close
Pinkbike is now part of Outside! As of December 3, 2021, please refer to the Outside Terms of Use and Privacy Policy which govern your use of the Pinkbike website and services.

Are Bike Brands Greenwashing? We Asked An Expert

Nov 10, 2021
by Seb Stott  
Heritage. Gilles Lapierre and his father Jacky looking over DH frames in the Lapierre factory. Jacky may have handed the reins to his son in 96 but his influence is still visible on the production floor as Jacky strode through the facility with Gilles he was greeted by name and a handshake by nearly every worker on the floor--never mind it s been over a decade and a half since Jacky s been the managing director at Lapierre

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?




bigquotesThis 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.Mike Bascombe



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.


433 Comments

  • 309 42
 Thanks for this Pinkbike and Mike Bascombe. I think (hope?) there are a lot of us out there who feel very uncomfortable about what our passion for bikes is doing to the world. The more information we have to make decisions that are, at least, less impactful on the planet the better, and hopefully it drives a change in the industry towards more responsible practice.
  • 73 10
 Thanks. I think we might be at the start of a trend towards manufacturers taking more responsibility for their output and their supply chains; partly because, as you say, many customers care and partly because, as Mike says, it makes more business sense now.

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.
  • 226 19
 Manufacturers taking responsibility? LOL, yeah I'm sure China and Taiwan will jump right on that when not one country can be honest about their CO2 output and actions taken to curb those. Just you wait, these companies will start pushing the idea that consumers need to be more environmentally friendly while they continue on with their BS greenwashing claims. Its no different than the recycle scam where industries put the responsibility of properly recycling with consumers rather than making biodegradable or easy-to-recycle products at a higher cost. Most of these companies are owned by giant firms and they would rather destroy the planet or close down/sell that part of their portfolio than see their share prices drop.



Its all crap, we're all going to die, it looks like a Session.
  • 120 13
 The real problem is the model of our society and economy. The real culprit is consumptionism, and there is no capitalism without consumption, since there is no growth without consumption. Bikes is just a tiny tiny problem here. Our civilisation as a whole is not sustainable and probably cannot be made sustainable. The companies will do nothing, because in the long term this means they will shrink or die. Has aonyone calculated the impact of electric transport, how many resources has to be mined to make all those batteries? And yet we are so happy being eco in eletric cars. What happens when 6 billions of people will own one electric car? How can we get so much energy from any sources? No one asks those questions because the answer is literally to stop growing and move back to medieval.
  • 26 18
 @lkubica: eeexactly! Even if we dont go to medieval, but simply stop growing, then our society will be no more. Social elevator will be gone, and poor will get poorer. Right now, economics is in many ways a win-win game, because people can create new stuff, rightfully claim a bigger cut of that new growth without impeding on others, and improve their wellbeing that way. If we stop producing and growing, the only way to improve your wellbeing will be to make somebody else worse off. For that not to happen, we would need to comeup with acceptable and fair ways to redistribute property, which is a communist utopia, and I suspect goes against human nature.
  • 65 8
 @scott-townes: Huge amounts of the manufacturing in China and Taiwan is for export. If regulation forces companies to expose the CO2 in their supply chains and then we stop a) buying sh*t we don't need and b) stop buying it from suppliers with high CO2 supply chains then China and Taiwan will change because they have to keep getting business.

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!
  • 12 1
 @Woody25: Yes. "Change starts with you" Wink
  • 27 5
 @lkubica: I agree consumption is the problem. But I kinda feel if everything was made locally (which is less efficient) then the cost of everything would be more, and we would be forced to consume less. It is the cheapness of stuff, driven by massive corporation driven for maximum efficiency and therefore profit that makes things cheap, and hence more consumption.

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!
  • 12 2
 @phutphutend: The real question is to how keep people employed without mass corporations, industry and consumption. I only know that people will get poor. Some will remain rich, but most will get poor, because they will have much less income. This is the real problem. I think it will all collapse like a house of cards and thats why my reference to medieval, they will be few lords and lots of very poor people working for food.
  • 8 0
 I think the large majority showed that none of this mattered to them in the poll asking people if they cared about the environmental impact of their bikes mattered to them. It also shows in real life. Plenty of bike only trail systems are filled with trash.
  • 20 5
 @Woody25: That's a pipe dream. We are in the minority. We pay insane prices for a bike. You think for all the everyday products out there people are going to be willing to pay more? China gave people cheap shit while destroying the environment, that's not changing now. The G20 should have had one topic- China.
  • 28 5
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: it doesn't have to be. In my beloved home country we used to all throw our faeces out of the window until we learnt it was killing us. Opinion changed, it became socially unacceptable and built the right infrastructure.

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?
  • 21 17
 @Woody25: Sick PB comment virtue signaling too. Funny how its greenwashing now when companies make claims about the envioroment. Can we get to the same place where we don't just give companies a pass because OOOH LOOK A MINORITY IN A PROMO VIDEO. This shit does nothing for anyone.
  • 20 27
flag GZMS (Nov 10, 2021 at 7:06) (Below Threshold)
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: you realize that US pollutes more than twice as much per capita, compared to China?
  • 42 1
 I bet the world leaders that flew over 400 private jets in for COP26 can solve all our carbon emissions woes.
  • 17 10
 @GZMS: incorrect.
  • 10 0
 @lkubica: totally agree. This all comes to a head with major disruptions, societal decline, economic collapse and ultimately population dropping off a cliff. Then....back to medieval times for whoever is left.
  • 19 12
 Despite my narcissistic belief that I matter I also am able to realize that there are 7.8 billion other people on the planet…supposedly the worldwide population of mountain bikers is 9 million, which is less than 0.12% of the worlds total population. So no matter how filthy the bike industry is it’s not going to be the ruin of this planet.

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.
  • 15 7
 @MikeyMT: correct. Here, US at 15, China at 7. Do you have better calculations? Please share. data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?most_recent_value_desc=true
  • 16 20
flag Esmond (Nov 10, 2021 at 8:03) (Below Threshold)
 @GZMS: Where is data found about this? United States does more than any other country plus gives money to other countries to help fight pollution. China and India have already stated they will not stop using coal fired plants anytime soon. US may pollute twice as much per capita but China is still the biggest polluter on the planet and it isn't close.. I am for a clean environment and being good stewards of the earth. Man cannot stop climate change, nature is too big. We can definitely do better to have cleaner air and water.
  • 18 3
 @GZMS: So CO2 is the only pollution?
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.
  • 11 5
 @GZMS: But, the current model of capitalism is dependent on exploiting cheaper and cheaper labor to facilitate that oft-fetishized exponential growth curve (with little/no re-investment into said labor source). Add to that, the profit motive of capitalism has pernicious effects on areas that shouldn't be operated like a business: government, education, healthcare, policing...etc. Capitalism might spur "innovation" and "competition" but it also breeds predatory and discompassionate behavior in the name of profitability.
  • 9 3
 @Woody25: I won’t hold my breath on that happening. One of the first things we could do away this is racing and marketing. The carbon footprint of those 2 parts of the industry generates huge amounts of carbon just to help sell more stuff. Hands up for those who want the EWS, DH World cups and champs, xc, football, motorsport, etc all stopped on the grounds it would be better for the environment if they didn’t happen? I’m betting on virtually no one.

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
  • 9 7
 What about US army carbon footprint? Is us army carbon neutral? Wink
  • 11 14
 @scott-townes: You do know that China’s government has actually been taking much bigger, systemic steps to combat climate change than the US government and many other countries right?
  • 6 11
flag HGAB (Nov 10, 2021 at 8:59) (Below Threshold)
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: You have no idea what you are talking about. So glad you decided that being overly-confident in you view of world policy and the fact that you know how to type gave you the solution’s to the worlds problems.
  • 5 5
 @Esmond: simple Google search and I found the same thing.
Ever heard of Kyoto protocol? Yup, US dropped out and yes, it's about cutting greenhouse gases.
  • 5 1
 @HGAB: Show the proof
  • 16 2
 @HGAB: Every country has lied about the steps they're taking to combat Co2 emissions and if you haven't noticed, China has a terrible track record of being impartial and honest, the most recent example being the crimes against humanity in regards to the Uyghurs. But yes, go ahead and believe China if it makes you feel better.
  • 4 10
flag GZMS (Nov 10, 2021 at 9:24) (Below Threshold)
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: The article is about climate change. Of which the main cause is CO2. So I dont see how some radioactive or toxic waste is relevant to this discussion.
  • 12 0
 I'm guessing that for your average rider, how you get to the trailhead (drove in a giant pickup truck or in a small electric car), if you use a fossil fueled vehicle to shuttle, and if you fly to a destination to ride will have a much bigger carbon impact than the difference between a carbon and aluminum framed bike.
  • 15 10
 @lkubica: You are so correct, and fortunately for all of us, the World Economic Forum has a de-growth plan that will shrink all of the world's economies. You may have heard it described as The Great Reset, also known as Build Back Better, where a shrinking economy is the goal. Or is why there is such a rapid move towards eliminating fossil fuels with no alternative in place. Wind and Solar alone cannot make up the difference from no fossil fuels. There is a push to shut down nuclear power plants currently, so one can only conclude that there is to come more enriching of the elite ruling class at all our expense. I think the distraction of having us plebes worry about carbon emissions and offsets and neutrality is just what they want to keep us divided.
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
  • 8 1
 Based on the Trek data the average bike creates 174 kg of CO2 to make. Burning a single gallon of gasoline to drive to a do a ride or shuttle a ride creates 8.8 kg of CO2 so by using 20 gallons of gasoline you have used as much carbon as it took to make a bicycle. At 25 miles per gallon, 20 gallons of gas only gets you 500 miles in a car. I'm guessing I probably drove 5000+ miles to get to bike rides this year. I tried to do most of that in an electric car but there were some trips where I had to drive in gasoline vehicles.
  • 8 2
 @Dopepedaler: I am not disagreeing with you. I am just saying that the changes, which are required, are not some minor changes. They are not even major changes. They are a complete paradigm shift. Labour is essential to most humans and we will have to find ways to make billions of people busy, so they stay mentally stable, however without spending resources and producing stuff.
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.
  • 10 2
 @lkubica: economic value can be created in many ways, not just manufacturing of consumable goods - services also offer that possibility. Without continued growth of the population, economic growth is still possible (and likely), it basically just revolves around producing more goods and/or services per person - that's what GDP per capita essentially measures. If the whole world stopped manufacturing things today, and had to keep everything running based on our current products, more businesses would spring up around the service/repair/maintenance of those things. Manufacturing and consumerism has been pushed for the last 120 years or so because it's proven to be an extremely effective way to fuel economic growth and the creation of rich societies, but it doesn't need to continue to be the primary economic driver forever.
  • 1 2
 @lkubica: at least going back to medieval is a working option to save the climate.
  • 7 0
 @scott-townes: www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-country

