Polygon UR Team Aims to Reduce Their CO2 Output for the 2020 Season

Nov 8, 2019
by UR Team  

PRESS RELEASE: Polygon UR Team

With all the team rumours going around during the off-season, we are announcing that CO2 will be officially cut from POLYGON UR Team in 2020. Yes, you read that right, we have set ourselves a big environmental goal as a team and we are thrilled to share that we will aim for carbon neutrality in the upcoming season.

Why?

The UR team has always aimed to do more than just racing since 2011, we have been supporting a charity by giving away used or leftover gear to communities that are less fortunate. In the past couple of years, there has been a rise of consciousness around climate change. For us, it is clear that human activities and emissions of CO2 are having an impact on global warming.

On the other side, we are also aware that we are practising a sport that is far from being “green”. We know that our lifestyle generates more CO2 than most people do. We also know that the competitive world is about using all the resources available to reach a goal which couldn’t be more opposed to what sustainability means. For us, racing and pursuing our passion is very important so we don’t want to stop or even slow down. What we are doing here is just trying to neutralise the CO2 impact of our team activities. We are not trying to teach a lesson to anyone, we are just communicating our goal which hopefully will inspire more.



Our plan to try and reach this goal is divided into three sub-goals:

1. Be more efficient. This translates into a couple of different actions:

- We will be looking at smaller more efficient team vehicles.
- We will try to fly direct as much as possible and reduce the number of spares we take by finding local support.
- We will try to anticipate our team orders to avoid last-minute air freight shipping.



2. Reduce. Reuse Recycle. Maybe obvious, but not that simple!

- Eliminate single-use plastic
- We are lucky to have Camelbak as a partner to help us with this. We have no excuses to not be using reusable water bottles as well as coffee mugs. Only by using Camelbak water bottles for the whole team, we will keep around 220 plastic bottles from landfill each month;
- use reusable shopping bags instead of plastic bags;
- use reusable cutlery/straws;
- prioritize bulk and avoid over-packaged products
- recycle as much as possible.
- Eat produce that are in season and locally grown (this can reduce our carbon footprint up to 7%)


3. Offset remaining emissions. All the travelling we have to do to get to races and events can only be reduced to a certain point. Here’s what we forecasted for the upcoming season, per person:

- After looking at multiple calculators, we came up with an average of 2,3 tonnes of CO2 per round trip flight/per person. Knowing that we have 8 World Cup stops, 3 Crankworx and a few other events planned, we calculated that we would have around 15 flights over the season. That puts us at 34.5 tons/person.

- We are currently looking into the different options to offset these emissions: Carbon market: Buying carbon credits that put money into sustainable projects is a way to offset CO2 emissions. As the carbon market is in constant evolution and growth, we want to make sure that the money we will invest will have a real impact. Climate Care, Gold Standard and Less are some of the organizations we’ve been digging into. If you work or are involved with an organization like this, please get in touch with us!

- Treeplanting: we are also looking into organizations like Teamtree to offset some of our emissions. As we know, trees can absorb the CO2 and reduce its amount in the atmosphere. We also know that we’ve reached such a high level of CO2 that only planting trees isn’t the only solution, but it is still part of it. Especially knowing that deforestation is still happening at a fast pace.



Where to draw the line?

We know that every bit and piece of our bikes are emitting carbon emissions from production all the way to the end of their life cycle. At this stage, we cannot offset the whole process and that’s why we have decided to focus on offsetting what we can control from our team activities. We hope that by doing this, we will get the ball rolling and that more people will get involved. Also, we didn’t ask for more money from our sponsors to cover the offsetting of our CO2. In fact, our sponsors are reading this news at the same time as we haven’t told any of our partners yet.

If you have any suggestions or ideas, please let us know in the comments.


What’s next for us

This marks the first announcement of the UR team 3.0 which is the evolution of our team. We will reveal more through the next month some changes with Riders, Partners, Events and more.


516 Comments

  • 150 16
 Excellent initiative! Common sense principles, that many of us already do on a personal level, but so poorly applied within industry. I'm trying to get my company to start carbon offsetting flights, and reduce non-critical travel.
  • 25 6
 Means Sik Mik and Tracey gotta exhale lesser.
  • 60 28
 Carbon offsets just make you feel better about not actually doing the hard thing. You pay a little bit of money now to keep polluting ,in the the illusion that somebody,somewhere is going to build a mechanical gee wiz machine to take the carbon emissions out of the atmosphere that you put in yesterday and the other yesterday. Donwhat you can ,where you can,but dont ever pretend that somebody else is gonna clean up your mess and not steal your money while not doing it.
  • 41 10
 @scary1: do you understand how carbon offsets work? You pay money now to someone that immediately funds another project that reduces carbon. For instance you pay for electricity at a truck stop so truckers can plug in overnight instead of burning fuel. And you ensure that electricity is coming from "green" sources: solar, hydro etc. Nobody's buying into some magic future machine that's going to clean it up. Offsets alone won't fix the problem, but combined with cap and trade or some other solution that limits total output, it's a good start. Hell of a lot better than doing nothing.
  • 29 36
flag d-man (Nov 8, 2019 at 7:45) (Below Threshold)
 @agmin: Solar and hydro are green? Materials for batteries and panels are mined, hydro floods huge valleys that once had trees, crops etc. Keep telling yourself that.
  • 11 1
 @scary1: Carbon offsetting isn't a stand alone solution, it is a way for a business or individual to mitigate their perceived unavoidable emissions. In practice one of the most positive outcomes from organisations that commit to offsetting is that they start to accurately calculate their environmental impact and put in place a strategy to reduce their impact throughout their business activities. Organisations only offset the unavoidable emissions, you tend to see the amount of credits purchased reduce annually despite business growth as the offsetting is part of a broader strategy.
  • 25 5
 @d-man: Solar and hydro are a hell of a lot better than burning fossil fuels.

The thing is, you can make a change that is incrementally better than what you're doing even if that new activity isn't perfect.
  • 24 0
 @d-man: note the quotation marks around "green." Everything has an impact, well all get it. But throwing out any advances towards reducing impacts because it's not perfect is madness.
  • 16 3
 This is truly great. Based on the title I thought it was going to be marketing wank, but the steps they're taking are very attainable and will absolutely have an impact. Bravo.
  • 8 1
 get polygon to make bamboo race bikes
  • 4 1
 @d-man: just once. not constanly polluting like a coal fired plant producing electricity pahaha
  • 5 10
flag dieuci (Nov 8, 2019 at 9:59) (Below Threshold)
 @pnwpedal: it is a marketing scheme. Everyone go green. Don’t worry the corporations will save us not like they got us in this mess in the first place
  • 7 0
 @makripper: I work in material development and you might be surprised at how far natural fiber composites have come.... we work with some bike brands.

I was just messing around and made some prototype fenders last week. They're compostable and carbon neutral, not to mention pretty sick looking IMO. Considering doing orders through our site but need to gauge interest first. Check my profile for a pic
  • 4 14
flag d-man (Nov 8, 2019 at 11:04) (Below Threshold)
 @makripper: I am not defending coal plants but the newest generation coal fired plant is actually pretty clean. Natural gas is cleaner and a much better option than nuclear.
  • 4 7
 @biker245: If you really want to compare, figure out the impact of constructing a hydro dam, producing concrete, man hrs equipment burning fuel needed to build over 5 years. As far as solar having to replace batteries every 5 years? What is the impact of that?
  • 14 11
 Just like any religion, its a clever way to manipulate the masses while the clergy flys around the world on Lear jets, preaching about the importance of you tithing. We can stop all production, meat eating, fire burning, exhaling right now and it wont do shit for "climate change" but the sheep will keep going baaaah.
  • 5 0
 @d-man: guess you weren’t kidding about being old and grumpy. Returning back to the point, we all know building dams, wind turbines, etc. uses resources but the only way humanity will ever made improvements towards being more environmentally friendly is incremental. If our entire power grid was powered by renewables as well as our transportation system, then building things would simply require resources rather than current situation which is resources + emissions.

Also, as a general principle what are the issues with going renewable? Who hates clean air, water and thriving ecosystems?
  • 2 0
 @Mitch243 : Thank you for your comment! Glad to see that you are also taking some actions.
  • 3 0
 @agmin: That's right! We know that there is a lot more to do, but we thought this was a good starting point. Do you know any good organizations for carbon offsets?
  • 3 0
 @makripper: we will pass on the suggestion Smile
  • 4 0
 @justttt-meh: Nice work!
  • 3 5
 @urteam: good job marketing team I’m sure people will be gobbling your bikes up now that you’re eco friendly!!!
  • 1 0
 @urteam: Southpole
  • 3 2
 @Bikerguy13: Name calling, that's classy. Nothing wrong with clean air, it's the way that governments are taxing the general population with the fake idea that the tax is going to save the world. How about cleaning up the multi billion dollar shipping and chemical industry's on their dime? There has been to many government hoaxes over the years for me to believe what they say. Y2K? Ozone layer? World running out of oil in the 70s, nuclear war with the Russians....
  • 3 2
 @d-man: the ozone layer issue was and is real. those were all potential issues that humans made sure didn't happen. We can do the same for CO2. We need to get away from the bs alberta and china are all about. China is actually moving forward faster than alberta but not fast enough. Coal fired plants are the worst culprit for CO2 emissions.

www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

here you go. that list is fairly accurate as there is alot of data to back it up. There are also a load of similar studies done with similar results.
  • 3 1
 @d-man: I mean your profile does say it

science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686

Why would climate scientists worldwide create an elaborate hoax to fool people into creating a greener planet? And even if it is somehow a hoax, why is going green a bad thing?
  • 3 0
 @Bikerguy13: those scientists love creating hoaxes!
  • 2 0
 @pnwpedal: It is marketing wank otherwise they would just do it anyway and not tell everyone else like it is a big deal.
  • 3 0
 @makripper: they’re out to get us! Gotta be some ulterior motives behind all that data
  • 64 26
 we, try going vegan too, that might help a bit
  • 43 12
 It help a lot the single easiest impact for a person to make 3 times a day.
  • 15 6
 @ybsurf: It’s a massive ‘easy win’.
  • 99 49
 A vegan an atheist and a cross-fitter walk into a bar. 90 seconds later everyone there know that they are a vegan, atheist and CrossFitter
  • 18 10
 feel better, too. more energy and you can have more beers without getting fat Big Grin
  • 28 6
 Even just eating meat-free meals a few days a week can make a huge difference. Also, learning how much a serving of meat actually is vs. how much we typically eat can be significant as well.
  • 15 7
 @preach: knock, knock.... I'm a vegan.
  • 23 6
 @preach: Uh. Dude... Isn't an organized universalizing religion's entire purpose to tell the world? O ln the other hand, most atheists quietly go about their business.
  • 47 5
 It’s a good change for many but you still need to be thoughtful. A vegan living in a northern climate who chooses to eat a high portion of fruit and veg that is locally out of season has a massive carbon footprint and is likely supporting deforestation and factory farming, just not in their back yard (research the avacado, almond, soy industries as a start). 90% of the meat or animal products I consume is raised on my land or within a few miles and only comes from small scale sustainable farms. I won’t eat a fresh tomato for a few months but am loving all the sauces and garden veggies we preserved or froze. It’s root cellar veg tome for us. Living where I live, and trying to eat a high protein/low carb diet, my carbon footprint would be much higher as a vegan. But that’s not true for everyone... so just make an informed decision, there is no blanket answer that applies to all, despite what the nobility class of vegans believe.
  • 8 2
 @sspiff: yeah I was gonna say... god squad way more guilty of this
  • 8 2
 @preach: you forgot the engineer
  • 8 2
 And hunt overpopulated animal species that destroy vegetation such as deer. Reducing such species populations will allow for vegetation to regrow as well as removing CO2 producing animals. You don't have to go full vegan to save the planet, but it still a good idea to not eat so much commercially produced animal products.
  • 10 3
 No thanks! I try to harvest enough deer per year to not have to eat garbage farmed meat and save the environment at the same time
  • 4 7
 Additionally, even modern organic farming practices on a lot of farms are detrimental to their ecosystems, causing negative outcomes such as desertification and killing soil biomes
  • 2 3
 @preach: Seriously? So what am I? Vegan, atheist, crossfitter, all three of them?
  • 6 8
 I don’t know if I ever met a vegan that didn’t tell me he was one, almost immediately after meeting.

I’m a Christian. I typed that within 90 seconds of reading these comments.

I don’t think atheist are guilty of this.

Engineers, yes. I bet there are a few user names on pinkbike with the word engineer in them.
  • 1 0
 @steezysam: wot do you think beers made of ? Lol
  • 2 1
 @preach: You just have this joke? Still?
  • 11 3
 @robwhynot: what we hear about soy it's because of animal agriculture over 90% of soy is fed to livestock plus corn so all that deforestation and carbon footprint is to feed the meat you eat. In winter my diet consist of dry legumes root vegetable and grains that preserve all winter. Over 40% of worlds crops is fed to livestock the size of the African continent that's huge over 59 billions land animals are fed and killed every year.
  • 7 6
 @Mntneer: we kill over 59 billions land animals if everyone think the same as you good luck finding your deer in the forest after everybody hunts before you. No animals need to die to sustain us now days we are not in survival anymore.
  • 27 7
 @preach: As a vegan this joke annoys me because for them most part it just isn't true. Yes there are some annoying vegans, but most aren't and you are stereotyping them based on your anecdotal experiences. Most of the "conversation" that arises from my being vegan is driven by the non-vegans in the room. I generally don't give a shit what people eat, steak, burger wings, I don't care. But the second I order something with no meat or cheese then questions start. No meat? No Cheese? Why? WTF?

So I'm going to answer honestly and say ethically animal agriculture is an atrocity, its killing the planet, meat and dairy are generally unhealthy, etc. And in most cases me simply answering THEIR questions is what offends or annoys them. I get accused of pushing it on them while all I've done is answer what they wanted to know, on a subject that wouldn't have even been brought up if not for them questioning what I am eating instead of them simply minding their own business.
  • 3 0
 @PocoBoho: And the triathlon guy.
  • 3 3
 @PtDiddy: I guarantee you have, you just didn't know it because they didn't say anything, because the majority of us are not like that. This is the problem with using anecdotal experiences to project something onto an entire population of people.
  • 7 7
 @sino428: the joke is vegans are annoying. Case in point I guess. You’d have to expect this call-out. No free passes on pb lol
  • 8 2
 @sino428:No hard feelings. I am just poking a little fun at vegans. I am a Christian Conservative in California. So I get my share of being stereotyped, sometimes in very nasty ways. But the lighthearted stuff I laugh at. Because sometimes people that I have something in common with can do some funny/stupid stereotypical things.

How about them Prius drivers?!
  • 18 3
 @ybsurf: of course it's sad to kill animals, whether they are farmed or wild.

You are rather naive about the modern farming industry. Over 70% of the yearly water use world wide is consumed by farms. On average, 60% of that water is wasted due to over feeding. Crops are overfed because their soil doesn't have a living biome which renders most soils as inert and dead. Organic farms used organic soil amendments and food, but they still by and large--we are talking almost 100%--do not maintain soil ecosystems that are alive. Because the soil is dead, they continue to waste water and destroy the earth.

If everyone in the world were to become a vegan or vegetarian today, the global environment would become a giant desert.

I'm not some idiot who just likes to go out and hunt. My family has a 300 acre permaculture farm that includes 50-60 cattle at any given point. We innocculate our soil with fungus and bacteria, have natural flood plains, rotate crops to nourish the soil, feed the soil with different amendments to strengthen it, crop dust with all organic fermented teas to keep the soil ecosystem healthy, etc.

What you don't realize is that just because someone is growing a plant doesn't mean that what they're doing is good for the environment.

Take farmers in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Most will stick to the same methods that they've been using for 1000's of years. Their soil is weak and arid, and relies on huge amounts of water to continue farming. The state department attempted a farming education program in both countries, and it failed miserably because most agronomy businesses around the world only care about profit and not the environment. The same can be said for every major agricultural centers across the US.

You may say that killing an animal is only for survival, but in the appropriate conditions, it's just as efficient and beneficial to the global ecosystem. While I understand that humans have the capability to create more solutions to problems (food) than most animals, I accept that we are a part of the natural hierarchy of consumption.

I hope that someday farmers learn to nourish the planet, whether they're growing plants or raising animals
  • 2 1
 @PtDiddy: No worries man, its all good. But I was being serious with my comment. You likely have met way more vegans than you are aware of and part of that is the stereotyping. There are times when I'll just avoid the situation entirely by skipping a diner or a lunch just so I don't have to deal with people bothering me about it.
  • 6 0
 @Mntneer: My crop dusting is pretty fermented too.
  • 4 5
 @Mntneer: we dont need animal for land regenaration compost do it and even if it doesnt why do we need animal poo when we have 7 billions people shitting everyday that do the same job.
  • 4 2
 @PtDiddy: the new shitty drivers group in CA is now Tesla drivers.
  • 3 2
 Monoculture is a massively more eco destructive practice than any grazing practice. Go vegan become infertile Wink god I love late stage civilization desert time
  • 4 1
 @cuban-b: I almost said Tesla instead of Prius. I think your right.
  • 6 1
 On our family farm, nothing much has changed for hundreds of years, all animals are fed grass-based diet, grass absorbs carbon too, and are well cared for. I think you'd best look at what has changed in the recent past to heavily impact the environment: air travel, car travel, goods travelling about with your veg and fruit from overseas, central heating, air con, manufacturing tat, some buying a new phone every year, a tv in very room, etc. Etc. The list is endless, but unless you hypocritical self aggrandising vegans are Troglodytes growing your own fruit and veg, I and I'm sure many other omnivores would prefer you mind your own business, and let us eat as we prefer.
  • 7 9
 No way I'm going vegan. Tucking into some meatballs as we speak. Delicious.
  • 4 1
 @Mntneer:
I don't understand your statement about if everyone became vegan the global environment would become a desert.

