Starling's Environmental Impact Report Finds Carbon Produces 16x More CO2 Than Steel
Starling has joined the growing list of companies providing research into its environmental impact as it launches its first report.
The headline-grabbing statistic from the report is that carbon fibre frame production produces about 16 times the CO2 emissions as steel frame production. To help Starling with this portion of the report, the National Composite Centre (NCC) made a comparison between steel, thermoplastic carbon composite and epoxy carbon composite. It is interesting to note that aluminum was not included in these statistics. Using our own armchair math from Trek's report last year we found that a carbon Trek frame had around three times the emission of alloy.
In the investigation, the NCC found a German steel frame produces 4.2kg CO2e and an Asian steel frame sees a slight increase at 6.2kg CO2e. For a carbon epoxy frame, these figures jump significantly to 68.1kg CO2e for a frame made from Korean fibres or 47.1kg CO2e for Japanese fibres. Thermoplastic frames see a slight reduction but still high numbers with 51.7kg CO2e for Korean fibres and 34.2 CO2e for Japanese ones.
Of course frame, material alone isn't only the big contributor to environmental damage. Just like last year's Trek report Starling's report also looked into the impact of shipping bike parts. Starling's report states that air freight produces 500g CO2e per km per kg, road transport at 60-150g per km per kg, and sea freight only 10-40g per km per kg. Starling does state in the report that its greatest impact is air freighting and it needs to find ways to reduce this.
Interestingly, looking at the emissions from transportation, a steel frame shipped by air could be far worse than a carbon frame shipped by sea freight. While the frame material can clearly make a difference in emissions, I think the biggest takeaway from Starling's report should be the impacts of the method in which bikes are transported. Is the speed of air freight really worth the extra environmental cost?
With the release of the report, brand owner Joe McEwan said: "A small number of brands are taking environmental impact seriously right now, but many just don't seem to acknowledge it. Our products encourage people to spend time in nature; to ignore our impact on the environment just doesn't sit right. This process is the first step in helping us understand how sustainably we operate as a business and what we need to do to improve.
"We’ve learned a lot from this process but in many cases, the answers aren’t straightforward. We’ve identified areas for improvement and now we need to find out how to make those changes."
As with all reports on the environment in the bike industry, it's worth adding that the best way to help the planet is to stick with what you currently ride now.
You can read the full report here.
Must Read This Week
459 Comments
In fact, if most of us rich bastards (yes, that's the vast majority of us here; we are the 1% on the global scale of things) do not learn to be far more content generally with what we have, then as some of you older Brits who remember Dad's Army will be able to recollect, "We are all DOOMED".
Somehow the plethora of "whataboutism" comments here suggest that being content with what you have is not likely to be striking many people here any time soon.
Alongside that… the footprint produced here is the equivalent of one less journey somewhere to ride.
At 200g co2 p/km… (average for a mid range car), that’s 310km/192miles of driving to to make up that entire difference. Just to put this in perspective.
Take a step back and opt out of all this crap and life becomes so much simpler and less stressful.
Although, we can do wonders if we change our ways but to go green as a society, then we need to be smarter. As a society.
Scandinavian countries are doing great imo. Switzerland too. I'm an immigrant here and because society in Switzerland lives in different way I had to change too. Ok, we still own a car (3 small kids, we need one), but doing merely 9k km/year. Mostly on trips. Before Ch I was doing 25-35k km/year. My wife another 10k with her car.
I'm trying to say that buying a new mtb only every 5 years is great, but not nearly enough in the larger scale
There's been all this stuff recently about the carbon impacts of producing bikes, but looking at the Trek report, even the highest spec Rail e-bike (~325kg) is less than 2/3rds of the carbon footprint of a one-way flight from New York to Vancouver (>500kg)
What you can add to this reflexion, is to get the manufacturer getting in this way too. Making product lasting longer, with better ease of repair, and possibility to get replacement parts for longer period.
Seriously tho If Treks data is anything to go on you can offset your carbon bike carbon footprint by riding 430 miles instead of driving which isn't a lot over many years.
co2coalition.org
We have been hearing this fear mongering for like the last 50 years and the goal post keep moving.
"2009 Al Gore"
"The North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming,”
Current arctic sea ice extent
"As of the middle of the Arctic summer, on July 17 2022, sea ice extent was 8.42 million square kilometers"
"Extent on July 17 2022 was the highest since 2015"
however, lowering standard of living, under the guise of 'saving the environment' is one of the worst crimes ever committed against humanity, and it's happening right in front of our eyes. people are so brainwashed into thinking they'll 'make a difference' by overpaying for everything they consume, that they'll do it till they start starving.
it has never been about the 'climate change', it has never been about the 'virus' - no matter how hard they push those talking points; it's always about teaching you to accept whatever BS they come up with and you're supposed to just shut up and take it. till you realize they don't care about you, and nothing they do is for your benefit, nothing changes.
long story short - i will NOT drive a small car, i will NOT give up meat, i will NOT give up heating/air conditioning, i will NOT give up (air)travel and i will NOT eat f***ing bugs - and neither should you
not sure man, heard of this?
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/genocide
Nice points man because buying lots of gas, eating beef, paying for A/C, and buying plane tickets is really sticking it to the man! Yeah, you show them! Consumerism will take out those "thems"!
eco genocide that cuts food production is causing literal starvation, and that is the goal of 'going carbon neutral'. many other thigs too, but this one is probably the worst.
and yes, i have heard of genocide, actually my people have experienced it first hand not too long ago, so i have first hand experience with it, unfortunately
Climate change is actually being percieved by genocide by some of those experiencing the worst effects
The goal of net zero is preventing dangerous ecological collaspe. It's a phenomenally difficult task and some of the strageties can and have backfired, often due to corporate priorities overshadowing the ecological aims. But your accusation that starvation is the goal is utterly absurd.
Also, you've quickly changed your tone. You said "i will NOT drive a small car, i will NOT give up meat, i will NOT give up heating/air conditioning, i will NOT give up (air)travel and i will NOT eat f***ing bugs". None of that is about you avoiding starvation. It's about you refusing to give up any high consumption acitivities, which is pure selfishness and totally at odds with giving a s**t about other starving
i'm not covid denier (meaning i do believe there is a mutated cold virus), but i am skeptical about lockdowns, forced rushed vaccinations. when measures become more of a threat to general population than the virus itself, you have to ask yourself - why?
been living my life as usual this whole time, no masks, no vaccine, international travel, going to the office as often as i can, never got it. my parents and my brother had it - mild symptoms, barely any fever, just like pretty much everyone else i know that had it.
i'm not even going into bs about guns, you're way off point.
also, not 'sticking it' to anybody, just trying to live a comfortable life within my means, and enjoy benefits of technology and free market. free market is what i'm advocating, not consumerism
there is no dangerous ecological collapse - it's bs as well. poor countries will go down first into starvation if you mandate how big their carbon footprint can be, we're next.
and i haven't changed my tone - of course you missed the part where i said 'and neither should you' - meaning everybody should just f*** off carbon tax and live their best lives (yes, that includes developing countries too)
Dude stop the bullshit. The meat you eat consumes way more energy till it is meat than just eating the plants directly. Not consuming meat, we could use all the space that is used for animal's food for growing plants that would directly benefit the people suffering from starvation. And even right now there is enough food to feed the world. A lot of it is just thrown away in western countries. There is no eco genocide. Get out of your bubble
However, you obviously don't give a s**t about anything beyond your own bubble: you need to own that, too
It would be cool to see a series about "restoring," or just cleaning up old bikes and parts into bikes that we would all love to ride today. Even if it was taking an old mtb frame sitting in the garage, and turning it into a commuter rig, or a, "pop-down-to-the-pub-to-grab-a-burger," bike. Make it a challenge between staff- all parts have to be from 2000 or before, you get points for using parts around the garage/shop/house, it has to not be a steaming pile at the end...
Alternatively, lets have more content on repairs and preventative maintenance.
I know this might be a pipe dream, but I agree with @JapanDave . And I know you can find content like this out there, but PB has such a high quality team that I think they could make this a super special little mini-series. And lets be real- PB has a lot of eyes on them- they could be a force for good.
More articles on local riding could be good too; not just locals that happen to have world-class riding spots nearby, but something a lot more of us could relate to
What a scam.
meat is also more nutritious and tasty, well worth the 'excess energy' spent to get it. the cause of food shortages is not a of lack of farmland, but rather carbon taxes imposed, gas prices, and other bs.
you should worry about how you gonna heat your a** this winter, not about my bubble. just because you're fine freezing (and trust me, it's coming this winter) to support the current thing, don't expect me to do the same
That co2 coalition looks like flat earth. There is no source of who writes those things. And then you find Exxon Mobil when it has sources.