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.
  • 2 0
 @Woody25: Great comment. On an individual level communication of the problem is much more productive than reducing they're own carbon footprint. Although walking the walk and leading by example is an effective way to communicate solutions.
  • 2 2
 @HGAB: No links in your response? So got anything more than opinion?
  • 2 1
 @Dopepedaler: that must be why fewer and fewer people live in poverty every generation?
  • 1 1
 @seb-stott: I travel to ride semi-frequently and I’m curious if you could answer what’s the rough relative carbon footprint of buying a bike vs a 3-4 hour domestic flight or a 10 hour international flight?
  • 4 0
 @lkubica: Sustainability is possible, but not without a hot tub time machine.
  • 4 0
 @unrooted: Sure. But it's also the reason the world's top billionaires own more wealth than some countries and, one could argue, are why we are steering toward an existential crisis. Eventually there will be fewer people consume stuff and/or more people living underwater.
  • 2 0
 @GZMS: You are most certainly correct. We are not too good at playing those cooperatively. Come on asteroid strike.
  • 8 4
 Capitalism and Cancer have many eerie parallels but the M.O. of both is uncontrolled growth. We know how that story usually ends. A similar metaphor can be drawn between humankind and our planet. I don't really know if survival in in our nature......
  • 3 1
 @Dopepedaler: A rising tide lifts all ships.
  • 1 0
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: 100 percent. Well said!
  • 3 0
 @HGAB: nope you are dead wrong. China has not taken the steps. The proof is in what you see.
  • 7 1
 @GZMS:The atmosphere cares not about the contribution per individual only the mass total of emissions. Governments dictate policy not individuals. China holds the power to make the greatest impact to total emissions through policy. As individuals we make our own decisions on how we pollute within the framework of that policy. Buy a used bike if you want to make a difference at the individual level.
  • 1 0
 @scott-townes: I LOL'd this post because of the last 5 words. Well done.
  • 1 0
 So many Mike’s
  • 7 2
 @jonemyers: it’s too bad that your electric car isn’t green, then. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not dissing you. I applaud you wanting to do the right thing. Unfortunately electric cars aren’t the answer. Neither is my F150…
  • 7 1
 @jaznomore: @jaznomore: The atmosphere does not care about individual, true. Yet "total emissions" is a matter of grouping. So why your grouping only consists of China? You know who emits more than China? China + Japan. "Asia" is also a way to aggregate. As is "developed world". But your grouping seems to be selected on purpose to play the blame game. I just thing it is a bit hypocritical to blame somebody else, while being the highest percapita emitters. China has the power to make the biggest impact? In what way do they have that power? By pushing millions back into poverty? Maybe the western world could cut their emissions in HALF to level out with the developing world... It looks like there is some excess to cut back. You cant expect everybody around you to make sacrifices so you could continue to live in cumfort.

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).
  • 4 1
 Oh man.

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.
  • 15 0
 @rossluzz: ...and Bill Gates just had a $2 million wedding for his daughter. Look that one up. I'm sure it was all biodegradable plastic cutlery and recycled paper plates with fake meat burgers. I'm not arguing what someone can afford to spend or should spend, but most of these WEF politicians, banksters and captains of industry all talk big about green economy, carbon credits and "build back better", but it's always rules for thee, but not for me. They're hypocrites.
  • 3 1
 @unrooted: That's assuming all boats are seaworthy or that everyone has access to a boat.
  • 5 0
 @Dopepedaler: can you point to a single country without capitalism which is slightly considered successful?
  • 6 1
 @TheR: BUG MURDERERER!!!!!!
  • 3 0
 @GZMS: You're missing the point. I didn't say that the developed world shouldn't make changes, they must. Nor did I blame China for all the worlds climate issues. What I said was it's irrelevant to point out per capita rates if you want change. Only governments have the power to set policy within their own states. China cannot set policy for Japan (at least not yet) so they cannot directly effect change in Japan. Grouping the two together is non-sensical. The fact is China emits the most GHG of all nations it therefore has the ability to effect the most change.
  • 2 0
 @rcybak: You nailed it 100%
  • 2 0
 @scott-townes: Mans is speaking more fax than a Kendrick Lamar verse
  • 2 0
 @jonemyers: Not sure why this got any down votes at all... just plain logic, reasoning and self/original thought about the subject.
  • 3 3
 @zoobab2: That's the rub my friend... if people really believed the climate needed to be or could be saved, then it would happen. The reason, we dont or wont end our way of life, is because this not "settled science"... no matter how much the media and political control mongers so desperately want you to believe.
  • 3 1
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: Links to research, papers and other opinions dont mean much. Whatever you choose to believe and support... you can find supporting information for it. The same info youre asking for is out there... if you really wanted to consider it, you could.
  • 5 4
 "Adapt or die", FU and you're woke, milk toast and pronoun BS!
  • 3 2
 @unrooted: Successful by which metric? GDP? Education of the population? Health of the population? "Happiness" of the population? If you are looking for the "net-net" answer, perhaps there isn't one. However, there are plenty of nations that have a regulated, capitalist economy whilst simultaneously re-investing in and/or supporting their population. Embracing the shallower yet more sustainable growth curve. The issue is that whenever that is mentioned, people attribute it Socialism and/or Communism. Then, all nuance of instituting even mildly "socialist" policies becomes a non-starter.
  • 3 9
flag TOOTRIKK (Nov 10, 2021 at 18:00) (Below Threshold)
 @lkubica: The real problem is that it still would be totally unsustainable for all 7 billion of us to drive an electric car up to the mountain and then ride a mountain bike manufactured out recycled plastic and the hit up the local brewery for a post ride beer, brewed out of recycled piss, on the way home to our carbon neutral homes. Sorry I am not gonna feel guilty about my consumptionism. Our goal should be for everyon to be able to enjoy the fruits of modern day life, not to go back to the misery of mid evil times.
  • 1 0
 @lkubica: Damn. This is truth.
  • 5 1
 @TheOriginalTwoTone: stop buying cheap shit and China won’t produce it.
  • 1 0
 @scott-townes: 100% spot on!!
  • 1 0
 @kingbike2: I don't shop at Wallmart
  • 6 0
 I’ll be honest: I want the best possible stuff. I want an all carbon, screaming Ferrari of a bike (and many of them), but I don’t want the industry pushing new “must have” innovations each year. I have three Yetis (I’m a plastic surgeon, gang) and I like that none of them have fundamentally changed. I have had them for a few years now and I don’t feel like I’m behind the curve with these bikes because Yeti has been pretty stable in their designs. I would much rather go this way: still have amazing bikes made out of unobtainium, but for longer periods of time and not be compelled to up level just because.

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.
  • 5 2
 @unrooted: well, you could always split the world in small fractions and say “ Hey! This part of the world alone doesn’t solve climate change so then we shouldn’t even try”. This is a really tiresome argument.
  • 3 0
 @scott-townes: Agreed. They don’t care about us or the environment they just want our money. They will only use the environment as an excuse to extract more money from us by using it as an to increase their prices. Remember this the industry that’s gets old Chinese lady’s and children to do their manufacturing in horrendous conditions for peanuts while selling it in the west for thousands.
  • 1 0
 @Isey: but Is it not true? If Finland disappears would anyone notice?
  • 2 2
 @Isey: I don't disagree. Climate change is happening, and we should be looking for solutions, it just seems to me that it's not getting at the root of the problem. The reality is that until every human has the capital to decide whether they should be buying from company X over company Y because company X has more sustainable practices it's a moot point. Walmart will thrive and coal plants will continue to be built. Global warming is less of a danger than inequality by a huge margin imo...
  • 2 1
 I would add that eliminating bike racing would reduce emissions but eliminating ALL motor sport racing would have a much bigger impact. Complete waste of resources! @CM999:
  • 1 0
 Amen!!@scott-townes:
  • 3 2
 @TOOTRIKK: despite global warming and Walmart, people have access to more wealth and are living far longer than they were 120 years ago. The average male in America lived to 46 and there were 5 times as many people living in poverty. It seems that capitalism has done a lot for the USA, despite its pitfalls
  • 2 0
 @ElDragon: It's milquetoast.
  • 3 0
 @thenotoriousmic: Hey you may have something there. So we fall back in love with aluminum bikes at $1,900 for a frame then next year they’re $2,400 then $2,700…then we are at $3k for an aluminum frame, but gee are we doing our part helping the environment. Maybe I’m cynical, but this kind of thing is quite annoying.
  • 2 0
 @Mntneer: Capitalism is natural. Equality is not. That’s the struggle my friend.
  • 3 0
 If Mike Bascombe thinks Blackrock represent what is good for the planet, then he is nothing but a talking head, likely planted here to talk up their new 'green revolution'.