Something like half the crops grown worldwide are fed to animals to produce meat and dairy. It would be bad for farmers if everyone went veg, because they would loose their biggest consumer of crops...meat animals.

(btw, I'm not currently veg or vegan but was for 8 years ending 10 years ago)
  • 6 1
 @Mntneer: insect farms are the future ! Mark my words !
  • 2 0
 @Vulhelm: I just had a bug tup
  • 8 3
 @Mntneer: your post would make sense if all plant production was for human consumption. But as someone already mentioned, most crops are used to feed farm animals. Also, the same nutritional value obtained from meat uses several times more resources to produce then if it was coming from plant diet.

So while 70% of water consumption goes to agriculture, then about half of it is related to meat production (animals have to eat something, they don't graze on meadows contrary to what the industry portrays).
And this half of water consumption produces several times less actual food than the other half that is used to produce crops directly for human consumption.
The same that goes for water goes also for fuel consumption etc. Not to mention mass use of antibiotics in animal farming, leading to creation of super strains of bacteria resistant to everything.

However we calculate, eating animals is a terribly inefficient and environmentally destructive way of getting nutrition.
  • 4 2
 @Slabrung: quote: "they don't graze on meadows contrary to what the industry portrays". This is precisely how my animals and 90%+ are kept around here Devon, England, all year round for sheep, cattle are housed in winter but still fed grass based. It is you who is unfairly portraying things.
  • 7 0
 @zzRider: You need to look outside of your own bubble hear. That's great if your animals graze and and grass fed and roam freely in the meadows. But farms like yours only make up a tiny sliver of the worlds overall meat supply. The rest is produced just as @Slabrung describes it. Its a terribly wasteful and inefficient way to supply the world with food. The supply would never be able to keep up with the demand if everyone was doing it like you, thus the need for the population as a whole to stop or at least reduce the amount of meat and dairy they eat.
  • 2 0
 @zzRider: as @sino428 wrote, you are (unfortunately) a total minority. Most of the meat is produced on industrial scale, factory style, otherwise it would be too expensive.
This drawing illustrates the scale of industrial farming- xkcd is a webcomic but it's author has scientific background and his pieces are famously well researched:
xkcd.com/1338
  • 4 3
 I can with confidence say the vast majority of British suckler beef and sheep, would be produced as ours, and as it has been similarly for generations. By villifying an entire industry, the ones to suffer will be traditional family farms. I do agree ever growing human population numbers are a very serious problem.
  • 4 3
 @zzRider: over population isnt the problem we can easily feed 7 billions vegan, we feeding and killing 60 billion land animals every year over 40% of crops are fed to livestock
  • 4 1
 @ybsurf: The greatest polluter by far is humanity and it's contemporary desires: fuel, electrical power, travel, all the unnecessary consumer shit you buy. 1.6 billion population in 1900, by 2100 there will be 11 billion. ~5% of carbon output is animal/manure based atm, and I would bet most/all of that is offset by the grass and woodland on farm.

Reduce human population, you reduce humanity's impact upon the environment. It's just so obvious.
  • 3 3
 How’s that “reducing human population” doing over in Europe where Europeans have 1 or less kid but where Muslim families that move there have a minimum of 6 kids.... Europe will be majority Muslim by 2050
  • 4 0
 @zzRider: about 2/3 of all farm animals are reared on factory farms, and in the US it's 99%. So much for pastures and grasslands. Britain is unusual in this respect (for a developed country), but looks like factory farms are coming there as well.
Carbon output is not the only side effect of animal farming - add pollution due to fossil fuels, methane production, destruction of habitats - this article is an interesting read:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

Fully agree with the need to reduce, or at least slow down the increase of the human population, as well as reducing consumerism, just as you wrote.
  • 3 5
 @sino428: almost all farms in Ireland are grass fed grazing systems and still we are seeing moron vegan activists making false accusations and attacking farmers. A lot of your vegan buddies are lying scum.
  • 3 0
 @Merohedra : Thank for your suggestions. We are aware of this but alimentation is a personal topic and we cannot impose to our rider and our staff to follow a specific diet. One thing is certain is that we will open the discussion about this in our team and I'm sure there is going to be some shift in our alimentation too.
  • 2 0
 @robwhynot: Great feedback! That's where we were coming from by saying we will eating more local and organic products.
  • 4 1
 @humoroususername: lying scum? How so? Farmers are still raising animals to be killed right? That’s what most vegans are against so not sure why you are surprised they still protest farmers.
  • 2 0
 @humoroususername: yes, and all meat eaters are crystal clear paragons of virtue Wink there are morons everywhere.
But the fact that a cow is grass fed doesn't mean there is no environmental impact (even leaving ethics aside).
  • 3 4
 @humoroususername: the lying ones are the meat industry, doesn't matter if it's grass fed ,organic free range or whatever it's all marketing bs and they all end up in the same slaughterhouse.
  • 2 2
 @humoroususername: grass fed is even more environmental impact as it takes longer to get to maturity (22 months over 15 months grain fed) so need more pasture and longer methane emission, water use and deforestation
  • 5 2
 @ybsurf: methane emissions are insignificant. Monoculture causes more deforestation than ranching and free range cattle only require water to drink. they don’t water range land lmao nor do the chop down trees. Monoculture destroys prairie ecosystems, pastures strengthens prairie.
  • 2 0
 @people don’t like the truth, eh? Most every great civilization has crumbled due to inability to supply clean drinking water and/or feed their population. I don’t see any indication that this won’t happen again (or via disease). Exponential population growth in a closed ecosystem is not sustainable. It is not a matter of if but when will the earth’s systems take steps to rid itself of the human scourge.
  • 1 1
 @robwhynot: woooo late civ collapse time! Humans aren’t scourge tho don’t buy into that garbage. But yeah civs bring deserts
  • 3 3
 @ybsurf: Grass-fed has less environmental impact, because it does not require the pesticide, fertiliser, fuel, etc., required to produce crops. Grass is also a natural diet for the animals. Grassland also has far, far more biodiversity than a field of crops, with little to no soil erosion in comparison. There would be no need for deforestation if human population numbers were not expanding. Not to mention the ~95% of carbon output that is not animal/manure based, but based on other human demands. They have also begun using biomethane from cow manure to fuel vehicles.
  • 2 1
 @dieuci: Scourge may be strong. But we don’t do a lot to help ourselves or our planet do we? Heck, majority of people can’t even accept that the earth goes through natural climatic cycles and our current civilization affects the variables that are foundational to climate cycles. We are changing the natural carbon cycle, fact. The carbon cycle largely controls the earth’s temperature, fact. Humans are affecting the climate, hearsay!!!! Can’t prove it!!!! Bunch of morons we are.
  • 3 0
 @dieuci: no you are wrong, cattle don't just require water to drink, grain fed cattle require vast amounts of water to grow their feed, they need a lot they are much bigger than humans
  • 2 0
 @ybsurf: correct but I’d rather eat a cow that’s had a happy free roaming long life that hasn’t been injected with hormones and whatnot !
  • 1 0
 @Merohedra: No you are wrong. I dont endorse grain fed cattle, maybe read a little before replying.
  • 2 1
 @dieuci: you are still wrong with your monoculture bs and grass fed isn't sustainable the way we eat meat it will take all north america and part of brasil in pasture just to supply usa with beef that includes all city lakes rivers and mountains. Animal agriculture at any level isnt sustainable.
  • 3 0
 Y’all are a hilarious echo chamber
  • 3 0
 @ybsurf: that is total nonsense. So many lies told about agriculture. The "facts" are often total misrepresentations and often fabrications by activists claiming to be unbiased scientists. There is a widely quoted myth about the amount of water needed to make a single kg of beef. Something ridiculous like 100,000litres per kg. But it is totally false and morons like you quote it all the time. In fact almost every stat about agriculture output I've seen appears to be dubious.
  • 2 0
 @humoroususername:
It takes somewhere between 5000 and 20,000 liters of water for 1 kg of beef. For wheat it takes 4 or 5 times less water to make 1 kg. It isn't 100,000 liters but it is still a lot more than for non meat products.
  • 3 0
 @Chris97a: That is total bollocks. I've seen a lot of the calculations and they do not stack up. A calf drinks approximately 10% of their total body weight every day. Thats about 10L for 100KG calf. 40L for a 400kg Heifer/Bullock. An animal will gain approximately 0.7-1.2KG of weight every day while it is growing. We have a total grass based system here in our country so not a single drop of water is used aside from that. There is zero irrigation here. Our grain is not suitable for humans as anything other than malting barely, it is highly suitable for cattle feed. Many areas are totally unsuited to anything other than grazing animals.

I'm sick of listening to this nonsense being spoken by people who don't have a clue what they are talking about. You are rehashing talking points you don't even understand fully.

There was some propaganda on the Irish national broadcaster website about how to eat in a planet friendly way. There was not a single piece of dairy or beef produce on the 7 day meal planner. In fact not one thing on the menu could actually even be grown in this country. And we have idiots who don't understand the first thing about any form of agriculture, telling us we should give up not only our food security but our single largest industry so we can import all of our food from abroad. It boggles the mind how quickly people have been brainwashed by this stuff.
  • 2 2
 @humoroususername: 11000 scientist from 153 country agree going vegan is a great way to reduce global warming and greenhouse gases but I guess they all wrong and you are right. You are the one being brainwashed by the industry propaganda, activist based theorists ains on actual studies and fact unlike the meat and dairy industry.
  • 2 1
 @ybsurf: that’s not an argument. You are being fallacious.
  • 3 1
 @ybsurf: I know my own industry better than any of them so yes I do know what I am talking about. Try growing crops using nothing other than artificial fertilizer, after a very short period of time you will be facing dustbowls as there are no animals grazing an pacing manure through the system. There will be very limited organic matter and you will have soil borne pests that lay dormant in the ground for years. Then you can use pesticides but the environmentalists want to ban roundup too so that could be a problem. Not to mention the fact that crops are far more prone to failure than grassland an animals.

But just in response to your point about scientists... agriculture is and always has been at the forefront of science. Farmers take on board more advice from their advisors more than any sector I can think of. We are constantly being informed of new techniques, fertilisers, cross breeds, technology all of which comes from scientific peer reviewed studies in agricultural colleges...and you know what? Most of it turns out to be nonsense that they back track upon a few years later. I've been watching it happen for my entire life. If you follow all of the advice of the farm advisory board here you will have suffered from some catastrophic decision making based upon their scientific findings.

Scientists suffer from group think and confirmation bias just like everybody else. And confirmation bias is not worked out of a study if everyone has the same biases.

But please link me to these 11,000 scientists and I'll look into their no doubt groundbreaking and infallible unbiased findings. What are they botanists, food scientists, climate scientists, engineers?
  • 3 0
 @humoroususername:
You are only considering grass fed pasture raised beef. That makes up 3% of the beef in the US, at a price that is more than double of grain fed. Not considering the impact that the system which produce the vast majority of beef is creating this argument.
  • 2 1
 @Chris97a: yes and even corn fed beef still produces slurry and manure which is spread back into the pasture to provide minerals, nutrients and a level of organic matter.

Crops create zero manure. They take from the ground and put absolutely nothing back into it. You become entirely reliant on man made fertilisers which are made from crude oil and other synthetic processes. What do you think happens when a crop is grown in the ground? It takes the nutrients in the soil out of it...a cow or any grazing animal will pass them through their system and put most of them back in. This is really, really basic stuff and none of these vegan activists take any of this into account. Do some research about how emissions from agriculture are calculated, none of the co2 that farmers TAKE from the atmosphere is taken into consideration. A field of maize will absorb a very significant amount of co2.

There are so many half truths out there about this stuff. If their arguments were so solid they wouldn't keep going back to lies.
  • 2 1
 @humoroususername:
There are options to feed the soil that doesn't use manure.
  • 1 1
 @humoroususername:
You will have to look that up on your own and decide if you believe its viable or not. I'm not trying to get out of talking about it, but I've been down this path many times on other subjects.
  • 4 0
 @Chris97a: soil has been nourished by nothing but animal manure for millions of years. We are being lectured daily about how we are interfering with the earth's natural processes...and here you are recommending that we use something other than manure (still not sure what that could be) to fertilize crops and form the basis of organic matter. Let's not even get into the possible soil compaction issues we could be facing in less than 100 years.

The only even temporarily viable artificial fertilizers are heavily used here and where they are used there is a clear reduction in earthworm life and other organic matter such as fungus. I'd certainly be in favour of getting back to a more balanced type of agriculture than what is out there but that's not being spoken about. It's basically a conversation that starts and stops with ending meat consumption as the only acceptable answer and it's a ridiculous concept.

This is the thing about vegans and other anti farming environmentalists. They love to quote studies and no. of scientists who say X or y but then you challenge them on the specifics or the holes in their theories and they have nothing to offer by way of argument. They have to keep it very vague and general where they sound very authoritative. But when it comes down to it, the vast majority are speaking on a subject that they have zero concept of. And it shows.
  • 3 0
 @humoroususername: listening to these anti farm people is like choosing to listen to the dumbest people in the room. They think that they have great ideas, but know nothing about plant/fungi/bacteria ecosystems. Complete waste of time. Also one of the reasons why I've been working on a soil remediation business--which I think is one of the top actions that humans could take to combat climate change. Capitalism will save the day
  • 1 0
 @humoroususername:

To say the soil has been fertilized for millions of years with manure is a little disingenuous. Deer running around in the woods and antelope wandering around on grasslands is a lot different than hundreds or thousands of cows in a fenced area.

The existance of huge feedlot farms is a really quite new development, and this is what most people are pushing back against. If all livestock and dairy were raised the way you suggest there would be a huge reduction in availability of beef, dairy and other meat products, and the prices would go up quite a lot. The amount of space to raise animals in this way is a lot more than using the feedlot system and would either further reduce output or consume even more land than it currently does. I would be excited if that kind of system existed as the only option for raising animals(and there wasn't more land used). I would be forced to reduce my consumption by probably half or more due to expense. It would be a step towards sustainability instead of away from it, which is the direction the vast majority of meat and dairy production in the US has been headed for the last 100 years.

I'm not a vegetarian but have been in the past due to concerns with how many resources it uses to eat meat.
  • 3 0
 @Mntneer: cool, what's the name of your company? It's mind boggling. Even a year ago all of this vegan stuff was being laughed at. Now these idiots have got the attention of the average city dweller. It's very useful that the majority of people know absolutely nothing about farming or how life functions.

The answer is better farming. Not zero farming. But the same people telling us we need to cut emissions (the EU, UN, national governments, etc) are also the same people who are making the family farm unviable and doing everything in their power to favour large scale factory farms.
  • 3 0
 @Chris97a: you see this is the thing...vegans and environmentalists in the USA can claim they wouldn't have a problem if farming was grass based and not factory based. But it's not true. Ireland has the single most efficient dairy production in the world due to our abundant grass growth. Our beef farmers are in the top 5 in terms of efficiency. And we have some of the most voracious climate activists you can imagine campaigning for an immediate reduction in our herd numbers. Most of our beef farmers are only a few steps away from being totally organic.

It's insane. We have an almost entirely grass based system and our land isn't suitable for much else but these vegans and environmentalists are still every bit as malicious towards farmers as they are in the USA, Denmark or anywhere else factory farming is bigger than organic.
  • 1 0
 @humoroususername:
Extremes on either end of the scale are terrible. What super activists are yelling about has very little to do with what the majority thinks, the majority is mostly silent and therefore the only noise is from both extremes. I think that if beef went up in price by much at all there would be a lot of people complaining here in the US, and that is what makes it so that there is no actual action to move towards sustainability here.
  • 2 1
 @humoroususername: those 97% of cows in the US have to eat crops that are produced with all those pesticides, artificial fertilizers etc that you advocate against. And to produce 1 kcal of meat you have to first produce several times kcal worth of crops, that could alternatively feed more people than the resulting beef. You can't beat physiology and physics.
Not to mention the swathes of rainforest cleared for extensive cow farming.
  • 1 0
 @Chris97a: "Extremes on either end of the scale are terrible. "

This!!!

