Starling's Environmental Impact Report Finds Carbon Produces 16x More CO2 Than Steel

Jul 25, 2022 at 9:41
by Ed Spratt  

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.


459 Comments

  • 392 11
 As the report says, your best option if you wish to reduce your personal footprint is simply to (stop being the industry's consumer slave and) learn the peace that comes with being content with what you have.

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.
  • 92 2
 Very good! Contentment and gratitude in what you have is something that needs to be talked about more. Basics of life is in far reach for most in the modern world. We all need to stop and take a breath and realistically feel satisfied and content with our own being.
  • 58 2
 So true. The same applies to cars: if people didn’t replace their leased cars every 14 seconds with a new one, we’d be in a much better place. Wastage is key.

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.
  • 44 1
 Totally - we’re primed to be consumers…” just get more stuff “…it’s warped really, smart phones that are obsolete in 24 months, the same bikes released with a new paint job each year etc etc…I’m riding around on a 2016 Lapierre Zesty, it’s still a better bike than I’m ever likely to be a rider.
Take a step back and opt out of all this crap and life becomes so much simpler and less stressful.
  • 32 1
 I was in Malta recently and was amazed at how many old (80s and 90s) cars are still rolling around; and how few new cars there were. I saw about new ish mercs and beems the whole time. Two Range Sports. Where I live, 22 plate Range Rovers are ubiquitous. It's clearly a state of mind. We absolutely should be thinking about keeping stuff until it wears out.
  • 33 235
flag mknott9 (Jul 25, 2022 at 23:18) (Below Threshold)
 Total bulljive I work hard for my money and I’ll spend it on whatever I damn well please. This isn’t some communist fantasy world we live in, the only way society runs is when people buy stuff. No money changing hands=an impoverished dark world. I’m sure you’d really enjoy living in a pre-industrial revolution world.
  • 38 1
 And ride to the trails instead of driving (if you can).
  • 29 3
 I agree absolutely. If you want to go green, don't buy a Tesla. Buy a 5 years old car with good diesel engine and drive it until it becomes expensive.

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
  • 12 0
 @jamesdunford: this is so important

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)
  • 11 1
 @JapanDave Amen!
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.
  • 61 6
 @mknott9: Wow, this is such a toxic mindset and why we are in this predicament, did you consider maybe we need to change the way society runs, diversify jobs away from fast consumerism and stop producing unnecessary throw away nonsense, make quality items we need with green processes and repair them to last, the economy will keep running with more labour required to make and repair quility things but poeple are going to have to pay the price of having less stuff in order to save the planet.
  • 2 1
 @uk-hardtail: Hear! Hear!
  • 8 3
 @jaame: Try driving a '22 Range Rover around those narrow streets with Maltese drivers racing around drunk and you'll get why they all hve cheap cars....
  • 53 1
 @mknott9:your hard earned cash lands in China most of the time anyway. So by spending those coins, you're funding "some communist fantasy world"...
  • 12 47
flag thewanderingtramp (Jul 26, 2022 at 1:59) (Below Threshold)
 HAHA tiny little insignificant company teams up with organisation that you can get to write anything in its own interest. If it was Ford or HP then maybe this would be relevant as it stands a bloke in a shed tries hand at greenwashing credibility.
  • 5 0
 @fartymarty: could use your ebike
  • 6 3
 @thewanderingtramp: If you're not saying that making carbon fibre frames generates less co2 then what are you saying, and why?
  • 6 0
 @Compositepro: I'll just ride my Starling...

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.
  • 3 0
 @jamesdunford: Exactly. That's why I ride a 6 year old bike. It is (of course with a few replaced components) still a great bike that is capable of everything I do. I don't race so a second gained with a new bike is not worth it, I rather focus on improving my riding. Don't just throw away all the stuff you have that still works fine just for the sake of having the newest bling. And it is not only about CO2 emissions but also about reducing the use of ressources and reducing the waste.
  • 24 8
 @mknott9: userflag checks out
  • 2 4
 @uk-hardtail: dont you get excited like an apple lunatic when they announce a new product :-)
  • 1 0
 @jaame: same in magreb with old mercedes. No chips so they culd fix them up by themselves
  • 2 1
 @fartymarty: i feel better now i reckon i can do 400mile
  • 5 0
 @jaame: The climate helps - my 1982 ford fiesta goes rusty just by looking at a cloud Smile
  • 5 1
 @hambobet: I go rusty just by looking at your flag! Wink
  • 16 69
flag in2falling (Jul 26, 2022 at 4:42) (Below Threshold)
 Is CO2 really a problem? Trees and plants LOVE CO2, grow much quicker/healthier, retain more water (harder to burn) and helps soil retain more water.
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"
  • 7 8
 @in2falling: It's not that I disagree with you, because you've made legitimate points. However, the general practice of using things longer and demanding from ourselves that we demand longevity is just good in terms of being less wasteful.
  • 2 0
 @nikoniko: Well said. I concur Sir!
  • 4 0
 Biggest true ever written in pinkbike comments ever! Comment of the Century, in my opinion.
  • 10 3
 @in2falling: That would be true only if we had enough trees/plants to process the co2 we release. The problem is we do not.
  • 14 68
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 5:00) (Below Threshold)
 people should learn to be content with what they have, because when it comes to material things, most people in the developed world have pretty much everything they need, and should be enough to live fulfilling life. they should also learn to live within their means.

