies they have large shares in - most of them) and "commons stewardship" (more worrying because that translates to owning and monetising things we rely on to live).
I'd say avoid Blackrock but we can't because they are in every single pie you can think of.
Mike Bascombe is a shill.
it's all a f*cking grift.....
The same is in play he capitalism (or for that matter, communism or socialism). Things (food, clothing, shelter) don't just magically appear. And if you stop creating things (bikes, backpacks, ipads) then there will be a lot of people sitting around with nothing to do. (we won't need THAT many farmers)
Capitalism, for all its faults, creates opportunities for people to produce and therefore, "eat that night." Until there is a plague (much worse than covid) that resets the global population (and I don't wish it to happen but sometime in the next couple centuries, it will) capitalism is the best option for the growing population.
www.brookings.edu/research/global-manufacturing-scorecard-how-the-us-compares-to-18-other-nations
The rise of robots and RPA will no doubt lead to more people chasing fewer jobs, but if we tax the robots (ie make their owners pay tax on them as if they were employees) as many countries are now considering, then nations will have the money to pay some sort of Universal Basic Income. Potentially we can work shorter weeks and spend more time on the bike!
Having said that, many, many bands wrote their first albums whilst on the dole, and much of the invention, science and innovation in the industrial revolution came from the landed gentry and ‘idle’ rich.
I’m also (genuinely) not sure if the great Greek thinkers worked.
If I didn’t have a job I’d pursue self improvement, I’d be a lot better on my bike. We are conditioned to equate work success with life success, but raising a family well, helping your community etc. are also ways of achieving. We need to move from ranking ourselves on financial capital to social capital.
Yes, if we could remove that coding, and have people accept mediocrity, be carefree and spontaneous without responsibility, and use that free time for self and societal improvement instead of more nefarious activities, then yes… that would be utopian.
We are moving to an experience-based economy, with people paying fortunes for the most exclusive experiences. The 'richest' people are the ones who have the best experiences, not just the best possessions or home.
Imagine a world where only the people who have the highest social capital (i.e. who are recognised by their peers as having given the most to their society) get to go to Glastonbury/Superbowl/whatever. Those people then become the 'rich' and there is still an incentive to compete, to work towards a goal.
That social capital has the possibility of being fairer; if you didn't win the genetic lottery for looks, fast twitch muscles or number of neurons it doesn't matter - help your fellow man, make your community better in some small way and you gain recognition.
Our inherent need for competition is satiated, we still rise and fall based on our hard work, we just do it in a different way than just lining the pockets of our corporate overlords!
More likely scenario (along the lines of the experiences you talked about), is that a virtual reality, a metaverse world/society levels the playing field (initially anyway). I suspect even then, hard wiring will take over and there will be successful and unsuccessful people in that world as well.
Some companies, such as Ohlins, have the data published as it is mandated by their government. But others have nothing but vague statements about how they aim to be better by some point in the future. The Far East manufacturers have no information or even statements of intention.
Until everyone takes responsibility for not just their own impacts, but their suppliers too, we're knackered!
Blaming China for the Worlds problems is useless, if we don't take responsibility for their impacts making products for us.
Greenwashing will kill us all, be intelligent about how you assess companies environmental claims.
"Our carbon can be recycled" for example. No it can't, it can be re-used in a much lower grade, maybe once. That's not a cycles, a cycle goes forever.
Steel for example can, and is readily and in massive quantities, returned to it's original state again and again, in a continuous cycle, that's recycling!!
I agree that, based on the research I've done so far, it looks like steel is the greenest material to make bikes from (at least compared to aluminium or carbon). Even making steel from virgin material produces about 2Kg of CO2 per Kg of product, which in the context of a bike frame is relatively small.