Reasonable, balanced conversation and discourse seems to be a thing of the past. It's A or B and anything in between is wrong.
  • 2 1
 @Slabrung: and as I said already, those cows will produce organic matter through manure which is vital for nourishing the ground that crops are growing in. If you convert all of that to crops and only crops you take away the role of the ruminant in nature which is a vital component. Your plan is deeply flawed. Nowhere in nature does it exist that land is only used for crops. In fact the overproduction of crops without manure being spread is already causing soils to be tapped out. And yes some of that is because of maize used to feed cattle and lots of it is for all of the other crops like potatoes, barley, turnips, soy, etc.

There are plenty of reasons to change how we farm. Going vegan to save the planet isn't a good one.
  • 1 1
 @humoroususername: why not human waste to nourish the soil, we are 7 billion humans that should be enough. What's so different between cows and humans waste to do that?
  • 2 1
 @ybsurf: maybe just a simple google search of “ways human pathogens can be transmitted” might answer your question
  • 1 0
 @ybsurf: It's actually done commonly in many places around the world. Raw human sewage has a relatively high risk of passing pathogens to foods eaten raw, but after being digested into solids and then heat treated it is liquefied and spread on fields. Many of my neighbours use this program. Locally farmers also participate in a food compost program where businesses pay a fee, essentially a food waste tax, and that fee pays for a company to collect the waste, deliver it to farms where it is mixed with a combination of manure and industrial paper waste, composted and then spread on the fields. Farmers actually get paid a portion of the fee paid by the source of the waste.

In short, there are many things being done to help improve the sustainability of farming. There's no magic bullet.
  • 2 0
 @ybsurf: human waste has been used from time to time but it has been banned in most places now. To be frank its pretty disgusting. Cow manure is basically digested grass or grain. It's not even particularly smelly so it's quite a pure product. Human faeces on the other hand is pretty gruesome stuff. Not to mention all of the other stuff that gets flushed down toilets. I don't really fancy eating a carrot that has been fertilised by human crap.
  • 2 0
 @humoroususername: SSRI’s in the sewer system!
  • 30 3
 Some good initiatives and great to see this being openly discussed. A few further ideas, and collecting some that are already here...

- use ground-based and/or communal transport wherever possible; between European destinations, it tends to be a much nicer experience anyway. Airports really suck.
- reduce meat and dairy consumption. It takes approximately 20 times the amount of land to produce a single calorie of meat compared to plant-based foods.
- consider cradle-to-cradle product choices. Does it need replacement? If it does, can you recycle the one you have? Can you choose something which you know can be recycled? Preferencing aluminium over carbon seems an obvious opportunity...
- Make sure what can be recycled, is. That means chain rings don't go in the bin. What else?
- Try to use electric or hybrid vehicles for local transport, once you arrive at your destination.
- Make your partners' environmental credentials a part of the decision making process to work with them. What can they do to help you with your goals? The camelbak example is good, though perhaps an easy win.
- Think about your choices as individuals, in your home and personal lives. It's much easier to sustain a team ethic if each of you is already mindful and motivated about your environmental choices.

It's rewarding to feel that you are making a difference - take the time to notice and celebrate it, and it'll feel like a benefit rather than a chore!
  • 4 0
 @dominic54 : Thank you so much for your comment. These are all great suggestions and aligned with what we think is possible too! Keep them coming!
  • 41 14
 According to my government climate change doesn’t exist. Maybe this will help show them what we need to do. Good job.
  • 20 7
 Meanwhile half of NSW is on fire from drought and hot weather
  • 19 0
 @ctd07: Climate change is real but blaming every fire on CC in areas that have always been dry and burn is a scapegoat move. Same story here in California. PG&E blames climate change to deflect their own negligence, and responsibility.
  • 12 9
 @Beez177: It's the go-to for everything....the beach where I live gets pulled away, by..."global warming". It's called erosion and it's been happening since water and sand met
  • 6 0
 @T-Bot: So what's their explanation for the death of the Great Barrier Reef? That must be close enough to home to worry about.
  • 2 0
 @vinay: A Chinese tanker crashed into it
  • 3 11
flag Vulhelm (Nov 8, 2019 at 10:29) (Below Threshold)
 Climate change definitely exists. The question is could we change it even if we wanted to? The sun controls the climate, not humans.
  • 1 0
 @ctd07: not only that but Queensland hasn’t had rain for a worryingly long time now, and Victoria has had snow all week in November...
  • 5 0
 @T-Bot Thank you for your support! We know this plan isn't perfect and won't solve all the problems but at least we are trying to make things a little better!
  • 3 0
 @Beez177: Not blaming every fire, blaming 100's of fires burning thousands of square miles of forest all at the same time, the worst fires fire depts have ever seen. Only an idiot blames every minor event on one thing.
  • 2 0
 @vinay: Many toxins harm reefs. Sunscreen is a prime candidate. Not only was it never (or not adequately enough) safety tested for use on humans it also contains chemicals that kill reefs.
  • 25 2
 I really like that you decide to do something where you can have an impact instead of the "we can't change anything anyway" attitude. Props for trying to get the ball rolling !
I am curious to see were this will lead.
  • 3 0
 @TransforDerek : Thank you! We thought it was a great starting point and that hopefully will lead to greater goals!
  • 24 5
 I like this. Wish more teams would as well. Just listened to Danny Hart’s downtime interview and he mentioned how small his Snowshoe pits were, yet he still won. Makes you think what’s really necessary.
  • 36 2
 And how big the engine in his raptor was and how little he cared about the fuel it used....
  • 2 18
flag krattAtak (Nov 8, 2019 at 6:35) (Below Threshold)
 @bombdabass: but raptors are super fun to drive, and at least he doesn’t have a diesel and is environmentally conscious otherwise
  • 2 4
 @bombdabass: The guy is home in a year and able to drive almost never. You ever ride a moto?
  • 9 2
 @krattAtak: diesels are cleaner than gas smh
  • 6 2
 @vtracer: and more efficient, refining process takes less energy, Carbon dioxide/monoxide emissions are less (all regulated emissions are actually lower), the warm up time is shorter resulting in less emissions (petrol vehicles emit the most during the warm up period which can be double...and warm up is not "sitting running in the driveway"). Particulate matter is the most "concerning" emission for diesels. Most of which doesn't stay airborne, but is known as rolling "coal". This can be tuned out or just doesn't happen if you don't drive like a jackwagon. This all holds true if a petrol vehicle has a catalytic converter. When those get removed it's even worse comparison. Moral of the story? Don't go huff exhaust fumes. Of any vehicle.

Oh, and f*ck paper straws.
  • 1 1
 @krashDH85: @krashDH85: Well Europe backed the wrong horse with diesel by the look of it. I think they are going to go the way of the two-stroke by 2030.
  • 20 5
 I was shocked by how much vehicles are involved in supporting a single road cycling event. Also, amount of plastic bottles thrown away at each stage is ridicilous. Maybe they should also try electric vehicles or hybrids and find some other way to reduce pollution.
  • 21 1
 I'd love to see the tour de france become a self-supported bike-packing mission!
  • 6 1
 @seb-stott: It used to be didn't it. Back in the day they would ride with spare tyres over their shoulders.
  • 2 0
 @seb-stott: hell yeah!
  • 4 0
 @FRKA : exactly!!! Nobody believes me when I say that but that bloody Tour de France is one of the most polluting sports with formula 1 and other mechanical sports. This event is a huge trash, without mentionning the imbred public and its brainless behaviors. I saw it last year in the Pyrenees mountain and I can tell you that it`s shocking, really shocking, all this amount of cars, trucks, helicopters, camping-cars, plastic goodies and plastic bottles thrown everywhere... but nobody seems to care about that crap because this is ``normal``.
  • 2 1
 @softsteel: I was watching the world cycling championships in September. I made a video of the peloton going by. I let my sheila watch it and she said "Is it a bike race or a car race?"

It was almost as if every rider had a personal BMW 5 series support car.
  • 2 0
 @jaame: it is literally the worst spectator sport in the world. And it has possibly the worst spectators. Yes, I'm talking about the c*nts before the cols.
  • 1 1
 @BenPea: It was a miserable week. I’m a cyclist myself, and I cannot think of anything worse to pass the time than riding a road bike for seven hours in the rain in the north of England. Truly awful. Hard as nails those riders. Or maybe just a little crazy.
You’re right about it being a terrible spectator sport. Walking round town I heard a ton of different languages and just thought wow. Those guys have driven here from Italy to stand around in the rain and briefly watch some guys ride past them at the other side of the barriers.
Football. Great sport, the fans are generally not my cup of tea, but it’s easy to see why stadium sports are popular.
  • 1 0
 @seb-stott: [L=https://youtu.be/3sK0bsQ7A7Q]check this crazy gcn video[\L] where they went to ride original tdf stage, paris - lyon, 470km. Imagine this in modern race haha
  • 1 0
 @jaame: for real
  • 24 8
 Well said & well done - EVERYONE should be doing this, doing something instead of doing nothing.
  • 30 9
 next would be, consume 80% less meat and dairy
use your bike 5 instead of 2 years
buy used stuff
  • 4 0
 @vhdh666: somehow I don't see a World Cup race team, paid to promote and ultimately sell new products advocating using products for a long time over buying new ones.

The focus should be on being environmentally conscious when producing new products by using sustainable manufacturing.

At the end of the day, being CO2 neutral and environmentally conscious costs a lot of money. Consumers complain all the time about expensive products, yet at the same time push companies to be 'green' and also support higher salaries for racers and expect them to put money into grassroots racing amongst many other things.

You can't have it all.
  • 2 0
 @whaddasquid: you're totally right concerning promoting new products. It's their job to do so and they cannot use a bike for a long period of time.
But ddmonkey referred to "everyone" and that's what I was referring to
  • 7 12
flag amonas (Nov 8, 2019 at 4:36) (Below Threshold)
 thank you Greta
  • 8 5
 @vhdh666: best thing anyone can do for the planet is not have children. Children have the biggest carbon footprint going over an 80 year lifespan. From the perspective of the planet and environment there is no need for more people.
  • 12 2
 @CM999: you're completely right. You could kill yourself before not having children. Would even be more effective.
  • 2 2
 @vhdh666: Or cut it out completely, it's really not that hard and will have the greatest impact, not to mention the animals would appreciate it.
  • 1 3
 If i choose not to have children, may I still partake in meat? I mean, my actual impact is greater than going vegan.
  • 2 1
 @josiahs: The animals won't exist to appreciate it. Cows aren't great pets.
  • 1 0
 @vhdh666: if you use your bikes for so long, nobody can buy nice second hand bikes Smile
  • 1 0
 @K1maxX: waaas willste mein pinkes Bronson nicht kaufen?
  • 1 0
 @vhdh666: hab schon eins Big Grin
  • 2 0
 @ddmonkey : Thank you! Taking action is definitely the first step!
  • 2 0
 @vhdh666: Thank for your suggestions. We are aware of this but alimentation is a personal topic and we cannot impose to our rider and our staff to follow a specific diet. One thing is certain is that we will open the discussion about this in our team and I'm sure there is going to be some shift in our alimentation too.
  • 2 0
 @whaddasquid: Off course we know we are part of a system that push sales, but really our idea is to show that even if some activities are not fundamentally sustainable, there are still ways to improve. Now we start with controlling our own emissions, tomorrow we will work with our partners on having the same approach and get the ball rolling. In the end we are hoping to move towards a greener bike industry!
  • 6 0
 Personally, I like that they acknowledge both the impact and the paradox of their passions/vocations and that they're actively looking to do what they can to make positive changes. I like the vibe of them letting us know that it's what they're doing, not what you have to do. Again, they admit the paradox and that there's no optimal balance between pursuing certain passions/enjoying life and not doing some damage. There isn't anything one single person, or a dozen people, are going to do to reign in where a hundred governments and billions of people have gotten us to.

Also, PB is a mtb news site. This is a team announcement, so news of sorts. I'm not sure they picked this up as a piece of singular propaganda rather than post a media release.
  • 5 0
 I commend Cous Cous for taking this action but once again we fail to face up to the fact that we simply can't have our cake and eat it.

Positives -

Tree planting - as long as this is managed well, planted properly (no ditches ala FC 1950, which caused many an increased flood risk) and the correct species are used for the area then fantastic.

Recycling - should be done as standard, but good.

--

Dubious -

Offsetting . Not terrible, and Gold Standard verified are a better bet than most but this still doesn't address the issues we face.



---

At 35.5 tons per person, per year, that gives you a C02 emissions per person that is nearly 5x the UK average.[2014, citation SGR report] However, the UK footprint does rise to 14.4t per head when we introduce the the total footprint which includes importation of product, manufacturing etc..

Given that we need to see the figures per person closer to 3t, this is merely a continuation of an unsustainable model, which cannot be offset.

Of course we don't want to stop or slow down, but we need to start re-framing our cultural expectation of life, which is continually reinforced by nearly every pro-athlete and team out there. Year round global travel = success.

Not travelling the world is not necessarily a negative - if we can help create vibrant communities and economies nearer our homes / create more trails / look at circular product lifespans we can build something to be proud of.

Solutions that would be progressive:

Give each member a staff a carbon credit limit - work to 3t as a business, per staff member.

Look at the output of the team house / offices - It's energy supply, how it is marketed to international visitors and so on. I am assuming this has been done or is being done.

Instead of flying staff out to each race, only take core staff. You could hire videographers / media on a regional basis. Use local crew. Riders may not like the like the changing personell, but they have to suck it up.
  • 1 0
 Plastic recycling is a huge farce. Most that is picked up for "recycling" is usually dumped with the other garbage, and even if you get sunglasses/chair,bumper, etc. that is made from recycled plastic it eventually goes to waste also since plastic can be reused only so many times before it's crap. The US used to ship it's plastic to China to be recycled...how much fuel/energy was that requiring for that step alone?
  • 1 2
 @GlassGuy: Well they say the six biggest container ships produce more CO2 than all the cars in the world combined, so my guess is it's a lot.
  • 2 0
 @GlassGuy: Totally agree. Back to the problem of over consumption again.......

Have you read the Patagonia case study on the shipping audit they had done in 2015 (I think) ...?

A good book to read is Naomi Kliene - This changes everything. It’s an interesting opinion that carries some weight even upon critical analysis.
  • 1 0
 @TommyWilkinson: I haven't read that but I'll look into it. Thanks!
  • 3 0
 @TommyWilkinson Thanks for all the ideas Tommy but to do all this we have to start somewhere right ? We believe that giving ourself realistic and achievable goals will improve our chances of success and true impact for this direction we are trying to take, let's start here today and see how far we can go... bisous CousCous
  • 2 0
 @urteam: It’s better than everyone else so far Cous, and that’s cool. I don’t know what is going on strategy wise in mangers meetings any more, but it would be cool to see a global, possibly legislation led, scheme that places climate change considerations as part of team rule frameworks. This mitigates any potential claims of greenwashing as rules are set in stone.

This could be, as you say, less parts allowed to be used per team, concerted team pressure on the UCI to stream line events in terms of travel logistics and so on and potentially place pressure on any manufacturers who are flouting environmental standards with sporting penalties.

It’s a hot topic - and individual choices are not going to solve this problem. I’d love to see a team publicly back progressive Government and governing body policies, as these will dictate the success or failure of how this is tackled and Instigate real change , but as I said to start with, I commend you .
  • 14 9
 Climate change. Epic hoax. A agenda to tax citizenry into oblivion whilst allowing the real polluters to continue unabated. Deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and environmental pollution are real threats to our home. I don’t see any of those issues being addressed at all. Can anyone name the world’s top 3 biggest polluters??
  • 1 1
 Saudi, Chevron, Gazprom.
  • 6 4
 What made you come to the conclusion to that climate change is a hoax? www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
If you would like to point out that in your opinion climate change is not a problem, then argue that, but don't say that it does not exist.
Your topics of deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and pollution is brought up by scientists and citizens for more than 30 years. So how can you clim they are not?
With the biggest polluters, do you mean by absolute number of capita?
Absolute: China, USA; India
Capita: SaudiArabia (10th intotal), Australia (15th in total), USA (2nd in total)
www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
  • 1 0
 Are you talking industry, government, population as a whole....?
  • 7 2
 @mitochris: China, India, US military. The 19 aircraft carriers operated by the US Navy pollute more than all the cars in the world combined. Do you think the US Navy will pay a carbon tax?? Logic brought me to my conclusion. Taxing people will not fix the problem. Carbon taxation is a scam to benefit the elite at the expense of the masses...as usual. The UN is a fraudulent, and outright corrupt organization. It is not the benevolent outfit most believe it to be.
  • 3 0
 @TommyWilkinson: top polluters.
China #1, India #2, US military #3.
  • 3 0
 @Golden-G: where was I wrong with my numbers? I didn’t take out the us military as its own unit, but otherwise my top 3 are the same. Also, in your 3 only one is the military. With the correct government and attitude you can reduce that too. So there is a point.
What made you come to the conclusion that only the elite would benefit from reduced pollution? This statement against the elites is actually rather silly, no? Who is this group that is so untouchable? Of course carbon taxation would not only benefit some rich people. Cleaner air would do me just fine. Why is the UN fraudulent? Is there something better? We through around statements very easily with never having been exposed to it. Is it fantastic? Probably not but the only platform we have to actually try to bring humanity together. Let’s not bash everything all the time but try to see the benefits and tackle the negatives.
  • 1 5
flag Golden-G (Nov 8, 2019 at 8:44) (Below Threshold)
 @mitochris: nevermind bro. Keep believing what you are told.
  • 3 0
 @Golden-G: I think it is relevant and I would like to be informed when I am wrong. So please tell me what you base your opinion on.
  • 1 0
 @TommyWilkinson: they pollute mainly because they‘re selling to customers willing to pay for their products
  • 1 1
 While China is the biggest polluter, well, at least according to the US government, it is, it's average emission is realatively low due to the large population (over 1.4 billion). Acctually, common Chinese people are used to be save on energies and materials, for example, while many people in the States tend to leave the lights and A/C on even when they leave the offices or homes, Chinese people are more likely to turn off unnecessary energy consuming appliances. That has already been a daily routine in every Chinese people's life because they had been told to save on energy since they can understand their parent's language.