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
  • 12 4
 @irafd: "'saving the environment' is one of the worst crimes ever committed against humanity"

not sure man, heard of this?
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/genocide
  • 26 5
 @in2falling: You are so brainwashed dude. Atmospheric C02 levels have spiked to 410+ppm, higher than any other point in human history, higher than any point in the last 800,000 years. "bUt pLaNtS LOvE cArBOn", well yes, but humanity also is a natural enemy of the trees and plants. The Earth has lost roughly a third of its forests in the last 10,000 years, that's roughly 2 billion hectares we have cleared for agriculture, livestock, and construction. At least half of that forest clearing has occurred in the last century alone.
  • 2 0
 @fartymarty: I reckon the amount of carbon I’ve done in the past i need to head straight to hell however
  • 2 0
 @hambobet: are you sure it’s not because it’s an 80s ford ,
  • 48 11
 @irafd: Who the f*ck is "they" and why are all you dumbass climate change/COVID deniers so scared of them? All you are so high and mighty about your guns too but I don't see anyone out there shooting the creator of global warming or coronavirus. The only things you guys have managed to hit so far are school kids and black people.
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"!
  • 7 0
 I find it a bit fishy that a steel using company says that a steel frame produces less CO2 than a carbon using company. It's probably true, but still, steel fabrication is a nasty industry. If They would have said that a steel frame is a lot easier to recycle, that would be a lot more convincing. I'm also not trying to defend one or another material, I ride steel, alloy and carbon, so I am one off those priveliged people that can choose the right bike for the right circumstances. I do drive an old car. 1988, but I do 5000km max a year, so it would be silly to buy something new if it's in the garage more often than not.
  • 1 2
 @overconfident: The two are the same only one is done using the premise of ideals the other is done for profit.
  • 4 2
 @ryanandrewrogers: wasnt it a bat that created coronavirus
  • 6 30
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 6:22) (Below Threshold)
 @overconfident: learn to read. i didn't say saving the environment is one of the worst crimes, i said lowering of standard of living UNDER THE GUISE of saving the environment is.

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
  • 2 1
 @maglor: isnt it the chinese that have a social credit system
  • 2 1
 @overconfident: who was it last year who had the total volume tonnes of steel worldwide production and the total carbon worldwide production there was something like an 80:1 times ratio for raw product
  • 22 2
 @irafd: I read exactly what you said; I quoted part of it, that's all

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
  • 11 27
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 6:37) (Below Threshold)
 @ryanandrewrogers: who is 'they'? 'they' are a very large and organized group of people who run almost every government in the world, international institutions, think tanks, etc. every decision they make lowers our standard of living and puts us more and more under their control.

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
  • 6 26
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 6:43) (Below Threshold)
 @overconfident: no, that's bs - you misquoted me to make it seem like i said something completely different than i actually said. it-s up there, own it.

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)
  • 15 2
 @irafd: @irafd: "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."
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
  • 9 3
 @irafd: OK, I misquoted you with my half-arsed initial response. Fine, I'll own that

However, you obviously don't give a s**t about anything beyond your own bubble: you need to own that, too
  • 12 1
 I think PB could do some good for the world here.