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.
  • 2 0
 @eurojuice: alu isn't environmental at all, it takes a huge amount of electricity to produce
  • 1 0
 @Mntneer: wars.. wars have done a lot for USA.. capitalism is secondary..
  • 4 2
 I find it intriguing that the majority of pro-change for the climate are coming from commenters without a USA flag beside their names and the vast majority of "climate change is fake... its all China's fault... my bike doesn't make a difference" is coming from commenters with USA flags beside their names.
  • 3 1
 @rossluzz: they will! they will all sign the document and then absolutely no one will do a single f*cking thing on the list! just like the previous 25 times, and just like will happen at COP27!


it's all a f*cking grift.....
  • 3 0
 @conoat: Not to worry Greta Thunberg is on the case!
  • 1 0
 @conoat: Enjoying your expat lockdown?
  • 2 0
 @GZMS: a strong military is probably the main driving factor in modern economics. China clearly recognizes this as well.
  • 1 2
 @Mntneer: it is not military, it is wars.. raiding countries for cheap resources.. forcing everyone into dollar.. forcing to comply with us laws and embargos.. it is not capitalism when Russia and EU arent allowed to trade because US would be unhappy..
  • 4 1
 @Boldfish: The reason that is the case isn't what you are inferring. It is because the USA has a history of distrust of the government and of institutions telling them what to do. It's called freedom, something most European countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand either never had, of have given up on in exchange for what they consider security. Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.
  • 1 1
 @seb-stott: Ï watched Baraks speech at COP26, and was concerned he turned the focus of responsibility onto consumers. This concern turned to a realistic appreciation of the power we all have to make practical choices in what we purchase. There is and will always be greed in people, so it’s no surprise that some brands will greenwash, but as you say there are also plenty of brands making positive change, that is being rewarded with commercial success. It’s pretty easy to spot the companies that are greenwashing, checking their green credentials on their web and social channels, and contact them and ask what they’re doing, if they’re truly engaged staff at all levels will no about it and will be only to happy to tell customers - at RideGuard we have a very vocal and active community, we share our environmental progress, the successes and failures, listen and act on the input we have with our customers. I try and give feedback on the MTB products I buy as I know it can make a difference, whether it’s excessive plastic packaging, products that break prematurely, or a lack of recycling information. With a bit of input from us all, things will have to improve.
  • 2 0
 @rcybak: is that a joke? They have night club bouncers with guns as police officers.
  • 1 0
 @thenotoriousmic: we also have citizens with guns…
  • 1 1
 @rcybak: in my country a lot of coutry folk also say climate change is not real.. they sure have a free spirit those guys.. free from the government.. but also free from education and knowledge. Ignorance is bliss.
  • 3 0
 @lkubica: Let me give you a quick lesson in economics. Think back 300 years ago when everyone was in their village. If you didn't work (produce), you didn't eat that night.
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.
  • 1 0
 @jcjbike: thanks, but this is exactly was I was trying to say Razz So to sum up, Thanos was perfectly right and the only way to save our civilisation is a massive depopulation, because otherwise we must continue the culture of massive consumption which will eventually lead to the same, a great disaster. So basically we are f*cked. And I am not kidding. So the best thing you can do is to become rich, cause the rich are the ones that will survive.
  • 1 0
 @jcjbike: I agree with you on capitalism, but you’ve forgotten the service sector. In my home country less than 10% of the population works in manufacturing and even in China only 17% do.

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!
  • 1 1
 @lkubica: Agreed, we blew our chance, wasted our resources. We could have done great things but we didn’t because there wasn’t any profit in it so we’re teetering on the edge of collapse without the technology to save ourselves or to get off this planet waiting for the next war, earthquake, asteroid to send us back to a population off 500,000. Opps.
  • 2 0
 @Woody25: Unfortunately a massive idle human population is a far worse proposition than working humans. Working toward a goal is a natural human instinct… that’s why it’s so off putting to most to see people that don’t. A “utopian” society where we all sit around with no ambition and no results (universal basic income), would lead to massive depression, crime, suicide, and overall societal regression (education, advancement, common ground, etc).
  • 1 0
 @Baller7756: I didn’t put that argument forward, I suggested we could work shorter weeks, the idea being to share the remaining work around.

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.
  • 2 0
 @Woody25: Some fine points. Particularly, deciding the necessary and inspirational work. But I stand by the internal desire for gain… it’s a natural human instinct, a modern version of survival. Living day to day… with little regard for the future is great for some (a small minority), but most will pursue happiness through security, security for themselves, their current family, and their future family. It’s literally coded in their DNA.

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.
  • 2 0
 @Baller7756: I do agree with the hard-wiring and I don't think we need to remove it. Here's a poorly considered example off the top of my head:

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!
  • 1 0
 @Woody25: An interesting thought… rewarding good deeds and behaviors. I still believe our hard wiring would find a way to undermine that up as well. There is a lot of hard wiring that is considered inappropriate by some… just a few actually who have a larger voice than they should. But just the thought that we should act and behave in a way that is not natural is mind blowing.

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.
  • 73 8
 I'm currently in the process of writing a Environmental Impact Assessment and Policy for my (albeit very small) bicycle manufacturing company. Understanding the emissions and impacts directly of my company is relatively easy, but trying to get the impact from my suppliers is proving very tricky.

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!!
  • 38 3
 Good luck with the environmental impact policy and the company. I agree that the current trend for blaming China for everything is both hugely counter-productive and in many ways disingenuous - partly because their economy involves making carbon-intensive products for us in the West. If enough manufacturers start asking questions and putting pressure on their suppliers to cut emissions, or swap suppliers to those with lower emissions, then progress can be made.

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.
  • 3 1
 @seb-stott:

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
  • 3 0
 Excellent point on recycled materials. Best of luck with the impact assessment. More brands doing it, no matter how small, the better.
  • 9 3
 Steel is also a lower "grade" once recycled. FYI.
  • 7 3
 @atrokz: Sorry, that not the case. Just type it into Google and hundreds of sources for the fact steel can be indefinately recycled. the 853 tubing we use comes from recycled steel.
  • 11 12
 @phutphutend:Cute. I'm a metallurgical expert in the aerospace industry. Trust me we aren't using your pop cans for anything serious.
  • 13 1
 @atrokz: That doesn't mean that it is automatically downcycled. You may not be using recycled pop cans for your aerospace products, but they can (pun intended) be used for more pop cans.
  • 16 1
 @atrokz: Wait, recycling aluminum pop cans suddenly turns them into a lower grade steel? Or does recycling steel turn it into aluminum pop cans? I'm confused.
  • 5 2
 @seb-stott: So it's not the CCP's fault for not enforcing any kind of environmental regulations?
  • 3 3
 @microwaveric: its just an example as I pop cans don't become bikes. Most aluminum *alloys* are composed of various elements that makes it extremely difficult or energy intensive to extract from that alloy.
  • 6 0
 @e-fro: glad you focused on the point. yes it does. You lose traceability and ability to use specific alloys in many instances. Not every manufacturer has a niton xl5 so they rely on source control. The energy and time required to extract mineral elements from a recycled alloy. don't forget steel isn't a homogeneous single element but rather a make up of various elements to create specific steels. Recycling it absolutely does reduce the quality of it as well as lost traceability and issues with composition. Hope that helps.
  • 2 0
 @phutphutend Genuine question: How feasible would it be to not use the suppliers that don't give you the info?

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?
  • 3 0
 @Woody25: I'm going to publish the report when it's finished, I want to be totally transparent. I think if I did this, and everyone did, it would then be possible for consumers to choose the brands that are making the best choices.

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!!
  • 1 0
 @Woody25: its easier for the suppliers just to turn them off as a customer , plenty of customers out there
  • 5 2
 @atrokz: Yes and no! I've spent time working in EAF steel mills that rely solely on steel scrap. While they do have a tendency to have more quality issues like edge cracking, hot shortness, etc. than integrated mills, they are still very much capable of producing the same quality and grade steels as an integrated mil. By using scrap they can also have outputs as low as .5 metric tons of CO2 per metric ton of steel produced. For the steel produced that does have quality issues it is either sold as a lower grade material to a different customer or melted again until the alloy is correct. They do very much have to add some alloys as there is never a definitive alloy makeup of every piece of steel scrap that comes in, but it is far more energy efficient and can still produce the same quality steel after being recycled over and over again than an integrated mill can!
  • 5 0
 @stephenllama: good points that add to the discussion. We don't use recycled steel for critical parts. For lesser applications its a different requirement and allowance for traceability of source. Things like appliances, consumer goods etc its good to go. Class 1 pins on a bogie pin? Not so much. Application dependant.
  • 3 0
 @stephenllama: theyre comparing an apple but two types of apple boggo structural steel you can see the odd pop can being chucked in , it would be interesting to see what carpenter puts in their double vacuum melt someone should maybe ask them but i would doubt anything being gain refined or 3.2 cert is going to see anything other than virgin material
  • 2 0
 @Compositepro: yup. A36 is one thing. CPM steels are another. We aren't buying PM steels that have been recycled. Same for stuff like 300M or duplex steels.
  • 59 5
 Awesome article. This is so great to see a powerful media like pinkbike writing about it, especially with the help of a neutral expert to avoid all the greenwashing BS. It would be even better if you include these issues more and more in your future articles. Maybe a first step in showing us that some of the big companies we like are not going in the right direction. Thank you pinkbike.
  • 7 1
 Great feedback, thanks. Have you got any more specific ideas on future issues/articles?
  • 13 3
 @seb-stott: completely agree with @Rusteo. PB is doing an admirable job at keeping a spotlight on the environment, keep up the great work.

