Round Up: 3 New Green Initiatives From Endura, Muc Off and Schwalbe

Jan 24, 2020
by Ed Spratt  
The thick forest here in West Virgina may look peaceful but today it was anything but as racfers battled it out for World Cup titles

From the Polygon UR team attempting to go carbon neutral for the 2020 season to Trash Free Trails helping to keep our favourite places to ride clear of litter, it is increasingly interesting to see how brands are tackling the climate emergency. Here are three of the latest announcements on new eco-initiatives that will hopefully help lessen the impact of our sport.

Endura:

Endura has announced that from this year onwards they will aim to plant one million trees every year.

The Scottish brand recognises that the global textile industry is having an increased impact on the environment with people becoming more aware of the damage clothing manufacturing can have on the planet and from 2020 onwards they want to help lower their own impact.

bigquotesWe would hate to look back and think we could have done something and we didn’t...that’s really, I suppose, what’s driving these efforts. It’s not tinkering around the edges. It’s not a gimmick. It’s not a jacket made out of fishing rope. We need to focus on the real things that will make a difference. If we don’t stop climate change, we won’t have a world to clean up.Pamela Barclay: Endura's Co-founder and brand director

Currently, the majority of the trees will be planted in Mozambique to restore mangroves in the Maputo Bay region. But they are also looking closer to home with a plan to eventually plant native species of trees in Scotland. But Pamela Barclay, Endura’s co-founder and Brand Director, does admit that the brand still “has a long way to go.”

Previously Endura has removed PFC from their kit, they also offer a repair service and donate 1% of their net profit goes to good causes.



Muc-Off:

Another UK company that is trying to boost its eco-credentials is Muc Off, who have announced a whole load of different initiatives over the past few months.

From refill stations in shops to recyclable packaging, the cleaning brand has been looking at many different ways to lower their effect on the planet. Most recently Muc Off announced their new ‘Project Green Initiative’ which aims to deliver environmentally focussed improvements across the business. The main focus is to eliminate 30+ tons of plastic from the company by 2030.

Alex Trimnell, CEO at Muc Off said: “Muc-Off is a company whose business depends on the natural world as our playground, we are focused on preserving our surroundings to ensure everyone can get the same level of freedom and enjoyment out of the great outdoors as we do.”

The program currently has three focuses; ‘Product Initiatives’, ‘Recycling and Refilling’ and ‘Partnerships’. The ‘Product Initiatives’ mainly revolves around how they can improve the environmental effect of their products whether that is making the formulas biodegradable or removing PTFEs from products. The ‘Recycling and Refilling’ stage is more obvious as this involves creating systems that make it possible for customers to refill their products rather than having to buy more inside a new plastic bottle.

Finally Muc Off has partnered with 1% For the Planet, a group founded by Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, and Craig Mathews, founder of Blue Ribbon Files. 1% For the Planet takes 1% of annual sales from a company and donates it to non-profit organisations focused on the environment.



Schwalbe:

Schwalbe is also set to expand its inner tube recycling program this year with a shop run system being launched at CoreBike show this weekend.

The new program will incorporate bike shops in the recycling system by allowing each shop to be able to return a 15kg carton of inner tubes at a time to local collection points.

Once collected the old inner tubes will be returned for free to Schwalbe to be made into new inner tubes. The scheme has already been successful in Germany and the Netherlands and a full-scale rollout is expected to begin this summer in the UK.

Tim Ward, from Schwalbe UK, said: “Schwalbe have been leading the way in Europe with this green initiative and sustainability is very important to us as a company. In a world where natural resources are increasingly exploited and under pressure, including rubber supply; it’s important to develop and support recycling technology. It’s estimated that 10-20 million used inner tubes are discarded into landfills each year…Schwalbe are determined to reduce this”.

It won’t just be Schwalbe tubes that can be recycled as they are willing to use any brand, including Slime tubes and those with latex sealant inside.