Beside that, the government, and some major companies, such as Alibaba, have planted numerous trees in the north and northwest area of China. According to the UN, Alibaba's Ant Forest project has planted "around 122 million trees in some of China’s driest areas, including in arid regions in Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Qinghai and Shanxi. The trees cover an area of 112,000 hectares (1.68 million mu); the project has become China’s largest private sector tree-planting initiative." (www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/chinese-initiative-ant-forest-wins-un-champions-earth-award)

And according to NASA, "China and India are responsible for one-third of the world's new plants and trees during the past two decades, according to a recent study using NASA satellite data." (www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-03-04/china-india-lead-the-way-in-making-the-world-greener)

So, yes, China has been criticized for the pollution and greenhouse gas emission for a long time. However, the government and ordinary Chinese people has been improving the greeness of the country all the time while some country are busy bombing others (every Alipay user can donate to plant trees in Northwest China). Of course we everyone should consider ourselves a member of the nature, and to protect it. And I think the MTB fans has the strongest rights to say that we love the nature and would defend it at our most.
  • 2 1
 @Golden-G: @Golden-G: Uh, the 19 US carriers are all nuclear powered, the cores are good for about 25 years. Those planes aren't taking off 24/7 either unless they are in active combat. Get your facts straight.
  • 4 0
 @milanboy1986: China burns half the coal mined on the plant. China and India also have a smog event every year that can be seen from space, that covers half of your continent. Years ago, the Euros actually started to freak because the whole thing started moving in their direction.
  • 1 1
 @vhdh666: Or because we live in a system and framework that makes it impossible for most customers to refuse their product. At some point someone has to step back and instigate the change. They have the capital and clout to do so. Their obsessive ideology towards market led economics - an easy “out” route for big corps. I don’t care if they use their huge cash reserves to change, and still earns billions. Just as long as they make the effort.
  • 7 4
 @mitochris: The "climate crisis" is an absolute joke, sorry. Its a power and money grab of epic proportions, wrapped up in a package that no one can criticize, the environment. I'm sorry, but thinking that you will convince 7.1 billion people are going to change their behavior is a fantasy. The Earth has been warming and cooling for the last 4 billion years, and will continue to do so for another 4 billion until the liquid mantel cools or the sun goes supernova, whichever comes first. Humans, as is typical of their epic hubris, think that they have some influence over Nature. Lets ignore all the other variables like solar cycles, cosmic radiation, plate tectonics, ocean currents, and Milancovitch cycles to say that A + B = C. End of the day, Nature always wins. May not happen in our lifetimes, but she will win at the end of the day, no matter what we do.
  • 3 4
 @milanboy1986: NASA lies about everything.
  • 4 3
 @SlodownU: damn right it is. More than one critical thinker here! Good to see!
  • 2 1
 Golden-G Greatest hoax today at least. Got young people protesting in the streets for more taxes for their parents and themselves. Insane.
  • 4 2
 @mitochris: Please! NASA is completely full of shit. Perpetuating this bullshit ensures that they get more funding. Same with thousands of “climate scientists”. Easiest way to get tenure and funding. Again, it all comes down to $$$$.
  • 4 1
 @Golden-G: Honestly, I just get a kick out of reading people’s responses on PB, with zero expectation of anyone’s position changing. Sheeple in general fascinate me.
  • 1 1
 @Golden-G: I’m a student of history. Power, money, land the 3 biggest motivators in human history. Just about every human enterprise, war, and policy has been about/over those 3. But suddenly we’ve become more enlightened.
  • 2 0
 @McNubbin: that is not how science works. You would be the star in the respective field if you could demonstrate without reasonable doubt that what we are experiencing regarding the climate is not human made. The vast majority does not become rich by publishing something. That’s not how it works. I pulled the data from the NASA website, but you can get the same info from a wide variety of sources, including the epa, who is under strict control from the current US government.
  • 1 1
 @mitochris: No, the way science works is come up with a hypothesis, test the hypothesis through rigorous experimentation, analyze the data, and report the conclusion. That's a brief summary of the Scientific Method, and is the methodology behind how we've actually cured diseases. Most of this climate research is a joke. No experimentation, no empirical results, just conclusions that support whatever your agenda is. Must be convenient to be a climate scientist, you're never wrong or right, just support whatever the popular conclusion is.
The sad part is most of you are arguing your position with hardly any knowledge of physics, biology, or math.
  • 2 0
 @SlodownU: where did I claim that science is different? All I said is that you don’t get rich just by publishing something that everyone agrees with. And there is a value in collecting many observations and building a hypothesis around it. The method applied to build the hypothesis is then tested. And yes, true double blind experiments should be set up, but that is difficult with climate change, but it doesn’t make it wrong. But have you got evidence that the science on climate change is in general wrong?
  • 2 1
 @SlodownU: when you look at this from a geologic perspective, and from a perspective that we are a natural part of this planet, not an alien leech, it is hard to get too excited. From a geologic time frame, none of this will matter. The earth claims our meagor things back quickly.

Not to say I don't recycle, but I am not going nuts worrying about my impact. Life is short enough as it is.
  • 1 0
 @Golden-G: So is there any truth in your eyes?
  • 2 0
 @SlodownU: Imagine how easier it would be if the two countries have same populations as your country. There are nearly 1/4 people of the whole world's population in these two countries. Well, the western societies have already gone throught the developing phase many decades ago. Now these countries also need to develop, so people live there can enjoy better lives, instead of suffering from poverty. Of course you may say we can use clean energy. Actually, if you come to China, you can see wind mills and solar energy panels are being built up in many many places. However, before the transfer of energy consuming completed, it will still take some time to burn the coal.

From technology aspect, western countries have leading edge new energy technology, and those countries with big amount co2 emission should communicate and learn from western countries on how to improve the cleaness of their energy consuming. But also we all need to be aware, that are those so-called clean energy really clean? There are too many electric car companies, but are they really ready to deal with the wasted batteries, or they just want to get money from investors? (That's another topic of course.)

On the other hand, if we look at the co2 emission per capita, the US is more than twice the amount of China. So individually speaking, how about you guys learn from other country to consume less energy and materials, and to use more public transport, instead of having the A/C set to lowest temperature in the summer, leaving all excess powered lights on and driving 5 minutes to the supermarket only to buy a bottle of water, then come back and criticizing other countries are using too much energy?
  • 5 0
 Support Yoann Barellis initiative to the clean the planet by, well, cleaning the planet. And by support, I mean organize trash pickups in your neighbourhood and spread the word.

@ride.for.humanity

www.instagram.com/p/B4YooXyHEAR/?igshid=167p6gnjx0zry

www.instagram.com/p/B4YooXyHEAR/?igshid=167p6gnjx0zry
  • 2 0
 @heckler73 What Yoann and @ride.for.humanity do is really amazing we for sure should do something !
  • 5 0
 @UR Team. Current Senior Programme Manager at the Gold Standard Foundation and former Portfolio Manager from ClimateCare here. More than happy to offer you some advice, how do I get in touch?
  • 1 0
 @justanothermatt : That's amazing thanks! We just saw your message and will send you an email shortly!
  • 10 3
 They didn't mention anything about reducing their Methane emissions.
  • 3 0
 Parp
  • 16 8
 Step 0: Don't race
  • 5 0
 @dirtyburger : We are aware that racing has its flaws but we are not planning on stopping what makes us happy in life and also what feeds us. Our goal is to try and make it more sustainable and improve it, not to stop living.
  • 44 41
 Carbon market: Buying carbon credits that put money into sustainable projects is a way to offset CO2 emissions.

HAHA! That's a good one! More like "Carbon Market: Buying carbon credits that put money into the pockets of well connected political and industry grifters who invented this multi-billion dollar scam, like Al Gore."
  • 13 5
 Source?
  • 19 26
flag jaame (Nov 8, 2019 at 4:40) (Below Threshold)
 Every time I see those Extinction Rebellion folk on the news I feel mixed emotions.

It seems logical to me that the type of people who are interested in such activities should put their time and efforts into planting trees. Everywhere I drive there are fields, parks, housing estates with lots of open spaces, town centres with lots of roundabouts and grass. Why not cover them all with trees instead of protesting to people who don't share your hysteria?

What exactly is carbon offsetting? Paying someone to plant trees on your behalf? If it is, why not do it yourself? If it's something else, would someone explain it to me please?

Personally I'm not a climate alarmist. I don't believe humans have the right to eternal survival. There are too many of us and we should consider cutting down our population voluntarily in order to help the other 1.3 billion known species we share the earth with. Nothing drastic. My suggestion would be climate alarmists and those Extinction Rebels make the decision for themselves to not have children. They could even devote some effort into trying to persuade people in third world countries not to have kids. In my opinion, that would do more good than telling me I shouldn't go on a plane. If every breeding couple on Earth had just one child, the population problem would be over in 80 years without anyone having to forego beef.

Which brings me to my next point. 2000 years ago the plans the world over were reportedly covered with cattle. Are there more cows farting now than there were before humans killed all the wild ones? I keep hearing about cow farts being a major source of CO2. Does anyone know the historical bovid population figures from the past 2000 years?
  • 9 15
flag jaame (Nov 8, 2019 at 4:46) (Below Threshold)
 By way of example, in 1800 there were 44 million bison in North America, and now there are just 24000. That's a big reduction in farts.
  • 26 2
 @jaame: There are now one billion cattle. That's 22 times more than the number of bison two hundred years ago.
  • 24 10
 @jaame: Man, how do you formulate opinions like that? You keep coming up with this kind of repulsive jibberish.

Much of the tripe you have written sounds like election propagada fron Nigel Farage, he has also spouted the same rubbish that protestors should instead be planting trees, I am not sure if either of you realise just how idiotic you sound, though at least he is doing it to rouse his halfwitted base, not sure you can say the same.

In short, plant trees in the UK to prevent potential global climate crisis and prevent the pesky third world from reproducing so we can all keep eating that delicious beef.

Odd guy.
  • 3 2
 @harriieee: Wow, that's a lot of cattle!
  • 27 10
 @jaame: You have clearly underestimated how severe the climate crisis is, and are making suggestions that sound nice to you, but are actually insufficient at solving the issue, and have mixed in a little eurocentrism and racism/classism with your beliefs.

Your suggestion that humans should pay the price of climate change, first of all, will disproportionately affect those in lower socioeconomic brackets already — those who live in volatile, vulnerable areas because they have to and do not have the money to move simply when they want to. So you and your family and friends may not pay this supposedly positive price of their lives and wellbeing, but people the world over will, and already are.

Second, blaming “third world countries” for having too many babies, and claiming that convincing them to have fewer is wrong, and whiffs of eugenics. Westerners contribute a massive amount more pollution and carbon emissions to the globe — the “modernized” world powers climate change, whether by driving, flying, shipping our food, or by creating the industries that we export to countries and regions who we then blame for damaging the environment, e.g. India’s textiles market or China’s trash burning.

Finally, if you would try listening to the experts on the subject (who are being paid remarkably little; and have nothing to gain from alarmism; tenured scholars and professors and writers) you would find that your oh-so-easy 80-year plan isn’t enough, and the world would be irreversibly changed by then. We have until 2050 to fix where we are going, if that.

And your beef thing: 2000 years ago, there was not a massive beef industry that powered industrial farming and cultivation, shipping, refrigeration, etc. No one will tell you that climate change is all due to farts. Nor will they tell you that you have to cut beef entirely if you don’t want to. I think the figure of red meat intake reduction worldwide to make a significant dent in emissions is 30%. Skip it one meal a day.
  • 3 21
flag jaame (Nov 8, 2019 at 5:15) (Below Threshold)
 @justanotherusername: You're always really rude to me aren't you.

I'm not a big fan of Farage. I find myself agreeing with Piers Morgan a lot, but I don't think he's alone in his views. It's more of just a common sense approach.

I'm not going to say it's a fact because I don't know the stats on people's views worldwide, but I think it's likely that the majority of the human population (by that I mean more than 50%) either doesn't know or doesn't care about the so called "Climate Emergency". Ergo, there is not much any of us can do about it. To be honest, I don't care if humans become extinct in the future. It's just not something I worry about at all.

Given that the population of Earth is 1.3 billion, I doubt a few climate strike activists walking down the street and chanting is going to make any difference in the grand scheme of things. We should all just calm down and accept the fact that a tiny vocal minority cannot influence the thoughts, feelings or behaviour of over a billion people around the globe.

I would prefer you don't reply to this because you've previously shown that you're not prepared to be civil. If you do reply, can you please refrain from insulting me? That would be great. Thanks.
  • 2 5
 @justanotherusername: Why do you think I want to prevent the third world from reproducing?
  • 9 4
 @jaame: plant forests over all the worlds golf courses. At least then the space wouldn't be wasted on the privileged few and we would have more places to ride / walk.
  • 6 7
 @jaame: Thats one thing you are right about, I wont continue to reply to you. I genuinely feel sorry for you and the poor people that are forced to share their lives with you if you express the same views to them outside of Pinkbike, that or you have somehow created some kind of repulsve echo chamber in your own image.

For somebody willing to give out such views, that many will find offensive (such as suggesting people from the UK should try and convince the 'developing' world to to stop reproducing) you really seem to take offense to being 'insulted', its no wonder you find yourself agreeing with Piers Morgan, as I said, repulsive.
  • 6 1
 @jaame: Why do you think I want to prevent the third world from reproducing?

Didnt you write this? - "They could even devote some effort into trying to persuade people in third world countries not to have kids"

Do you have memory issues, a split personality perhaps?
  • 2 3
 @yahmon: dude, your country isn't helping things wrt climate change. You could argue it's hypocrital for anyone from the US to comment - at least the rest of us are trying.
  • 4 0
 @jaame: We could start by only having two kids ourselves rather than blaming it on the third world.
  • 3 0
 @fartymarty: You could say that buying £4k+ MTBs is also the privileged few. You can get a very good set of golf clubs for £1k, plus five years membership at a good golf course for £3k. I'd rather buy bikes, as I'm sure is the case for yourself but thought a bit of perspective wouldn't do any harm. I'm aware not everyone spends £4k on a bike but hopefully you see my point.
  • 1 0
 @bombdabass: he is a self confessed libertarian, a luxury he doesnt extend to others obvioiusly.
  • 3 1
 @jaame: I think the 1 or 2 billion people of western world population (US, Europe, China ?) pollute more than the remaining 5 or 6 billions.

I often hear that if everybody lived like the US we'd need 6 planets. 3 if everybody lived like France. China is the buggest polluter but per individual it's much less than the US.
Third world countries have lot of kids but they're poor, there's a high rate of child mortality, etc, they're mostly farmers who don't use the earth resources unlike "developped" countries. Of course if they want to live like developped countries it will only be worse.

Energetic-wise, each of us (people from developped countries) has about 400 slave-equivalent with all the energy we use. A simple toaster is the equivalent of a few riders pedalling (or one track champion).
We are all pharaos.
  • 3 1
 @fartymarty: piss off
  • 3 0
 @krystianj: exactly. Mtb hobby is no less “privileged” than golf
  • 7 4
 You should all stop reproducing. Bunch of whinny bitches. Then at least the world would be a little more quiet too.
  • 3 0
 @jaame: pretty sure the world population is near 7.7 billion. Just saying
  • 4 0
 @jaame: Piers Morgan dos not have common sense. It is a warped interpretation of things that he comes out with. He does some weird mental gymnastics to come up wit the stuff he says. He has been over and over exposed to be misinformed and wrong and refuses to listen to facts. Please do not confuse opinions with facts. His view point is to maintain what is good for him and his like and see everyone else as bad. And somehow, he has convinced people that this attitude is good for them. Please don't follow his advice.
  • 1 0
 @bombdabass: Well, the world bank actually states 1.80 children per female as the UK birthrate in 2016.
wikipedia gives fertility rate of 1.74 for the UK, and an average of 1.59 for Europe (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union).
  • 2 0
 @jaame: Correction- the human population on Earth is 7.7 billion, not 1.3 billion.
  • 1 6
flag pargolf8 (Nov 8, 2019 at 6:19) (Below Threshold)
 @SlodownU: timmy tough guy in the comments is here. Everyone look out.
  • 1 0
 @bennorth: Source? The Lizard people - they're the real conspiracy
  • 3 1
 @fartymarty: if the measure of whether any of us are allowed to talk about climate change is our country’s action, then none of us would be allowed to talk about it. Plus, believe it or not, my actions as an individual are separate from those of my government. Even then, I vote for climate conscious and environmental activist candidates. Don’t accuse me of not trying.
  • 8 4
 In regards to the "climate crisis":

Deaths from non-weather related natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc; not earthquakes or volcanoes) have been on the decline for a hundred years and are at a record low for modern history, despite a growing human population.