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.
  • 2 6
flag m1dg3t (Nov 10, 2021 at 1:47) (Below Threshold)
 @tremeer023: Cognitive dissonance in the flesh LoL
  • 6 0
 @seb-stott: Hi Seb, would be very interested to know what the bike industry is doing in terms of circularity.
  • 3 1
 Completely agree. Would be great to see sustainability and net Zero category sewn into a product or bike review somehow.
  • 6 0
 @seb-stott: I think one of the best ways to reduce the carbon footprint is to use reliable parts so that only one set of parts (ie: wheels, frame) needs to be manufactured and shipped to a customer so that they can have a functioning bike. 10+ years ago, even some lower end bikes came with name brand rims (Mavic, Ringle, etc...) and Shimano hubs. Now, every bike part supplier wants a bigger cut and companies put on no-name hubs. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of bikes in their first year where pretty much every single customer destroyed a rear hub. A deep dive on warranty stuff would be neat. How much warranty rates affect price, spec decisions, design intent, etc...
  • 7 1
 @seb-stott: I'd love to see a sustainability paragraph for every product that you review on this site, and also factor that into your overall review appraisal.
  • 1 0
 I agree. PB is in a tricky position as it is highlighting the issues but is also part of the bike industry marketing to help sell more stuff. If sites like PB and others, magazines etc didn’t help sell stuff then I imagine the supply of product to test and launch event invites would soon dry up
  • 1 0
 @seb-stott: the carbon foot print of the DH World Cup series including the number of bikes each rider uses in a season as well as the logistics of the whole series travelling round the world. How many wheels, frames and tyres get used. What happens to those that aren’t broken but not used by the team again?
  • 5 1
 @seb-stott: Maybe a sustainability report on Pinkbike/Outside?
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.
  • 2 1
 @seb-stott: A yearly review of where these 40 some-odd companies in their "Green" plans...
  • 2 1
 @mbl77: exactly - what I personally look for in any product is service life and repairability and I would like to see that featured in product reviews more. Stuff like how $200 flat pedals that have proprietary top-load pins are essentially trash after you take a few pins out on your favorite rock garden if you don't have a metal workshop where you can extract the pins and maybe chase the threads too. Even bottom loaded pedals can become a headache after a rock strike if the platform is too thin and the threads get mangled. Are the pivot bearings easy to change on that new freeride rig. Did DT Swiss again spec alu nipples with threadlock for their new enduro wheels. Does the product have any proprietary spare parts that I can't get anymore if that bearded guy with a cnc in his shack goes bankrupt etc etc.
  • 1 1
 @letsgethurt: Yes! This. That's a part that is missing from the article. Making the bike last longer will help a lot with reducing carbon emissions, because the only truly co2 neutral bike is the one that is not made at all.
Of course, it will only help if people do not buy a new bike every year to comply with trends..
  • 1 0
 @Rhymer: Agree with sustainability of Pinkbike/Outside. The environmental impact of the techno sphere isn't always top of mind but our clicks use energy and the servers are often powered with fossil fuels.
  • 5 0
 @Rhymer: HEY PinkBike - How about starting with your merch? It doesn't take much to swap virgin cotton and polyester to recycled on your range of Tees as a start. Alternatives to virgin plastics in your other plastic products also a relatively easy swap to recycled - just saying!!

And an eco rating on product reviews while you're there...
  • 54 2
 I am so glad about Mike pointing out that planting trees is not going to save us. People think that pine farms are forests but in reality they are mono culture with poor biodiversity. Not even close to natural forest.
  • 8 1
 It's true - not all carbon offsets are equal or even valuable. I would recommend having a read of www.goldstandard.org (one of the offsetting organisations Mike mentioned) for an idea of what good offsetting projects look like.
  • 6 15
flag m1dg3t (Nov 10, 2021 at 1:36) (Below Threshold)
 Also, don't forget that it takes ~20yrs for a tree to become carbon negative. Up until then it is actually producing more carbon than it absorbs.
  • 9 1
 @m1dg3t: Thats really interesting but I cant find any source to that statement, care to elaborate? I get it takes time for a tree to grow but in principle it should be absorbing carbon from the start as it needs it for the growth?
  • 3 1
 Maybe they’re using a backhoe to dig the holes after hauling the trees to the forest on a 16 wheel flatbed truck after using a backhoe to dig up the trees from a nursery very far away from the planting site @winko:
  • 3 0
 @winko: The problem is much more complicated. This article explains it quite well: phys.org/news/2020-07-young-trees-forests-important-climate.html
  • 3 1
 @winko: Carbon absorption varies throughout species and seasons but it's basically a bell curve through their lifecycle.
  • 2 14
flag m1dg3t (Nov 10, 2021 at 3:15) (Below Threshold)
 @winko: Why am I not surprised that you can't find readily available public information?
  • 1 3
 @winko: Don’t bother. Look at “its” comment history.
  • 2 15
flag m1dg3t (Nov 10, 2021 at 5:06) (Below Threshold)
 @Chuckolicious: Presuming this is regarding me/my comments? If you were in reach I'd give you the slap your father should have years ago. Dingus.

You have contributed nothing positive to society. I can discern that from your comment history.
  • 2 0
 @winko: PBS Terra on YT "The Surprising Truth Behind Planting Trees and Climate Change"
  • 1 4
 There's a few other issues with tree planting that are important to consider.
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.
  • 2 0
 @GZMS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdKOmvIKyg Here is a link so others don't have to look for it, this video really describes the issue well and makes it easy to understand!
  • 1 0
 @ratedgg13: It's called permanence and is an issue with nature based carbon offsets. How can you guarantee that the unit of carbon you have paid for through your nature based intervention is permanently removed? At the moment you can't really do this.
  • 2 1
 @ratedgg13: Indeed. Planting the wrong species of trees based on the current rate of climate change is a bad idea. But the right species is a great method. Your concern about albedo is technically correct, however it does not take into account "transpiration". Basically, the benefits a diverse forest brings with the water cycle, coupled with the obvious and accurately accountable carbon absorption, far exceed the technical decrease in albedo.

Now, the decrees in albedo with the reduction in polar ice, exposing ocean, is a clear and present danger with no beneficial aspects.
  • 1 0
 Monocultures are also extremely vulnerable to pests that kill them off and release a lot of that carbon, see the recent Pine Beetle outbreak in the lodgepoles pines we planted all over the place as a lumber source back in the day here in the western US.

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.
  • 1 0
 Not to mention the issues with planting trees where they aren't really supposed to be (grasslands/prairies for example).
  • 33 5
 I hate this ZERO emission label really. You CAN'T do that ! Even on the smallest scale if everything is handmade, hand mined, foot/hand transported there are emissions. Your company is a Zero emission company? Really , what are you doing? Nothing? That would be the company who could actually be successful and nothing else.
  • 14 1
 The zero emissions label is misleading and another form of greenwashing, because it is simply impossible. I mean we all produce emissions from just being alive. Carbon dioxide just from breathing. Companies should just try to do their best instead of using nonsensical fantasy labels like zero emission.
  • 2 5
 @OneTrustMan: Don't forget the methane we expell when we flatulate or belch. Which is quite often for many of us LoL
  • 9 5
 The idea behind the language is "NET" zero. You're right, no company can reduce emisisons entirely, but you can equalise them after decarbonising. The wording will never be perfect, but the process is ambitious and improving all the time.
  • 5 1
 The truth is that thee is no zero emission or 'green' way to consume goods. Even if you buy non physical goods the money you pay will lead to emmisions. The only way is to consume less.
  • 2 1
 conservation of energy Im waiting for the company that goes full GREENWASH by saying they actually make something and reduce the emissions of others whilst doing their own work
  • 3 2
 Net zero isn't theoretically impossible, it just requires technologies like Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) or Direct Air Capture (DAC), which at this stage are both insanely expensive. Please note I am not talking about carbon capture and storage - those technologies are mostly useless / greenwashing.
  • 2 2
 @OneTrustMan: @OneTrustMan: You obviously don't know what zero emissions refers to. Humans don't create carbon--it simply passes through our bodies. We ingest carbon in the form of food, and exhale it in the form of CO2.
  • 2 4
 @m1dg3t: cow farts are a bigger greenhouse gas than the whole transportation sector.
  • 2 0
 @ratedgg13: if you only consider CO2 that might be true but we have many more environmental and ressource problems than that.
  • 5 2
 Zero emissions is just virtue signal marketing to sell more carbon stuff. See the contradiction. Wink
  • 4 0
 @ratedgg13: yes but most of those companies who have this label on them just want to plant some trees.
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.
  • 2 0
 @ratedgg13: a lot of people forget that all plants absorb co2 and many are effective at trapping it in the soil long term, not just trees. Net Zero is and was by necessity a real option
  • 1 0
 @Serpentras: You are talking about carbon credits. A system made to judge themselves whether they are being green. Not independent at all. It would be like judging yourself how well you rode at a subjective mtb contest like Red Bull Rampage. Haha.
  • 24 4
 "
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...
  • 21 1
 Admittedly, the phrase "can be" is doing a lot of work there.
  • 3 0
 "Fortunately, Pinkbike's comments section can be an illuminating place."

Well that's one way of putting it Big Grin
  • 1 0
 Indeed - Only Death is Real.
  • 22 2
 You didn’t even ask this “addicted bike rider” anything about bikes, I dunno if I can trust a guy that refuses to post his strava history
  • 35 1
 For sure a key requirement of any climate consultant is to be able to send fifty-foot doubles. My apologies for not checking.
  • 16 0
 Now please someone calculate how much CO2 is produced while a regular everyday normal guy works to earn 10 000 USD to be able to get a bike.
  • 4 7
 You would be surprised at how much C02 these posts create. carbonliteracy.com/the-carbon-cost-of-an-email

Let's keep pontificating.
  • 4 0
 @m1dg3t: thats brilliant i always wondered how much the cost of thos trillions of vanity posts on instascam and other socials cost , looking at those figures we are royally f*cked

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
  • 3 4
 @Compositepro: Haven't logged in to FB in over 4 years. I only use YouTube and a couple forums. I have 0 interest in any other social media platforms. I hate emails & text messages.

BTW The carbon footprint of an email has nothing to do with if you physically print a copy or not.
  • 2 0
 @m1dg3t: i was more highlighting theh disclaimer on the bottom saying printing it f*cks the environment

it seems generating it (email) in the first place is as bad??
  • 2 0
 @Compositepro: talk to an actual person on the phone? What is this, the 20th C?