103 Comments

  • 47 1
 I like the Muc Off initiatives, how about they follow Guy Martin's lead though and make the cleaners as a solid rather than liquid? Pretty sure most of us have access to water to be able to mix it up in the right ratio and shipping water around the world is a waste of resources IMO.
  • 10 0
 Interesting idea, but I agree I like the mucoff as well as the Schwalbe one. Planting 1 million trees per year sounds ambitious, but good on them if they can do it. I tip my hat to companies who make reasonable goals.
  • 10 0
 They would also save on packaging and transport by switching to solids. Also way less of a liability in transit and storage with solid.

You'd also open up the ability to use paper based packaging, which would replace the plastic bottles (most of which will never get recycled anyways).
  • 1 0
 I've got the Proper cleaner from Guy Martin. It doesn't say anywhere that it is actually biodegradable and non-toxic though so I'm not sure whether it is necessarily that much better than a biodegradable one sold with water. But yeah at least they did save on shipping and packaging which is a big deal too. It should last a good while though as I rarely wash my bike. I use a little bit to clean cassette and chainring and that is pretty much it. My bike doesn't need to be sparkly.
  • 8 0
 @N9netn9ne: As some one who's worked in forestry its not difficult to plant 1 million trees with in a year. Making sure they survive long enough is the challenge.
  • 4 0
 Or... just wash your bike with water and a brush.
  • 33 14
 Ban plastic bikes, plastic rims etc. They aint green. Also go vegan (just so I definitely get downvoted).
  • 13 5
 And aluminum is? The whole, "It can be recycled argument" gets old - extracting aluminum from the earth isn't exactly a process that'll make hippies cheer.

It's good to pay attention to environmental impacts, but there are bigger issues to worry about than carbon vs. aluminum.
  • 6 10
flag lev3000 (Jan 24, 2020 at 10:43) (Below Threshold)
 @slumgullion: Yeh but, you can just stop making plastic ones and just use aluminium. Just like use glass bottles instead of plastic. It's not that hard to understand.
  • 6 2
 If we could pull carbon from the air and use that instead it would be amazing, just think a bike that has actual negative co2 value (as long as were not dumping the waste in a river)
  • 3 1
 @toad321: and it would be lighter?
  • 4 0
 Wood bikes are the answer
  • 3 1
 @toad321: would be impossible to make resin out of carbon dioxide. And the process of capturing co2 from the atmosphere to PAN-fibre to carbonisation is almost certainly not energy efficient...if possible at all
  • 1 2
 @toad321: In a program about alternative energy (presented by one of these Top Gear presenters) I saw they had some program in a US desert where they indeed have huge installation which extract oil from thin air, somehow by concentrating the sunlight and then turning CO2 and water into oil again. It is pretty slow but then again the desert is pretty big and isn't really good for much else. I think they create carbon fibre out of oil (but I could be wrong) so yeah it could probably be done indirectly. Much easier would probably to just grow other fibres but then again, growing something requires fertile soil which this process doesn't.

I just looked it up, it starts after about fifty minutes into this documentary:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTzsv_OwR2I
  • 14 9
 Oh yeah, plastics will solve so much in mountain biking. NOT. MTB is a hobby, there are very few things that are generating more toxic waste, using more energy in life of an average person than a bloody hobby. Like MTB. You are preaching theft ethics mate. You haven’t thought it through at all. There is nothing that makes me order more things online, make me drive to do, makes me travel around to do, than bloody MTB, nothing. Not even by a closest margin! If there is anything I am consumerist about it is MTB. Get smarter mate - Maybe don’t have kids
  • 2 0
 @jzPV: if we had clean energy, like fusion, gathering CO2 from atmosphere would be actually clean. But we need to build viable fusion power plant.
  • 2 0
 @WAKIdesigns: every little helps
  • 4 1
 @lev3000: please read this. I am incapable Of putting it better