It's like the wolfs producing a paper where sheeps must be eliminated because they are ev
You've said multiple things that evidence this
Proposing we use smaller cars and more public transport, eat less meat, adopt energy saving tech and behaviours at home is not proposing we starve as you just suggested; you are misinterpreting and dramatising the situation to defend your refusal to compromise on anything for the good of others
first it's just two weeks to flatten the curve, then it's till the vaccine comes out, then it's mandatory vaccine, then a pill with a micro chip (didn't make this one up, google it) that tells 'them' if you swallowed it or not
first it's just less meat, then it's fake meat, then it's flat out plants only, then it's rationing and plants every other day, then you starve
Resources are limited, there are not enough in the world to sustain our current economical model. It is now mandatory that we stop using that much (and it will be imposed to us anyway, fossil fuels are rarifying) and redistribute them.
Anyone who is denying this in this age, is ahead of a cold shower. They could start now: learn how to eat LESS meat to help with methane emissions and reduce deforestation, fly LESS to help with emissions, keep your gear LONGER to help with global production/transport, reduce you heating/cooling usage, reduce plastic usage and so many others to keep emissions at bay and preserve our eco systems.
And I know, there are people, in the US, that are having issues putting food on the table, with 3 jobs, and that is not OK. It is wildly accepted that fighting climate change will require social justice (another line item where the US would not place well with the right indicators) and rebalance resources. But the average PB audience is not that, the average mountain biker, is, indeed, very likely part of the global 1%. Maybe not McMansion rich, but that shouldn't be a thing anyway.
It is hard to make the shift, because we are conditioned as groups, and no one wants to be the outlier stepping out of the norm. But more and more, people care, and you do not want to be the last one standing, rolling coal in your lifted RAM with an EAT MEAT sticker.
All industries need a shift, some population need a shift more than others. Pinkbike could start, by requesting CO2 footprints to the manufacturers when they test something, ask what commitments mfgs have on a regular basis, reduce the apparition of Tacomas in every single video...
And lastly, yes, whataboutism, I'm guilty too. I have a smartphone, a carbon bike, and eat meat. But, I reduce. I fly way less than before, eat a lot less meat, keep my electronics for a long time. I'm aware "celebrities" are using jets, but that will stop too
Let's take meat. Climate change is almost certainly causing more severe weather events - droughts, floods, extreme heat. Which reduces the yield of crops, thus increasing the cost (less supply!) of anything which requires a lot of plant feed...like a cow. So now, without any government intervention, your steak has become a lot more expensive. Maybe more than you can afford while still maintaining your MTB habit.
Perhaps you believe the free market will always keep costs down for goods you desire? If so, I have some bike prices for you to look at...
interesting reading...
so govt intervention is THE reason for supply shortages, not 'climate change'.
same thing with bike parts - it's not due to people being scared of a cold that closed ports and stopped the supply - it was mandated by the govt.
to add oil to fire govt printed trillions of dollars (euros too, any currency really), and that with blocked supply drove prices up. so, again, govt intervention, NOT free market.
gas prices - drilling permits revoked - govt.
see a pattern?
www.science.org/content/article/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says
I have to assume japandave is speaking to these corporations as people, and that he is secretly Mitt Romney.
"There is no source of who writes those things"
??
CO2 Coalition Founders
CO2 Coalition Board of Directors
co2coalition.org/about
Guess you can keep getting all your information from CNN, BBC, Bill Gate, Ted Turner and Greta Thunberg :-) LOL
You're a sheep who cries sheep, cause you're too small to see beyond the herd and too f*cking stupid to know what a wolf is.
"AP News 1989"
"UNITED NATIONS (AP) says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."
"2008 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015"
he pointed out a few examples of climate alarmists being completely wrong, and had we done what they proposed, then we'd be in a much worse shape than we are. they know they're wrong, and they still keep pushing the same agenda - you have to wonder why
i can add a lot of examples from past couple of years where none of the predictions came true. skeptics who said there would be inflation, gas and food shortages, etc were right, and you still blindly follow the current thing dogma
what's your explanation? was science wrong when it predicted things that didn't happen? or it wasn't science?
We have quite definitive evidence that atmospheric C02 is at a higher level than any other point in the last 800,000 years, and that every historic C02 spike has coincided with a rise in global temperature. Scientists are bad at making predictions as to what happens now because Earth as we know it has never had concentrations of C02 this high. The span of time we have been researching is simply too vast to make accurate predictions because historic changes in atmospheric composition have usually taken thousands of millennia.
Unless @in2falling is that old I'll keep listening to the people most educated on this topic, not some bootleg geologists with oil industry ties decrying that carbon dioxide is good for the world.
the kid said that co2 levels and temp spikes coincided, but that doesn't mean that co2 levels caused temp rising. doesn't mean high temps caused rise in co2 levels either, or that those two are related at all.
also, we need to make sure readings are not done so it's skewed - are temps measured by the airports? big cities? co2 levels next to a factory? and how big of an area that level covers - is it across the oceans? rain forests? is it the same in urban, suburban or rural area? and that's assuming co2 levels are even a factor.
he said that we have data going back 800k years, but based on models, climate alarmists have been wrong on pretty much everything, which in2falling pointed out. so every rational being has to wonder - are they really that incompetent, or do they have an agenda. i mean, how many more years of research and data points do you guys need to finally be right about something?
maybe less focus on how 'climate change' affects 'minority communities', less sjw activism, more science and you might get something right eventually.
the 'science' has track record of being wrong, and if you question it you're being labeled a flatearther, conspiracy theorist, you name it.
just like less than a year ago - all the 'leading economists' said that there wasn't going to be any inflation - which i knew, and a lot of people i work and interact with (i work in finance) - to be complete bs. so how come something that was obvious to any rational human being went under the radar of so many 'experts' - it didn't, they're just counting on people being so stupid to put 2 and 2 together, and from what i'm seeing they're right.
also, for any agenda to work, not everybody has to be in the know - it's enough to incentivize people, and all the pieces fall into place. you don't even know you're an useful idiot, but i don't really hold it against you, unfortunately most people are just tools anyway
And we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because we've demonstrated it consistently through experiments, beginning in the 19th century. We also have a complete physicochemical mechanism to explain the ghg effect (climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-greenhouse-gases-trap-heat-atmosphere).
Like, scientists have been warning about this since at least the 60's, but you and too many others have fallen hard for the oil lobby's agenda. The fringe scientists you cite to support your beliefs are even part of it - it says so right on the website you shared lol. And oh you work in finance? That's so cute. Please stay in your lane.
after all, you are trying to force me into eating berries and living in a cave, so the burden of proof is on you. i'm not telling people how to live their lives, you guys are.
so what happened with those predictions that never came true? bad science? is it a science if it works just in theory? why aren't we under water yet? why can you still get an insurance on a beach house? it's almost like insurance companies are better at predicting the future than you guys.
also, learn to read, i haven't posted any links or quoted anyone, you mixed me up with someone else.
there were periods of heating and cooling of the earth way before us, and it's proven to be cyclical, and also affected by outside factors. milankovitch cycles and sun activity are way bigger factors (and there are more) than human activity, but for some reason you think we should all go back to the stone age, while those who are feeding you this bs have no problem flying around in private jets, owning beachfront mansions, eating meat, and god knows what not
Lol I'm not forcing yo to do anything, but love the typical hyperbolic conservative rhetoric. You triggered?
What about all the predictions that have come true? There's a reason the majority of scientists don't agree with you and it's not that you know something they don't. Btw - in finance do you get a lot of people thinking they know more than you about finance while saying crap that to you is glaringly stupid, or suggesting you're part of a conspiracy?
If you want to talk science the Milankovitch cycle climate theory suggests we should currently be in a cooling period, and that global glaciation should be on the rise. The current cycle should have been cooling the Earth since roughly the 1400s. Instead, glacial ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, which actually tracks quite consistently with the unprecedented concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"but that doesn't mean the highest ever" yeah well the earth was a fireball at one point and then spent a vast majority of its history barely capable of sustaining prokaryotes because of a greenhouse gas atmosphere.
"you think we should go back to the stone age" I eat meat, drive a car, and am currently abroad, the difference is my head isn't so far up my ass that I think I'm justified for it, I'm just living by my means.
"those who are feeding you this bs" last I checked scientists aren't exactly getting rich. But I'll tell you who is- Oil execs, livestock tycoons, heavy industry moguls, etc.
Yes, natural climate change exists and natural "cycles" have existed. 252 m years ago, the Permian extinction was caused by greenhouse gasses emitted from massive volcanic activity in Siberia, likely. It's worth noting that the rise in temperature then happened much, much slower than the rise we're seeing today, because the change in atmospheric composition occurred at a slower rate. This is what's really scary, since environmental change itself isn't dangerous, it's the rate of change. Extinctions happen when environmental change outpaces a species' ability to adapt.
And it's weird to cite natural climate cycles while denying any anthropogenic effect, without understanding even fundamentally how climate changes naturally. Even plants have reshaped the composition of the atmosphere. They actually cooled the atmosphere when they proliferated during the carboniferous period - ironically the era our oil comes from. To think that human activity can't alter the climate is just ridiculous. And btw, those natural cycles - the pleistocene - holocene oscillations - stopped coincidentally with industrialization.