101,000,000 tones of steel produced a year
170,000 cubic tonnes of carbon fibre (wind energy uses more than the aerospace industry)
overall bicycles = tiny proportion of a percent of steel production but steel production overall far outweighs carbon in terms of C02 produced so when
im not trying to validate by saying one is dirtier than the other
the problem isn't materials per se its that the world turns on consumerism with that any saving you try to make will be kicked down the road to the next port of call ,
someone further down pointed out how much carbon we need to generate as a person in our day to day activities to earn the 10000 to pay for a bike (though it seems most bikes i see are around the 5k mark , other bikes are available , i reckon more BSOs are sold to your typical uk purchaser) that 5k in the uk is 1/6th of the average person on 30 k a year salary , people WANT things tand they work hard for them is the argument
Is it possible to start a groundswell among small builders to not use the worst offenders and companies who won't reveal the data? Would it have sufficient value from a marketing standpoint to make the additional costs bearable (or generate a USP)?
Could there even be a "bicycle builders against environment damage" collective that hopefully some of the big boys would join up to too?
Realistically, I can't turn off the suppliers that don't give me the info I need, right now it would leave me without a business. But what I can do, is use the information to try and make some changes to the suppliers I use. Use only those that are working towards making things better, rather than just saying they are. But, this is easier said than done.
But, it's what I want to do, and yes I hope this moral standpoint (which is genuine) will have some marketing value. Which then plays with my head as if I sell more bike sand become a bigger player, then I'll inevitably just become more like the evil big companies (and my genuine intentions will no longer be true)!!!
Finally, the big boys have much bigger marketing budgets, and can convince the majority that they are doing the right thing. Greenwashing and Peak Bullshit will kill us all!!
Consumer spending power should never be underestimated (capitalism etc), so I'd like to see more polls with an environmental focus. People have been outspoken about wanting alu frames over carbon which has led to more Co's having alu frame options.
Also, more of a focus on parts longevity in reviews (more longterm reviews?).
We have been throwing a lot of jokes around about the Outside takeover... A trend towards helping with actual informed decision making instead of generic "top ten destinations" or "top ten matching kits to buy" could be refreshing.
Of course, it will only help if people do not buy a new bike every year to comply with trends..
And an eco rating on product reviews while you're there...
You have contributed nothing positive to society. I can discern that from your comment history.
With increased rates of forest fires (from climate change and other human interventions) , many trees don't make it to maturity, meaning they don't absorb enough carbon to be counted as an offset.
Second, trees have dark leaves. As trees are planted in large quantities, they will change the albedo of the earth's surface, absorbing more energy (as opposed to say, snow cover or grain fields which reflects more light) which exacerbates localized heating - enhancing the warming process.
Now, the decrees in albedo with the reduction in polar ice, exposing ocean, is a clear and present danger with no beneficial aspects.
That being said, restoring forests, rangeland, and in general getting disturbed places back to stable ecological states and healthy habitats is definitely important. I think offsets are going to be a part of the picture in some cases, this already happens in many jurisdictions with stream/watershed restoration.
I also have seen some but I forget witch one they are bought just a forest and said there now emission free.
That is a lot of bollocks but they have their label and people fall for that.
Fortunately, Pinkbike's comments section can be an illuminating place.
"
So glad this is finally getting the recognition it deserves. The truth is somewhere deep, deep, deeeeep down somewhere in the comment section. Sometimes...
Well that's one way of putting it
Let's keep pontificating.
Please consider the environment before printing this email- has a whole new meaning
holy shit it might be greener to pick up the phone or talk to another human
BTW The carbon footprint of an email has nothing to do with if you physically print a copy or not.
it seems generating it (email) in the first place is as bad??
Being serious though, I read an article on the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining recently. I had no idea.
PC "farming" (WCG for example en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Community_Grid) is another extremely wasteful practice. But it makes people feel good because they think they are doing something good. All the PC farms combined don't have the processing power of 1 super computer.
all seems to be in the pursuit of $$$$$$$$$$$ ££££££££££££
maybe someone should just point out being rich will not save you when the lifeboat is sinking
I had heard of folding at home but always queried why i would want to leave a computer running all night as well as all day
I’m sorry but that really makes me care less about how bad the bicycle industry is for the environment…
But from an industry perspective, some of the bigger bike brands are producing a lot of carbon emissions and could potentially be producing a lot less with some minor changes to business practices (reducing air freight, switching to renewable electricity suppliers, switching some parts from carbon to metal, changing suppliers etc.)