nsmb.com/articles/uncle-dave-saving-world-bicycles
  • 5 0
 @slumgullion: just the same fking bike for ten years is the most eco option Smile
  • 12 2
 @WAKIdesigns: I find people are much happier to talk about climate control than population control, it goes against the belief that starting a family is the normal thing to do. At what point do we acknowledge that our current birth rate is completely unsustainable. I know it's not something that sits well with most of us, but if controls were introduced no one need die. If we carry on as we are, eventually billions will die.
  • 2 1
 @jzPV: some biobased resins are close enough to carbon neutral to be overcome by carbon negative plant fibers in natural composites, making a carbon negative layup possible. I work in material development studying natural fiber composites, and we already have worked with a few notable bike brands to create prototypes. Another added benefit is they can be designed for compost, if the economics lined up some brands could already be creating frames with more compostable material than not at a very minor weight penalty (~5-10%). Its a common misconception that composting is only a viable end-of-life scenario for nonreusable items. Just like carbon fiber, the natural composites will never break down unless given the right conditions to do so, which means in an industrial composter for 3-4 months.
  • 1 9
flag makkman (Jan 24, 2020 at 18:51) (Below Threshold)
 @toad321: co2 is not a pollutant. Plants breath it to make o2. We are carbon based life forms. No carbon, no life. Seems simple to me.
  • 3 11
flag makkman (Jan 24, 2020 at 18:55) (Below Threshold)
 @metaam: just keep drinking the kool-aid douchebag.
  • 8 0
 @makkman: Keep burying your head in the sand dick wad.
  • 7 0
 @makkman: you’ve got you Biochemistry completely wrong there. Plants do not make O2 from CO2!!!! What happens is that: energy (sunlight) + water (H2O) is converted to ATP, NADPH and O2. The oxygen comes from splitting (oxidising) the water. The gained NADPH and ATP are used in the Calvin cycle to bind/fix (reduce) CO2 into organic compounds, such as carbohydrates.
And for humans CO2 is a pollutant. That’s why we get rid of it by exhaling it after we produced it by breaking down carbohydrates and fats
  • 2 0
 @makkman: The deal with CO2 is that if comes from fossil sources you increase the amount in the atmosphere and you lose the balance because the environment cannot keep up to detract it from the atmosphere again. Of course we need CO2, we just shouldn't mess up the balance in a relatively short period of time.

Same with water, which is a greenhouse gas too. The altitude at which aircraft exhaust water, it is a bigger issue than the CO2 in their exhaust. I'm still surprised how little attention this gets. After the 9/11 attacks all big aircraft worldwide were grounded. It really made a massive difference during that time.
  • 3 0
 @metaam: Population in the world is currently (2020) growing at a rate of around 1.05% per year. It was at 2% in the 1960s.
Fertility rate per female is Down to ~ 2.4. So it is going down but we survive more and longer, so this adds up.
  • 4 0
 @mitochris: I should have said survival rate, rather than birth rate. The world's population was approx. 1 billion in 1800, 7.6 billion in 2018 and forecast to be 11.2 billion by the end of the century. Yes the birth rate is down, but as you say we're living longer. Infant mortality is down massively from 100 years ago and with advancements in medicines we can assume life expectancy to keep growing. Whether through taxation or legislation, I do believe a time will come when Governments will try to curb our ever expanding numbers. Already in parts of the world there are tensions around diminishing resources. Ethiopia,Sudan and Egypt squabbling about their shares of the Nile spring to mind. Maybe the wars that are likely to be fought over resources will keep the population down. Whatever, I can't see the future being too rosy if we carry on the way we're going.
  • 8 1
 @metaam: I agree and have said before, either we find a way of humanely controlling the population or the planet will do it for us inhumanely (more lethal version of the Coronavirus?). Unfortunately this view isn't socially acceptable and I'm certain people will be offended by it. Not exactly a vote winner.