Anyway, either educate yourself or die ignorant - your choice.
yes, you are - you're advocating for bigger taxes, which are forced, and it has negative impact on everyone. you should consider financial implications if you're going to advocate for something, and how it affects well being of everyone involved. poverty kills, you know, and it killed way more people than 'climate change'.
which predictions? did ocean level rise by 0.5 cm in 100 years? wooo, take all my freedoms away and starve me to death!
i just look at the bigger picture, and if someone is pushing lies or half truths to justify something that will clearly have bigger negative impact, i tend to be skeptical. you might think that lower co2 level will have a positive impact on environment, and that very well could be true, but you're not doing a risk-benefit analysis. if you did, you'd know that measures being proposed are worse than what you're fighting.
and by you, i mean eco-terrorist climate alarmists. just out of curiosity, how many boosters you got? ready for the monkey pox shot?
@ryanandrewrogers yes, what we're experiencing is a blip in the grand scheme of things, influenced by many factors. if you agree that milankovitch cycles affect temp on earth, and that we're headed towards new ice age, wouldn't you want more co2 to slow it down? you think that it's better for human kind to experience another ice age? you think it's coincidence that life flourishes with higher temps?
also, i just checked my local weather history, just wanted to see the numbers because i'm not noticing any difference. actually, past few years have been cooler and rainier than i can remember. turns out my local weather station is ATL hartsfield jackson intl airport... you can't make that s*** up
EVEN THEN, in 1962 max temp was 94 in july, just like this year, and the same avg temp. don't believe me? check it out for for yourself:
www.wunderground.com/history/monthly/us/ga/atlanta/KATL/date/2022-7
www.wunderground.com/history/monthly/us/ga/atlanta/KATL/date/1962-7
i'm not a scientist, never claimed to be, but i do know the scientific method, i do know numbers, and i do know when someone's full of it
funny how you guys want people to give up what you yourself are enjoying, such f***ing hypocrites. (yes, you are proposing limiting co2 levels per 'consumer' and it will count for food, travel, clothes everything), that's where eco terrorism is heading
i booked a flight to europe yesterday, always laugh at co2 rankings when looking at tickets, 'greener choice' bs
No sensible solution to climate change is calling for a total rejection of modern living, or forcing (or even requesting) that you go "live in a cave and eat berries" as you claim. Not even close
But by convincing yourself that that's the case, when someone else calls you out for your refusal to consider any changes at all to your own life, then you tell them they're a hypocrite for not living up to the absurd standard which you made up yourself
I research mitigation pathways, and I can tell you that the most radical almost-mainstream scenario that exists is pretty conervative wrt Global North living standards. Average house size in the Global North, for example, doesn't reduce at all from now to 2050. Average travel per person actually increases from about 13,500 km/year to 17,000 km/year
You can go read it here:
www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0172-6
And have you considered the financial costs of opposing adaptation to climate change? Lol and which predictions regarding sea level rise from the 1920's are you referring to? After all, 100 years has to have passed. And I'm guessing you meant to say m and not cm?
Idk why you're bringing up the pandemic, but good job you've made it clear that you're a sheep to every BS, antiscientific conservative narrative.
if they told you in the very beginning of covid bs that you'd have to wear a mask and be locked down and basically forced to take vaccine, would you go along? i think not. that's why they told you it would be just two weeks, then just till vaccine, then till double dose, etc - hopefully you get the point. and all based on completely junk 'science' that anybody with common sense knew was bs from the start
same thing goes with this. first recycling is optional, then it's mandatory and you get fined if you don't do it. i know that's what it's like in germany (prob in UK too), i have family members in that hell hole
edit - and no, there is no hyperbole, i'm just able to see few steps ahead and know where it's going
man, you're such a clown, probably looking forward to getting that monkey shot, you know you're gonna get it
Most people both know they can't trust politicians and lack the courage to take a stand against them because they know they're going to lose. So, instead they convince themselves politicians must have our best interests in mind (so sad it's funny).
few people i know that tend to 'trust' the govt on everything are just trying not to face the reality - which is scarier than any virus, or global warming, or any other day to day issue - and that is that govt is actively working against them every chance they get, lying to them, while being just a front for some psychopaths whose names you'll never hear
"been living my life as usual this whole time, no masks, no vaccine, international travel, going to the office as often as i can, never got it. my parents and my brother had it - mild symptoms, barely any fever, just like pretty much everyone else i know that had it."
and a few comments later deny climate change is an issue with this
"i just look at the bigger picture"
FWIW, I think its very healthy to be skeptical about government overreach, and I was a bit concerned about how much government control some of my climate-scientist friends were advocating during Covid. And so I was mildly comforted by how hesitant the UK government were to call for lockdowns, or do anything desicive for that matter
Of course, loads of people died and we have one of the highest per-capita death rates of any country (although no one I know died).
What I don't understand is why you point all this skepticism towards scientists and governments, and z-e-r-o towards oil companies and the meat industry. I mean, even free-market think tanks are pissed at the meat lobby for their propaganda attempts
reason.com/2021/01/30/europe-considers-orwellian-proposal-to-protect-its-dairy-industry-from-vegan-competitors
i said is that covid didn't affect my life - but govt measures definitely did, and still are - my child not being able to go to daycare and socialize, with inflation, with recession, not being able to travel and see my family and vice versa, and many other ways
very few people actually died of covid, vast majority died from many other reasons (how else you explain average age of 80 of people who died, plus 2-4 comorbidities). and we're yet to pay with our health and health of our children over these 2+ years of abuse
of course i have reserves towards oil companies, i don't like them, but they do provide great service to humanity. meat companies aren't perfect either, but they can't control your life - are you forced to eat meat? govt is not incentivizing you to drive a normal car, but they sure want to see you in an electric piece of crap or walking (and no, not so you stay fit)
www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/covid-19-hidden-heartbreaking-toll-millions-of-orphaned-children
Accept that you are a monster and go away.
1) If a government funded scientist says it's true, then it's true.
2) Big oil are the bad guys, so whoever disagrees with Big oil are the good guys.
3) Politicians have our best interests at heart.
4) MSM outlets are bastions of truth.
5) Corruption isn't everywhere because that's an uncomfortable notion.
1) No, the vast majority of climate scientists, 84% according to the AAAS, think humans are the driving factor of modern climate change.
2) Big oil are the bad guys, there aren't any good guys everyone is just trying to make a buck.
3) No one believes that? Both parties are in bed with oil and pharma.
4) Fox is an MSM outlet too? Any objectively for-profit media outlet is a waste of time.
5) Corruption is everywhere, but it is much easier to profiteer off of oil money than clean energy dollars. Just look at the statistics behind lobbying spending and imagine how much money is changing hands under the table.
1) why is it called climate change now? are we done with the global warming? if the co2 is causing the greenhouse effect, which causes temp to rise, why do we see record cold winters, year after year? if you don't believe me, look it up yourself.
so your claims are logically impossible - if we're driving temps up, how are we also driving them down (in the winter)? if we're not driving them down, then something else is - meaning there is a bigger factor at play.
'scientists' are explaining this phenomenon by greenhouse effect too - they're literally claiming that global warming is also causing record lows in the winter, hahahaha
here's the link: www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58425526
now, they claim that the texas winter storm was caused by polar vortex from the north, but something is fishy there - if it came from the north (the arctic), and we all know where texas is, why didn't it hit canada and northern states harder, if not just as hard at the very least?
link for that as well: www.weather.gov/fwd/Feb-2021-WinterEvent
now you can say that this is an isolated case (which it isn't, but one that is recent and fairly local and documented), but it demonstrates how something doesn't fit in model you guys are pushing. and science that can't explain REAL events, or can't be REPRODUCED, isn't REAL science
2) ok, cool, whatever, no good guys, not really much to debate there
3) it's not just oil and pharma, there is also media, tech, finance, entertainment and defense, you name it. hence the need to limit the govt - the only way any big business can FORCE you to anything is through govt - laws, mandates, taxation. without lobbying the govt, they'd have to rely on the FREE MARKET where the consumer decides
4) funny how you single out fox only, but i won't defend them as they don't deserve it. i don't own cable, period
5) have you seen the price of solar panels? electric cars? wind energy prices? price of electricity? cost of maintenance of renewable energy plants? recycling? there is no money there? have you compared how much it would cost to heat your own home using electricity (via solar panels, or wind energy) vs natural gas? even with all the tax cuts you'd get (meaning we're all paying for it), the difference is ASTRONOMICAL to put it mildly. again, check it out yourself, you don't have to believe me.
you might think there is more money to be made off oil and gas, and that's only because literally it's the fuel of modern world. fuel for electric cars is NOT the wind, it's coal. batteries that are in electronics, including electric cars, are more harmful for environment than anything ICE vehicles can produce. yet they're co2 neutral so they're good by your standards.
executive order that caused record gas prices that you're seeing now is LITERALLY NOTHING compared to proposals being tossed around about going completely carbon neutral by 2030/40, etc.