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.
  • 8 0
 @irafd: The free market will adapt to climate change. You can expect to be priced out of your big vehicle, meat, air conditioning and find yourself thinking "hey, these dried crickets are cheap! Bugs for dinner, kids!"
  • 3 0
 @aks2017: That's a great idea. The PB marketplace itself is already really good, by which I mean the design and search functions are excellent compared to something like ebay

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
  • 4 4
 @jamesdunford: oh just wait for the green new deal to really kick in and force many to have new electric cars.
What a scam.
  • 4 21
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 7:11) (Below Threshold)
 @bashhard: of course it does takes more energy to process meat than it takes just to pick a plant, and that's perfectly fine. go live in the woods and eat berries if that's you like, don't force me to follow you in your insanity.

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
  • 4 20
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 7:13) (Below Threshold)
 @overconfident: not true, i won't help anyone who is starving, by starving myself. paying more in taxes won't feed starving children in africa or india or wherever, but letting them figure their s*** on their own will
  • 6 1
 @in2falling: Holy crap, you really believe this? I thought this was sarcastic!

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
  • 15 5
 Best way to save the environment; don't have kids.
  • 11 1
 @irafd: you either don't understand how your actions effect others, are in denial of the effects, or don't care

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
  • 6 12
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 7:28) (Below Threshold)
 @bocomtb: that is not free market - when you have government imposing taxes to 'fight the climate change', lockdowns to 'fight the virus'; and that causes shortages, killing production - that is anything but the free market.
  • 6 20
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 7:40) (Below Threshold)
 @overconfident: yes, no compromise. that's how it always start - first it's a smaller car, then a bicycle, then you end up walking

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
  • 12 5
 We are living WAY above our comforts levels, and it is well time that we think our global economies past simple indicators. The US first, are such a victim of this. Only looking at growth growth growth, and being over consumerist. Not looking at resources balance, impact to ecosystems, access to education/healthcare.. The US would not place well on a ranking that actually says something meaningful.

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
  • 4 2
 @irafd: Well duh.

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...
  • 7 0
 @fartymarty: www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita would be a better representation of where your country actually stands. Either way, I find it baffling that this argument is still even being had, despite overwhelming evidence about the harms done by climate change. Then again, some people still believe the earth is flat.
  • 4 19
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 8:38) (Below Threshold)
 @bocomtb: no, what reduces the yield of crops is less fertilizer, as mandated by the insane CO2 policies. farmers having to raise less cattle, because they produce methane, as mandated by govt, means less supply.

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?
  • 5 1
 The actions of individuals have nothing to do with climate change, unless you count 90 corporations as people :
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.
  • 1 0
 @jaame: All the 80's and 90's cars in the UK have rusted back in to the earth, Malta is a bit drier/warmer
  • 3 15
flag in2falling (Jul 26, 2022 at 9:07) (Below Threshold)
 @Notmeatall:

"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
  • 14 2
 @in2falling: Of those 3 founders one had a storied career at Exxon, another at Shell, and the third was a Dept. of Energy researcher who was fired for dismissing Ozone layer depletion. Not a single founder or director is a climate scientist, most have oil connections, and a few have no credentials at all besides wealth.

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.
  • 5 11
flag in2falling (Jul 26, 2022 at 9:43) (Below Threshold)
 @ryanandrewrogers:
"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."
  • 6 12
flag in2falling (Jul 26, 2022 at 9:44) (Below Threshold)
 @ryanandrewrogers:

"2008 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015"
  • 6 12
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 9:50) (Below Threshold)
 @in2falling: climate and covid alarmists have a looong track record of being wrong about everything, but THIS time they've got it all right
  • 6 12
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 10:05) (Below Threshold)
 @ryanandrewrogers: kid, in2falling is old enough to be your dad - have some respect, and acknowledge that he has had way more time to see, notice things changing and has more experience than you do.

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?
  • 1 0
 @maglor: almost like life pre-1980s
  • 17 6
 @irafd: Middle-aged man going through a conspiracy phase, @in2falling is old enough to come from a time when people thought cigarettes had health benefits. But there is wisdom that the only truth is history, even our best scientists haven't the slightest luck in predicting the future. What they are better at doing is analyzing the past- such as making note that a large proportion of cigarette smokers developed lung cancer.

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.
  • 15 2
 @irafd: ryanandrewrogers may be younger than y'all but he certainly knows more than y'all. There's good reason the vast majority of the scientific community, especially climate scientists, agree that climate change is happening and it is caused by increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations induced by human activities. It has nothing to do with some establishment conspiracy. I promise that would be logistically impossible to pull off. Take it from me, an environmental scientist. All of the members of the CO2 coalition are shills and quacks. The credentials that their own website lists definitely does not help their case. Their arguments have all been thoroughly debunked, which you can learn about for yourself. Maybe stop only seeking information that supports your biases.
  • 3 8
flag irafd (Jul 26, 2022 at 19:04) (Below Threshold)
 @WildboiBen: so much to unpack, and so little time.