Historically war and disease have controlled the population but it has roughly doubled since the 50's which is an extremely short space of time relatively speaking. Consumption has also increased which, combined with globalisation is creating a perfect storm. Feels like we are reaching a critical point now by many accounts so here's hoping that enough people can see the bigger picture before it's too late (sorry to be such a doom monger).
  • 1 1
 @toad321: Or grow hemp, that takes it out for you & then build frames from it! Win/Win!
  • 1 1
 Hemp plastic bikes, Henry Ford build a hemp car, then destroyed hemp production!
  • 2 0
 @aljoburr: Hemp is still being used a lot for construction though I think flax is even more popular in cars. It is the fiber used to reinforce the plastic parts.

The biggest challenge though is that even though it is CO2 neutral, it still requires soil which could also be used to grow food for those who need it. Or soil that could just be left to nature (and with trails for us to ride on Wink ). So that's where the conflict lies. Same with running cars on plant-based fuels. It raises the prices for food to the point that the people can no longer afford it. Ideally the fibers used in consumer products are the waste product from food production. We see it with rice bran though on the other hand that may be a cultural thing (with these people assuming that white rice is more refined hence better) as of course the rice bran is actually where the nutrients are. At the end of the day, it just makes a lot of sense to keep our consumption in check.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: Not being used for car body panels, even stainless steel would be better product for car parts, but lasts to long? But was really the paper industry that killed the use of hemp!
  • 6 1
 @vinay: passenger flights can be limited for sure. But that is not where the biggest cuts in flights can be made. I honestly find the Air cargo as an absolutely ridiculous concept, a luxury that we can easily live without. What is wrong with waiting for a package for a week or two? Honestly, how did we survive in the 90s? I am really getting infuriated when someone tells me to take a train to Southern Spain, moralizes, condescends, while I hear that people come up with concepts like transporting Weekly tons of Norwegian Salmon to China and Japan , using airplanes, and governments do nothing about this. There should be a greenhouse gas cap on everything! And a greenhouse gas tax on everything. It will crimple our economy. It will make us consume less and at a slower rate.
  • 1 1
 @metaam: if you are interested in these problems, and it sure sound like you are, I highly recommend this book. A real eye opener and such an in depth understanding of how we got here and why. Enjoy...

charleseisenstein.org/books/the-ascent-of-humanity/introduction
  • 2 1
 @WAKIdesigns: and then we go into recession. The problem isn't with us, the problem is with a system that requires perpetual growth and encourages just that in every way it can.

Can't recommend this book enough...

charleseisenstein.org/books/the-ascent-of-humanity/introduction
  • 4 0
 We're fucked you guys it's all too little too late. If you really care about the planet, kill yourself, then you won't consume any more resources.
  • 1 0
 @tremeer023: “reaching tipping point, hoping we will make it Before it’s too late”. I have heard it soooo many times since at least 20 years - it is a lovely cognitive disonance, when you are wishful thinking at the same time making doomsday predictions. That makes you think we haven’t crossed the point yet? Or that we are close to it?
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: Well looks like Weather Modification is working a bit, but for how long?
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: 100%. In the same way a product or service can be economically unviable, we need a system to make products "ecologically unviable" if they are bad for the environment , be that through taxation or regulation.
  • 3 1
 @WAKIdesigns : Either way, as long as policymakers only look at CO2 as greenhousegas from aviation then they're missing it's main contribution (which is water vapour). Worst part is, aviation isn't even part of the Paris Agreement. They are way too afraid to hurt it and they probably also consider it too complex for their bookkeeping of whose CO2 it is. It doesn't fit their model of trading CO2 rights etc so they just let it go on.

I recall watching an interview with a NASA scientist presenting a concept for an aircraft running on hydrogen.
Journo: "So this aircraft doesn't pollute?"
NASA: "It only emits water."
J: "So that's harmless?"
N: "Hmm, it is just water."
f*cking SOB. He knows damn well what the effects are and working for a government funded organization he just has to be honest. But a lot of funds and effort went into the development so he just wasn't eager to admit that it was a bad idea. Luckily I think the whole concept of having aircraft burn hydrogen at high altitude has gone out of the window now so that's good. Fact remains that our current aircraft also dump water at that altitude and it doesn't go away that easily. Not at those altitudes. You can do something about CO2 down here, but there isn't much you can do about water at 11km.