1) From where do the vast majority of those 84% of "climate scientists" get their funding?
2) Who do you think Big oil are in bed with? First letter-G second letter-overnment. But now the Feds want to tax you and they're the good guys?
3) Yet you swallow WHATEVER they blow.
4) Yes. And, to follow up with your point, look at who owns the overwhelming media.
5) You're practically begging to be taxed into poverty, and stll believe that.
Best of luck to you, I'm getting nothing from this.
It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
but oil companies are the only ones who are expecting favorable results from scientific studies, got it.
of all the things you accuse govt of doing, you still think they WOULD NEVER fund favorable scientific study - amazing critical thinking skills at display here
even your students tend to agree, and with how low they scored you, you can only work for the govt hahahaha
no wonder you're desperate to keep the climate hysteria going on, the only way you and guys like you keep their 'job'
literally one google search, relax
but nice getaway from actually addressing anything stated above
either way, i'm done
www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline
In the 80's the Exxon realized the implications of global warming and started a very effective disinformation campaign and began heavily finding mostly right wing politicians who used the disinformation as an excuse to prevent any effective climate legislation from ever being implemented. That's the basis of why you and other deniers believe what you believe and that's why the planet is rapidly warming.
It has nothing to do with what I "want to hear" (do you even realize how stupid that makes you sound?), it has everything to do with extraordinary claims vs reality.
Governments claim the only way to stop the crisis is to make you and I pay higher taxes for energy. You know who's not going to suffer in all this? The people who profit the most from producing the most waste. And even after that comes to pass, dummies like you will still be begging for more taxation to "save the planet."
dumb people buy sob stories, just like someone else posting about how many children became orphans due to covid to paint a completely different picture - the picture you'd get if you actually read the data, actual numbers.
again, you are painting one side as biased, but you're giving a pass to their opposition, even though both sides have skin in the game.
no one is saying that burning oil and gas is great for the environment, but they are way better for quality of life of humans, way better than the alternative ('green', renewable sources of energy) and almost as eco friendly as nuclear. to know that you have to know a lot more than narrow field of 'science'
ask them why there has never been a cold vaccine, or why you get a different flu shot every year, but now this miraculous shot is supposed to protect you from every new variant, when it didn't even help with the variant it was designed for... because science
My understanding was that they were aiming to sow doubt and uncertainty about the science where there was very little. But they did so well, they somehow created a borderline cult that genuinely seems to believe they are the ones that are oppressed, and are seeing through the lies being spread by the elites, etc. They have it literally backwards, it's incredible. I guess the PR people learnt so much working for the tobacco companies that they did even better job with climate.
I listened to a really good podcast on this recently actually, and the most interesting thing was that at the beginning, the right didn't try to deny the climate science at all. I mean, neither Thatcher nor Regan were denying the issue 3 decades ago
climateconservative.org/key-quotes
www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/anxiety/episodes/united-states-of-anxiety-season-2-podcast-epiode-2
climateconservative.org/americas-original-climate-hero
I wonder what he'd think of Trump
The greenhouse effect became global warming, which became climate change, which blames atmospheric co2 for everything from temperature rises, to unseasonable snow, to hurricanes and racism. From what we have been told, there have been many periods of global warming in the past. From what we know, there were no man-made mechanisims for a mass build-up of co2 during those periods (especially since humans were not around for some of those).
We're not saying anyone's more oppressed than you, but why you are choosing to be so stupid as to clamour for more taxation and more control from politicians based on findings that are PAID FOR by the very people who want to tax you more and regulate you more, it's really remarkable. You've been lied to and either your ego won't accept it, or you're too dumb to put the pieces together.
I hope you're right, I hope it's me who's wrong and taxing us more and controlling us more will make this a better planet for the common man and woman. But history repeats itself and idiots like you are the norm, not the exception.
i've pointed out one specific example, the texas winter storm, and provided 'your' sources - bbc and .gov - to support my claims (we all observed the same thing), the only problem is that it doesn't go along with your hypothesis. and if hypothesis can not be repeated in the real world, IT IS WRONG. NO EXCEPTIONS.
not a single person provided explanation for it, just a bunch of mindless drones downvoting, afraid to do any critical thinking. (you might have noticed i don't downvote, i try and debate points made)
also, i'm not in love with fossil fuels, they are simply the best (cheap, efficient, safe and clean) source of energy we have at our disposal. if you can do the same with renewable energy sources, for less money, i'm all for it. but the problem is that you can't - the only way you can push renewable energy is through govt mandates and taxation. and that's NOT free market, we as consumers don't get to decide.
as for cult behavior:
you're willing to tax yourself to the point of starvation
inject yourself with experimental medicine over a cold
mandate medical procedures and deny livelihood to those who just want to be left alone
push for endless wars
deny humanity to the unborn
deny any biological difference between sexes and insist on equal outcomes in everything
- when i say you, i mean vast majority of co2 tax proponents
when trump advocates people get the vaccine (suggests, not mandate), he gets booed every time - not very cultish behavior.
if trump pushed the green bus agenda, same thing would happen. normal people just want to be left alone, and you guys are really pushing it
when i told people over two years ago i'd rather have an actual pandemic than hidden agendas working against humanity, everybody thought i was crazy. virus problem we can solve, mindless drones pushing for self harm - not so easily.
back then i had no idea what was going on, we still don't really know, but that story was always so fishy from the start and just by using your brain you could tell that someone lying to you about the virus is going to lie about the illness and the vaccine. not to mention number fudging, misleading reporting, fear mongering, etc
within the first few days everybody was told that we knew exactly which bowl of bat soup the virus came from, but now origins are mysterious all of a sudden. just tells you how everybody just ignores and forgets
So honestly, it works very differently to what you suggest -- governments fund a shitload of research ripping themselves to shreds for their behaviour
Corporations, however, seek out researchers that they know will 'find' what those corporations want them to, or researchers that have no integrity so will just say whatever they are expected to in exchange for generous consultancy fee
Uber recently did exactly this, paying some french economist academic over $100,000 to write a report saying exactly what they wanted him to
www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/12/uber-paid-academics-six-figure-sums-for-research-to-feed-to-the-media
the only ones financing this bs:
govt wasting tax payers money
organizations expecting certain results
or are you saying only 'climate change deniers', and no one else, would expect favorable results from studies they finance?
so what are things you're proposing that govt is hesitant to do? i'm really interested
TRILLION dollars - no, it was 426 BILLION dollars in investment, or 0.426 trillion if you really want to use that number
program operated at net GAIN of about 15 billion dollars (www.investopedia.com/terms/t/troubled-asset-relief-program-tarp.asp)
banks didn't get in trouble in a vacuum, they did so by providing bad loans - meaning consumers got goods and services in return for those funds
compare that to CARES act's 2.2 TRILLION (www.investopedia.com/coronavirus-aid-relief-and-economic-security-cares-act-4800707), and all the bs that's included in there and you'll see why we're cautious when new taxes are proposed and when spending has to be somehow justified
not to mentions all the TRILLIONS that are being tossed around in green new deal and similar proposals under the guise of 'environmental and racial justice'
beginning to realize how wrong you are on everything?
@WildboiBen: you've missed the part where under the guise of helping people billions of dollars are being funneled to places it would never go under normal circumstances, or if that funding was transparent. but when you call it CARES act, bury in tens of thousands of pages of a law, and say it helps people, it saves lives, and dumbasses all of a sudden are fine with wasting trillions if they get a few $1000 checks.
funny you say that i'm incapable of separating facts from opinion when i've used sources from your side to support my claims - none of which you were able to prove wrong
Let this be a lesson to you.
“Never play chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over.
Then sh1ts all over the board.
Then struts around like it won.”
You definitely got me wrong this time: honestly, I never feel good after these kind of debates and I genuinely just wanted to finish by agreeing on something -- I didn't take you as a flat earther
I also looked through your PB pics to see if we could agree on bikes: that single speed Salsa EM you had was sweet btw :-)
OK, I really am gone for good now!
It never fails that people give government a pass. Somehow, it's always "they're too incompetent," or something of the like. Few people seem willing to sit down and list aaalll the missing money and cases of corruption that have magically disappeared into bureaucratic loops and complicit ignorance from the media. But this would distract from the crisis of the day, and rob us of time spent in fear.
I swear to god, the same people who have bought into all the other bullshit are going to buy into this.
Here's a link: magspress.com/un-declares-war-on-dangerous-conspiracy-theories-the-world-is-not-secretly-manipulated-by-global-elite
You mentioned that ""the same thing that causes the earth to warm can not cause it to cool down,"
I'd like to peel that apart if I may.
You are right, if we limit our talk to "the earth" as a whole, I agree. To a point. There are some heating mechanisms that could cause feedback loops that end up cooling the earth in the long run, but let's not get into that here because I am getting old and can't remember the details!!
However, "weather" (eg: a winter storm in Texas) and "climate" (the overall patterns of weather over the entire planet on long time scales and over different areas) are not the same thing, and should not be compared as such. It is bad science to hold up one winter storm as evidence that the earth as a whole is cooling. And any links that suggest one should, should be seen as suspect and having an axe to grind.
