UCI Releases Sustainabilitiy Guidelines as it Sets Goal to Become Carbon Neutral

 Should be top comment x1000

 I read that as "sucking". He's going to need protection. @mikelevy this is the news we need

 I seriously just realized that even his initials are pornographic!

 The people need to know!

 UCI is the new Nintendo

 “Indeed, on many occasions, Mr. Pound has publicly questioned the extent of the UCI’s efforts in the fight against doping,” the UCI said."
The UCI apparently doesn't like questions before Dick Pounding.

 @Vudu74: who knew the UCI would ever be associated with anything sex related (besides being good for stamina by being a major turn off)?

 Read the article title, thought it read as "UCI sucking Dick Pound".

 You got the carbon fiber chain yet?

 yes

 >make a shit ton of money

 @mackay66: some f*ckin geniuses at harvard or whatever figured out how to do it already.

 And when the carbon frame breaks throw it away in a dump somewhere since they can't be recycled.

 @Oxiros: crunch it into powder, add more resin, and make bricks

 @Oxiros: once the carbon is captured in the frame it is considered sequestered.

 @mior: plants have been capturing carbon for some time now.

 @Oxiros: Carbon can be recycled, it is the toxic epoxy resin used to bond together that is not?

 calm down i was trying to make a joke

 Going carbon neutral, but banning the super tuck? Fu(k the uci!!!

 @BEERandSPOKES: the other way would be worse. Banning going carbon neutral and forcing everyone to only ride in super tuck.

 @aljoburr: www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/photos-of-carbon-fibre-bike-dump-reveal-worrying-waste-levels

 ive always had a cool idea that big shots like bruni and gwin could sell their race winning tires for huge profits

 just re use the water bottles they weigh like 40 grams

 @mior: The new Maxxis NotPatch tyres?

 BUILD BACK BETTER!!

 ok boomer

 the anti e bike people will be pissed

 @mior: @doublecrownaddict will be celebrating

 Theoretically yes, but realistically the production of e-bikes is way worse for the environment so normal bikes are better.

 @imnotdanny: lol. True tho

 @imnotdanny: I thought that was the joke.

 @tremeer023: it was

 @tremeer023: whoosh

 Seriously this ^^^^^^^^^^. I cannot find a single good thing to say about UCI.

 Yeah, I'm sure nobody on Pinkbike would complain about the lack of World Cup DH races.

 @DoubleCrownAddict: Your right, I wouldn't. Then we just have normal DH races with the same competitors.

 There was a lot of hopeful speculation that one up side of the pandemic was that the lockdown of the developed world would greatly reduce carbon emissions. It turns out, there was no meaningful reduction. The lesson? The vast majority of these individual appeals for carbon neutrality are basically symbolic gestures. If you look hard at carbon emissions, you will find that they are highly concentrated in several big production areas such that individual sacrifices really have no impact - even though it does feel good to "do your part".

Global carbon emissions is such a macro problem that it literally dwarfs any individual effort(s) to do something about it - to the point where even a global lockdown hardly affected it. Companies and orgs would do better in focusing on lobbying for policy at the macro level. However, even that is difficult because at the heart of climate change really isn't the problem itself, but a philosophical loggerhead between competing camps over the fundamental role of humanity in nature. On one side, you have the Malthusian view, which sees humans themselves as the problem and that we are inherently "spoiling" an allegedly pure state of nature, e.g., the solution is less humans. On the other side, you have the techno-utopists, who see humans as supreme and capable of overcoming environmental problems with technical solutions/advancement and growth, e.g., the solution is through tech (notably, through nuclear). I'm on neither extreme, but lean more towards the latter. However, these views are at odds and until it resolves one way or another, most of this stuff is pointless.

 @burnermtb: it’s not as pointless as you suggest. Firstly everything needs to change, I get that the big stuff needs to change most, but we are in a race against the clock so we must do what we can. Futility is not an acceptable answer and I’d encourage you not to promote it.

The second point here is about leadership. Whilst everyone is polluting, it is easier for the big polluters to hide. The more they stand out, the easier it will be for politicians to take action and for stakeholders to drive change. We need to lead our way out of this problem, not do nothing and say it’s pointless. Thanks for caring!

 @twebeast: So, for example, I can "change" by buying an electric car, which is a "micro" approach. However, without the macro (i.e., de-carbonizing the grid), all I'm doing by buying electric is transferring my carbon emissions from my car exhaust to the electric grid. Indeed, one of the big problems with this specific "micro" approach is that we're creating an even bigger macro problem...i.e., dramatically increasing demands and dependency on the grid.