One solution I read about today is to grind down rocks and dump them in the ocean. These rocks contain olivine which then absorbs the CO2. Challenge currently is that rocks also contain nickel which could be harmful to aquatic life so they need to monitor that first before going large scale. And the obvious challenge of course is that you need to perform the operation in a way that it doesn't also emit massive amounts of CO2 just through mining, grinding, logistics etc. It could potentially be much more effective than planting trees (which isn't all that effective) but the technology isn't yet mature either.

smartstones.nl/research/publications

So yeah, it just isn't all that simple. We don't just have CO2 emissions to worry about (or water at altitude). Intensive farming emits excess methane, diesel engines may be fuel efficient but they do emit NOx which kills nature too. Even though plastics could actually help reduce the waste of food (which includes all the logistics of the crops that gets ditched once it has reached the destination or just isn't being sold because it has more speckles than the crops just next to it) and obviously plastics allow for lighter products (which also make sense outside sports), plastic soup turns out such a bigger issue than we thought. It seems people here blame it people in Asia still using plastic bags etc. But much of these plastic pellets are being wasted during transport and also end up in the sea and gets mixed with sand and pebbles. No way anyone is ever going to sort those out again.

So is it too late? Well, there is definitely some damage done that can't really be reversed. We've dumped highly toxic teflon all over the place that will never go away. Heck, until fifteen years ago or so I even used a chain lubricant that contained teflon. I've used Green Oil ever since but especially areas near rivers with chemical industry upstream are still heavily polluted. So that, teflon, plastic pellets, water in the higher atmosphere, nuclear waste, that's all stuff that is going to stay for hundreds if not thousands of years. Sea water is too hot now and as slow as these mechanisms are, temperature won't drop anytime soon. The Great Barrier Reef is f*cked. And this won't be the only massive fire in Australia in the next couple of years. As for the CO2, that's actually the doable part. All it takes is a shift in mindset. Silly thing is, apparently this is quite hard. Awareness was already there in the seventies, almost half a century ago. And well before teflon and plastics got so prominent. If the movement would have held its momentum back then, then yeah we'd have been in a much more convenient position.

@kiksy : A product should just cost what it takes to make it, logistics, profit etc and also what it takes to fix the damage it all has caused. And that part of the money actually goes into fixing the damage. See, there are already taxes on fuel etc but these taxes aren't actually used to fix it. Governments think it is good enough that it keeps customers from using too much of it.
  • 3 1
 @dicky1080: the grim irony is that natural disasters like fires in California or Australia are good for economy. They make people do stuff by repairing damage, in which way they exchange money and services.

I had a short ideological romance with green lefties and quite frankly, find them just as much righteous as full of shit just like righties. Sorry. In no way I find making money from money worth anything, I despise it. But I also piss on marxist philosophies...

One thing is sure. We do lots of weird things that are heavy on the environment, both in terms of toxicity and emissions. Like air cargo, like shitty ship fuel. Like eating cows - I don’t buy vegan mental disorder and social deficiency deepened by their shitty, nutrient poor diet that at best can suit a tiny bit of population. But If we at least stopped at drinking milk, eating milk products, eating chickens and farmed fish, situation would improve. Cows are much better alive in smaller numbers, producing milk and fertilizer (and liberty caps...) The sweets industry, all the people over eating. It’s insane. If Fat people would cut their caloric intake by 1000cal a day, we would save money and cut more emissions. Packaging? All that crap?

If we push on our governments we can
Make them spend money on doubling the existing railroad infrastructure, instead of drowning money in asphalt and allowing airways expand. Trains be turned into hotels on wheels, offering comfort in return for longer travel time which BTW could be shortened if countries invested in super fast trains.