And actually yes, it is highly possible for heating in one area to be accompanied by cooling in another area even if average temperatures are rising. Let me explain.
One of the first things that became apparent in the late 70s and early 1980s when climate modelling took a foothold in mainstream academia is this:
An rise in average temperature over the Earth when taken as a whole does not equate to each and every climactic zone experiencing the same. It is perfectly possible for an average rise in temperature across the entire planet would see some areas experience an large RISES in temperature whilst others would see smaller ones, and even others a potential average FALL in temperature.
This is due to many factors, including in large part how different air masses react to the surfaces beneath them. Even 40 years ago climate scientists were predicting how air masses mechanisms would lead to greater temperature gradients (the difference in temperature between the coolest and warmest places) between air masses, leading to increases in extreme weather events through the physics of weather systems.. Strange I know, but the physics they pumped into the models came up with such predictions.
They also came up with others too... such as this.
It is these increases in temperature gradients between locations that lead to the intensification of individual weather events, such as the "texas winter storm", or the 30% increase in extreme rainfall events seen in my adopted home of Japan since 1975 (i0.wp.com/zenbird.media/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/weather_japan_sub2.png?resize=716%2C453&ssl=1) .
These extreme events will not be caused by any "average increases" or "decreases" in overall average temperatures. They are cause by the rapid transfer of energy between air masses whose characteristics tend to diverge from adjacent air masses due to how different surfaces react to increases in overall thermal radiation.
And these expanding gradients will be a feature of overall global warming. In other words, you can expect more intense periods of heat, and equally, more intense periods of cold, more intense periods of rainfall, of storms, of pretty much everything. More intense everything weatherwise. You CAN expect to see things like the Texas Winter Storm; storms such as it were predicted to result from overall global warming.
It, the storm and others like it, sit perfectly well with predictions about rises in global temperatures made nearly half a century ago that were part of my undergraduate studies in the mid 80s.
Anyways, it's just a thought, you take care out there internet people.
But… models are based on a series of best guesses and inherent errors compound over time. They can’t even accurately predict the weather a day in advance. If they’re always telling me it’s going to be sunny tomorrow and then it rains, or they tell me it’s going to be 34 degrees and it only gets to 26, how am I going to believe them that the earth is going to be uninhabitable in 78 years? Heck, even different weather apps can’t agree on the same phone.
I’m not poo pooing anything you said by the way. It could all very well be true. My issue is that there has been so much bollocks in the news since I was born, so called irrefutable facts that later turned out to be opinions. How are we to believe anything in the media? Even the stuff that is basically true turns out to be vastly exaggerated a lot of the time. I just don’t trust anything I see in the media, especially when it’s in the Guardian (which could literally be used as a doomsayer’s, negative, poor little me, poor little them handbook).
Take sea level rise as an example. Let’s say it does rise by a metre in the next 78 years. 90% of the people who are alive today will be dead by then anyway. The people who are still alive aren’t going to be killed by a metre of sea level rise, even if it comes in a tsunami on 1st Jan 2100. And it’s not going to, it’s going to be a constant slow rise between now and then. People populated the pacific islands in canoes from Asia, and now we’re supposed to believe they will all perish because the sea level rises by 1m in 78 years and they will presumably all just sit there waiting to die. It’s just ridiculous.
If every fad in the media was to be believed, we would be in the middle of another ice age, trapped by ice, communism and nuclear radiation, whilst being killed by terrorists with links to Al-Qaeda, whose babies would all have died from the MMR vaccine if Covid didn’t get them first.
I guess it should be seen as a great triumph of our species that we are in a position where the worst thing anyone has to worry about are offensive words spoken by others and a tiny sea level rise or temperature increase that may or may not happen in our children’s lifetimes.
In some places they worry about having enough food, clothes or a roof over their heads. Whether or not they can pay for their kids’ school fees this semester. That kind of real world shit.
Over here in the developed world we worry about if someone used the wrong pronoun or if we should go on holiday on a plane or a train.
You have to laugh.
This is really in large part the attitude has gotten us to where we are now. An attitude like yours comes from having the privilege to be relatively unaffected. Meanwhile, the effects are already happening, and getting worse. People are already losing their homes and their lives. It's only going to get worse, but we have the ability at any time to reduce the total severity - particularly that felt by people who will be alive in the future. It could very well be the difference between survival and extinction of the human race.
If you ask me life is not about having fun necessarily. I find that to be a pretty selfish, and greedy outlook - but common among people who can afford $5,000 bicycles to go play outside on. No, IMO, life should be about casting aside the ego and learning to love yourself and others, so that you can make the world a better place for others, which in turn will make it a better place for you.
so f*cking tell me - how many people have died from rising sea levels? huh? how many? tell me the exact f*cking number for an exact time period. you must have that data since you're pushing for everybody to change their lives, so let's do the cost-benefit analysis
Who cares if the human race is extinct anyway? Literally every other organism will rejoice when that happens. Don’t you care about the other organisms? Is it only humans you care about?
Here's an article about what's happening in Kiribati. Not lost lives, but lost homes. People have lost both though as disasters like wildfires and storms worsen under duress of climate change. Notice the line "Kiribatians have already begun to emigrate in response to what they believe to be an unavoidable situation."
Any social scientist will tell you that communities don't act this way if they don't percieve the threat. The Kiribatians are tragically already seeing these effects.
www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/kiribati-climate-change
The Kiribatians at least won’t have to leave in canoes made from hollowed out trees, using the stars to navigate. They’ll get planes to other rich countries, where they will buy iPhones to play on. Food will be bought not caught. They’re going to have a whale of a time in Australia and NZ!
doctors aren't going to be very good at predicting what your mood will be next wednesday
but they can do a pretty good job at estimating your life expectancy
Climate "researchers" are not medical doctors. There is zero need to obfuscate the discussion.
Climate change alarmists often complain that people don't think like they do and somehow come to the conclusion this is the reason why weather is what it is. If those a*sholes really believe that the individual could do something about the global temperature they should be seriously altering their lifestyles. But most don't, because subconciously they know that we, the commoners don't run the factories, we don't run the mines, we don't decide what can and will be built. The elites make those decisions, and the elites (Obama anyone?) buy ocean-front property, and avoid taxation.
I’m not a climate denier. I cannot confirm or deny anything about the climate. I cannot confirm or deny whether covid was as bad as they claimed, whether it came from the lab or whether or not the vaccine works. Pretty sure it came from the lab though.
There are 8 billion people. 150 years ago there were only one billion! And yet, some people apparently think there is some kind of imminent catastrophe that’s going to end the most adaptable species ever. The same species that invented the iPhone.
Im also not trying to burn fossil fuel for the funnies. I’m doing it to go about my daily business in my car with a 1.4l engine, or my scooter with a 300cc engine, or burning it in my boiler to keep warm and like, take showers so I don’t stink in the presence of others.
I went on holiday on a plane and I eat meat every day. Bite me. I’m just living the way o want to.
If shit gets real I’ll turn vegan and drink water out of the river. If I don’t have to I won’t.
All you moaning c*nts UK-side, I bet you all read the Guardian. I read it too when I want a good laugh at people who are living at literally the best time in human history and yet have convinced themselves it’s a world of shit.
Ha ha ha! Get real!
I personally try to avoid long and drawn out discussions on the net these days, so should just stop here, however when I turned on the news here in Japan about 20 minutes ago, I decided I should share something with you... it made me think of your comment below.
"The people who are still alive aren’t going to be killed by a metre of sea level rise, even if it comes in a tsunami on 1st Jan 2100. And it’s not going to, it’s going to be a constant slow rise between now and then."
Yes, average sea level rise is slow. However, it is not slow sea level rises over centuries that kills people, it is the extreme weather events whose intensity has been accurately predicted to increase associated with slow changes in average temperatures...
So, anyway, this morning I turned on the TV to see yet another extreme weather event in Japan. As the graph I added to my previous post shows, there has been a 30% increase since 1975 of days with dangerous short term levels of rainfall. Last night it was the turn of Yamagata in northern Japan.
There has been 589 mm of rain overnight. I choked on my porridge.
London's average rainfall is 690mm (en.climate-data.org/europe/united-kingdom/england/london-1)).
Last night it was Yamagata, this Sping was Oita and Fukuoka, the year before, Oita again, the years before that it was Hiroshima, Wakayama, Tochigi.
And hundreds of people died. Their houses washed away, their lives destroyed, their farms decimated, their families torn apart.
This was seven years ago in Tochigi www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpD2mmuyQ2Q
This was in Kyushu two years ago: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvf4QrPBY4
There is a connection between increases in extreme weather events and increased humidity in the atmosphere (measurable and measured www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2020/scientists-investigate-humidity---the-second-pillar-of-climate-change) and I see the effects of it far more often now than I did 30 years ago.
And I sit here in my house in Japan wondering... where will the next report be from? We don't know where or when, but we for sure know it will come.