There has not been an increase in hurricanes, in both the Eastern and Western hemispheres, over the last 100 years.

There has not been a global increase in wild fires in the last 100 years.

Food production is growing far faster than population, and food is now more available and cheaper than at any point in human history. It is projected (by the UN) that global cultivated land will actually start to decline in the next 3-5 years from increased per-acre yields.

Non-geriatric disease, of almost all kinds, are on the decline (except for affluent communities where vaccination rates are dropping)

Global violence is at a 30 year low, despite the current wars around the world.

Global war and regional conflict is down at a 100 year low

I could go on
  • 4 1
 @hamncheez: Which one of these actually argue against the climate crisis? If you look at the hurricane classifications from the US over the last 100 years you actually see an increase in severity. The EPA shows that there is an increase in power dissipation.
Read around here: www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
  • 3 5
 @yahmon: I get that probably more than half of the US didn't vote for the muppet you ended up with in Government. But the US as a whole need to get on the climate train. If it isn't being pushed by the Government then there's no hope. Hopefully there are more like you that can change things in the US and get an administration in power that can make a difference.
  • 3 2
 @fartymarty: glad we agree at the root of it all Smile
  • 4 4
 @pargolf8: Ha Ha! I'm really scared now! I'm quaking in my boots (leather boots) that a bunch of whining vegans are gonna come drag me out whip me with a piece of soft pasta. Or better yet, maybe you'll sic Greta on me. Oh no!
  • 2 0
 @krystianj: Good point however I also use my bike(s) for getting to work and travel - which you can't do with a set of golf clubs.

Also I buy steel frames which can be repaired and recycled if I ever get rid of them - however I tend to keep my frames for a long time and then sell. I haven't binned a single frame in nearly 30 years riding - they have all been sold.

This is my main problem with carbon is that while it can probably be repaired I am not sure if it can be recycled (at least they don't at my local recycling centre - which you can do with Al / cromo). I get carbon is lighter and stiffer but does it make it ride better - the jury is out.
  • 2 1
 @yahmon: agreed.
  • 2 2
 @mitochris: I live in a hurricane zone..I've been chasing hurricanes(and running from), to catch waves on multiple coasts for 30 years....definitely NOT an increase in numbers or severity! I hear "smart people" bring this up all the time....
I've been flooded by a hurricane and it was the first this town had been hit since 1963 yet people see the close call as the "new norm". No...it's a numbers game...storms go by but eventually one is going to take a path that your in line with...just how it goes. And I can confidently state that the amount of days I've surfed during hurricane season has dropped massively in the last ten years. Why? because LESS storms going by us. I actually stopped traveling for surf during hurricane season because I love surfing at home when there are good waves....this season I paddled out once...ONCE!! It's all so overblown and people love to spill out words to fit the narrative and sound like they give a big shit about the Earth...then they wrap their plastic wrapped chicken in a plastic bag at the store and drive away in their massive SUV. It's cool this team is making "efforts", it's all pretty basic stuff really, but, if you actually consider how many people and nations have zero concern about their world and how they affect it...well, none of this really matters, sadly. Oh, I will also add I surfed and rode trails under the supposed hole in the ozone for 5 weeks a couple years ago...I didn't get sunburned once, in fact I didn't even get as tan as I do in other places with a "hole"
  • 2 1
 In my opinion, the two biggest problems we have on a global scale are overpopulation and excessive consumption caused by human greed.
The population of the world is about 7.5bn (sorry I wrote 1.3bn up there, I have China on the brain) of which 1.5bn, or 20%, lives in developed countries. The other 80%, or 6.5bn, lives in developing countries. The birth rate in developed countries is around 2.1 children per woman, and 2.3 (after child mortality) in developing countries. Therefore it seems to me that the problem with overpopulation is more significant in developing countries. If someone was to try to convince people to not reproduce, it would have a more significant effect to overall global population if the convincing was done in developing countries. I said convince people not to. I did not say prevent them from doing so. No one has the right to prevent others from reproducing. I believe also said if every human couple decided to have only one child – I did not apply that part to developing countries only. It’s a fact that everyone alive to day will not be alive in 100 years – close enough as makes no difference. We can literally end the climate emergency in 100 years if we simply stop breeding, or even cut our breeding in half.
The second point, excessive consumption. Not many people are going to voluntarily reduce their quality of life. A man who has no fridge is not going to decide he doesn’t need a fridge now because the climate emergency might affect him in 30 years. He might be dead in 30 years. A man with no car is not going to stop wanting one. A man with a BMW is not going to stop wanting a Porsche. A family that has never been on a plane is not going to decide to go on holiday on a bus once they have the means to buy a plane ticket. As someone pointed out, developed countries are relatively much bigger polluters per capita than developing countries but the greed of man is never going to abate. In 30 years those developing countries are only going to be polluting more, not less.
As for Piers Morgan – he says a lot of stuff to get a response but he also says things like “The world is not going to end in 2030” which seems refreshingly obvious in today’s media environment.
I also believe humans are very adaptable. Humans literally walked from Kenya all around the world. If they did that, they can walk from somewhere that gets submerged by rising sea levels to somewhere else. There are plenty of places in the world where no one lives because it’s too cold.
  • 2 0
 @GlassGuy: Agree that each individual has little impact, and the improvement of each individual may be minimal. BUT it all adds up, especially over time. Not throwing a plastic bottle away today, will always be better than throwing one away... Step by step, and hopefully our kids and people in less educated countries will learn from that. So I think Polygon is taking a first step in the right direction.
  • 1 0
 @fartymarty: Leeds bike park is built on a disused golf course. Cycling is the new golf, so it will hopefully be the first of many. I love golf, but there are a lot more golf courses than bike parks around here.
  • 1 0
 @bombdabass: Yes, I agree. I wrote that up there^, except I said one kid per couple.
  • 2 0
 @fartymarty: not surprised that a Brit thinks that “if it isn’t pushed by a government there’s no hope”. Governments are responsible for far more bad than good historically, and relying on them do anything is silly.
  • 3 0
 @sevn: Trust me when I say I've been doing "steps" since I was a kid...just seemed like normal things to do...I was reusing plastic bags at the store before canvas bags became cool, I don't buy things in excessive amounts of plastic packaging, I reuse containers and cups from stores and bars, I use patch kits on my bike tubes(I had a tube with 5 patches recently!), I even "repurpose" glass for my art..and on and on. But the problem is the great majority of people simply don't give a crap about any of this. When I leave my house and I see the number of giant, lifted 4 x 4 trucks, huge SUVs and such, I realize there will be no change. The US culture(and many others) are more concerned with their personal joys to ever make "sacrifices", and then some countries and cultures are more concerned with eating and getting water to be concerned with anything beyond that. So yes, I do agree that each step is useful and we can teach others to be more responsible, but the big picture is pretty weak
  • 1 2
 @GlassGuy: so the link from the EPA i provided is incorrect?
  • 2 0
 @mitochris: well, if you or anyone wants to tell me there has been an increase in numbers and severity, yet I'm actually in the area where this is supposedly occurring and I haven't seen this physical proof, then yes...I'd say it's untrue.
Many organizations and information outlets have an agenda for one reason or another and therefore what you read may not be the absolute truth, or even real. You should never hold one source as gospel
  • 3 2
 @jaame: look at some videos from hans rosling. He was a scientist / epidemiologist at the Karolinska Institute. He nicely demonstrated correlation between female education and number of children they have. He predicted that we will plateau at 11 billion. most of these people will want to have children and even if the birthdate is similar to Europe (1.53) then it will take some time to get that number down. Also, it is predicted that people born now will live way over 100 years, which might positively affect total population size, especially if the advances we are privileged to have in the developed nations will eventually trickle to other Demographics.
Yes, people have desires and the great thing with the current discussion, Greta, Fridays for future, etc is that it is shifting people’s desires towards not wanting the Porsche. It rather the clean air. If we manage to change people’s desires by saying that it is of value to invest into a clean environment instead of a. Biber car, then we are in a good way.
And no, Piers Morgan is still a tool. Nobody really is saying that the world is ending 2030. The argument always is that it will be more difficult for humans to live on it, especially with the numbers that we are. He though takes it to the other extreme that he is separate because he is the only intelligent person.
  • 1 0
 @mitochris: Sir, you are the Tool.
  • 1 1
 @GlassGuy: Well then you lead by a good example! I agree that the look at the bigger picture is pretty disappointing but I still think there is a slight shift in the right direction happening, and definitely the next generation will have a different level of awareness than us. So I do think that things are changing, slowly. Is it too slow? Maybe!
  • 1 0
 @sevn: Being honest i don't think we're going to stop anything..there's just too many people and no matter the amount of hate we throw at the plastic straw and such, humanity will never be able to completely stop leaving it's mark. And the earth has had many cycles before, both cooling and warming. Where I live was under water many moons ago, then the land masses increased, and now the levels are rising(sort of). I don't deny we create damage but I'm also not a believer that nature isn't just doing what nature does along with us.
I'll always pick up the scummy cigarette butts at the beach, use my plastic containers til they split in half, repair any and all pieces of equipment til they scream to be left alone, but I am logical about the state of things and what is going on outside my conscious little bubble. And I do think there are a lot of kids(teens) that are growing up with a new awareness that is great to see...whether or not it sticks with them all is another thing, as well I see plenty more that have blatant disregard or thought about people and the world around them. So, I guess it's kind of a crap shoot as far as what's going to happen, but i also don't think it's going to get as bad as many like to say, and not nearly as quick...unless we have a nuclear armageddon!
  • 1 0
 @mitochris: but if none of us can agree on whether or not it's too late and we're all proper f*cked, and if we all *believe* that it'll be fine and nothing needs to change, then everything will be cool right?
  • 1 2
 @GlassGuy: no, you never should hold one source for gospel, you are correct. I provided one source but there are dozens that back that source up. Independent sources, which used scientific methods to come to their conclusions.
Your observation that there are less and weaker weather cycles is a single source from your observations in your area and are not based on data and not covering the USA. You can’t just say that the EPA made up the results because you don’t like the data.
  • 4 0
 @mitochris: Cool, man. First, I never said "less" or "weaker", so you're making my statement into something false. I said there has not be an increase as many like to state. I can recall maybe 20 years ago when we went through the entire alphabet of names for storms and they even had to start over...that has NOT occurred again.
There have always been large storms and there always will be.
Also, I never said the "EPA made up the results" and I "don't like the data". By you rephrasing me incorrectly you simply come off as someone that has an agenda and is unwilling to be open minded to other information.
Anyone can read words and look at graphs.....I live in the real world and my life has not been more affected by an increase of massive hurricanes. In fact this season was boring. Last season besides one that came close was also...boring. The year before that..same thing. I got flooded but then things went quiet.
If it makes you happy to gt freaked out and spout stuff just because you read something then have at it...I offered my view of what is actually happen in real life...living in a place that gets these storms..this is my reality.
  • 1 0
 @mitochris: I did say "less", because ther haven't been as many as many other years ten or more years ago. But definitely didn't say "weaker"
  • 1 0
 @mitochris: And I should also state that while I may not be covering the entire USA with my "field research", you do have to realize that the majority of hurricanes happen in the Atlantic Basin, which is what affect Florida(where I am), and the East coast of the US...,as well, I have to deal with storms that brew in the Gulf of Mexico which is the West coast of Florida, which means I have to pay attention in two directions and navigate my life accordingly. So, I have personal data consisting of roughly 2/3 of all tropical storm activity.
The West coast of the US isn't a busy hurricane area, and yes, I know there are other areas with cyclones(the other hurricane name), and because I have a natural interest in these storms I'm pretty aware of anything big that's happening elsewhere
  • 2 2
 @GlassGuy: your first statement to me you said that you surf less because “ Why? because LESS storms going by us.” I am sorry for claiming weaker. That was incorrect, I meant “not stronger”.
You also said that organisations, referring to the epa, because that was the topic we had, have agendas and that “what you read may not be the absolute truth, or even real.” “Even real” is the equivalent to making up results. So you now agree that the data for. The epa is correct? I don’t get it. You have a single observation fro a single perspective. You. Not even quantified but from memory. You are incorrectly suggesting that your single observation of the weather is equal to the entire world climate. This is not correct.
  • 3 0
 @mitochris: the data set the epa uses is this one, which shows no increase in hurricane activity www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/cyclones-figure1-2016.png
  • 1 0
 @bombdabass: I have 3 kids. Come at me bro!
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: correct, but I didn’t say that there is an increased number, but strength, and that information is from the same website you got your graph from, just figures 2 and 3.
In the key points they claim:

- “cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years”
- “fluctuating cyclone intensity for most of the mid- to late 20th century, followed by a noticeable increase since 1995”

Now whether this is associated with climate change or an indication of it, I don’t know, but I am just citing the data that is out there. It might be a natural fluctuation, since the data collection period is rather small.

www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity
  • 2 0
 Right on brother. One of the few that get it. The people that vote this down are dangerous.
  • 2 1
 @Trailtorch2100: Define "dangerous". And dangerous for whom?
  • 2 0
 @mitochris: Here is a comprehensive analysis of natural disasters for the last 100 years. Obviously scroll past the earthquakes and volcanoes part in the beginning, since that has little to do with human activity:

ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

You'll notice that there really isn't an increase in any weather-related natural disasters over the last 100 years. Whats even better than that is the number of disaster-related deaths have dropped dramatically as we live richer, safer, more technology driven lives. Gapminder has good data on this (the organization that Hans Rosling started): www.gapminder.org/topics/natural-disasters

If we also take out all non-weather related deaths from natural disasters, its even more dramatic of a decline:

mothernature.com/2018/03/inconvenient-data-fewer-and-fewer-people-die-from-climate-related-natural-disasters

This is why I struggle with the phrase "climate crisis" when humans are thriving on our planet to a greater extent than ever in history.
  • 1 0
 @mitochris: jesus, dude....let it go. You keep stretching to do all you can to discredit me and the info I gave. You're now making a statement that I have selective memory, I also never said anything directly about the EPA, but about any organization may have a slant/agenda. I live in the world I live in, I know what is reality. Honestly you seem like a dick, so just read all you want and put everyone that differs in opinion down.
You have been doing "environmental" practices since I was a little kid and I won't stop...it's part of who I am, but just because I believe in being kind to the earth doesn't mean I'm going to jump on the any info without testing against other ideas....my mind is open...you should try it
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: I'm glad you put up differing info than what this guy keeps pushing so hard, but he's been battling my info/opinion(I live in a hurricane zone), and he's obviously one of these people that once they read one thing it's the only thing that's real. He's just going to argue and most likely rephrase your statements, which only makes him look worse.
  • 2 1
 @GlassGuy: how about glaciers? no evidence?
  • 2 1
 @sevn: We are exiting an ice age, of course glaciers are retreating. 25,000 years ago much of North America was under a mile of ice. This was changing before humans started burning fossil fuels.