But the current reality is that train trip takes more time, is often less comfortable and what is fkng ridiculous, if is more expensive than taking a plane. And majority of fkng stupid green lefties think that it shouldve a personal decision to do the right thing! For fks sake!
  • 2 1
 @vinay: I hear ya. But what really fascinates me is how hard can it be to tax air travel and cars more and pump this money into railroads. I am sometimes designing and always working next to people designing gigantic shopping centers, underground garages - huge spaces that could be instead used for logistic centers for food and other products. We are wasting tons of resources on stupid shit nobody needs. Sadly mountain bikes are one of them, but there is no stopping even here. I just wrote all that, yet in my household there are a total of 9 bicycles of all kinds...
  • 1 0
 @WAKIdesigns: I agree with you and dicky, and it is frustrating that governments can’t get themselves to put relevant legislation in place. No, you have pupcakes like Mnuchin claiming that the US is leading in environmental efforts thanks to what private companies are doing. Clearly this is due to public pressure, not because the government has helped via legislation. To the contrary, regulations are removed to make it easier for polluters and even less financially sound for those who try. If governments would protect and support those that do want to clean up their act, this would have happened years ago. But we are so arrogant to think that we are at the pinnacle of humanity and after us can be no more progress. I am sure every civilisation has thought the same and eventually was replaced by another.
  • 1 0
 Oh dear. I just re-read what I wrote. Of course the sun does not convert water to ATP, NADPH and oxygen. The energy of the sun is used to power the reactions that reduce NADP to NADPH and synthesise ATP from ADP + Pi. O2 is the byproduct from this reaction, after splitting water.
  • 1 0
 @mitochris: it’s like this. They install road tax for driving through and into Gothenburg. Where does the money from the taxes go? To build fkng luxurious road infrastructure to make driving cars and using trucks for transportation more viable. They change road surfaces as soon as there is one pothole in them or a few cracks. Meanwhile prices of tickets for public transport go up to ridiculous levels. And man some environmentalists Here are completely messed up too. Like those morons who were giving out cash for e-bikes. I said why then people who buy a normal bike don’t get anything? and the our main greenie the office told me: “are you dumb? you already bike to work, you don’t need any incentive” - oh well, but I would maybe feel better about myself if I got a bit of appreciation for it, likes Slight tax deduction.

And that is my problem, I doubt that intentions of most greenies and leftists are pure. I am not convinced they do it Mostly because they care about the planet. I think many of them are social misfits and ascetics. They simply found a way to make other people feel bad about something. I do see malice and/ or will to gain power in many folks. Like that dude who made “The Game Changer” - that’s a one intense bastard.

And this is what also creates the problem. We have a hard time pushing meaningful solutions when “aim justifies the means” logic is used by representatives of the movement. We need careful and precise actions not fear mongering. These people are not the best ambassadors for the planet...
  • 1 0
 @metaam: Wuhan, China may have solved this issue for us.
  • 9 2
 Its nice to see companies actual plans to make an impact; rather than just yelling about it, or shutting down websites... More companies should follow suit and really show what they are doing to impact the environment, and even better show numbers of results, be extra vocal about your companies pursuits to be better.

They should also look at, and pressure, the countries that provide the raw material, or already made plastics, to reduce their pollution.... I'm looking at you Asia...
  • 5 1
 I am not exactly sure what you mean by yelling or shutting down the internet. If you mean protests then I disagree. While these gestures by these companies is nice and helpful the environmental problems we face are so large that they can only be solved by systemic changes which would require government intervention. Therefore the best action one could take to help the environment is not an individual change (though nice) but to advocate for and work towards systemic changes and to protest against backwards policies and thinking.
  • 2 1
 @iantmcg: I mean companies doing things in protest of whatever, but really not doing much to set an example to change what they are upset with. Specialized shut down their website for what... protests are becoming pointless. People get upset but the majority do nothing to make their own impact, so then why do i care what they are protesting. Lead by example, that is how you make change, and governments do a horrible job of that.