I am not saying your opinions are wrong Jaame; they are completely understandable given the over dramatisation and clickbait nature of modern "news" that is struggling to keep people away from the remote or mouse click...
Take this piece of journalistic shit from this morning on YouTube:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=00SU5Ae9f1Q
Or this BS: www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67syv4EAC8
They are about 'the floods in Japan'. Bullshit clickbait. The vast majority of that footage is not even in Japan. It's irresponsible BS. And the world is full of it, so of course, how the hell are we to know what to believe and what not? I am totally with you on that one!!
Maybe I am lucky... I am interested in this stuff. I have an education and career based on this stuff, I am one of the lucky c*nts who can at least attempt to filter out the wheat from the chaff. But even someone over educated like me still has no idea on who is a client journalist or academic unless we go digging to find out oursleves.. and who has got time for that? Not many for sure.
So, I really appreciate your comment Jaame; and I fully understand why so many people agree with you; it is far too difficult to overcome the disconnect between our daily lives and the predictions made by doomsdayers about how your grandchild's social media SnapChat mate in Vanuatu is getting wet feet.
I hope you have a good day Sir, thanks again for the comment and thoughts and I leave you hoping that, even if you cannot trust any of the news you see, you maybe trust some old aging biker in Japan. It is pretty bad here recently in terms of extreme weather events, and getting measurably worse. The overall change in averages may be slow, but the intensity of the short term weather here is, not to put too fine a point on it, f*cking scary.
Indeed it was BP, I think, that popularised the notion of carbon footprints precisely to get people off their back
Climate researchers are disproportionately vegan, car free, etc. but they know that's not going to solve the problem. Don't take Obama or Al Gore as your model of an environmentalist or you're bound to get angry and see only hypocrisy
Besides the fact that the co2 is the devil argument doesn't even add up, one of the core reasons some of us remain skeptical is, ultimately, the people in charge are the people with the most money and control. They are NEVER going to enact anything that will see their stakes go down relative to yours and mine. Our ability to absorb what they propose is far less than those with the most.
While I do NOT believe atmospheric co2 is the culprit for why our climate is changing, I also detest wastefulness and pollution. Our culture is a problem in terms of our penchant for wastefulness and novelty, but what do we do to fix that? Put the government in control of who's allowed to buy this or that? That's ultimately where those traitors are trying to take us.
I also dislike waste and pollution. I would never drop garbage anywhere other than a bin. We should totally repurpose stuff before recycling, too. We should use stuff until it dies rather than replacing it because we no longer like the colour or the shape (or the suspension kinematic that we can’t even feel - only read about).
How many people are reading this on an iPhone I wonder.
And you're right, scientists have to do their best to inform politicians and hope that they do the right thing. But as overconfident mentioned, they largely do not. We aren't even close to enacting the kind of policies that scientists really say we need. If scientists had their way, we'd be declaring a national emergency right now.
When you say "I do NOT believe atmospheric CO2 is the culprit for why our climate is changing" you're just wrong, and you don't have the requisite knowledge necessary to understand why you are wrong, so you overestimate your own expertise. It's called Dunning Kruger syndrome.
So what if an environmentalist has an iPhone? So much to unpick there
For one, only the most radical environmentalists are saying we can't have phones and no one in this comment thread is suggesting that
Then there's the question of whether they bought it new or refurbished and how long they've had and intend to keep it
And then there's the point WildboiBen made, that we live in a society in which they've become pretty necessary for many things, and that's no individuals' fault
The sun, our main source of heat and warmth was precluded from being considered as a source of our current climate change. That's like caloric intake being precluded from consideration on why someone is putting on weight.
We probably lead similar lifestyles in terms of not being wasteful, and wanting intelligent solutions to how we people pollute the planet (I'm talking plastics and hazerdous materials) so, neither of us can be all bad.
What does my iPhone do that is actually a need rather than a nice to have?
Banking apps to authorise transactions. Helping me buy stuff I don’t really need. Strava, helping me to look at stats that I don’t really need. Social media is about as far from a need that it’s possible to get. It is the epitome of what’s wrong with the world.
Messages, photos, people got on fine without them for thousands of years. Google definitely helps me to resolve pointless arguments about such things as who Ben Affleck’s first wife was.
Most of them are concerned with getting my money. The only one that would cause headaches is google maps and navigation. I can read a map, my dad taught me that and I’m teaching my kids it. It’s a good skill to have, like swimming, but sadly one that a lot of people in the future won’t have.
I would say for sure, while I spend about two hours a day messing around doing stuff like this while I wait for my wife to put the dinner on the table, none of it is actually a must have for the functioning of my life or society in general. I doubt anyone over 40 would consider a phone to be an essential part of life.
Have you seen those holes in the ground where they dig all the materials for iPhones out? Gosh, they look awful. They can’t be good. Just imagine if there was a way that they could be prevented from getting bigger. We’d be all over it surely. And those tankers that sail all over the planet pumping out all that greenhouse gas - if only someone thought of a way we could maybe stop them from doing that, or like, find a clean way of propulsion so they could get from China to everywhere else without hurting the planet.
Trees is what we need. More trees. Not too many though because the greedy buggers will eat up all the carbon dioxide, and then everyone else would have to think of something else to worry about. Gosh I’m getting a sweat on. Where will it all end?
"The science" says that CO2 is the main driver of climate change, but this period we're living in isn't very hot or cold when you look at the last 11000-12000 years. That's not a conservative or democrate issue.
If you discount the ice ages (calculated as having occurred) we're slightly more cool than warm.
Rising temperatures have been shown to precede a rise in CO2.
The earth has been steadily warming (on average) since the Younger-Dryas min-ice age.
Greater glaciation is calculated to have occured in the past when CO2 levels were much much higher than nowadays...etc, etc, ad naseum.
New magical properties are endlessly attributed to CO2, giving it the power to do everything all at once. The second you get offered a stable position to "research" the opposite as being true, you'll take it.
Every 10 years, we're told we only have 20 years left until it's too late and there will be no more snow in the Arctic and the Himalyan glaciers will vanish, and it hasn't happened DESPITE massive increases in CO2 pumped into the atmposphere out of India and China. Based on the proportional increases of CO2 combined with the dire predictions of 2008, we the world ought to be a total wasteland. Yet here we are, now undergoing "change," and not "warming."
But, waste is still waste and to that extent we can hopefully agree that too much useles and/or disposable crap is produced. And our methods of dealing with garbage (especially polymers and polystyrenes) are shameful.
i get that science can be complicated - very well may be a chance that the same thing (co2 level) that causes temp to go up, also makes it to go down. or cause floods, droughts, etc. that chance is VERY SLIM though and the only way to explain that is, and i'm quoting BBC's article from one of my previous posts, very complex models... that's a HUGE problem. first, if a hypothesis needs a lot of updates, exceptions and special conditions to work, it's probably shit and wrong. it's like patching up a roof of a house with duct tape - might work for a while but will inevitably fall apart. and when someone is skeptical about it, and you just appeal to authority rather than try to explain it, you've just pushed sceptics even further away.
science that is based on predictions, that never come true, and not on observations is NOT science. if something can't be repeated in real world, it's NOT real science. i've said that before and i'm saying it again, i think it's very important to clarify that. without real world experiment, there is only a hypothesis, and based on hypothesis we should never propose laws and make fundamental changes to the way we live. when you add computer models into equation, and underlying software and hardware must work perfectly in order to be certain results are not caused by some bug.
some people here shared their background, and here are some pieces of mine - i'm an analyst/software engineer working for a financial technology company. i've also grown up in post communist country, was somewhat of a leftie in my youth, lived in EU, still have family there that i visit as often as i can and i see the difference between europe and USA, so i believe i can see things from more angles than most people can.
@WildboiBen mentioned kiribati and how people are forced to move but... no deaths? i thought we're talking about saving lives? well that changed quickly from saving lives to harboring economic migrants. of course they'll claim existential crisis to get an asylum somewhere nicer, like the USA. another sob story, no data, no numbers, just counting on making decisions based on feelings that can be manipulated vs data and reason.
and you don't have to tell me anything about refugees - my wife was a refugee. my parents literally housed refugees in our home back in the day when i was a kid - i remember sharing our home with strangers. wtf have YOU ever done for any refugee?
climate scientists can provide some insight into certain things, but given their very narrow field of expertise, they should not be allowed to make decisions that affect entire countries, regions, economies, communities - that is definitely NOT their field.
and just to add this, something very recent, actually from today - www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-leader-schumer-says-excise-tax-stock-buybacks-included-climate-tax-2022-08-05
so, to clarify: there is a provision in the bill that has NOTHING to do with the bill - or what it should be given the name, but if you name something climate change bill, any opponent will just be labeled as climate change denier, or science denier, or racist, and it's much easier why it's so important for them to create hysteria about things like this - it makes it much easier to pass unpopular decisions unopposed - but that's just one of many examples, unfortunately
"science that is based on predictions, that never come true, and not on observations is NOT science".
and
"i think it's very important to clarify that. without real world experiment (I'd rather that be "observation"), there is only a hypothesis, and based on hypothesis we should never propose laws and make fundamental changes to the way we live"
Oh I agree.