Obviously, the bicycle industry is small fry compared to cars or concrete, but every ton of carbon counts - see the below paper.
www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24487-w
"adding 4,434 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2020—equivalent to the lifetime emissions of 3.5 average Americans—causes one excess death globally in expectation between 2020-2100."
Soure here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc&;
But yeah I agree, we can’t “leave it up to them”, they won’t become green unless it’s profitable. We go after them with laws… but then again that’s the reason we have this whole foreign manufacturing thing going on in the first place, following the laws is too expensive when you can just ship your stuff in from a country that doesn’t have those laws
But yea, the voice of the consumer (market force) has to drive change, I work further down the supply chain in the footwear/fashion market, and the consumer pull is now forcing the big brands to ask for minimum guarantees on recycled content, carbon impact and circularity.
However there needs to be full paradigm shift if we are to address this problem, I feel gutted designing a long lasting component from renewably sourced bioplastics only for one brand who 'does it' to declare that they don't want to make a product that lasts as it impacts their business model despite having no valid end of life or recycling schemes in place once their product is out there.
However kudos to PB @seb-stott and @mikerory for putting the spotlight on this, working in sustainability, this is my bread and butter, so it's refreshing to see this becoming a more mainstream debate and in more detail than 'end single use plastics' - plastic isn't a problem - what humans do with it once it has served its purpose is, and articles like this can only help push the 'human' element to change.
What have you done to reduce carbon emissions? Apart from posting a couple articles about greenwashing. I mean, really, you work for a website that pushes a consumer agenda trying to get people to buy more things that they don't really need. You really think you're part of the solution? HaHaHa.
In the words of the wise Buddha "To have more, desire less."
The only thing he does wrong is push new bike kit for a living - people and the environment don't need new bikes every 3 years, let alone one.
How would you take the middle class to the stoneage by reducing the perceived 'need' for something all the time?
Birthcontrol is one of the answers, no doubt.
Riding a carbon bike for fun is wasteful and bad for the planet…. It should be banned to save the planet.
We are all too dumb to realize these things but luckily we have people like Mike to make these choices for us. Sacrifices must be made.
Next can we please ask companies for a breakdown on their marketing budgets. Things like team/pro rider sponsorship, social media and associated sponsored riders, event sponsorship and then direct advertising and marketing (someone could better categorise these). I'd like to know what is spent on marketing vs R&D vs investment in manufacturing vs sustainability measures. It would provide a great insight into where our dollars go.
Thanks for running articles like this.
Mind blown.
Brought to you by a guy in Canada, written on a laptop made in Taiwan, on a desk made in Mexico, on a carpet made in Pakistan. I mean without the global market and associated carbon footprint none of us would even be commenting here, with our Chinese hardware, on a website hosted on Chinese made servers, Chinese made fiber/cables, Chinese made routers....... Your bike and supply chain is a drop in the ocean, but every little helps right?
The industry has migrated to the Far East mostly for cost benefits, but as you are seeing companies like 3T and Guerilla are repatriating some of that back to either Europe or North America because they can automate production, and once you do that the cost benefit becomes negligible. Plus you also don't end up seeing some of the big supply chain headaches the industry is suffering from at the moment. I think you will start to see a growing exodus out of China back to countries of origin in Europe and North America, but also to other parts of Asia which are still low cost producers but less intensive on emissions. I think Santa Cruz makes its frames in Vietnam where their grid is 54% hydro and solar (yes they still burn coal). Part of that is cost driven as China is increasingly becoming more expensive to produce in, but with the EU introducing legislation to tax emissions on products based on source, it only makes sense to start looking towards other places to make stuff.
Its worthwhile listening to the Cyclingtips interview with the guys at 3T. cyclingtips.com/2021/09/nerd-alert-podcast-3ts-homegrown-italian-robots-and-the-future-of-carbon-fiber
How many of us are guilty of changing because we just want a new thing. I’m thinking MTB are especially problematic because the age (from a tech and geo POV) much faster than a BMX, Jump bike, Townie, Crusiser, Gravel bike etc. You can ride many of those bikes for many, many years and no big deal.