Still, the decline of glaciers has been highly over estimated and exaggerated. Glacier National Park used to have signs saying all their glaciers will be gone by 2020. Al Gore predicted an ice-free north pole several times. The Polar bear population is the highest its been in 40 years.
  • 2 0
 @sevn: First off, this other guy was continually debating me on the issue of hurricanes, so glaciers were not the topic. I've not denied some things are happening or even that we as humans cause damage...how could we not? But, as @hamncheez points out, the earth has been doing these things back and forth for a long time, and while we are doing things to cause damage I believe the earth is also in it's usual cycles. And...as has been shown many, many times... for exampl an image of a polar bear on an ice float, slowly dying because of global warming, may in fact be an image taken way out of context solely to help a certain narrative and to stir more people up, when in fact it's being way overblown and possibly falsified. There is a LOT of money to be made in "fighting global warming"...don't trust everything you read or hear...keep an open mind, let at alternative views and create your own judgments.
  • 2 1
 @hamncheez: Permafrost thawing? Rising sea levels? Draught? Wildfires? Water shortage? Greenland Ice melt? all no evidence? well if you think so then that's alright. if all this climate change is a hoax, it is still better to pollute less vs. pollute more, consume less single-use plastic, drive less, travel less, recycle more,....
  • 2 3
 @sevn: Nobody is against being smart and conserving resources where it is sensible. If recycling helps so be it. I don't know anyone who desires dirty polluted anything. But unnecessarily stoking fear and mental illness on people to force a false agenda on the populace is actually evil.
AGW is a coordinated hoax started 40 years ago and pushed with the UN, Globalist interests and a completely corrupt media. It is dangerous as it destroys economies, innovation and creates chaos to allow Marxists an opportunity to sell a solution that doesn't exist.
Human impact is less than ants on a terrestrial scale. Solar flare cycles, earth tilt and volcanic activity are the drivers and have been through history. The inconvenient truth is that none of the catastrophic impacts have ever happened that are predicted by the hoaxers. Requiring them to constantly shift their narratives and ramp up the propaganda. Just look at media you see on this with a critical thinkers mind. You'll soon see it is bullshit.
  • 2 0
 @sevn: just to hit on a couple of things to maybe give my point of looking at alternative opinions/explanations...
Water shortages....too many people in cities using too much water. For example...Miami has been pulling from lakes in C. Florida for a while causing concerns for the rest of the state, and massively depleting the lakes. Amazingly the lakes that were pretty much dry two years ago are now really high with water.
Wildfires....you do know the fires that recently occurred in the Amazon was started by man??
Drought...it happens. And as pointed out prior, other areas have more water.
Rising sea levels? This is super debatable. If you look at graphs and records they say one thing...talk to someone living on the coast and they will say nothing has changed(I've done this, and I live at the beach). There is also a natural thing called "erosion". This is why homes fall off sand dunes into the ocean. The water movement pulls and shifts sand to different areas..always has always will. Where I live they dredge our beaches every 3 years to increase the beach size...it's an awful thing to do, but, we gotta save the real estate from nature! Then over the next few years sand gets pulled away again. The morons all want to blame their home collapsing or the road falling in on "global warming". No...how about don't build your home on top of soft sand at the coastline! Look at maps from a long time ago and you can see how much larger the land masses were, as well, where I sit at this moment was once underwater. People collect shark teeth in the forests in the middle of the state...not because they rained from the sky but because fish used to live over that area...in water.
There's a lot more to the reasons than just one cause.
But absolutely, think about your own impact, don't be wasteful...it comes down to being a considerate human for the people around you and your world.
  • 2 1
 @chasejj: Thank you for this!! Sheep love to follow masses, which the media lead
  • 2 2
 @sevn: We are exiting an ice age. The permafrost would melt if humans never evolved at all. The same can be said of Greenland. Ice sheets are actually pretty rare in Earths history. If no human had ever walked the Earth, all the glaciers on Earth would still probably melt in the next thousand years.

Global drought is at a hundred year low- this can be seen by both access to clean water and crop yields. People with no access to clean water is dropping, and dropping fast. Its projected (by the UN) to essentially end in the next decade. Crop yields, which require irrigation, are the highest they've ever been in human history. For the first time ever, less land in needed to cultivate and feed humanity, and greenspaces are growing because less land is being farmed every year.
  • 1 1
 @hamncheez: ok but we are well underway that most glaciers will be gone by the end of this century, not 1000 years...
  • 1 1
 @sevn: there is no reliable evidence for that rapid of deglaciation.
  • 3 1
 @hamncheez: Well, we did loose already over 25% of ice in Himalayan glaciers in 40 years. advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/6/eaav7266
  • 2 2
 @mitochris: Nobody ever has said we haven't and aren't going through a long term warming period. It has been happening for 15,000 years. Middle of US 15,000 years ago was under 1 mile thick sheet of ice. It's been melting and as it continues, more will melt. Man's impact is negligible. Adjust and move on. Draconian efforts to solve a problem you cannot solve is the definition of madness.
  • 1 1
 @chasejj: Do you have any studies or documented scientific opinion that backs this and your other opinions up? Very interested to read into this kind of thing as somebody that likes to take in both 'sides' of a matter, I have an opinion at the moment but more than happy to change this based upon seeing new (to me) information.
  • 1 2
 @chasejj: Yes but the change of winter conditions, glacier melt, etc even over my lifetime of 30 and a few years has been incredible. for example: when I was a kid, we were skiing pretty much from dec-march with consistent snow conditions at 1000 m above sea level (=3280 ft), now there is barely any snow til mid january and if we are lucky we get to ski for a couple of weeks. then glaciers, some of the nearby glaciers were filling valley bottoms, now they are a couple 100 feet higher up. Honestly, this is not natural.
Accepting obvious facts and not denying truth would be the first step for me. And it seems that is what Polygon does, so props to them.
  • 2 1
 @sevn: You'll be skiing plenty this year. You guys do understand everything runs in cycles? Marxist jumped on the most recent solar flare cycles that affected temps higher over the last 20 years after their global cooling crisis fizzled out in the 80's. Unfortunately the sun solar flare cycles have calmed considerably leading the new trend of cooler temps that we are experiencing now. The media is flooding the sheep with stories of highest temps ever, run for the hills! This is complete bullshit.
I will ask you one simple question. What catastrophic prediction they AGW hoaxers have predicted that as actually happened? Name one.
The most massive investments in real estate are happening around the globe and most are at sea level cities and resorts. If any of this BS is real do you think the financial institutions who perform their due diligence on lending their investor's huge amounts of money, would even consider such long term investments in areas that are projected to be underwater soon? Exactly. Its all a lie.
There is a massive amount of money in selling this to you with carbon offset banks, sustainable energy schemes, EV's, etc.
All while the loudest of them collect it and buy seaside mansions. Think about it. When in doubt follow the money.
  • 1 0
 @chasejj: Any chance you can reply to the above and provide me with a source for reading about this stuff?
  • 1 1
 @chasejj: Here one example of landslides due to permafrost thawing: www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09314-7
  • 2 0
 @sevn: Never said changes weren't occurring. Just that we have nothing to do with it. Certainly not any substantial impact. So when it all starts freezing up again. What then? Are we going to reverse the narrative and try and warm it up? Ridiculous to be so arrogant to suggest that human beings have the power to alter such enormous natural forces. Laughable.
Look at it this way. If all the CO2 in our atmosphere was water contained in a 55gal drum. Mankind's entire contribution from its various generating sources is the equivalent of a single drop. Wrap your head around that. We are insignificant. CO2 was selecting as the bully stick since it is contained in virtually everything we touch and do. This allows the hoaxers to vilify it and they have been twisting it into ever more complex knots to convince you of how evil it is. Even to the extent that you stop eating animal protein. My god man. That is f*cking retarded. Next they will tell you to stop having babies and eat the dead. Oh wait they already did that.
  • 2 1
 @chasejj: This is the frustrating thing. How many times on this thread does it say that “climate change is a hoax”? On the one hand it doesn’t happen, on the other it happens all the time. So let’s agree that there is climate change and it happens all the time, because the climate has never been stable. Ok, so what affects the climate? The main factor is the amount of sun energy that hits the earth. Changes in solar activity, earth’s tilt to the sun and its distance have major effects and these factors are responsible for some of the extreme periods we had in the past, including massive glaciers and Texas under water. However, these scenarios take a very long time, sometimes tens of thousands of years, to take affect and have not dramatically changed recently. Other factors influencing climate are atmospheric, land and sea temperatures, vegetation, amount of water, ice etc. Additionally, atmospheric gas composition and number of particles such as water vapour or volcanic ashes influence how much sun energy is trapped or released from the atmosphere. For instance, volcanic activity as been attributed, among others, to the short temperature cooling 400 years ago. However, we have way passed the temperature prior to this event. Atmospheric gas composition has changed rapidly in the last 150 years, which we can easily measure, with an increase in the amount of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. We also know what the climate was like the last time CO2 levels were this high, which is a very long time ago. CO2, methane and water vapours are major factors that trap heat in the atmosphere. water vapours are a consequence of heat, so what affected the other two? Increase in human population, increased number in farm animals burning of fossil fuels, which usually would trap carbon in the ground, coincide with this shift. All caused directly by human activity. We can affect two of these rapidly, human population much less fast. The question is do the increasing CO2 levels have an effect? As said, we know what the planet looked like the last time we had this high CO2 levels and temperature and with other factors we can predict what will happen. So the issue is not if the climate will change, because it always has and will, but can humanity deal with the rapid shift that is associated with it due to its actions. The economic, environmental and social consequences are predicted to be extremely high, so therefore We should try to minimise the the rising temperature of the planet. If I have left anything out or was not clear or incorrect had faulty logic, Then i would appreciate a civilised discussion.
  • 2 1
 @mitochris:

"So the issue is not if the climate will change, because it always has and will, but can humanity deal with the rapid shift that is associated with it due to its actions."

The answer to this question is absolutely yes.
  • 2 0
 @chasejj: that is not true. Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 260-270 ppm, while last year they were 407.4 ppm.
There are many sources for this, but here is a graph.
climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide

royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes

If you want to claim that this level is caused by activity other than humans than please provide evidence.
  • 2 0
 @jaame: then let’s debate that instead of questioning climate change. Let’s think of the consequences of increased temperatures above 3 degrees from pre-industrial and how it will affect our economies, environment etc with baring in mind that the last time sharks swam over Texas, CO2 levels were not this high.
  • 3 0
 @mitochris: Two main issues I think you're missing:

First, when people (not me) say "climate change is a hoax", they mean anthropomorphic climate change.

Second, the human cost of climate change, whether anthropomorphic or not, is grossly overstated. Some climate scientists even argue that a warmer earth with more CO2 will further increase crop yields and per-acre output, allowing for less land to be cultivated and more acres returned as wild spaces.

People say its clear that climate change is a threat to humanity. These same people, like Paul Ehlrich, Al Gore, etc have made predictions for the past 40 years that have not only not come to pass, they have been wildly incorrect. What has happened is that the Earth is more habitable for homo sapiens than it has ever been since we first evolved. Despite the growing population, food is less scarce than at any time in human history. Deaths from disease is at the lowest rate in human history. Deaths from natural disasters, especially weather related natural disasters, is at a 100 year low. No famine has ever happened in a country with a modern, technological economy. More and more countries are becoming technology based, and famines/droughts are at an all time low.

So when someone like AOC says the world is going to end in twelve years unless you give them totalitarian control over our lives, you can see why some of us might be skeptical.
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: Bravo!! Well stated.
  • 1 1
 @chasejj: Again, would you mind taking the time to reply to the above and provide me with a source for reading about this stuff?

I have read up on lots of 'pro climate change' stuff, but nothing of real merit from scientists suggesting otherwise - care to help me and anyone else that cares out here as you have stated a lot of info.
  • 3 0
 @hamncheez: I agree that there is a lot of exaggeration and bad science, although this can probably be said for both sides. Some of the predictions made in the passed did not turn out to be true, while others exceeded expectations.
But a lot of people that say it is a hoax also say that climate change has nothing to do with human activity, and what we see is normal and we are only exiting an ice age (although we should apparently enter one). Unless both sides agree to use the correct terminology and not just spit at each other, we will get nowhere, because inevitably, things will change in the future.
All the points that you bring up regarding the quality of human life are attributable to human advancements and management procedures, and is unlikely due to the planet warming by 1 degree C in the last 100 years. In fact, improved living standards etc can probably be attributed to economic globalisation, which has brought millions out of poverty.
No, AOC should not say that the world will end in 12 years, its 10 (just joking), because the world will go on, but unlike your optimism, I predict that there will be a large impact on people’s lives as well as on the environment. And that is absolutely something to discuss, whether the climate changes that will occur are manageable or not, whether increased sea levels will impact cities or not, whether the increased atmospheric heat will remove some agricultural areas, while freeing up others, etc. But we have to stop debating whether the climate is changing at all. The fact that we have increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere by almost 25% in the last 150 years should make us think what the possible ramifications are, given that we have a good understanding of the physics what this leads to.
Leaving all the possible implications of climate change aside, I would appreciate the possibility of improved air quality, reduced dependance on fossil fuel giants, less pollution, etc, because while some decry that implementing change will cost us economically, I think it provides a fantastic opportunity for new industries. We humans are not so stupid that we can’t come up with better ideas, but for that, the old often has to be removed, just like in nature it self.
  • 2 0
 @hamncheez: I have not personally heard - "So when someone like AOC says the world is going to end in twelve years unless you give them totalitarian control over our lives, you can see why some of us might be skeptical"

What I have heard is that by this point (12 yrs) we will be unable to reverse the 'damage' we have caused / we will not be able to prevent the then inevitable predicted changes - note how I state predicted as thats all these are.

As I have asked chasejj - care to share some sources for this info, I am getnuinely interested in reading the 'other side' of things from a scientific perspective but there seems to be a slow uptake - I dont mean the opposite version of someone like Al Gore as you state either, he is a spokesman not a scientist, take what people like that say with a pinch of salt.
  • 1 2
 @justanotherusername: Here is a conglomeration website. There are many more if you follow the threads. Just remember almost everything you see in media reports is bullshit unfortunately. Society is going to need to get a solution to this bias or conflict and chaos will increase.

realclimatescience.com
  • 2 0
 @chasejj: thanks for that, but that site isn’t really what I am after, it’s not really a conglomeration site but more run by Tony Heller who doesn’t have a great reputation and isn’t a scientist - it’s essentially a site setup to debunk / attempt to debunk the claims of scientists, it’s along the same line as other such sites that have background funding from fossil fuel funded think tanks which make it hard for me to take seriously as a result.

We really need some form of unbiased info for such a debate , and I mean both sides of the argument when I say that.

Your comment about everything in mainstream media being bullshit and an incoming chaos makes me question your view of any facts, from any source being realistic unless they align with our pre determined beliefs - it’s almost a conspiracy about a conspiracy.

Sure, don’t believe everything the ms media puts out but then who do you trust and why? Why would you trust a website saying something different? do you trust sources even if funded by organisations who stand directly to gain? Get what I mean?

Sounds like we have formed ‘cults’ here to me.
  • 1 1
 @justanotherusername: I don't have time to convince you nor do I care. It was a convenient to begin a pathway. But your standards will never be met by someone who isn't part of the hoax.
  • 2 2
 @chasejj: is "hoax" one of these new misappropriated terms like "fake news", or "democracy" in the UK? Like if you label it, it becomes the label? I don't know, this is a good back and forth, but a neutral would err on the side of caution/air that is breathable.
  • 1 2
 @chasejj: A couple centuries ago, scientists like for example Galilei were persecuted because of their findings about our solar system, that the earth is indeed spherical, etc... I hope that you actually agree that the earth is not flat? So these scientist back in the day were not all wrong.
How about today's scientist claiming that climate is actually affected by humanity? Should we persecute them as well for their "wrong" findings?!
  • 2 2
 @chasejj: Sure, enjoy your cult, that’s obviously more trustworthy than the other cult because it’s the cult you believe in ;-)
  • 2 0
 @sevn: Just persecute them for using sloppy science to fit a narrative that is false.
  • 2 1
 @chasejj: Who is entitled to say that science is false? at best other scientists...
  • 1 1
 @justanotherusername: Here is a clip of AOC saying the world is going to end in 12 years, to thunderous applause:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18