Although to your point, my point was governments like those in Asia should should enforce pollution laws to help the environment, but then we can have a long chat about how that will impact business and all the economics behind that. government doesn't always know the best way some company or person can help, so these companies doing what they know will help is far better than others just protesting. We just have two different ideas of how to get this done.
  • 3 2
 @Lukeydukey25: The US is a representative democracy though, our government is a direct reflection of us. Sure other countries have worse environmental laws but a lot of what they produce is imported to America. We could easily assess the environmental damage from those goods and assign tariffs that go towards remediation. Said tariffs could be lowered once countries come to adopt environmental standards similar to the US. Personally I am a big proponent of a carbon tax and dividend as I think climate change is the biggest problem we face today. Sadly America used to be a leader on the global stage but we appear to no longer desire that.
  • 2 1
 @iantmcg: I like your point. one of two things, tariffs could be passed on to the consumer - bad for us. however, I like the idea if other countries abide we lower the tariffs - but that can be a troublesome game with other countries. its all about power and money, and no protest from the general public is going to change it. IMO

I honestly believe other countries do not care that much about the environment, and they dont put in as much as we were for the cause, so, yes we back out a little... I have seen it in my travels... I think if we convince countries to match what we put in to help the environment, then I am all for a untied front, and not us solely leading the charge. I think there are examples of countries who are doing a good job doing their part, what can they do more to influence the change.