This, in turn, compounds the much bigger problem of the grid itself and arguably undermines the very "alternatives" many are seeking. So, for example, renewables are inherently energy diffuse, land use intensive, weather dependent, heavy metal/mining dependent, and, ironically, dependent on fossil fuel backups (due to their inherent unreliability). But if everyone is charging their massive batteries every night, this wildly INCREASES energy demands...the exact opposite of what you want if converting to renewables. Malthusians support renewables precisely because the only way renewables work is if you dramatically reduce the population and dismantle "modernity", and therefore the demands for energy.

So, the micro, without the macro, is often not only pointless, but actually counterproductive - perhaps doing more harm than good. Now, for me, the obvious solution is 4th gen nuclear, which is where I (and a lot of increasing consensus) invest my energies. Once you get the grid problem solved, then a lot more of these micro solutions start to make sense. But again, we're at a loggerheads b/c of philosophical differences.

 @burnermtb: On your point about transferring your carbon emissions from your car to the electric grid - this isn't exactly true. EVs are more efficient than comparable internal combustion engines (ICE) vehicles because they lose less energy to heat. An EV powered with a coal powered electric grid is often still 'greener' than a comparable ICE vehicle (but not by a huge amount). If you live somewhere like British Columbia, the story is very different, as about 90 percent of our electricity comes from renewables, making an EV significantly better emissions-wise.

I totally agree with your point about improving the grid--and the advantages of nuclear--but it is worth considering how the 'micro' changes, such as buying an EV will change the demand for electricity development when done on a population level. If a large chunk of the population starts buying EVs there will be a financial incentive for power companies to scale up their energy production. With the combination falling renewables costs and social pressure, a good deal of this energy production will be less emission intensive than fossil fuel burning plants. This is not to say that macro-level changes are not needed--they are needed very badly--but rather to suggest individual action isn't completely useless.

 @burnermtb: did you see the pollution maps last year during and after the shutdown in China? Lucky for you NASA has been tracking NO2 emissions for 15 years.

 @burnermtb: The "micro" changes not being able to fix global warming on their own (they can't) is no reason to not do them. If we ever do get 4th gen nuclear we will need everyone in electric cars to make the whole system work!

Please continue doing whatever it is youre doing to encourage nuclear development, be it lobbying your representatives, voting for a pro-nuke member of the board, or designing the freakin lasers. There is a lot of work to be done before a *concept* reactor can claim superiority over the 2nd-ish lowest cost power source in operation today. Posting "go nukes!" on the internet or arguing the marginal differences of approaches when all of them are necessary doesn't help.

 @eblackwell: Many grids around the world cannot handle the increased output. I live in California and there are rolling blackouts already when everyone is using their AC in the summer. The grids won't be able to handle when everyone has electric cars. On top of that, from a logistic point of view, how are people who live in dense metropolitan areas in housing apartment complexes, condominiums, or park on the street going to charge their cars? They are not going to be able to create charging stations for everyone. I worked in construction development for a while. Installing new electrical lines to homes is an extremely long and difficult process.

 @eblackwell: more dams, less fish?

 @burnermtb: You forgot about the delusional Trump supporting conspiracy theorist, who deny the problem and claim global warming is just a hoax made up by environmentalists or the government of China.

 I'm not against renewable energy. Nothing better than creating energy out of renewable sources with less or very little pollution, but the technology is just not even close to fuel the needs of the planet and replace fossil fuels. Still 80% of the world's energy is from oil. Also, nearly everything we buy and use is made from fossil fuels. So many companies say that they are renewable, sustainable, and eco-friendly, but are not. Just virtue signal marketing.

thefederalist.com/2021/06/04/oil-and-gas-company-slams-north-face-for-green-hypocrisy

 @DoubleCrownAddict: Ya global warming certainly isn't made up by China.....it's just mostly China's fault.

 @eblackwell:

It's difficult because we don't yet have our hands around what heavy reliance on mass production of mass batteries looks like not just from a carbon standpoint, but from an overall waste standpoint. These massive batteries are, in current form, full of some of the most toxic substances known and also rely on heavy/rare earth metal mining. There is no good recycling solution yet. Consider that even with far more recyclable materials, the developed world has yet to devise a good universal recycling program. Now, add massive batteries to the mix, the problem gets even worse. Also, the materials which go into these batteries are not easily available, which means that they are geographic specific, and therefore have long supply lines. Those supply lines are major carbon producers at both the mining and transport level. Not to mention that, as evidenced by Covid, it's very risky to be highly dependent on international supply lines for vital supplies. Not to mention also, the MASSIVE infrastructure necessary to create charging networks across vast expanses.