Being serious though, I read an article on the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining recently. I had no idea.
  • 2 5
 @tremeer023: How could you not have any idea about mining? They use computers to calculate bits & bytes (hash rate). Some mining firms have literally purchased power plants to support their operations.
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.
  • 2 0
 @m1dg3t: i thought mining was a kid in his bedroom rinsing as many graphics cards as he could lay his hands on to be fair, didnt realise it went to that scale

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
  • 1 0
 @m1dg3t: no, I know it
  • 11 0
 Even thought the process of producing bikes generates a fair bit of CO2, if they help to reduce reliance on internal combustion vehicles that's still probably a hefty net gain for the environment. Obviously if you then drive your bike to the nearest heli-shuttle probably not... But that said, it's probably arguable that greater proliferation of bikes (and ebikes) could benefit the environment despite the CO2 associated with their production and distribution.
  • 10 1
 Totally agree. Using a bike instead of a car (or even instead of a bus or train) is a huge win for the environment. You have to use a new bike instead of a car for about 300 miles for it to break even on its manufacturing carbon emissions, but there is potential for bikes to cover hundreds of times that in their lifetime.
  • 12 0
 @seb-stott: the entire carbon footprint of a high end bicycle’s production is equivalent to driving a tank of gas?

I’m sorry but that really makes me care less about how bad the bicycle industry is for the environment…
  • 11 2
 @fewnofrwgijn: From an individual perspective, how many bikes you buy or what they're made of is unlikely to be a major part of your personal environmental impact. For that, it makes more sense to focus on how much you drive, fly, eat meat etc.

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."
  • 5 14
flag m1dg3t (Nov 10, 2021 at 2:10) (Below Threshold)
 @seb-stott: LoL. Change definitely starts at the individual level. Leaving it to corporations/industry is exactly what has led us to our current situation. But hey, keep telling yourself whatever to help you sleep better at night.
  • 19 1
 @m1dg3t: I actually think the emphasis has been placed too much on individual action, which is a deliberate tactic used by corporations (most notably BP) to shift blame away from themselves (source below). It will take individuals, governments *and* consumers to fix this. Putting the spotlight on businesses does not put individuals or governments off the hook.

Soure here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc&;
  • 4 1
 @m1dg3t: yeah I don’t think 10000 people using paper straws will do anything near as impactful as forcing an international manufacturer to change one of their factories to a more environmentally-restricted city for the foreseeable future

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
  • 2 0
 @fewnofrwgijn: Paper straws are the ultimate 'greenwashing' gesture of recent times, the carbon footprint of a paper straw vs plastic is phenomenal, then taking into account a full LCA of both, the plastic straw if PE or PP can be recycled numerous times back into a straw, the paper counterpart (with its foil laminate/hydrophobic coating) isn't reusable or recyclable and usually ends up in a landfill (you can argue that some of it is biodegradable - however this process still releases CO2).

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.
  • 6 11
flag m1dg3t (Nov 10, 2021 at 3:28) (Below Threshold)
 @seb-stott: And out comes the doublespeak. Right on cue! Orwell would be proud. LoL

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."
  • 4 5
 @fewnofrwgijn: I don't care about straws because I don't eat fast food. I eat at home. Straws are just a token gesture to make people feel better about all the garbage the they create. No straws get recycled. Unless you're my nonna when I was a kid... Then it was 1 straw lasted until it was literally unusable any more.
  • 4 1
 @m1dg3t: angry midget
  • 1 5
flag m1dg3t (Nov 10, 2021 at 4:14) (Below Threshold)
 @GZMS: LoL If you say so, Mr. Potato Head.
  • 1 0
 @seb-stott: I agree, check out influencemap.org/index.html for info on who the biggest lobbyist are.
  • 1 4
 @m1dg3t: I know Seb and that boy lives a good, environmentally friendly lifestyle that I, as a bit of an enviro-nazi, approve of.

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.
  • 2 1
 @m1dg3t: you work for an industrial deregulation lobby as a shill, right?
  • 10 0
 I support carbon emission nutrition labels for all industries specifically so people realize that making a bicycle company 50% greener doesn’t do anything compared to making a major automotive company 5% greener
  • 6 0
 Or an oil company 0.01% greener.
  • 4 2
 bike companies probably waste more resources on coming up with PC answers to sustainability questions and producing emission reduction plans, than they will eventually be able to save by putting those plans in practice
  • 9 0
 Great article! In my opinion we should also shine a light on the amount of plastic waste being produced in the bike industry. I work in a bikeshop and at the beginning of every season I'm always shocked by how the companys, especially the clothing companys, are packing every single piece of clothing in a separet piece of plastic. That makes for a huge pile of platic waste once you are finished unboxing all the stuff. The worst company in that aspect is by far Fox Clothing! We as riders, shopworkers and also the Bikemedia should really start calling out companys for not giving a shit about the environment and in that way force them to change something!
  • 18 9
 We all know the answer to global warming is to abolish greed, consumerism and capitalism, also birth control... but humanity will never do it, we're f@!ked
  • 16 10
 Yes some good old oppressive communism is just what the climate needs right? Let’s take everyone except the ruling class back to the Stone Age.
  • 8 4
 @BuzzinHornets: Muricaaaa!
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.
  • 5 0
 @BuzzinHornets: well put. Lets let the one percent overlords fly there new private planes to the moon and we will gladly stick to riding 20 year old bikes.
  • 3 0
 American Capitalism gifted China 3 AP1000 reactors and cooling pumps....
  • 7 3
 Nobody needs a carbon bike. Nobody needs to travel anywhere to ride their carbon bike. Nobody needs a steak dinner while on vacation to ride their carbon bike.

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.
  • 4 0
 there was actually a study done in the UK which said realistically 90 percent of people werent going to change their buying habits to save anything (money aside) this reminds me of the tossers that jump on the buy local bandwagon then they quickly f*ck off when the price hits them
  • 5 3
 @BuzzinHornets: classic freedom loving gun toting American response, blame it on the Russians, commies, fascists, terrorists, immigrants and people of colour, anything but accept accountability. Yes if we went back to the stone age our planet might be able to recover to support human life past the next 50 years, as it stands presently, that's questionable, but at least you'll have your AR15 freedom enforcer when we are wiped out.
  • 3 3
 @ctd07: WTF are you even going on about man? What was I blaming on the Russians, commies etc? Seems like I offended your delicate sensibilities very easily, guess that’s to be expected from a lockdown loving Australian. And yes I do love freedom, you should give it a try sometime if you’re not too afraid.
  • 5 1
 @BuzzinHornets: you literally mentioned communism so there's that... like if you don't agree with something you label it commie or fascist all the time. BTW the opposite of living in excess and destroying the earth is not communism, you also are no more free than people in most other countries, you just go on about it more.
  • 10 1
 I've kept the same bike for 6 years, pretty sure I'm producing oxygen as I ride by now
  • 2 0
 Same here,and once I sell it to somebody it continue to be ridden,people just don't throw away bikes over here. I've read on one of these articles that manufacturing a bike has the same carbon emissions as driving a car for 300 miles,if that is correct I don't even considered it an issue worth mentioning.
  • 6 0
 This is a truly fantastic and (to the average reader) thorough insight into the reality of what companies need to do. It is in plain English and easy to understand. Information like this makes consumers aware of what they need to be looking for and some ability to filter through the greenwashing (marketing department taking their share of the consumer's dollar to tell them mostly bullshit). Thank you a million times over for providing this insight, both to pinkbike and Mike. This will be a part of my future purchasing decisions.

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.
  • 10 1
 MTB is never going to be green, no matter how much you wash, make no mistake.
  • 1 0
 I agree to a point, riding local on a rigid steel single speed is getting pretty close to a truly sustainable hobby, but that's some pretty niche riding and not everyone has the luxury of doorstep trails
  • 6 0
 Interesting that Pinkbike and Cyclingtips are pursuing this thread. I volunteer for an environmental action initiative called Protect Our Winters, primarily focused on winter sports activities. Our local chapter here in Ottawa convened an online event with a number of folks in ski/snowboard community to gain some insight around what was being done by the companies that make the stuff we use. Most of them have a very good grasp on what the impact of their production is. Burton has conducted LCA's on their boards and knows where the biggest impact comes from. Picture Organic Clothing and Salomon shift their production locations to minimize their footprint i.e. Poland isn't a good option as most of the grid is fueled by coal. Portugal and other EU Countries are better suited as their grids are generally fueled by renewables or less carbon intensive sources. Although all of them do stuff with interesting materials (Picture uses Bagasse a waste by product from sugar production to make the synthetics that are used in their ski clothes.) They all realize that material selection is only one element of their overall environmental contribution. If anyone is interested the video is on Youtube here: youtu.be/kwt5ahFRhfk
  • 4 0
 Great share with the vid and thanks for volunteering. Protect Our Winters is a great organisation.
  • 10 2
 I wish more companies would publish sustainability reports. It would would be my first filter when buying a new bike...
  • 8 0
 Hang on, an internet comment section poster is actually an expert in the thing they claim to be an expert in?

Mind blown.
  • 5 0
 Hmmm, if you're worried about the carbon footprint of your bike, but don't think twice about the strawberries you just bought (in November - out of season) from Argentina, or some other southern hemispheric country, you might want to give some real thought to your "green" stance. It's entirely reasonable to consider that most of the things we interact with on a daily basis have a higher carbon footprint than our bikes.
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?
  • 6 1
 I have so much i would love to argue on this. This report kinda f*cking sucks. A lot of what these companies do is virtue signal... Look where the shit is made. Let start there with the discussion. Everything comes from Asia, who doesn't give a f*ck about climate change. These companies want to make real change stop outsourcing your frames and stop buying components that are made in Asia. Start inhouse manufacturing and then make those plants green... We will see how much bikes cost then. Also, where is the data showing Millennials are more likely to buy brands that show they care about being green? They don't, or i will say there are very few... someone will buy whatever they feel is a necessity and wont give a shit where it comes from or how it came to them. Lets start being real about where the root of the climate crisis is and have conversations with real numbers and different approaches on how to actual fix this. Also think about who is pushing this new industry of going green. Follow the money and answers will appear
  • 2 0
 You right that some of what is being done is virtue signaling. I can't speak to the bike industry as I don't have the same level of connectivity as I do in the Ski Industry. The ski guys to a great extent have a good idea of the impact of their operations and their choices aren't driven to virtue signaling. Salomon moved some of its footwear production back to France and the benefits came out in both speed to change as the designers were down the road from the factory, and smaller environmental impact as France's electrical grid is predominantly nuclear whereas China uses a lot of coal.