However, what I wholeheartedly suggest you accept is that creating policy based on observation. And I believe there is enough observable data to allow us to create policy. I suspect you disagree.
So, is this science?
www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/13/2/361/pdf#:~:text=The%20rate%20of%20increase%20in,follows%20a%20similar%20RH%20pattern.
It looks like it by your standards. Looks like an open and shut case that there have been increases in Relative humidity in India over the past decades. Blah blah blah blah....
That will likely have led to increases in extreme rainfall events and the intensity of typhoons; of which there is observable data that shows blah, blah blah blah blah. (this observed data into the frequency of intense rainfall events.: i0.wp.com/zenbird.media/wp (from my above post))
As I said previously, I sit and watch the effects of this on my TV in Japan and outside the window / on the Japan Meteorogical Agency website every goddam day. I see people displaced; by weather events. Blah blah blah.
So, forgive me when I find it difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to lobbyists / politicians / client journalists and or client academics. I will err on the side of the observable data that I have read up on and take an interest in.....increases in SST (sea surface temperatures), increases in RH in the tropics (no, not in the temperate zones as different zones react differently to the multiple variables at work on) blah blah blah, increases in extreme weather events in Japan blah blah blah.
You are free to be a skeptic, so good on you. The world needs heretics and heterodoxy. We thank you for your service. I for my part will continue to believe that there is enough observable data to allow our politicians to make policy decisions.
They won't though, so it doesn't matter if you or I am right. We are both well and truly buggered in the long run mate; as are our kids. Money and power will win the day, whichever way the cookie crumbles...let's just agree on that?
Anyways, have a good day; I am out of this conversation. Thanks again for the thoughts.
Big compliments to Starling to push this. Would not have expected this from a small brand!
Offloading taxes onto the consumer nearly always, without fail, has the effect of making the consumer poorer rather than affecting purchasing habits. So what if you've taxed a CO2 unfriendly but affordable bike to the level of the (insert low-CO2 boutique brand here)? The whole bike market will now be at an unaffordable level for many individuals.
The widespread environmentally friendly lifestyle changes we need to make are supported by people who recognize and cherish the outdoors, like mountain bikers. This is the kind of stuff that truly makes the difference when it comes to the environmental action we need to protect the planet - not empty tax policies funneled to showboating climate initiates to look good come election time, which do very little to actually change behaviors and attitudes. You have to make people care deeply about what they're sacrificing parts of their life for. Mountain biking and outdoor activities are an excellent gateway to fostering this commitment to environmentally friendly lifestyles.
@jaame: Should have started that back in the 80's or whenever it was that we knew CO2 was problematic. Waaaaay too late for that approach now.
Obviously we need money to solve these problems but the place to get said money is by making sure corporations actually pay their taxes where they should and tax things like capitol gains and options trading.
Fine companies for polluting anywhere in the world, taxing emissions seems like it’s more for optics
This is so true, and it is the reason all these endless discussions keep raging on. I would add that the same pitfall happens to those who have the facts on their side. They often do not try even to understand why their discussion partners refuse to give up their opinions.
Let's take it to the logical conclusion. We ban all CO2 emissions unless super wealthy. You would have to prevent poor people from breathing, eating, etc. Only the rich would function normally and the poor would forever be indebted to them.
Also, what's so bad about burning fossil fuels. Have you ever thought of what happens if you dont burn them. If they just evaporate into the air they are way more harmful. So then keep them in the ground? What happens when the continuous supply of fossils makes too much fossil fuel to be contained in the ground? Just let it spill into every area of the earth? Do you know of a biological process that keeps fossil fuels in check other than burning them?
If you fix all carbon and dont return it to the atmosphere, plants will have no food. Then we will have no food and life on earth will end. Is this what you are going for?
The fossil fuels we've been burning for the past few centuries, plus what remains in the ground, is what has been built up in the past 400 million years or so. It took that long and still overflow wasn't a problem. If the planet is still around and so is mankind, in (literally literally) a billion years, surely we will have found a technological fix for it by then.
WAO’s local part sourcing is looking even better now.
What are you guys doing to destroy wheels so much? Proper tire pressure does wonders.
Now this would mean that you’d have to ride your WAOs three times as long as DT alloy rims for them to have caused approximately the same amount of pollution over their lifetime.
And therein lies the problem. It’s probably pretty reasonable to assume that someone would ride their DT Swiss EX511 alloys for, let’s say, 3 years, whereas comparably it’s very unreasonable to assume that anyone would ride any carbon rim from any manufacturer for 9 years.
And for exactly this reason I now have we are ones, 18 months of abuse and not even a flat!
WAO offers frame repairs, but that requires taking shit apart, shipping it to Canada, being bikeless for longer. I'm all about it and would personally not want a carbon frame replaced - repairability is why I liked carbon.
In the end WAO kind of did this to themselves making a bike that sexy. They're going to get a different clientele than eg Reeb. That clientele cross shopped AXS equipped SC and Pivot, and they expect the SC experience.
"The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day. (The exact quantity depends on your activity level—a person engaged in vigorous exercise produces up to eight times as much CO2 as his sedentary brethren."
It seems like owners of carbon bikes can virtue signal too, as long as they hardly ever ride it.
It will be more important to live a billion yrs, than have a life.
And as it is clearly stated, this report is just the first steps. If we hadn't done the report, we wouldn't know this. At least we now know and can work to improve.
We supply Ohlins who do a good job. We use Hope and Middleburn, local manufacturers for much of our kit, but they do need to assess what they do better. We have outed the companies who don't take this seriously, and this is a way to help things improve.
Yes, we haven't solved the world, but we do know what we need to do to improve and we are trying our best. The other option is to do nothing!
Unfortunately, by throwing negative comments onto what is a genuine transparent effort to try and improve, you're just making it less likely for others to follow suit.
Minimising this fact by covering it in some eco friendly hogwash is just as unacceptable as continuing to buy Fox Shimano and Sram stuff and slapping it on your bike, have you told them you object? NO because they will give zero f*cks, but hoping they somehow get green???. Using three examples of local companies and avoiding the amount of other shit that goes into making a bicycle makes me wonder how much stuff you are prepared to ommit to sound on point.
I, who writes energy code for the state of California am not convinced this does any measurable good, for much of anyone besides your bottom dollar.
You do you, being a "green" company is profitably a good look. Or at least repenting for your environmental sins.
I live by a small airport. There's a constant stream of Cessnas and Learjets doing laps all day overhead. They burn more gas in an hour than I will in a lifetime. I don't care about feeling guilted because my Shimano brakes came from Taiwan.
www.hopetech.com/sustainability
Otherwise, everyone adopts the ‘I’m not doing anything until he does something’ and nothing happens.
Few people identify societal issues as their own. It’s always someone else’s job to deal with.
I accept that making wholesale changes to your lifestyle may not be appropriate, but we should still try and do our bit here and there...
Those short flights are inexcusable, but in the grand scheme of things, it's the individual purchases of the many which are causing our global issues.
Also, weird to call the British out for being racist, that was a big part of our thing when we were "great".
A quick Google search of "globally who emits the most carbon from industry" shows the following - (1) USA (2) China (3) Russia (4) Germany (5) Uk.
I'll stand by my fact that China produces a lot of carbon dioxide, but it's not the biggest. The US seems to create double what they do... Please read my initial comment as US and Chinese industry. There was never any suggestion that other places do not produce CO2 - I just wrongly believed that China was the biggest producer rather than the second biggest...
I'll put it this way, you and all your family and friends spend a whole year reducing your co2 emissions, buying the right products taking public transport, only to have all your years worth of work undone by Drake flying from Barcelona - Ibiza - Nice - Barcelona (49 tons of co2 emissions) by a single person in a single week because he felt like he needed a holiday.
I'm not here to offset celebrities co2 emissions for them I'll keep living my life (my co2 emissions aren't super high anyway) and not feel guilty about a maybe once every 5 year purchase.
That was kind of my original point though - every little effort adds up and it all counts, even if it's not a significant impact on the grand scheme of things.
"Taylor Swift’s plane was identified by the report as the “biggest celebrity CO2e polluter this year so far,” racking up 170 flights since January with emissions totaling more than 8,293 metric tons."
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/08/02/taylor-swift-kylie-jenner-private-jet-emissions
Maybe I should ride my steel-framed gravel bike, I'm sure my girlfriend would love that trip together!
Yes .... This is the way forward. Don't bike. Don't walk either. Both could cause you to fart, which is not good for the planet since farting is a new thing that didn't happen with historic humans. /s
I like how all the people who are telling us to think a certain way, benefit monetarily from us believing them.
Anybody ever heard of marketing?
Anybody ever took history classes?
LOL @ society !