Her "Green New Deal" bans air travel, bans meat, bans many aspects of the free market, bans fossil fuels that power 70% of our lives, etc. I would call that totalitarian.
  • 2 1
 @sevn: If your a climate scientist and you are skeptical, even to the least, of disastrous climate change you are the one persecuted, not the other way around.
  • 1 1
 @hamncheez: I am not, that's why I don't dare making such bald claims like you and @chasejj. But I try to educate myself from credible sources.
  • 6 1
 Seems like most of the things they spoke about, would be Normal practice in well organized business, thanks for catching up, and doing your job
  • 2 0
 It's true...it astounds me how many people are suddenly "enlightened" by doing things that just seem obvious...like..reusing the plastic container your sauce came in for leftovers, reusing your red Solo cup instead of tossing it(these cups will last YEARS)..oh, the new hatred of plastic straws...I go to an "enlightened" bar and I get a paper straw in a PLASTIC CUP! But...when did people forget how to drink from a cup without a straw anyway? So many little things that seem so obvious, but apparently aren't
  • 3 0
 How comically narcissistic that so many of you little people think your actions affect the climate of an entire planet. The only thing your arrogance affects is the happiness of the intelligent people who have to live with your stupid ass.
  • 5 2
 See what a little fuzzy math can do. Good on you guys for at least putting in the effort to in figuring out those CO impact numbers. Love the water bottle and plastic bag solutions. That's something we ALL can and should do.
  • 2 0
 @jason475 : Thank you! There are a lot more to figure out but we thought it was a good starting point!
  • 3 0
 I don’t think to buy carbon credits will help the planet. He Will not decrease at all your carbon footprint. The thing is not to pullute more and try to pay to plant trees, but simply to do the best to pollute less.
  • 5 1
 Carbon offsets aren't just planting trees. The carbon offsets I buy fund projects like transitioning a coal power station to a lower carbon fuel. i.e. massively reducing the amount of total pollution.
  • 2 1
 @Mitch243: Yes, but I would prefer that there is a more direct penalty. I know that buying credits is like a tax, but I wonder whether a tax directly on the product would be better. This would make products with lower CO2 emissions cheaper and companies couldn't spread the emissions over their entire product line. It would encourage cleaner production lines.
  • 1 0
 @mitochris: Tax more? You’re just proving our point, you’re starting to sound like a government troll. Because that’s the only organization that will benefit from taxing more.
  • 1 0
 @SlodownU: more? Taxation has been rather stable in the last 70 years, with income tax going down.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States
And the idea behind a CO2 tax is to put a tax on emission and give proceedings back to the costumer. It was first proposed by two republican politicians. And what is actually so bad about taxation? Surely it depends what you do with it, no? Especially if you want to live in a society..
  • 1 1
 @mitochris: You need just stop. Wiki is your source? I've lived in the US almost my entire life, and my taxes have NEVER gone down. Taxes good?!?!? Only to a certain extent, but not when it comes to supporting bullshit causes like some manufactured crisis. Man, you Socialists are ALL the same.
  • 6 0
 Put more carbon in frames?
  • 1 0
 With Ti axles LOL
  • 4 0
 They would do better to build aluminum frames (recyclable) instead of carbon (not recyclable) plus they come from the other side of the world.
Ridiculous.
  • 1 1
 @pk71: Exactly my thought. This is so ridiculously obvious. Their initiative sounds good, but the approach is childish and appears to be some kind of opportunistic marketing, from my point of view though.
  • 1 1
 @softsteel: don't worry, it's the right point of view
  • 1 0
 @pk71 : As we just said above, Polygon UR team is an independent private team, so we don't decide what product they do. Also we still want to be the most performant possible in racing and as of right now, our sponsors most performant products are in carbon. Yes, we use carbon bikes in DH but our main enduro and DH bikes are in alloy. We will keep working closely with all our partners to make the best product possible and bring the sustainability aspect more in the discussions.
  • 1 0
 @urteam: The fact that you say that the team is private and independent already puts you in front of the possibility of choice, therefore the justifications "we don't decide what product they do" and "our sponsors most performant products are in carbon" seem, and I underline seem, just hypocrisy. In my opinion, with the electric revolution and a fake digital / electronic futurism, currently, most people have not yet realized that they are selling us an even worse future than the one currently foreseen.
That said, forgive me but the rest of my opinion, or that at best the actions taken are only palliative, while in the worst (therefore in greater numbers) they are only marketing actions. Obviously mine is a general discourse relating to large groups and producers and perhaps it is not the case to face the problem in a mountaibike mag.
  • 3 1
 This is awesome! Its not about being perfect when it comes to things like this, its about taking sensible steps to reduce our impact and its great to see a DH team doing this. Ignore people who say you're not doing enough, or who say you should just stop racing. Imagine the combined beneficial impact if all cycling teams took just half of these measures!
  • 3 0
 @JakeFeasey Thank you! We hope this will get that ball rolling for other teams for sure!
  • 3 1
 Suggest looking into where the offset trees are being planted. In the Northern hemisphere (where most are planted) they contribute to carbon emissions as the produce more than they sequest. In temperate, there is no net benefit. In tropical regions they sequest. Picking a company that isnt ripping the planet and the customer off is important. This can be as simple as funding a rainforest protection or tropical wildlife org rather than a commercial off setter. Some of these companies are funding tree planting that will get removed after 20 years on commercial concessions.
  • 1 0
 not even close to true.
  • 1 0
 @bombdabass Thank you for your comment! Do you have any companies you would suggest?
  • 9 6
 Pinkbike triggering woketards daily for clicks. Polygon can't sell bikes and make profit so let's see if we can't get some of these deluded AGW fools to buy them by virtue signaling we agree with this crap.
  • 1 1
 What is AGW, out of interest?
  • 6 6
 @jaame: Anthropogenic Global Warming. The biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the world stage. A Marxist goal from 40 years ago when the Globalists adopted it as a way to control entire world population with manufactured fear that cannot ever be proven either false or true. Every weather event can be exploited as proof. Contrary evidence is denounced as not valid and shortsighted. The perfect propaganda device.

Pathetic when corporations virtue signal this propaganda in desperation to increase sales to the sheep.
  • 3 3
 @chasejj: Yeah, f*ck science!
  • 4 3
 @chasejj: Indeed. Polygon bikes just got even less attractive. If that was possible.
  • 1 3
 @SimbaandHiggins: Yup, says just about every “climate scientist” when they publish their one dimensional “research” based on one variable. The only “science” where you can’t prove your theory with empirical results, how convenient.
  • 3 1
 The scientific method states that hypotheses can be supported or disproved. Science does not prove hypotheses.
  • 1 0
 @jaame: No, the use of science does. You guys should stop talking about science, since you have no clue what you're talking about.
  • 3 2
 @chasejj: you literally hit every bullet point in the alt-right conspiracy how-to guide. You're a magnificent human word cloud. I commend you, sir.
  • 2 0
 @BenPea: Keep your head buried in the fake narrative being fed if it makes you feel better.
  • 2 1
 @chasejj: why are you sure it's him who falls for the fake narrative? Just think who profits on which point of view. Your opinion is good for mega corporations in the fossil, manufacturing, agriculture and conventional energy industries - huge money is at stake. Climate change opinion is good for relatively small companies working on alternative energy sources, but also for general wellbeing of most people in the future. But why should the big money care about people's wellbeing?
  • 2 0
 @Slabrung: your first sentence is pretty good. It’s the reason I don’t believe anything I see on tv. You don’t know who’s telling the truth, if anyone. It’s all just so confusing. I’ve become numb to it. It’s black on one channel, white on another. I think there is a market for a news channel that just reports facts with no political bias, if that’s even possible these days. I thought that was the point of the BBC many years ago but it’s clearly not nowadays.
  • 2 1
 @Slabrung: it's quite simple. It's about the money. The more money you have, the more you become addicted to what it can bring you and your ilk (there are notable exceptions, but they tend to be demonized - funny that). Climate change mitigation (or you can call it reducing our potential contribution, if you want to be equivocal about it) is going to generate costs for certain organisations that are led and backed by those who aspire to sit at the very top of the pyramid. These guys have probably done their homework when it comes to making sure that they have the facility to inhabit zones that will be affected by climate events the least, i.e., they are making sure that the impacts of their massively lucrative business interests have as little effect as possible on them and their gene pool. In order to hinder any political measures that will undermine their power and wealth accumulation capacity, they have to not only get governments on their side, they also have to get behind campaigns and misinformation that act as a handbrake on a real transition away from polluting activities. This is a war they wage on multiple fronts, one if the most important being to get the average person on the street to fight in their corner. Ask yourself how they do this. By playing on people's values, primal fears, prejudices, paranoia, superstitions. The same tactics are used on the themes of race, religion, migration, etc. to force people onto their side. They only have to plant seeds in a quite careful and orchestrated way, and the tree eventually grows by itself and mutates again and again, but always in a direction favourable to them. I really believe it's a form of psychological magic, this ability to convince people in ostensibly free democracies to go against their own interests so that the powerful can squeeze out a just a little bit more of that drug known as the dollar and protect themselves against real scrutiny (which they ultimately achieve by infiltrating governments).
When they tell us that we are being squeezed financially under the cover of the fight against climate change, that is the purest form of projection there is. Unfortunately it is working on enough people to make any hope of reversing the demise of our species (which is already slim as f*ck) almost non-existent. Which begs the question, "is it worth the bother, we're all going to die anyway?", but also the question "is that what they want us to think?". Why would they want us to think that there's nothing we can do? Is the objective the destruction of less wealthy populations in vulnerable regions, whether climate change is natural or helped by man, this idea that we need to get down to about a billion people on earth to get things stable? Is this a white supremacy play on a global scale? Are the climate change lobby just shills for the great replacement scheme (I guarantee someone is thinking this right now)? I don't know, I think betting on chaos being your friend is a little iffy.
Anyway thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
  • 1 0
 @ BenPea: I’m not disagreeing with you, but road tax based on emissions is a squeeze on me. The bigger engine I want, the more tax I have to pay because of its emissions. It should be based on some factor of miles driven and vehicle weight, not simply emissions. True, it will squeeze richer people more than me because they will be likely to have a bigger car engine and more than one car. It still forces me to consider the emissions and fuel economy of a car more than the performance of the engine, which is what I’m more interested in.
  • 2 1
 @chasejj: Just watch out, the next step is being an anti-vaxxer, flat earther.
  • 1 0
 @jaame: I don't know man. Obviously we always hope that policy makers are cleverer than we are and have sophisticated answers to these problems. But there's probably a reasonable amount of stabbing in the dark when coming up with emission reduction measures, and in a capitalist democracy 95% of people will only prick up their ears when the sirens go off in their bank account. You can't make people do anything (cos freedom right?), but neither can you rely on their benevolence. So what do you do? It leaves a gap that you either fill with measures based on financial incentives or populists who tell you they're on your side, don't let anybody tell you what to do and f*ck the libtards.
Must admit that, yes, fast cars are nice, but I wouldn't cry myself to sleep every night if they all turned electric and renewables became 100% of our energy mix overnight. The brown air that sometimes floats above my nearest city conditions that thought.
  • 2 1
 @BenPea: You need to get out of the city. The world is still wildly unpopulated and unspoiled. But your electric car will only get you 200 miles, that is by design and physical limitation of the tech. Think about it.
This is why I will never own an electric car. It is a technical jail in a sense.
  • 2 0
 @BenPea: this is generally what I tried to say, albeit much less eloquently.
BTW I wonder if there is even one person here who is ready to change opinion when presented with the facts, or is everyone just reading with the intention to respond, not to understand.
@jaame IMHO only science is able to provide objective data, but then we need to use common sense to sift reliable science from incompetent/biased science. All media outlets are more or less biased per definition, so the safest way is to get info from reputable science journals, where publications have to meet very stringent research quality standards. It takes lots of time and effort, so sometimes you just have to use common sense and trust someone who does this for you... trust and verify from time to time Smile
  • 1 0
 @Slabrung: Unfortunately many of the formerly unbiased scientific sources have also been compromised. The drive for money has destroyed sound scientific protocols and independent peer review.
  • 2 0
 @chasejj: I live on a mountain side in a state park, my neighbours go baaah and moo. I am aware of the inadequacy of EV technology, but I'm thinking about theoretical cars that are actually practical, which will happen eventually if we can keep society together for long enough.
  • 3 0
 I’m just a normal guy with a family and bills to pay. I have no particular affiliation with the internal combustion engine. I do love the sound of a four cylinder superbike on full chat but that’s about it. I would be happy to switch to any new green car tech as long as it’s a viable alternative in terms of cost and performance to what we have now. I would be happy to spend ten or fifteen grand on a nearly new electric autonomous vehicle if it could charge up in three minutes and drive 400 miles without stopping. I would bet most people feel the same given the extremely poor take up of electric vehicles. I care about the environment, but not as much as I care about getting to work on time and generally going about my business. When electric allows me to do that at the same cost as petroleum I’ll be all about it.
  • 1 0
 @BenPea: Physics will likely prevent Electric vehicles from ever reaching parity with potential energy available compared to fossil fuels, in addition the infrastructure required for electrical recharge makes them impractical for use outside heavily populated areas and long distance use. Not saying improvements can't be made , but those are facts.
  • 2 0
 @chasejj: how about other green tech? Hydrogen fuel cells have been mentioned. Solar cars?
  • 1 0
 @jaame: Well stated, but the hoaxers will say your a hater and a racist somehow. I'm with you, but it won't happen in my life.
  • 1 0
 @jaame: Both of those have their own limitations as well. Bottom line is nobody is getting off fossil fuels anytime soon. Especially if you live outside the heavily populated areas.
  • 1 0
 @BenPea: agenda21
  • 1 0
 @chasejj: you're determined to be pessimistic about alternatives. Almost hoping that everything is impossible maybe?
@jaame: sounds fair. I'm no example either.
  • 2 0
 @chasejj: I agree with you on that. No one is getting off them until there is a viable alternative, and there isn’t one. What’s more, it doesn’t look like there is going to be in the near future.
  • 1 0
 @BenPea: No just living in the real world and have a fair bit of knowledge on the subject.
  • 2 0
 Start with the BIG countries that use coal, and maybe just maybe things will start to get better. Try looking at this as a good overview/graphic... www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

**Heat map on China/India is pretty alarming...especially net-new plants coming online soon or planned. People focus on a per-person footprint, which only tells a portion of the story and makes some Western countries look brutal due to lower populations. China also funds a massive build in net-new coal factories around the world not to mention their own...nobody talks about that (yes they are doing a few "green" projects as well). Hey Greta and minions, go there and visit those governments actually stealing your future...

We can obviously all live cleaner...like Polygon...trying...but putting the bulk of the burden on the Western World isn't going to solve "climate change". AND if your are a true believer that humans are causing things then the ONLY solution is, LESS HUMANS which is NOT going to happen so we are realistically doomed as population is not going to slow down (7.5+B now and in just the next 30 years projected to be almost +/- 10 BILLION)

Paper straws and electric cars, ya that is the answer...oh and planting trees because if you get rid of all the fossil fuels that we use to cook and heat homes there won't be any trees around because people would cut them all down to eat and stay warm. Could go on and on...tackle the BIG overpopulated countries, that will be the biggest impact.
  • 2 0
 I definitely applaud the effort. If Polygon could do one thing, it would be to advocate for the rule of law in Indonesia, where they are headquartered. Ironically, Indonesia is a major seller of the carbon credits they seek to purchase. It is also a leader in deforestation. The problem is, as reported by pro publica earlier this year, it is not uncommon for political corruption and lax enforcement to allow landowners to break the agreements that form the basis of the credit. What you end up with is more emissions from polluting countries, and fewer trees (or worse) in places like Indonesia and Brazil. Working to build integrity into the protections for forested areas in these places would not only would allow Polygon to purchase emissions credits, but improve the reliability for similar credits sold globally.