Great to see you giving a shout out to CDP and SBT's. I worked for CDP and they do really great work in driving the transition.
Great to have an expert in the forums for once
BlackRock did not announce that they will divest all fossil fuel related companies (that would hit the financial industry and those companies like a bomb). A BlackRock associated consultancy reported that a fossil free investment portfolio can have superior returns - but obviously Blackrock does not believe in its own research.
What they have promised is to "engage", i.e. talk to, companies to set and achieve net-zero targets and potentially voting against management if not action is taken. Without further clarification that they will divest after a certain duration if engagement has failed, you can engage for decades without selling a single company.
"I`ve paid, so my conscience is clear"..no, you`re just paying lip service and passing the Buck.
On the other hand, I fail to see how sustainability is good business. Appearing sustainable may be. Hence the incentive is to greenwash, not to be sustainable.
I also remain sceptical as to how (non-)elastic demand is in regards to sustainability in the overall market (high-end bicycles only account for a minute fraction of overall production).
By that I mean:
1) The carbon footprint of new bike divided by the number of years owned
2) The carbon footprint of parts/maintenance for a year
3) And the carbon footprint of all biking related travel in an average year
Transport is crucial as a return flight from, say, New York to Vancouver is over a tonne of CO2e. That's equivalent to 8 brand new aluminium Trek Fuel's
What I suspect a calculation like this would unearth is that for the average rider transport to bike venues is a way bigger impact than new bike purchases. So riding local (no driving and def no flying) as much as possible is the biggest thing any of us can do to reduce our impacts, even if that meant buying a new bike to make local trails more fun
Carbon footprint of the company producing bikes, vs the carbon footprint from using the bike.
Just remembering the Ram truck in Remy's last video. Myself also, last time at the bike park I drove 350km alone in my car.
The MTBs we're talking about are intended to be used in bikeparks or destinations far off from where we live (usually), so even if you keep the bike for some years, the amount of traveling adds up.
MTBiking is 1st world people's luxury.
Late to the party, here, but there's a lot of other aspects that I have concerns about, particularly with maintenance.
1) Tires are thrown away after knobs round off
2) Drivetrain components are thrown away after being worn outside of peak performance
3) Suspension (rear shocks) are as expensive to fully service as they are to buy lightly used
4) Tire sealant, chain lube, grease, etc. washes away onto trails (shoutout to companies making biodegradable products)
5) Bearings wear out quickly when ridden in muddy/wet conditions. Why can't we take a small weight penalty and get more durable bearings?
Please explain how that works...
"Current study criticizes investment strategy
In a recent study, environmental organizations examined twelve of the most climate-damaging large-scale projects worldwide: For example, oil production projects in the deep sea off Guyana, gas fields in Mozambique and new coal-fired power plants in Bangladesh. The result: BlackRock is considered the largest investor overall. According to the report by the non-governmental organization Urgewald, the company is involved in shares and bonds with more than 110 billion euros. BlackRock did not want to comment on the monitor request.
How seriously companies like BlackRock take climate protection can be seen in the purchase of so-called "brown bonds", which enable large oil companies, for example, to continue to finance environmentally harmful projects, says Andreas Hoepner, an expert on sustainable financial products at University College Dublin: "BlackRock is one of the three largest buyers, usually standard bonds, which oil, gas and coal companies mainly use to finance climate-damaging projects."
Source: www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/friedrich-merz-blackrock-nachhaltigkeit-101.html
"climate change" is an industry not a problem, the governments are due to rake in trillions in extra "green" taxes over the coming years simply by creating an invisible boogeyman that perpetually ends the world in 30 years time unless the common folk pays more money for things. its perfectly orchestrated echo chamber of media fear mongering and populist "science" which consists mostly of wildly inaccurate models and fresh out of college "researchers" so desperate for funding they will find evidence for anything. the same bull will still be being peddled in 30 years time when nothing has really happened just like nothing has really happened since the last time the world was going to be water in 30 years time which was approximately 30 years ago as it happens.
medium.com/@gillonhunter/sustainable-what-s-in-a-word-48ed47f33c70
medium.com/@gillonhunter/desperate-pr-or-genuine-environmental-action-d47ec8180104
However is global supply issues is doing more!