And, to a certain extent, the BC example tends to reinforce my broader point, which is that at the heart of this debate is really a fundamental disagreement about modernity and the role of humans in nature. BC really isn't very comparable to, say, the US - a country 350 million +- and with some of the most densely populated areas on earth, with massive power demands, and a global modern economic powerhouse. But, BC is an example where small scales (as well as favorable geography for hydro) can make carbon neutrality more feasible. But for that to replicated writ large across the developed world would essentially require a massive, highly unlikely, and potentially destructive, "revolution" along an infinite set of variables. The prospects of that are far too unlikely to be realistic (or desirable) - particularly if you think climate change needs quick solutions.

Having said all that, I'm not opposed to individuals making decisions to do whatever they feel is appropriate to address climate change (even if I think they're misguided). People should be free to buy EV's. EV's are getting to the point where, in some cases, they make sense, separate and apart from the issue of climate change. But, what I do oppose is how the environmental movement has morphed into a pseudo-religion, where individuals are tasked, and often mandated, with the responsibility of sacrificing and atoning for the sins of "polluting" the planet. Many areas are imposing ridiculous mandates on individual citizens, which will do nothing for climate change, but greatly increase costs and further hasten these sort of green-karen cultural dynamics. I get it...politics is often relegated to low hanging fruit and it's much easier to attack individuals than it is the actual problem itself. Nonetheless, I don't like it.

 @tacklingdummy: And, it's likely the case that it's not just about waiting on the technology to advance. I mean, in theory, I guess technology becomes so advanced that most hurdles will be overcome eventually. But, again, we are told we must be doing something yesterday. The big issue with renewables (solar and wind) is that the sources of power themselves are inherently unreliable (day/night cycles, wind/no wind cycles, limited areas of high sun exposures, etc.) relative to conventional sources. So, why would we go BACKWARDS if we are in the middle of a crisis, based on the promise that some day, the tech will catch up? It makes no sense. The most logical choice is nuclear - at least for now. Maybe renewables will catch up one day, but I don't see that happening any time soon. In the mean time, we will be advancing nuclear with the holy grail of fusion in the not too distant future. If that's ever mastered, I don't see how there's much left to even debate, re energy.

 @tacklingdummy: Yeah, and CA has a "mandate" to go all EV by like 2035 or something? It's absurd. The thing is, there's a certain kind of appeal to the romanticized view of EV's. But you have to build the infrastructure first to support it. CA has incredible power demands. The answer is to just own it, not run away from it. How do you de-carbonize a grid with incredible power demands (and even more demands with EV's)? It's obviously nuclear.

Of course, this doesn't solve other problems like, as you point out, the logistics of fast charging available for everyone. But, it at least makes the de-carbonization goals of converting to EV's viable, which in turn, might create the proper incentives to undertake such massive infrastructure investment. Still though, is it even realistic to have like every single home, apt, living space, etc., wired to tap into the grid for such massive individual demands? I'm not in construction, but it strikes me as bonkers.

 @burnermtb: Yeah, I agree. Also, in major metropolitan areas around the world (where majority of the population lives), logistically there is no space for solar panels and windmills. I have been to many major cities around the world and they is no way they will be able to put solar panels or windmills to fuel even a small fraction of the population. People always bring up Norway. If Norway can do it then the rest of the world can, but Norway is very unique because 95% of their energy is produced by hydropower. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the areas do not have enough water runoff to produce that much energy.

 @tacklingdummy: Yeah, to illustrate the point, I like to point to Solar Park, which is the largest solar farm in the US. It boasts 1.7 MILLION solar panels, spread out over 5 MILES (3,200 acres). It is located in the Mojave Desert, e.g., almost year round sun (in daylight of course). For all that, it nets approximately 1.6 gigawatts annually, which is enough to power approximately 250K homes. Southern CA alone has something like 23 million people, and that's just a portion of the state. The land use/materials to GW ratio of renewables is atrocious. Essentially, you'd need a solar panel or wind mill on every piece of open ground available, and then some, and it still wouldn't be enough. Of course, this is setting aside the fact that people own property and have legal rights. You can't just plop solar panels on everyone's front yard. The permitting, zoning regs, appeals, etc. is a legal nightmare. And this is in the US where, as many might be surprised, our land use constraints are actually not that bad in comparison to many parts of the developed world. In many parts of the developed world, there's just not that much land to go around (or even sun).