I'll also note that their calculations are a bit mind-blowing. 34 tons of carbon per athlete, per year is more than double the emissions of an average American (16 tons), 4 times greater than the average European (~8 tons), and 17 times that of the average Indonesian (~2 tons) where Polygon bikes is headquartered. This is for air travel emissions alone. Apply this to the qualifying racers in a World Cup final this adds up to 1.2 megatons of emissions a year just for the riders that qualify for a world cup final; that is roughly the annual emissions of the Maldives, a country of roughly 300,000 people. If racers and sponsors were really interested in sustainability, the best thing they could do is emphasize local and regional race series and host World Cups once every 4 years.
  • 3 1
 it amazes me to read and listen to people who think climate change -due to the human race- is not a "real thing". Forget pulling your heads out of the sand, its your ass where it is stuck. Good on you Polygon for making a start.....that's all any of can do.
Look in your own back yards and start there....do you go to Costco and buy flats of small plastic water bottles, live 5 minutes from work but too scared to walk or bike there instead.....how about those awesome drive thru's that are full of cars sitting in a line up waiting for some corporate shit food that is filling them. start in you own backyard and at least just .........START
  • 6 2
 Awesome news. Perfection isn't possible but at least you ateacting and doing as much as you can
  • 5 3
 Nice work! I'm glad the impact of racing is being thought about. Another thing to consider is reducing your meat consumption on the team, especially beef. Thanks for taking steps in the right direction!
  • 2 0
 @naisemaj : Thank you for your feedback!
  • 1 3
 Reducing meat consumption would lead to poor performance. Why would they do that?
  • 5 0
 No word on stopping producing "single use" bikes and bike parts...
  • 1 0
 Downhill is still the formula one of cycling.
  • 2 0
 @FCX250 : Polygon UR team is actually an independent private team. We are independent from our sponsors which means we don't decide what product they do. Nevertheless, we work closely with all our partners to try and make the best products possible, and in the future we will for sure bring the sustainability aspect in the discussions as much as possible.
  • 2 0
 @urteam: Sustainable Chinese CF frames? Uhhhhh OK?
  • 5 0
 If there's one thing I know trees hate, its CO2.
  • 1 0
 Trees actually respire just like every living thing and therefore produce CO2 just like we do. Because they photosynthesise they produce oxygen as well which is a net gain over their CO2 emissions .
  • 1 0
 @Chilliwacker: It's only a net gain when they have a significant growth rate. At some point it equalizes and then the tree dies and decomposes and CO2 is released. replanting massively would help shifting the O2/CO2 balance but unfortunately, trees won't clean up the air as much as you think.
  • 2 0
 @EnduroManiac: I am not sure whether the respiration of a grown tree is 1:1 OXPHOS:Photosynthesis. Even though they need OXPHOS during the night, I think plants turn down their metabolism during the night, no? So a plant will produce more O2 than CO2, no? And a large tree will do that exponentially more than a small one. But yes, the long-term trapped CO2, in form of matter, is released once decomposed. But I might be wrong here and would love to hear from someone who works on this.
  • 1 0
 Right! If that is really the logic, deforestation should be halted at all costs, immediately!! CO2 is the life blood of the planet.
  • 2 0
 @mitochris: If we use the wood to make stuff like chairs, tables, staircases and houses, the carbon will be locked up for a long time. Because wood is made of carbon, I think. If I'm right about that, we should try to make more stuff out of wood instead of plastic or concrete.
  • 1 0
 @jaame: I agree with you, but there must be more efficient and faster ways to capture carbon. Trees, animals or most biomatter binds and Stores carbon, but only temporarily and will be released once consumed and released as CO2. This is a natural cycle that goes rather stable.. What we are doing currently is that besides having this natural cycle of co2, we are additionally releasing large amounts of CO2, which was bound over millions of years in the ground. Releasing this previously captured co2 is a problem.
  • 3 0
 @Golden-G: Guess what? Trees grow at an accelerated rate when there is more CO2 in the air. Earth has many solutions to whatever you toss at it. It has been here for 4-5B years. It will survive as will we. Go ride your bike.
  • 1 0
 @Golden-G: Trees are basically big weeds allowed to grow for a long period. Guess what. Cut one down and a new one will grow to replace it. Agreed that forests are cool but developing countries need farm land and wood so that has to be dealt with but that responsibility is on their own governments, not some world entity forcing them to do what they want. This is the essence of globalism and it is not sustainable when people demand their liberty.
FWIW- Prehistoric records indicate when huge swings in CO2 were in our atmosphere pant life and animals did fantastically well. One mans challenge is another mans bounty.
  • 1 0
 @chasejj: hmmmm.... you are basically trumpeting my own views. The notion that excessive CO2 levels is causing catastrophic ‘climate crisis’ is utter BS. CO2 is the lifeblood of the planet. Climate Crisis, Global Warming or whatever the f*ck they want to call it is a completely fabricated scheme orchestrated to tax people into oblivion whilst the real polluters continue their destructive actions unabated.
  • 5 3
 BUT we have e bikes that plug into walls charged by coal or gas Stop the climate control madness it's a money making scam that steals from the lower and middle classes....prove me wrong
  • 7 4
 My ebike charges from the solar panels on my house.... SUCK IT
  • 1 2
 @pargolf8: Nothing to suck on your end.......... your poor boyfriend!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 1 0
 One solution epd be to restrict the number of wheels and tyres a rider could use each race weekend. They all seem to have huge numbers if both that need transporting around. You could have a limit per race like f1 does 2 sets of dry 2 sets of wets should be enough for 3 days for a race weekend
  • 1 0
 @CM999 That would be one good way to motivate brands to make indestructible wheels and also one good way to prevent riders to send all gaps first run :-)
  • 3 2
 Cue the negative comments and down votes from the triggered boomers that would rather see the status quo maintained and/or fossil fuel consumption increase instead of idealistic and innovative attempts to make some positive impact in the world
  • 3 0
 Triggered Boomers? Really? Last I checked, it was a bunch of whinny little 12-14yr old shit stains posting in this site, not a bunch of 65-75yr olds. Dumb ass.
  • 2 2
 @SlodownU: OK Boomer Wink it's about time for the daily the soma ration
  • 1 2
 Cue the woke millennial tard bros that think the world could run without oil and gas for even 1 minute.
  • 3 2
 @jwrendenver: you're right, how did mankind ever get this far without oil and gas, sure glad my great great great grandfather could commute to his job in an air conditioned office building downtown in his heavy duty diesel truck while his wife went to costco to load up on plastic infused ground beef in the hummer. you and your bro are proving my point, anyone that attempts anything different than the status quo of burn baby burn is clearly an idiot, climate change is a hoax, our great and genius leader who's an amazing businessman said so
  • 2 1
 @chacou: Don’t you need to go buy some wax for your pre-pubescent beard? I’d say don’t worry son, your balls will finally drop some day and it should fill right in, but that probably won’t happen because of all the soy you eat and drink with those lattes and smoothies.
  • 1 0
 @chacou: Yeah, let's live like we did 200 years ago! You just proved my point exactly. Well done.
  • 1 0
 There’s too many DH and EWS rounds. I think they could both chill and even combine with Crankworks.
For example EWS, UCI DH and Crankworks could all run in Whistler at the same time. That would really cut emissions and allow athletes and companies to combine resources. It would also enable people like Martin Maes to do a full season in both DH and EWS.
  • 1 0
 And just then, as the team is filling up their biodegradable Camelbacks, with their Van turned off to prevent idling, the Ferrari formula 1 team plane lands, and the Ferrari formula 1 team trucks roll up to take the cars off the plane, and then then Ferrari formula 1 team private jet lands to drop off Sebastian Vettel, who gets into a Bentley, to go to a 5 star hotel....
  • 1 0
 I was told that plastic recycling is generally a bit of an empty feel-good exercise.
Here in NZ, we sold all (afaik) of our recyclable plastics to china for them to recycle. Apparently the actual percentage of plastic that would actually be recycled is very low. Then all the plastic that isnt worth recycling will be disposed of in probably a far less careful manner than going into a landfill locally.
I also wonder how much of our aluminium does actually get recycled: recyclable materials doesn't guarantee that they do get recycled. That article the other day about the bike where 60-70% of the aluminium was recycled was interesting: why not 100% ?
  • 1 0
 Probably depends on the recycling facility and on the quality of input material... Hopefully this will improve with time.
  • 1 0
 I applaud the teams effort to run more efficiently and cleanly. We certainly can do more and should do more to protect the environment. Sadly, blaming CO2, which we exhale and plants need, as the problem is mind boggling. No mention of the sun in any of this. Human caused, via CO2, climate change is a massive money and power grab. Nothing more. Never mind all the glyphosate or other toxins we spread around the planet. Curbing their use wouldn't create a trillion dollar marketplace and give you the power to rule every person on the planet. There are scientists brave enough to speak out about this, but you have to search and have an open mind.
  • 7 3
 Smug comments in 3...2...1
  • 3 4
 Read about 4 hotels so good that Prince Gunnar would love to die in:
1. La Playa De la Corona in Trinidad
2. Hula inn - Maui
3. Grandes Chevalierre - Chamonix
  • 5 1
 Train...save planet....race....repeat.
  • 3 2
 Maybe you can try some electric cars to upgrade the actual transport, change that flys on airplanes (the less green option) with more travel in the new electric cars. Obviusly some times you are forced to use the birds.
  • 3 0
 If they start walking right now...
  • 1 0
 @justincs: or just ride their bikes! haha
  • 10 2
 Well, electric cars are far from eco friendly if you look at the whole lifespan. Anyway, just keep believing, just like the people who think fancy carbon bikes make them ride better.
  • 4 2
 @Muckal: It's not quite so straight forward. It depends on where your electricity comes from, and batteries are becoming better regarding heir environmental impact.
www.dw.com/en/how-eco-friendly-are-electric-cars/a-19441437
  • 3 0
 @Muckal: Got and stats to prove it?

Just for information: The refinery here in Schwechat emits as much CO2 in one year as 1.700.000! (Yeah 1,7million) cars all driving aprox. 15.000km.
And this doesnt include getting the oil to Austria and than to the cars.

So please, stop advocating extremely wrong facts.

Batteries with 200-400.000km have 90-80% max. capacity left- show me modern cars that do this without needing immense repairs.
  • 4 0
 @NotNamed: battery capacity? Lets assume this was true (are there any modern cars with so many kilometres on them?). What about the rest of the car? To which part of a ICE car do you compare the battery life?
What 'extremly wrong facts' do I advocate exactly? All I'm saying is BEVs are not the holy grail of eco-friendliness, contrary to what lots of people think. Power from cole, gas etc., mining of lithium, the recycling of the batteries after EOL. Just to name a few. Sure theres many shades of grey, but i's not like ICE cars a all black and BEVs are all white, again, contrary to what people think and are told.
  • 2 0
 @Muckal: it also depends where parts (especially the battery) are made. austrian produced batteries carry half the footprint of some chinese made batteries.
  • 1 0
 @K1maxX: So you build your own cells? Which company are you referring to?
  • 1 0
 @Muckal: magna steyr battery systems or kreisel electric
i don't want to prove you wrong, just saying that there is a wide scope within electric cars
  • 1 0
 @Muckal: electric vehicles are far from perfect, but still ways better than burning fossil fuels. Additionally, the technology is still developing and becoming more efficient, which can hardly be said about combustion engines.
  • 2 0
 @Gnidaa : We are definitely looking into more efficient cars to get us to the races and around. Like you are saying, we sometimes have to take the plane and that's where carbon offsets come into play!
  • 2 0
 @K1maxX: Concerning Magna i found that they build battery systems and modules, which are made of cells. Are you sure about the cells themselves? Same with Kreisel. And AVL, btw. Don't get me wrong, I would be glad if they really did make their own cells and break the dependence of China and Korea.
  • 1 0
 @Muckal: i don't know about the cells. this week monday i read a study about exactly this topic but i can't find it anymore. i know it was an austrian government funded organisation. if i find it i'll post a link.
  • 4 1
 I’m 90% sure I saw Sick Mick Hannah in Bali last week riding a scooter that was spitting out soot from it’s exhaust.
  • 2 2
 Less carbon than a truck
  • 5 2
 We need climate change to combat overpopulation. You guys are doing the wrong thing here.
  • 2 2
 The world is highly overpopulated already. Just not by human beings.
  • 1 1
 @colincolin: By idiots?
  • 2 1
 @mitochris: I mean I wouldn't call 50 billion farm animals idiots.
  • 4 1
 Polygon UR Team so you going to stop using Carbon frames or cycle between event?
  • 1 0
 @aljoburr : Like we said we know we cannot be perfect and still want to be the most performant possible in racing so if today our sponsors most performant products are in carbon we will use them. On the other side, we will work to reduce our emission on all team activities that we can control such as travel, logistics etc... and we will offset the remaining emissions which we think is far better than doing nothing.
  • 1 1
 What a joke. 220 water bottles a month melted down = what percentage of plastic volume required in a carbon frame? Probably not even a fraction. So if these guys care that much, I'm sure there are much better ways to relieve some kind of "footprint" and it would mean surrendering their own profits, not advertising for camelback......
  • 3 0
 This is probably a good time to talk about the higher carbon footprint of E-bikes....
  • 4 1
 this is amazing that you are doing I throughly support it. great work thanks
  • 2 0
 Anyone has experience with these tires from recyled and renewable materials like Schwalbe green compound? don't think it exists for MTN bike yet, but for touring bikes...
  • 1 0
 You want to reduce your impact to environment? I am talking about all bike industries now and more generally..
Stop bringing something new every year so people reduce their anxiety to consume.
  • 4 0
 Thanks Polygon UR! The bike industry needs more of this!
  • 1 0
 It's about time the mtb community becomes mores ecologically conscious. I'm sure it already is to some degree, but the message should be omnipresent. Thanks for leading the way guys!
  • 8 4
 thanks guys, well done
  • 5 6
 To everyone minimizing climate change and its impacts (or god forbid don't believe it's even happening), please take ten minutes to look into the amount that massive global insurance companies and world militaries are spending to prepare for those impacts. Do you really think they would be spending billions on something that's not that big of a deal? What incentive would they have?

Okay, I got started for you:
www.wsj.com/graphics/climate-change-forcing-insurance-industry-recalculate
grist.org/article/insurance-experts-rank-climate-change-as-top-risk-for-2019
www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/as-white-house-questions-climate-change-us-military-is-planning-for-it/2019/04/08/78142546-57c0-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html
www.globalchange.gov/agency/department-defense
  • 3 0
 As a climate change expert.....
  • 3 4
 And @pinkbike , you share this type of garbage with passion? You guys are notorious advocates of the most wasteful lifestyle. Every 30 seconds we are prompted with " what piece of plastic molded in China/Taiwan are you gonna buy now ?!?!?!" in a poll form... We are constantly bombarded with advertisements and messages to get rid of this years $5000 piece of plastic for next years. It is sickening. Pinkbike used to be a buy/sell environment and you guys now capitalize by marketing for companies, of course this makes sense. You need to make money to support your larger-than-ever employee count. But in doing so you fully understand that you require us to be as wasteful as possible. That's your bottom line message. So like so many "climate alarmists" you cant serve your cake and eat it too.
  • 3 1
 HOW DARE YOU??? Integrity has no place in pinkbike comment sections.
  • 5 1
 Double thumbs up!
  • 2 3
 @jaame. I try to see both sides of an issue, and thus am able to understand (a little) people who think like you.
Though it pains me you're a fellow mountain biker. Never understood pro-pollution bikers.

But here's my honest question: Do you believe smog is real? How about all the polluted rivers? How about all the plastic everywhere, especially the oceans, where it will soon outnumber actual fish?

Do you believe any of that or it also alarmist?
Ignorant people ... maybe its your mom that shouldnt have reproduced.
  • 1 0
 I'm not pro pollution! I'm trying to be a realist, that's all. I hate pollution as much as the next man. I hate those crappy made in China plastic toys. In fact, the whole disposable culture I hate.

I also think that humans are going to carry on being greedy as they have for hundreds of years. No one is going to switch to green solutions until there is a financially viable alternative, and right now there isn't one.

The world is not going to end in my lifetime or the lifetimes of my children. If what they say in the news is true (and honestly, judging by the truth I see in the majority of news stories I doubt it is) and by 2030, or 2050, or whatever year it is this week, my children think the world is going to end then they can choose to not have any kids.

I love the flora and fauna. Humans are very bad for the flora and fauna. If humans become extinct, there is going to be a lot of very happy flora and fauna!
  • 3 0
 Surprising amount of static from the comment section. Nice job, polygon!
  • 2 1
 The planet isn't dying. We are. Perhaps if we think of it more as our survival rather than the planet's we would take it more seriously...?
  • 2 0
 @jaame: that was not a comment, that was a fart, a stinky one. Open the windows!
  • 1 1
 The UR Team could power their travel with the energy radiating from the smug sense of self satisfaction from those superficially treating the symptoms and then bragging about it in this comment thread.
  • 3 0
 Well done Polygon. You're on my radar now
  • 3 0
 Good on you, hope to see other teams do similar things too.
  • 1 0
 FFS - Stop buying new bikes every 2 years... Pinkbike, you are promoting sales of new products all the time. You are literally the promoter of the problem. Just sayin...
  • 6 3
 Well done, Polygon!!! Smile
  • 3 1
 If only ebikes offset all their carbon....
  • 2 2
 "We will try to fly direct as much as possible"

Direct long haul flights are usually less ecologically efficient due to higher take off weight (more fuel).
  • 2 0
 @Mooka : When offsetting the CO2 emissions of your flight, you can choose the option of "high-altitude impacts" which cost a little bit more. We also looked through this really interesting article:

gogreentravelgreen.com/why-nonstop-direct-flights-better-for-environment-than-layover-stopover-flights
  • 6 3
 Excellent job UR
  • 9 9
 Wow, just brilliant. What complete BS. You think those connecting flights will stop flying. They should shut their doors and save us all.
  • 5 2
 You've missed the point. The goal is to have a net reduction in air miles per capita, and change takes time. It's not an on/off switch.
  • 1 2
 @Mitch243: With that train of thought they should row their parts from Asia to all their distrubution points. Then bike them from there.
  • 1 0
 Plants use the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugar and oxygen, called "photosynthesis"
  • 2 0
 more suicide no-handers from mick to cool the world down!
  • 2 0
 @K1maxX : hahaha good one!
  • 3 1
 Is WAKI out sick or something?
  • 5 0
 It's winter in Sweden. Pray for him.
  • 2 0
 He's probably recovering from the trans article comment section
  • 2 2
 Talk to China and India if you want to discuss co2 reduction...they account for 2/3 or more of it globally and make no efforts to slow it down....
  • 1 0
 Ur team : avoid over-packaged products
CRC : what the fok


Good job they think green
  • 2 0
 Exhale less. Eat less beans.

On a serious note: Plant more trees.
  • 3 3
 How can there be climate change in some country's an not in other counrty's?
  • 4 0
 Climate is something different than weather. Weather is local and you immediately see weather change in your region. Climate is global, and when climate changes it affects weather in some places more and in other places less.
  • 2 0
 Thermal dynamics, coupled with global wind stream patterns, explain why global climate can change, while (some) localized climates can *seem* unaffected.
  • 4 5
 .....and now i am off to go and buy a Polygon Bike !!!!! another marketing post in the off Season.Please do not underestimate our intelligence..
  • 4 1
 I have an environment-friendly tinfoil hat. Do you want one?
  • 4 0
 @amonas : This is only about our team trying to take action. Using the voice we have in the industry to hopefully make things better!
  • 1 0
 Polygon has got in Europe at least, a football field size pit...
  • 3 0
 @nicoweiss : Our set up will change in 2020! Stay tuned.
  • 1 0
 Time for Josh to join again
  • 8 8
 Yawn...CO2 doesn't cause climate change, and government can't change anything for the better!
  • 1 0
 Quit Breathing and that will help too!!!
  • 1 0
 Expected a train-wreck comment section -- was not disappointed.
  • 1 1
 What if they hold their breath on the way down? Would that help?
  • 1 0
 LOL
  • 1 1
 I aim to reduce my CO2 footprint by exhaling 15% less.
  • 1 0
 Yes sir
  • 1 0
 "we will try..."
  • 1 0
 Go full enduro bro
  • 6 6
 Stop breathing
  • 4 0
 @Websterminator : Decided on a no fart policy instead.
  • 3 0
 @urteam: I love you guys!
No but seriously, I really appreciate your move and your balanced approach also seen here in your replies under this article. My favourite team from now on!
  • 4 5
 Also, just DO those things, why put out a press release for it?
  • 1 1
 Comical
  • 1 3
 I thought they will all travel the world to ride on E-bikes...
  • 2 0
 Wouldn’t the recharge carbon footprint be too high?
  • 3 6
 Trump said it's fake-climate change-so why bother...hes the most powerful and most successful man in the world.
  • 1 3
 Practise
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.082303
Mobile Version of Website