Having bike manufactured in a country that does care about emissions is easiest way to cut emissions?
But What would the financial cost of that be?
The simplest solution isn't to be 'greener' by offsetting this and that. It's to simply stop and consume so much of everything.
If the MTB industry really wanted to go green, they would start with not having 2-3 year product(bike frames mainly) cycles. It's more than just manufacturing 'in a green way' or using 'carbon neutral transportation' or planting a tree for every bike sold.
Bike company: "We totally strive to be carbon negative or carbon neutral."
Also bike company: "Here's our totally new slightly updated model that supersedes that new one we released nearly 2 years ago. Go and buy it. Remember to recycle your old bikes!"
Low income earners who drive POS cars in mass is a serious problem at the consumer end.
While Tesla invested huge into the battery scene thats all dried up because now they actually make the cars, whos taking over on battery tech?
Companys will do the absolute minimum as far as spending money on something they will get no return on.
Someone needs to answer the big question regarding transport emissions etc "Who is going to pay for the research into battery technology beyond lithium?"
Also why are we trying to push straight to the end result instead of supporting brands like Hyundai who are pushing for evolution? they invested heavily into hydrogen because they believed that was the future, whether right or wrong they've tried, more than 99% of other car brands.
Im all about green, but it comes at a cost we cant afford, we also travel for our job including to the DH races in Europe so how am i ment to not use planes when theres no other option? I cant drive XXX miles in a tesla because 1 it cant accept our bikes/gear etc - 2: if we are traveling long distance we Cant just pull over and refill the battery in 5minutes.. we have to wait hours, if not overnight.
This whole thing requires world wide investment that nobody is willing to pay for and Lets be honest, depopulation - the problems only get worse the more people that live on the planet... There is no humane answer to the whole "going green" we can have summits all we like but untill someone puts their hand up and invests into hard solutions for consumables, making items last longer is not the answer at all.. infact it makes matter worse.
All this gorv/company level talk will lead to nothing improving because we are still trying to figure out the Geo of our bikes instead of worrying about the bigger picture of "how to actually build the thing"
We still worrying about product details... instead of the main issue that holds it back lol.
Oh and let’s talk ebikes - did y’all know that ebike motors are MORE efficient at converting energy into watts than our human bodies are? That’s right, a throttle bike with zero rider input is greener than you chowing down on a carne asada burrito and burning it off over 3,000 ft.
The whole sport is green washed. I still love it though. I just get tired of the BS.
And as users of said bikes if we really cared about environment we would stop caring about the next new thing and just ride our current bikes until it is unfixable/unrepairable then buy only second hand bikes until worldwide stock has been depleted.
I don't work with Fairtrade International or any other middleman or inefficiency who is inherently linked to global inequality, debt and racism.
Arguments will not be responded to for the same reason.
None of them really care about the environment as they have all given up manufacturing for profits. If the CEOs of those companies read this, they absolutely would take issue with it... but I would ask "why don't you re-establish/establish US production and take total control of their environmental impact," they would all cough, and look around for the exit.
The ebike demand (with asian production) is getting ready to bury the US bike companies. Their direct sales are under cutting the high cost of including independent bike dealers and the one advantage they COULD have is being made in America.
Keep biking true and pedal!
Greenwashing?...just pure BS!!!!
Of course we need to be aware as consumers of outright lies, but every brand I have worked with (and there's most of the biggest 10 or so global manufacturers in there) has a mix of people in different departments with different agendas. Those that I deal with want to change and are up for trying more responsible methods to get results (financial and for genuine feel good reasons), nine times out of ten I ask them to share these stories internally and with customers. By letting others know about these incremental improvements, it makes it easier for others to try without the fear of a greenwashing backlash.
We're already naturally wary about marketing promises, lets also keep an open mind to the good guys out there doing their bit to change.