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
  • 7 2
 So tired of the moral posturing that is injected to every aspect of life these days. Moral posturing has zero to do with reality. Reality is that $$ is everything. When that changes, so will just about every aspect of life. Big corporations evil? STOP sending them your $$. Case in point; Walmart. Walmart has been accused of being evil and destroying small town America. I compel it was the consumers of Walmart that destroyed their own small towns. If Walmart builds one of their Supercenters and no customers walk through the door, I guarantee it will close. Pretty simple, really. Big Companies only exist because of consumers. Stop consuming, stop big business. It really does start with each and every one of us. NOW how bad do you want to stop climate change? That’s what I thought, so quit virtue-signalling.
  • 5 0
 Gongrats to Mike Bascomb to make it from the comment section down here to the top of an article! What a career! You give hope to all of us PB commenters that the shit we write here could really be relevant.
  • 4 0
 I’m thinking the pace of change is the one part of the process that has not really been addressed. As long as bikes are “old” after three years, even though that is well short of the actual material lifespan of the bike, bikes wont actually be sustainable.

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.
  • 4 1
 Excellent article, it's great to see real experts brought into to cut through the general marketing BS which unfortunately seems to pervading all industries right now. Working in a medium size bike shop I'm constantly dismayed by the fact that every garment we receive from manufacturers is individually wrapped in single use plastic, resulting in bags of wasted plastic for every delivery we receive (think a family of four using plastic carrier bags for a year and just throwing them ALL in the bin). Even more galling is when the point of sale packaging (i.e. the bit the customer sees) espouses the manufacturers environmental virtues!
  • 4 0
 Great article @mikerory

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 onceSmile
  • 2 0
 Thanks mate. CDP is a great thing and has been a huge engine for change.
  • 3 0
 As we are all bikers (for the fun) we can easily make the move to use bike for commuting instead of car and there this is a super energy/carbon efficient machine with a true positive impact. I personally recycled an old mtb steel frame from the 90s, put a e-motor, good paniers, lights, mudguards, and seldom use my car anymore for less than 15km travels. On average 4000 km per year with this bike. The e-motor makes it more versatile (extended range, no sweating so not uncomfortable at work, can give a push to my kids that have muscular bikes, put trailer for groceries when going to the supermarket). Influence others when seeing me taking kids by bike to school all year long. A car, even electric, spends most of its energy moving its own weight. Energy-wise difficult to beat the efficiency of a bike.
  • 13 9
 You humans have a vastly inflated sense of your own importance. To the Earth and the Sun, you are squirming maggots that don't matter, yet you think you control the climate of such a vast system with your farts.
  • 2 3
 Location checks out...that you Dan Crenshaw?
  • 2 1
 *we humans
  • 2 1
 Not all of us are Earthlings. One day the hidden history of the human race will be revealed.
  • 2 0
 @suspended-flesh: It already was. Blood Incantation
  • 1 0
 @newbermuda: You are the Stargete
  • 4 1
 Great article and kudos to Mike for taking the time to provide thorough responses. However it also shows how complex the topic is and how good companies are at creating smoke screens.
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.
  • 2 0
 Also bringing up blackrock and not addressing how much corruption there is within that firm automatically discredits this dude. He is a talking head
  • 6 1
 Typed a very long comment then realized that I would be going against a religious doctrine. This is what is left of said comment... Down vote this into Oblivion!
  • 5 0
 I upvoted you. I think I agree with your statement you did not post. LOL.
  • 6 1
 Helooooo ride your bike. To work To get groceries To visit friends Good for the planet Good for you. Ride your bike feel awesome. Leave the car at home.
  • 5 1
 Also the rider has to take responsibility, alot of people cant go out and ride without their vehicles or aren’t wiling to focus on riding local
  • 4 0
 Carbon offsetting. Is it not just a guilt tax..
"I`ve paid, so my conscience is clear"..no, you`re just paying lip service and passing the Buck.
  • 2 0
 As someone who works in a leading global supply chain company, I find it surprising that Trek (as they are specifically mentioned in this post) only credits 6% of their emissions to transport. Given that bicycles are volumetric cargo, I'd expect the impact to be above average.

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).
  • 2 0
 Moving from looking at scope 1 and 2 emissions to including scope 3 is essential, but I think what we really need now is a kind of 'lifestyle' analysis of the carbon footprint of biking for the average rider, perhaps normalised to a yearly value

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
  • 5 0
 I think this is a very important way to look at it.
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.
  • 3 1
 Dear Mr. Outside CEO As a group your publications make for a broad swath reaching lots of readers and manufacturers. You need a Mr. Bascombe or two who can sort through claims and practices. Tangible recommendations could make a difference for buyers and makers.
  • 2 0
 Best thing to do at this point is only buy older bikes and used stuff. If WE stop buying new bikes the industry will have its hand forced. But wait an idler pulley! Electronic flim flam! Bambalam! We're doomed to continue consumerism led emissions.
  • 7 3
 The virtue signaling environmentalism by the iPhone toting, cryptocurrency loving, internet shopping millenials and gen z kids is the most entertaining hypocrisy going today.
  • 2 0
 I think the point that manufactures first need to know where the most harmful aspects of their production lies, before they can do something to fix it, is relevant to individuals too. Surely if all products and services where made to show a standardised rating of their impact, we would then be able to make ethical decisions as a consumer (and drive positive change)
  • 2 0
 Hmm, please clarify how the Endura shorts I'm wearing right now in Australia are environmentally better because of "local manufacturing? And how about the Pole that I saw on the back of someone's ute the last time I was driving to Derby (probably the only time I overtake someone piloting a Pole)?
  • 3 1
 Wonderful article.

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?
  • 2 0
 For bearings, it’s not really weight that’s the issue, but friction losses. You can add tons of sealing to bearings at the cost of quite significant rolling drag.
  • 2 0
 So the "locally manufactured" Endura shorts I'm wearing now in Australia have lower environmental impact than if they had been manufactured in China? And the Pole bike that was on the back of the ute I overtook on my last trip to Derby has lower impact than a Taiwanese made frame (probably the only time I ever overtake a Pole)?
Please explain how that works...
  • 2 0
 This comment will get buried but I want one tiny move towards sustainability. I want a Sram-Shimano crossover derailleur. Sram releases the patent to their button lock and Shimano allows Sram to copy their adjustable and replaceable clutch. Both then release parts kits and instructional videos for all derailleurs going forward. Bonus points for backwards compatible derailleur build to work between different drivetrain speeds. More bonus points for small parts on shifters, cranks, brakes, pedals and hubs. Make these cheap and available with simple to follow guides and designs that allow the consumer to easily tear down and rebuild the product.
  • 1 0
 I hope this doesn't get buried. You're talking about a very important poart of this whole move towards a sustainable business model. There needs to be standardisation, backwards compatability and modularity. Companies should be deisigning for circularity and sustainability from the very start.
  • 2 0
 Topic BlackRock:

"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
  • 2 0
 Asking a person who's entire livelihood relies on telling people how naughty they are for making the evil carbons about whether an industry makes too many evil carbons, can no one see the issue here, this is why the entire geopolitical system is so f*cked up right now.
"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.
  • 1 0
 Bang on. Fool me once, shame on you etc
  • 2 0
 Good piece. I recently wrote these two articles on this topic. The first one is very relevant to product brands and greenwashing, the second one is about 'offsetting' and the nuances behind that which were hinted at above.

medium.com/@gillonhunter/sustainable-what-s-in-a-word-48ed47f33c70
medium.com/@gillonhunter/desperate-pr-or-genuine-environmental-action-d47ec8180104
  • 10 6
 A sustainability auditor... stoking the demand for sustainability. Who would've saw it coming.
  • 3 3
 Kinda like a part team owner signing himself to a racing contract... LoL
  • 4 1
 Dudes all up on his soap box in his full glory. Bikes are destroying the world! If you believe that, pull the other leg and it plays jingle bells..
  • 2 1
 Best place to start is with how many companies are actually trying to cut emissions?
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?
  • 2 1
 It's not going to matter if the media/companies push to buy the latest and greatest, which is simply not required. All these iterative advancements do not require anyone to buy a new bike every year. My last mountain bike was bought in 2013. It's 26" wheels but still absolutely works fine, with the usual maintenance/replacements of wear and tear.

The simplest solution isn't to be 'greener' by offsetting this and that. It's to simply stop and consume so much of everything.
  • 2 1
 I still believe that the Trek report that was published some weeks ago, greenwashed the CO2 impact of the ebike battery. As we discussed in the comments there, the calculation was way off. The other parts were probably legit to make the battery look harmless.
  • 2 0
 Does the media have a responsibility to highlight the reuse of products or should they just highlight the latest greatest 1 degree slacker super bike? We know what gets the most clicks…
  • 4 0
 Great headline to see laid on top of Leatt's homepage ad featuring a rider holding random greens haha
  • 2 3
 I noticed that. What a joke.
  • 2 1
 Of course the MTB industry is greenwashing. The industry as a whole knows who their primary consumers are and will cater to that to sell bikes.