Side note - i dont think the govt represents us - there are too many life politicians in the house and senate who just want power and money while doing nothing.
  • 2 0
 @Lukeydukey25: fair enough, funny thing is that the most unpopular members of congress are some of the most popular members in their districts. The lifers get the most pork and everyone of all political persuasions love government waste when they stand to personally benefit. Which is why I still maintain that our elected officials are a reflection of us. Greedy money grubbing badtards out mostly for out own self interests... Lol
  • 6 0
 @Lukeydukey25: Interesting to hear your side of the story because from over here it appears like the US politics withdraws from the climate agreements, lifts a ban for drilling oil in vulnerable habitats etc. If the US actually cares more about the environment than other countries then that's great to hear.
  • 1 0
 @iantmcg: lol yea, i can see that. Hey it was a good chat!
  • 1 0
 @vinay: Yes we did withdraw and i personally dont know much about the drilling, but i know that is a hot topic. I Believe the US does care, I think we care more than most countries, we have led the charge in bringing attention to environmental issues... but at what cost is it for us to continually say we are the leaders in making change with the environment and putting our money out for it. From my understanding its a lot of money. That's why my point is instead of having our government lead, other countries need to step up more, and businesses need to do their part and lead by example since business, organizations, institutions cause the majority of pollution.
  • 1 0
 @Lukeydukey25: the issue is a global one, that will require cooperation by all. However it doesn't seem the US is doing a huge amount to help. In addition to pulling out of the Paris agreement: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement , the US has one of worst Co2 emissions per capita www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita and that number has stayed roughly level over the last decade: www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999
  • 1 0
 @kiksy: yes i agree everyone needs to help. do some research on Asia about thier CO2 emissions, and not even that, the other factory pollution that happens in Asia. If i remember there has also been some articles on how the Co2 emission is not as bad as it is with regards to the hole in the ozone. Other areas of the world need to do more.
  • 1 0
 @Lukeydukey25: China co2 emissions per capita are increasing, in 2018 it was 8 tons. However, this is still substantially less than many western countries such as Australia (16.Cool , the US (16.1) , Canada (16.1) . There is a good chart here showing per capita emissions per country: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File%3ACO2_emissions_per_capita%2C_2017_(Our_World_in_Data).svgOur_World_in_Data . Totally agree that more needs to be done to raise industrial standards across the globe, this needs to start with curtailing western countries desire for cheap goods.
  • 2 0
 @kiksy: Under the same link you can also find charts based on consumption per capita instead of production er capita. After all, China does a lot of production for export to western countries so that adds up to their CO2 production but it isn't really for themselves. If you look at consumption, they're actually kind of "European" level.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: correct. Not to say anything is perfect, but too often it seems we are happy to turn a blind eye to issues, be it labour or environmental if it means we get our stuff a bit cheaper.
  • 1 0
 @kiksy: This opens a whole other can of worms on economics, business, and cost of living...
  • 10 2
 I'll one-up ya: ride naked, don't wash your bike & just ride on bare rims (worked for Gwin in Leogang, right?)
  • 8 0
 Gwin rode naked? Razz
  • 5 0
 Maybe these companies as a first step should move there factories to countries that have some enviromental standards instead of were they can take advantage of lax laws to increase their bottom line. Have to keep the share holders happy! All hypocrits, every last one.
  • 5 0
 As someone who works in a shop selling endura they are the worst company for single use packaging on literally everything they sell, every time we receive stock we end up with a huge bag of all their crap. As much as carbon offsetting helps, its an easy marketing move when they should be trying to solve the much larger impact they leave as company. Reduction is much more important that a solution that allows you to keep pumping out crap
  • 4 0
 endura dropping pfc's is a big deal, and deserves more than one line. look into pfc's and how harmful that type of chemical is to the enviroment. it doesnt biodegrade and is in all of us. it is bad.
  • 2 0
 I thought Vredestein in cooperation with the University of Wageningen is working on creating rubber from the roots of a dandelion. Supposedly is less demanding on the environment than extracting the required materials from trees. So yeah, that may be a way forward eventually. Not sure how much it needs to be sufficient for the worlds demand, so recycling still matters of course. I don't know how recycling works though. Once rubber is vulcanized, I'm not sure how your going to make a new tire or tube out of it. They can downcycle it but it isn't quite the same.
  • 3 0
 Interesting how the European brands are pushing 'going green' way more than the rest of the world. Do you Americans have similar schemes in place? P.s genuine question, not trying to be an internet dick.
  • 2 0
 Americans are smart enough to know that we're fucked so we're lighting this ship on fire and sailing it down the waterfall!
  • 1 1
 Patagonia is American and has been doing good things for a while.
  • 2 0
 Rad. This makes me want to support these companies. The muc off refill idea is great. There are zero-waste grocery stores near me and I find them to be totally brilliant. It's really not hard to carry containers to stores and refill them, and if the whole world did it, there'd probably be a significant drop in greenhouse gas emissions and plastic in the oceans.
  • 2 0
 I have never bought a "bike wash" product, nor will I ever. No product: chemicals, packaging, transport, warehousing, etc. Just well water and a brush I've used for 30 years. I don't understand the new millenium MTB era's fascination with these products.
  • 1 0
 Marketing works. And Mucoff is putting their brand all over the place. This explains the fascination quite well.
  • 4 0
 The thing that’s prevented me from buying “muc-off” is the amount of waste...
  • 6 1
 green=weed
  • 3 0
 Love seeing this stuff! It makes me want to use their brands more, even if it costs a bit more than their competitors.
  • 3 0
 I'm going green too, just not gonna wash my bike
  • 3 0
 @iantmcg: that's what I was thinking. Cleanest thing Muc off could do is concede that water does 99% of what their products do and shut down.
  • 1 0
 Or just leave it out side when it is raining!
  • 2 0
 There's still a long way to go with the bike industry but it's a good start. Hope to see other companies also follow suit.
  • 1 0
 It's great to see these brands acknowledge the massive issues in the world and great to see PB giving publicity to their efforts! Keep it up!
  • 1 0
 Could tell you how to help save on chain lube, but since no one seems to listen, will just say it is Magic!
  • 1 0
 Stop changing MTB standards, so people don’t have to be misled into thinking the newest thing is the best thing
  • 1 0
 What about shops in Canada?
  • 1 1
 what about starting making tires properly and avoid snakebites? never had so many flats, just with schwalbe!
  • 2 0
 DOPE
  • 1 0
 Using MucOff products isn't necessary first hand anyways.
  • 2 2
 FEELS GOOD BUT IT REALLY AINT US
  • 1 1
 they hate us cuz they anus
  • 1 1
 ...
  • 2 4
 buying there stuff
  • 5 0
 i'm right their with ya!
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2020. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.020151
Mobile Version of Website