Thank you
Blackrock talks about "engaging with policy" (advising on policy to favour companies they have large shares in - which is most of them) and "commons stewardship" (even more worrying because that translates to owning and monetising things we rely on to live, such as the sea. And air).
I'd say avoid Blackrock but we can't because they are in every single pie you can think of.
Mike Bascombe is a shill.
Buy off Craigslist.
"I mean, how often do you notice a man's shoes?"
You’re right. I give up. I was about to make a new bike purchase since I live in a place that makes riding to work super easy.
Wanted to do my part, but since you point out even electric cars have a carbon footprint, I feel better about keeping my 1974 Chevy Nova!
I spend about an hour of my commute idling in traffic, so I guess that doesn’t really count.
I’m old and I do miss the old V8’s. Problem here is I’m lying through my teeth..
I’m just so sick of people nitpicking the bike industry for crap like this.
If you want to decrease your very own personal carbon footprint, being on a bike is by far the easiest way. We're bike riders, why would we do this to ourselves? And with all the crap being spewed from actual polluting behemoth's all over the planet, here we are counting carbon molecules to make a bicycle?
What’s next, a bumper sticker for you ass the says “one less bicycle” every time you walk down the street?
I was gonna say the only real solution would be suicide, but since we’re carbon based that would mean polluting ground water.
Cremation would mean just be more greenhouse gasses..
I give up. I’ll just keep doing what I do. Drive around with my bike hanging off my Subaru.
bring back 26 forks!
-whole lotta claims...
-never got it right...
-Never apologized or publicly admitted they were WRONG
-Still call everyone "A non educated ignoramous "
-name calling name calling name calling....
-when all fails turn to corrupt politicians who go along as they can't win elections any other way but to believe those who will lie to make themselves feel they are superior.
- BUY ONLINE WEBSITES TO INSERT CLIMATE PROPAGANDA BS ....A BIT OF PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE IS A NARCISSIST BEST TOOL.
professional sustainability consultant = NARCISSISTIC PARTISAN ACTIVIST.
Buy. Buy. Buy. Buy. Buy. Buy. Buy. Buy. Consume. Consume. Consume. Consume. Consume. Consume. Interest rates are low. Credit is readily available. Gotta keep those profit margins ever increasing.
Is that Mr Lapierre counting the carbon captured by his carbon frame? (Science?!??)
Hence all these regs for:
% of employees must be this color or have these sex parts or these disabilities.
And dont forget to watch your 5 videos every year re:harassment; discrimination..
EVERYTHING, I mean EVERHTHING you eat, wear, touch and drive, ride, has a dependence on fossil / carbon generating fuels. Just sit. steep, and let that SINK IN FOR A WHILE! Yes, even your butt wipe, tampons and tooth paste.
While it is nice to have cleaner air, as steps have taken to reduce air pollution, that's great and all. Look at what the "rona shutdowns did to the canals in Italy or wherever that was in EU, they ran CLEAR, for the first time in what,,, ever. This whole Global warming / climate change theory mantra is so played out and debunked its just,,, stupidity. SCIENCE HAS PROVEN IT WRONG!
also, why did you buy your bike? Even if its only 1 bike you bought 5yrs ago? Didnt you know it was made in china? You are happy to put pressure on companies to go green, as long as it’s their problem. You still expect them to sell you a bike for a reasonable price. Or are you ready to pay 10k for an alu hardtail? Maybe we should have vouchers, and set a cap on supply of bikes, so e.g. UK gets to sell 500/year and vouchers who gets to buy one are auctioned to the highest bidder. That would solve the emissions problem eeeeasy. Are you ready for such system?
Every industry needs to improve if we are going to have a planet we can live on in 50 years (I plan to be alive then so I kind of give a shit about that.) The bike industry can help reduce car miles and as such improve the environment but it can still do a better job than it is doing now.
Using green credentials as a marketing tool is going to become the main focus of companies marketing departments over the coming years. Teaching people to recognise truly green companies vs companies that say things like "Our factories are carbon neutral" while ignoring the fact that most of their manufacturing is done by third parties and their supply chain is reliant on air shipping is critical to ensuring that consumers can make the right choices.