I say all this coming from the standpoint of originally liking at least the selling point of renewables. There's a certain romantic appeal to the kind of bucolic village with some graceful looking wind mills or a small solar farm on the outskirts of Town powering the village carbon free. But, when you actually look hard into the practical realities of it, it's just a huge farce.

 @burnermtb: only 302k turbines (33% capability) to power every house in the US lol

 The large Mercedes "trucks" they have at the MTB rounds probably guzzle a lot of petrol too

 ... not to forget toxic disposal and material storage of bad batteries

 @rideonjon Absolute fact. Photosynthesis can't happen without it.
I guess 3 people flunked basic biology.

 @Augustus-G: they also need to not be cut down! True science fact

 @twebeast: Are you're saying that no tree should ever be felled? No plant ever uprooted?

 @twebeast: So what do you propose for us to do?

Stop using wood products?

I like living in a house with a roof over my head,but be my guest go live in the woods with your tree brothers.

 @rideonjon: I think the issue is that while yes, "plants need carbon dioxide", when you turn most of the world's forests into something else (concrete, pasture, etc) then there are less plants to need that carbon.

 @philrossnz: Sorry i don't believe the narrative that we are all horrible beings destroying the planet.But that is what we're being told isn't it?The Gretta Thunburgs of the world are brainwashed corrupt fools.

 @rideonjon: you are welcome to believe what you want. Fact are facts. If you are going to talk about plants consuming CO2 then you also need to look how vegetation cover has changed over time. In NZ we have gone from something like 85% forest in pre-human times (900 yrs ago) to 30% now. Doesn't mean we are horrible beings. It just means there are fewer trees than there once were.

 @philrossnz: Most logging companies (at least in the U.S. but I guess not in NZ) replant trees after they've cut them down. This is what all loggers should be doing. The ones that don't are just mind-numbingly stupid. All they do is kill their future business, and no, they definitely aren't helping air quality.

 @philrossnz: www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

 @philrossnz: Yes Phil I AM welcome to believe what i want.Thanks for your permission.

 wouldnt sustainably sourced wood be more eco friendly because the trees would take carbon out of the air during growth and then not be as bad as concrete once placed. ik ur talking about metaphorical concrete tho, but still

 @mior: actual concrete is terrible too

 @DHhack: that was my point

 @DHhack: Ok, I will bite......how is concrete "terrible"?

 @conoat: The cement industry is one of the main producers of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. Concrete causes damage to the most fertile layer of the earth, the topsoil. Concrete is used to create hard surfaces which contribute to surface runoff that may cause soil erosion, water pollution and flooding. Concrete also accounts for 4-8% of the worlds CO2 form all of the stages of refinement and production

 @mior: human breath accounts for more CO2 than that.

how does the concrete in the structural components of a building(where the bulk of concrete is used) affect topsoil, or soil erosion/water pollution/flooding?

 I think you’re onto something here - stopping humans from breathing would definitely have a significant impact. How the scientists missed this one is shocking…@conoat:

 @Thor44: sounds good to me

 @Thor44: that's the f*cking point dot jpeg. someone wants to make a stupid claim like "concrete bad" and say the CO2 output from it's production is bad? well, if there were less people, we would need less concrete. Secondarily, there's not another, better, less intensive building material out there to replace it with. You can't build a 30 story building out of f*cking bamboo and recycled boba tea cups. gtfo

 @mior: Don't forget sand mining destroying ecosystems.

 Reaching the goals of Agenda 21 has a lot to do with ‘current’ affairs....virus/vaccinate the world/digital ID/digital currency, oh and climate change. Or is it called climate ‘emergency’ now. We live in a clown world!

 Yes! It's very important. Extremely!

So what if a bunch of riders under UCI can't cover their medical expenses when they crash!?
Let's pay them even less so that we can save some money and buy ourselves a bunch of Teslas instead of this ancient last year's model Mercedeses

 @pakleni: Well they saved some CO2 by not providing a rescue helicopter for the race in Quebec a few years ago. I'm not sure how much Brook MacDonald appreciated it though...

 @korev: We are paying (how much? 250 chf/year?) for Rega and peace of mind. Ok, our health insurance is expensive, but we know that we are covered 100% whatever happens.

And then I read here about pro riders who don't know what would happen if they crash during the race.. it's disgusting! UCI should be ashamed!