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!"
  • 3 0
 The background on todays home page is literally an add for Leatt "green" clothing with a guy holding a bunch of actual plants in his hands. If that aint greenwashing...
  • 2 0
 In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, internet use accounts for 3.7% of global emissions, i.e. the equivalent of all air traffic in the world. And this figure is expected to double by 2025 - energuide
  • 1 0
 The internet is now how almost all economic and social interactions now happen. That's like comparing eating rice every day to stay alive costing £150 a year with drinking one £150 bottle of champagne to celebrate at an event, if you want to improve your finances, cutting out the bottle of champagne (or choosing a smaller/cheaper bottle) is a lot more realistic than cutting out the rice.
  • 3 0
 People may say this doesn't matter, but I'm shopping for a bike right now with a few contenders on even ground, and now I'm heading to the Trek store first.
  • 1 3
 And then you ll buy something else which is 100 bucks cheaper
  • 1 0
 I am an expert at procrastinating ....any bike companies looking to make it look like they are on the sustainability thing but don't actually want to change can hire me, I guarantee little progress will be made as I will spend most of my time in the PB comments section. There may be a delay in me replying...
  • 3 0
 Greenwashing, mediawashing, and political whitewashing - this is what the world has come to when everyone is brainwashed by social media.
  • 1 0
 I really appreciate these news articles from Pinkbike. It'd be so easy to report how glorious and green bike companies are, total grandstanding. Instead Pinkbike is taking a very balanced approach and looking at both sides of the coin. Great journalism.
  • 1 0
 I'm not going to even pretend to know, but I have Ti frame. Anyone know about emissions for this material? Just really curious. Bought Ti just cause I havent had luck with carbon in the past, and enjoy the feel of Ti over alloy. Oh, I got a great deal.
  • 2 1
 It's pretty silly to expect more from the manufacturers of a product than you expect of the end use, just saying... This place is full of hypocrites, don't fool yourselves, we are all contributing to environmental decline, not one of us has a negative carbon balance.
  • 4 1
 It’s all posturing, marketing and virtue signaling. The earth is like a turd floating in a toilet that has already been flushed. You can’t unflush a toilet.
  • 3 0
 DEMAND WHAT YOU WANT WITH THE DOLLARS YOU SPEND Dont want Trek frames built in Cambodia, Vietnam and China, DONT BUY THEM We can all make change with our spending habits
  • 2 1
 The idea of being good stewards of our resources and our environment is practical. I don't agree with being wasteful. And I like the idea of being as efficient as possible with our tools and resources. When it comes to the climate change agenda (a.k.a. U.N. Agenda on Sunstainability), I don't buy the fear mongering arguments presented by the media and the government over the past several decades. Fear has always been used to manipulate the minds of the populace - look what is happening over the past 20-months. I am very skeptical of what the media and the government say about climate change (and pandemics), and I now consider Pinkbike to be a part of the mainstream media. I will try to enjoy the content related to bike reviews and video segments of some of the personalities we have come to love and appreciate, sharing their experiences on the trails. But I will not be susceptible to the bullshit agendas. Maybe we could have a conversation about brainwashing rather than greenwashing. I'm okay with down votes. I just appreciate the opportunity to share my opinion. Thank you.
  • 2 1
 When electric cars dont rely on lithium mining and become accessible to the general lower income earner - i will buy one, for a reasonable, non jacked up price because its "green" - They are currently way overpriced, uneconomical and have a short life span(also wheres the Green part in that)
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.
  • 3 2
 MTB disingenuously aligns itself with cycling as a green alternative to car transport while 90% of us load our carbon bikes onto our gas powered vehicles just to get to the trailhead. The sport literally creates a reason for people to drive their cars. It’s like surfing… looks and smells very nature-y but it sure ain’t.

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.
  • 1 0
 Obviously this is greenwashing. If they really cared that much they would first try to sell refurbished bikes, then bikes made out of recycled parts and only produce new ones when the worldwide stock of second hand bikes has been depleted. Which won't happen anytime soon.

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.
  • 1 0
 Bikes, cars, meat etc are all consumed by humans, the manufacturing is not the cause of the damage to the environment, humans are. Not sure why these green folks dont address the real issue, a simple 5 why analysis will address the root cause, and it is not carbon bikes.
  • 1 0
 Our company has a surplus of tCO2e that is saved each year from renewal energy. Any company who is wanting to truly be green and save this planet can contact me. I take silver eagles. Current exchange rate is 1oz/3 tCO2e
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.
  • 1 0
 With all due respect to the Americans that still work in the bike business, let's acknowledge the elephant in the room. Other than a few niche players, there are no American bike manufacturers. Nobody makes bikes here anymore. Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, Giant... they are simply marketing arms for asian bike companies.

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.
  • 1 0
 There's a lot of mass consumption around mountain biking but I'm not convinced that the core experience is a good place to start if you want to affect big change. The clothes, accessories, gadgets and especially electronics totally fit the bill but bikes themselves can last a really long time. Not all plastic is plastic grocery bags, even if you're buying a carbon bike.
  • 1 0
 Bikes, were the least pollutant vehicle, and since the EV trend, there is no brand desperate for mean Lithium mining down in South America. Here in California the power grid is way overloaded, PG&E have cause several fires, and have been chopping plenty of trees, in order to reduce the risk of more fires, Our environment is taking the biggest hit in history, and every idiot around is leaking Elon's underwear, and taxing the future of the planet to have the latest EBike on the market.
Keep biking true and pedal!
Greenwashing?...just pure BS!!!!
  • 1 0
 One really big thing to call out PINKBIKE is the fear that brands have in engaging with positive environmental activities in the fear they end up in a press article talking about greenwashing. I have worked with a lot of brands through several years as a sustainability designer and most brands at the start of their journey are fearful of being labelled negatively, so would rather not talk about their efforts.

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.
  • 1 0
 This is a very good point. I mentioned the need to recognise that every company is on a journey which has this very much at its heart. Something is better than nothing. Something however should be targeted and follow best practices. Anyone doing that deserves praise. No one is sustainable yet so no one has the right to stop trying to improve but the worst thing anyone could do is to put a stigma on getting involved.
  • 4 0
 So online stores Air shipping around the world is a really bad idea.
  • 4 0
 Excellent! Thank you very much!
  • 3 0
 If people/brands are making an effort to be 'better' than they were yesterday, why is that a problem?
  • 1 0
 Are we asking if am industry obsessed with planned obsolescence through pointless proliferation of differing standards is only pretending to be green. Hmmmm, that's a tough one. I'll take a wild guess and say yes.
  • 3 0
 Thanks for sharing this story. I would love to see more articles/polls focused on sustainability.
  • 1 0
 Just ride a NICOLAI and be done with your bike woes, it will not break, they guarantee 10 years spare parts availability, and you are still on top of the orogressive geometry game 5 years later
  • 1 0
 Kindly ask to explain in simple english, how can we go greener, and maintain our economy, meaning: how companies and the world survive without the cycle: Extraction/Production/Consumption
Thank you
  • 1 1
 Seb Stott..you seem to be fixated or have been appointed the CO2 dilemma fanboy... If! If you pay attention to real science, not politics and funding induced science.. You would gather a broader perspective based on facts.. Not propaganda, bias and what's in fashion, but what the facts are headed to... In other words..don't fall for the illusion of righteousness..
  • 1 1
 70% of the world's carbon emissions are produced by 100 companies (did I get that right? Crazy!) and yet normal people are expected to start paying carbon tax to continue the consumerist lifestyles that have been sold to us through 'convenience' and trends. If Mike Bascombe thinks Blackrock represent what is good for the planet, then he is nothing but a talking head, likely planted here to talk up their new 'green revolution'.

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.
  • 4 0
 Kimi,you are on POLE
  • 5 2
 Smart companies would just paint all the bikes green...
  • 11 8
 The best and most important article on pinkbike in recent years…
  • 4 3
 You forgot sarcasm font.
  • 1 0
 As a somewhat newer rider, I have to say, I think it's pretty great that this community recognizes this issue and is pushing for changes, especially with decorum.
  • 7 4
 Green washing and alsonow equity and inclusivity washing
  • 4 1
 You wanna be green this ain’t your hobby.

Buy off Craigslist.
  • 4 1
 I always buy used bikes, never new. Yes I have the money. Kinda like taking a animal home from the pound rather than a breeder.
  • 1 0
 @Bushmaster123: Someone has to buy new in order for you to buy used.
  • 3 0
 @commental: Do you make your own bikes? Let me guess from dog poop and kale mixed together. Bicycles are not destroying the world. Everything has a carbon footprint. Feel good policies and appearances are just that. Go after the big problems before you tackle the little ones.
  • 1 0
 @Bushmaster123: No, I also buy mostly used, but I understand there isn't a used market without people buying new stuff.
  • 1 0
 @commental: of course, but lets no get too carried away about bikes ruining the environment. When there's a list of 100's if not 1000's of worse offenders.
  • 3 1
 @Bushmaster123: I have zero guilt about my carbon footprint due to this sport, as you say there's a lot more to worry about.
  • 2 0
 Cheers mate! amazing that they reached out to you after our discussion on the thread!
  • 2 0
 A much needed and wonderful article. Appreciated the attention to detail and thorough answers. Thank you!
  • 2 1
 The reality is cycling will never be really green. If you want to really be green, there are other sports like barefoot running. I'm gonna keep mtb-ing for as long as I can.
  • 2 0
 Those dudes shoes say -- yes.

"I mean, how often do you notice a man's shoes?"
  • 3 1
 I want better bikes! Not a weaker bike in an industry that already produces very little smog.
  • 3 1
 When every car on the road is electric,Then I’ll take a look at the carbon footprint it took to build my bike.
  • 7 3
 Electric cars are not very green.
  • 1 0
 @tacklingdummy:
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.
  • 1 0
 @ExMxEr: Rock that Chevy Nova. It is a rad car!!
  • 1 0
 @tacklingdummy:
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.
  • 1 2
 This is a neat grift but reality is, people will just buy the cheapest bike. Yes, some rich dentists or salesman will buy a yeti because they planted x amounts of tress but reality is, environmental alarmism isn't going to help sell that many bikes and won't make a dent in environment . Sincerely, Someone who writes energy code for the state of California
  • 1 1
 You got it all wrong. The bikes aren't painted green, they just include a bottle of green soap for you to clean your bike after you ride it. For 99$ more you get a green brush and they plant an evergreen tree for you.
  • 3 1
 A decent carbon tax would solve a lot of this posturing. Just make the $ value reflect the cost and it will improve.
  • 1 2
 Carbons bikes... oh and wind turbines cannot be recycled. EV's take a lot of carbon to produce. Don't get me started on bettting on technologies that don't even exist. Oh well guess we'll have to move to one of the other life supporting planets in our solar system. Good news is the planet has survived worse and the next civilization will hopefully be better custodians.
  • 6 2
 Could give a fuck
  • 3 2
 LOL now bike guilt... Pinkbike is getting ridiculous.. Go OUTSIDE and have fun, and then were going to tell you why you suck for it. Give me a break.
  • 1 0
 Amen!
  • 3 0
 keeping existing bikes alive = green
bring back 26 forks!
  • 4 4
 CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s plant food. All this is just a scam to raise taxes and increase control over population. Those who do not realize that are gullible morons, full stop.
  • 4 3
 virtue signal blah blah blah I dont give a fuck. I want the cheapest best bike possible I dont care if I have to burn down the rainforest to get it and kill a million whales.
  • 4 5
 The climate change RELIGION.....
-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.
  • 3 1
 Some really insightful analysis here! Thanks Pinkbike/Mike!
  • 9 11
 Yes. Yes they are. Most companies do this today. Not interested to read the "experts" opinion. This article is, in itself, a form a green washing.