Your comparison is spot on though and an uncomfortable truth for us bikers. If we really want to make the biggest difference, we should bike local *and* buy secondhand
About driving to work: demand meaningful change from your local government. Ask them to allow mixed use development, because that is the easiest, fastest, most convenient way to reduce car driving. If what you meed is in walking/cycling distance, there is no reason to drive.
"Starling's report states that air freight produces 500g CO2e per km per kg, road transport at 60-150g per km per kg, and sea freight only 10-40g per km per kg".
Surely there's a mistake here with the units? For example road transport, let's say, 100g/km for 1kg. A typical car emits 150g/km per 1500kg... so using trucks is 1000x worse than cars?
This frame material debate is pointless if we don't take the whole picture into account, as mentioned by @stainerdome @Rhymer @plyawn. Is the ebike replacing a car, or helping people ride without lifts/shuttles? And about producing/ditching the batteries, surely there is not only CO2 impact that matters?
Oh and what about carbon recycling, and what producing aluminium from bauxite?
Let's take the biggest possible difference here : 68-4=64kg CO2 that can be saved by choosing steel. Assuming the bikes last 4 years, that's 16kg/year saved. That's as much as leaving that car in the garage for... 100km/year.
Please don't mistake this comparison with whataboutism, it is not to say that "there are worse things, so this effort is useless", but rather "let's prioritize where to put our efforts in our 10 000kg CO2 annual emissions" (maybe a low estimate for the average pinkbike crowd...).
@sirbikealot your idea can be good enough to give it a try, but it is difficult to quantify blame and equivalence of CO2 with other gaz.
Especially when compared to bigger players who don't bother...
"Of the 14 main suppliers to Starling Cycles, only 2 have environmental policies in place : Öhlins and Reynolds. Michelin, SRAM and Shimano have top level statements, but their impact on behaviour is unclear."
It seems @Starling is aware that shipping (especially air) is the weak link in the life cycle taken into account. Even though results would not be flattering, it would be interesting to see an estimate per bike.
For example the average frame is shipped 1000km by air, resulting in ... kg CO2.
It would probably drown the 64kg benefit, but it would help consumers to make more informed decisions, for example on trying to buy local rather than try to buy steel frames above all.
Sorry, there is a typo in the units for freight carbon costs. It should be g per km pre ton, not kg.
We're updating now...
Good thing you saw this here, I was going to send a message through your website to verify this asap haha
www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/population-games/tomorrow-population
Also, cutting the world popualtion to 4 billion wouldn't anywhere near half global emissions if all the people that died were, say, African's and low-income South East Asians, as their carbon emissions are an order of magnitude less than ours
wid.world/document/global-carbon-inequality-1990-2019-wid-world-working-paper-2021-22
Maybe the natzis did the greenies a favor.
@tacklingdummy: open water skinny-dipping
The battery was 15% of that (34.35 kg CO2e), the charger 4%, and the motor 8%. Surprisingly, the fork is the biggest impact at 16% (RS Yari), with the frame being 11%.
On the Madone, the carbon really is a big deal. Of the 197 kg CO2e, the carbon aero frame is 29%, carbon aero *rear* wheels 21% (41.37 kg CO2e), carbon aero *front* wheel 15%, fork 7%, handlebar 6%, crank assembly 5%, and other parts 1-3% each.
So it seems that it's more eco-friendly to go faster by adding an electric motor and battery than to upgrade to carbon. That rear carbon aero wheel by itself is more than the battery. This is kind of a silly argument though, like applauding people going from an ICE car to an electric car, rather than applauding those who replace car trips with bicycle trips. People who are content riding steel bikes are the real eco champs seemingly.
Now I feel better.
I feel better too
It's all very well talking about some sort of environmental utopia, but plans for reaching it need to be sensible, not ones that will send us back to the dark ages.
JP
When you look at curves (growth, oil consumption, world population, pollution, etc) we've collectively been living over our means since at least WWII, maybe even earlier.
Seems to me we'd need to go back to around the 30's way of life (with the progress we've made since then) to be sustainable (we'd produce less, repair more, have much more people working in fields than in open spaces, etc).
Cuz' otherwise the environmental armageddon will be even darker than the financial one.
So, we need to go back to the 1930s when there was virtually no welfare state even in developed countries? Where do you think countries generate the funds to pay for things like a health service/infrastructure/etc? Taxes, yeah? And how do we generate taxes without producing and selling goods and services?
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to solve this problem, but I do get annoyed with eco types who live in cloud cuckoo land.
JP
The whole system is based on credit, it's a world wide ponzi scheme that consists of burning more resources and creating more humans, the system is based on infinite growth and it just can last forever.
Again, it's not eco people who live in cloud cuckoo land, it's the whole world that's been living in cloud cuckoo land for a few decades now (and I can assure you it's not fun saying this).
Look at cities, we removed tramways and made it all for cars, but now we're building tramways again, and bike lanes, and trying to get rid of cars, like in the 30's.
It's hard to say "how it should have been", I don't know how it should have been.
But take property for example, real estate. Why could someone, just because he has a lot of money (quite often earned not so nicely or simply inherited) be able to buy more and more property ? This is the earth, this is living space, it's been there for 5 billion years, why would that person be allowed to consider its his ? Maybe there should be a limit, you could by your own property and that's it.
Because this owner is now gonna make a lot of money by renting these properties, but the people renting it could have bought it instead.
It just doesn't make sense. The population has probably tripled in half a century in most places, so of course buying a home is gonna be more and more expensive, there's much less space available. The system will simply crash under its own weight at some point.
In some countries if you want to buy a house you know that your children are gonna have to pay for it as well after you die, that's insane.
Maybe other limits as well : A car for instance would not have more than say 120hp.
So maybe if we'd get rid of everything that is "too much", if we'd re-think our world "from the ground up" to see what is "normal" and what is "f*cked up", maybe then we would already have a much clearer picture, another narrative.
The truth is even scarier when you think about climate change, and that in 150 years of burning coal and oil, we may have permanently messed up a climate that had been stable for about 10000 years I think, a stability that is the very reason humans could settle and strive through agriculture and evolve into societies.
It's ironic in a way, in the grand scheme of things : Our "success" is turning into our doom.
Again, it's not fun saying this, but I really think our current world in a temporary illusion that will disappear at the pace of energy becoming more and more expensive.
ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020
of the companies die. they die.
China -> US is about 10k km. So even if 100% of that is on the most efficient boat, we are at
10g / (kg km) * 13kg * 10k km = 1,300 kg of CO2, which dwarfs the difference between carbon and alloy. In fact, the difference in frame weight should make the carbon frame have less impact if shipped from China.
Cycling. It's such a healthy outdoor pastime for people who care about the planet. Ebikes. Buy an ebike. They're better than normal bikes. Buy one please. Save the planet.
Also it's fact that particulates from burning fossil fuels actually help reflect the suns heat and slow global warming (or coming out of a period of glaciation as it should be more truthfully described)
people who live in glass houses
It’s a bit like a friend I have who is a Green Party activist yet works as a sales rep driving his diesel car 25k per year selling stuff,
So, all the eco types on here, I assume you don’t own a car, or fly or buy stuff you don’t really need? Thought so...
JP
I would love to! But the bike needs to stay in one piece in order for me to do so. Maybe my Ibis is op to the job...
Do I read the report correctly that only the cost of the frame manufacturing is taken into account? So not the cost of mining the ore and making that into steel tubes, vs whatever they do to create prepreg sheets?
Sounds good, but who gets to decide what that means. Is it a 1 year old bike, 2 years , 5 years, 10 years?
timeforchange.org/co2-emissions-for-shipping-of-goods
This coming from me counting the pixels for each red/burgundy colored bar representing the frame assembly. I see that link, chainstay, seatstay, rear shock, and even decals & headbadge were counted separately...
Edit: another page of that report says that a complete Marlin is 116 kg CO2e, and the frameset is 17% of that, so 19.72 CO2e. Round that up, since utilities is separate at 6%.
left wing source for ya:
www.treehugger.com/more-trees-than-there-were-years-ago-its-true-4864115
From a materials science point of view, your statement is nonsense:
- in terms of stiffness, carbon fibers can be stronger than steel ;
- in terms of specific properties (properties divided by the density), carbon fibers is also way ahead of steel.
Also, I'm involved in another sport where we replace standard carbon parts with metal ones as carbon parts keeps snapping.
Don't get me started on how much they charge for a meterial that is well over 50 years old now its a joke!
Steel is great stuff-few metals are as hard as tool steel.
But-light, high end steel frames also crack/break/fail. Those of us who rode, raced and wrenched back when steel was still commonplace on high-end bikes saw plenty of cracked, dented and snapped steel bikes.
No material is worth fetishizing-it's only with good engineering that any bicycle frame is developed to ride well and be durable/safe to ride.
So if cost is no object (and sometimes even if cost IS an object) vehicles from airplanes to racecars to bicycles are being built lighter out of carbon than they could be out of other materials.
Then again, weight isn't nearly as important to performance as other metrics, but that's another discussion.......
Guess I can't do it then.