When was the last time you saw a £10k carbon bike locked up outside the supermarket or an office?
To clarify, I am not saying it is all individuals responsibility. I am just saying that bike companies are in the exact same spot as you are, in that, there is no solution to the problem, and they are not in the business of figuring out this solution. So you are just shifting the blame to a first thing you see, as long as it is not you.
We need technologies that are capable on a mass scale to reverse the process, not even stop it and certainly not just slow it down. And bike companies dont have expertise on that.
My (boutique, semi-custom) frame is made in Germany and it's cheaper than most carbon frames out there. Locally made was one major decision criterion when choosing it.
Also, I did not say "it will be unaffordable". I said, "you will have to intentionally make it unaffordable", if you want people to stop buying bikes and, thus, stop polluting.
Quoting the definition: "(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."
Quoting you: "wildly idiotic" (no source) and implying Skarhead has "brain injuries" due to the position they hold.
WOW, you really win don't you?
"an argument or reaction directed against"
I didn't bother to make an argument and my reaction was "no, they're not"... I then proceeded to mock him for making such an idiotic claim. Two separate statements. You clowns love to pretend insults and ad hom are the same but they're not. The basis for my argument against his point isn't contingent upon him being idiotic or suffering a brain injury, he's just wrong AND idiotic to the level of a brain injury.
Reading comprehension, try it sometime.
Come on back and try again when you got some facts on your side, coasty.
As far as warcrimes in the Middle East... objectivity is a tough thing to have, but IF you had it, you wouldn't make that claim.
I am sorry but no one individual/company can do anything about climate change until governments do something about it.
I wouldn't go as far as saying they are 100% responsible because gov's are so trapped within capitalism themselves, but I agree with your perspective overall
if a populace is choosing a government with poor policies on climate change over say another party with a more sustainable and progressive outlook..
Who is then responsible for the lack of action? Governments are made up of people. Theirs and their constituents lifestyles and choices affect and can direct policy.
everyone has a responsibility.
This should be a matter than nay govt of any side should do something about, independently of what the populace thinks.
I agree with you that people have the responsibility og voting politicians with good policies into power, but once they are in power there is little the people can do
Within reason, usage should be limited, but an outright ban would put the country back to the stone age.
Without that companies will adapt fast. If they get money for powerplants who are not even economical stable without subsidies they will not change.
@b45her: "Oh man, you guys are all sheep, I know the truth because a bald man in a pickup truck with wraparound sunglasses shouted it into his phone in a walmart parking lot and I did no more research into the subject."
Half the population indiscriminately should be a winner.
You know that a most of the time 75% of stuff you guys want to tell us is related to the meat industry yeh? 77% of Soy as you mentioned is for the meat sector alone and then there is a certain percentage reserved for the other parts of the industry as well. I dont know why you want to talk about almonds because the consumption is pretty low. But any big monoculture is bad that should not strike anyone really. That some are even more bad is also clear.
If you want to refer to the milk then fine but that's then also a problem because its the weakest seller by far for all fake milks.
Because you want something else, look just at Lupine or Lentils, that is the real freaking superfood because this stuff mostly dont need anything at all to grow, not only speaking of water because what good is a plant if it drains the soil extremely quick? That is also wrong with modern agricultural. They need to change that to the old times again when you actually changed the crops on the field to not drain the soil out of minerals.
We have enough land to sustain the amount of people we have now but not if everyone wants meat all the time. The food industry is really a BIG factor and it wont go down if nothing will change. IT will rise up and will doom us.
In my country there was once the "Sonntagsbraten" meaning that we had one real good big chunk of meat once per week at Sunday and nothing else. If we go also back to that it would help tremendously.
I grow up on a very small cow farm by the way and I hate cheap meat. Its so bad, I don't know why people want to eat that. Its comparable to a Walmart bike. Its bad for your health both the cheap steak jacked up with all kinds of meds and the Walmart bike will need you to take meds because it will crumble.