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.
  • 2 0
 Surprised CK wasn't used as an example....
  • 1 0
 I wasn't going to buy a Lapierre.... but that photo really drives the point home.
  • 2 1
 It's already too late! As long as products and people are driven, shipped and flown around the world, we are doomed. End of.
  • 1 0
 Great article.
Is that Mr Lapierre counting the carbon captured by his carbon frame? (Science?!??)
  • 3 1
 This is fantastic, thanks for doing this.
  • 3 4
 And please read 'American Marxist'. Learn about where the de growth movement came from and why it's now policy. Page 148 I believe.
  • 1 0
 How did they get Bill Murray to pose for the pic acting like he's inspecting the rear linkage?
  • 4 3
 Seems to me Guerilla Gravity is way ahead of the of almost everyone in this dept. Maybe reconsider your next bike purchase?
  • 3 0
 3T is making some of the same choices as Guerilla. I think there may be an interview with Gerard Vroomen on the Cyclingtips website to that effect.
  • 1 0
 of the "curve"
  • 1 0
 I'm doing my bit, I have 2 "green bikes" one is a really light green "moss gloss" the other is "deep sea green"
  • 2 0
 Speaking of Decarbonation.... How goods Icey cold Flat Coke.
  • 1 0
 That why you get a SodaStream to put that carbonation back into your soda.
  • 1 1
 Bypassing someone’s critical mental chatter is important to get someone's attention, then you can continue deepening the trance.
  • 2 1
 lol i'll never look at PB forums the same again..... bunch of bloody Marxists
  • 3 1
 Bow down to the new religon.
  • 1 1
 Like china does to the individual-we'll force companies to have a social score.
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..
  • 1 3
 Ya, so once China, Taiwan, India, Russia, and a host of other countries make an effort to reduce their HUGE carbon footprint,,,,,,,,, then we can talk about what needs to happen. Getting so sick and tired of this whole "green" initiative bullshit.
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!
  • 1 1
 u r an ignoramous boomer
  • 3 5
 Eat the Bugs, Live in the Pod, Love Big Brother. I'm sure Greta von Doomsberg and the elites will sell their mansions and yachts to the homeless to save the world. I'm doing my part. Would you like to know more?
  • 2 0
 Is that Bill Murray?
  • 1 0
 No, but thought the same thing. BFM
  • 1 0
 This guy speaks my heart... a Very cool article.
  • 1 0
 E bikes are greenwashing.
  • 2 1
 Yes. The end.
  • 1 0
 We are all hypocrites.
  • 14 16
 asking bike brands to improve while nothing happens with China & india... winning lol
  • 6 3
 Asking brands and their consumers to take responsibility for their manufacturing and transport supply chain in China and India is going to force China and India to improve things. As long as we keep buying products made in factories that don't give a shit about the climate, the factories will continue not to give a shit.
  • 3 1
 @Patrick9-32: as long as our regulation allows companies to produce there and consumers to irresponsibly consume here, things wont improve… bike companies are already producing , you know, BIKES.. one of the greeenst transportation methods there is.. they are leaps ahead of 99% of all other industries..
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?
  • 6 1
 Give me a break...since when do we in the West wait for China or India to tell us what to do? The UK, US, Germany, etc. need to lead on these fronts and the rest of the world will have no choice but to follow given the economic drivers we are. They currently respond to our insatiable need to consume....if we're not willing to change that we need to push for better standards to create those products not simply kick the can down the road and blame them...
  • 3 2
 @GZMS: Good job entirely missing my point and then arguing against your own straw man....

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.
  • 3 0
 @GZMS: Also, high end mountain bikes are not transportation, they are a leisure toy. Most bike rides for riders that are on pinkbike are from point A to point A, not point A to point B. The carbon footprint of the bike industry as a whole includes bikes that cut out car journeys but high end mountain bikes don't generally reduce car journeys.

When was the last time you saw a £10k carbon bike locked up outside the supermarket or an office?
  • 1 2
 @Patrick9-32: Improve? Get better? What does that mean and what would that achieve? The answer is: nothing. Prolong the agony maybe. By a few days. If you consume, you pollute. There is no way around that. Since you are on this website, I assume you have consumed (ie bought a bike) and thus polluted. And you probably would like to continue consuming, but blame somebody else, namely the company that sold you the bike, for the pollution.
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.
  • 2 0
 @GZMS: I don't buy your "it's going to be unaffordable" claims.

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.
  • 2 2
 @Mr-Gilsch: @Mr-Gilsch: ...and it reduced emissions by a piss-squirt. Or even not reduced at all, given that a local factory/workshop had to be constructed to produce it, instead of reusing what is available in the east. Local production is still production. And if scales up, we will have the same issues in totality, that we have by producing in China. It is just that those issues will be more evenly spread out across the globe, so it wont be as easy to blame other countries. Somebody wants to buy a nicolai in china - gotta ship. Instead of digging up and smelting some aluminium in china to produce bikes for the whole world - gotta ship some ore to germany, and them some to spain for orbeas, and then some to poland for kross, and then some to uk, for orange. So they could "produce locally". If not Alu ore, then it will be some machinery maybe, e.g. to process local ore and make alloys. If not that, then it will be the machinery to produce the machinery to do that. If you produce locally, you end up with a tonne of redundancies and huge amount of waste. China has many problems, but the fact that it produces bikes is not one of them.

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.
  • 1 2
 @Patrick9-32: Lol imagine telling a company right now with a straight face they can take responsibility for the supply chain.
  • 12 13
 A filter for this sort of virtue signalling bollox perhaps?
  • 2 3
 @seb-stott Ask US army or British army are they carbon neutral.
  • 4 3
 The US Military has deemed climate change to be one the biggest threats they face in the future. Both on the direct impact of their operations and the destabilizing effect it will have on certain areas of the world. They've been making big investments to minimize the environmental impact of their own operations, and to mitigate the impact will have on its missions. They still have a long way to go, but they are far from burying their head in the sand on the issue: www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/u-s-military-terrified-climate-change-it-s-done-more-ncna1240484
  • 3 5
 @arghana: what a BS, us army is the biggest polluter on Earth.
  • 2 1
 Hi, please don't comment your irrelevant thoughts
  • 3 2
 @Skarhead89: definitely, but they're less oblivious than many other big polluters about it. not sure if better or worse lol
  • 3 5
 @Skarhead89: No, they're not... and that's wildly idiotic to even suggest that the US Army is the biggest polluter on earth. Wear a helmet my guy, those brain injuries are no joke.
  • 2 0
 @Skarhead89: I'm not really sure where you are going with this. You are right in saying that the environmental impact of the US military is large that's been documented (theconversation.com/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than-as-many-as-140-countries-shrinking-this-war-machine-is-a-must-119269). But it doesn't take away that they are making an effort, and a significant one in relation to the lack of climate change policy and action in the US recently. Help me understand what your point is.
  • 3 1
 @badbadleroybrown: maybe drop a source with your ad homiems Wink
  • 1 4
 @dontcoast: Maybe pick up a dictionary before using terms you don't understand, like ad hominem.
  • 4 2
 @badbadleroybrown:

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?
  • 2 3
 @dontcoast: I always win, cupcake... read that again, and this time try doing it without your head up your own ass.

"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.
  • 1 3
 @dontcoast: If you need a argument refuting that idiotic assertion though, I suggest Google. It's happy to educate the lazy and unintelligent. I, however, am not.
  • 3 1
 @badbadleroybrown: Ok so you say weren't making any argument at all, just simply insulting him! Thanks for clarifying your classy educated intelligence then :*
  • 1 4
 @dontcoast: Like I said, I'm not here to educate the ignorant... talk to your parents and your teachers why they let you down there. I'm just here to laugh at y'all, and y'all make it easy.

Come on back and try again when you got some facts on your side, coasty.
  • 2 1
 @badbadleroybrown: I wear a helmet and I am too good on the bike and never fall.. but you are to stupid and fat to school me on this topic, bootlicker.
  • 1 2
 @Skarhead89: awww... tell me more about how the facts hurt your tiny little brain.
  • 1 2
 @badbadleroybrown: Us army is the biggest polluter on Earth and also commits warcrimes in the middle east, but you cant handle the truth snowflake.
  • 1 1
 @Skarhead89: Even a cursory google search proves that they are not the biggest polluter on earth... repeating your ignorance twice doesn't make you any more correct the second time, it just makes you look stupid twice. But tell me more about how you struggle dealing with reality.
  • 2 0
 @Skarhead89: Hoping that facts don't upset your apple cart too much... the stat you are incorrectly stating is that the US military (all armed forces) produce more pollution than 140 countries on the planet. That stat is true because there are more than 140 countries on the planet that literally produce nothing other than farming. They are what America was like 200+ years ago. Farmers and... farmers.

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.
  • 1 0
 They're too busy with fairness and inclusion to deal with that lol
  • 1 4
 The de growth movement is such a hustle.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2021. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.033858
Mobile Version of Website