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
  • 6 2
 @irafd: wow omg scientists never thought of these things??? How do you not have a nobel prize!? Oh wait, they have. Lol you sit here talking about elimination of very basic nuisance variables - like trust me dude actual scientists have it all covered and more. You could actually read their studies if you were interested, rather than presenting your own ignorance as an actual argument.

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.
  • 4 0
 Here's a link where you can find the scientific counter arguments to pretty much every point that's been made by climate skeptics: grist.org/climate/skeptics-2
  • 3 6
 @WildboiBen: send me a link to a paper with a comparison of co2 levels in cities vs rural areas and wilderness. then send me a list of locations where temp is measured that has consistent increase in temp over at least 40 years. then i'll also need to see the proof that increase in co2 directly caused crops to fail or lower yield.

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.
  • 1 1
 @vp27: per capita is good but per country us where its at. If for example the UK cut half of its carbon emissions it would only be 0.5% off the world's total whereas China only needes to make a small change to get a big number.
  • 3 0
 @fartymarty: While it's good to look at where most of the emmissions are and start there it's slight misinformation to show China as the worst or blame the 90 big corperations as someone else posted, these days we are a global unit and China and those companies are only emitting so much becuase we consumers buy all our crap from them, we need to accept we are all responsible and all change.
  • 3 0
 @maglor: agreed, we all gotta do our bit. More robust/ repairable bike parts would be a good start.
  • 2 6
flag irafd (Jul 27, 2022 at 5:42) (Below Threshold)
 @ryanandrewrogers: co2 levels are higher than ever in human history - but that doesn't mean highest ever - it used to be 10x higher. so what caused it then? what caused the end of the last ice age? trucks? bike frames that take a gram of co2 more to produce?

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
  • 1 3
 @WildboiBen: dude, you need a cheat sheet, not me. haven't seen anything there about milankovitch cycles, or what caused the end of the last ice age, need i continue?
  • 6 1
 @irafd: why don't you look up how climate scientists measure global atmospheric gas concentrations and global temperature if you're really interested. You not understanding how these measurements are made is not an argument lol.

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?
  • 6 0
 @irafd: So because of Milankovitch cycles, which fluctuate the Earth's climate at a rate so slow it is practically imperceivable to the length of humanity's existence on Earth, we shouldn't worry about high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere? Every model we have of global temperatures through the last million years or so shows CO2 levels directly correlating to the glacial-interglacial cycle.

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.
  • 7 0
 @irafd: literally all of these questions you're presenting can be answered with a google search lol.

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.
  • 3 6
 @WildboiBen: why are you avoiding to answer such a simple question? is the level of co2 the same in the middle of nowhere and in large urban area, or in area with a lot of factories. same goes with temp - where is it measured? and how do you average out earth's temp? you can send me a link too, if that's too much typing, but should be easy to answer, right?

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
  • 2 4
 @ryanandrewrogers: hah, also, you mentioned you're abroad - did you fly? are you ready to give up travel if you reach your co2 level for the year? or would you be willing to pay extra to get a few miles extra?

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
  • 9 0
 @irafd: ryanandrewrogers appears a hypocrite to you only because of your own hyperbole

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
  • 7 1
 @irafd: I'm not avoiding it at all. I gave you a response. Sorry, but your strawman argument that it's impossible to measure atmospheric CO2 is weak. I'm not going to bother finding another link for you to ignore. Look it up yourself, or keep being a sheep to the oil lobby. Your choice.

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.
  • 3 7
flag irafd (Jul 27, 2022 at 8:42) (Below Threshold)
 @overconfident: you have to be a complete moron to believe govt when they say - oh, it's just temporary, it's just upper income bracket that will pay more in taxes, or it's just for this or that - that's how they boil you like a frog step by step.

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
  • 1 5
flag irafd (Jul 27, 2022 at 9:18) (Below Threshold)
 @WildboiBen: ok, so let's say in another 100 years sea level rises 2 m (i said 0.5 cm hyperbolically, i knew it's a small number given the time frame), and you can simulate it here coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/7/-9388603.930550655/3527845.14076295/7/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion - do you really think it's time to panic? do you really think we're about to go extinct? do you think 100 years is not enough to figure some stuff out?

man, you're such a clown, probably looking forward to getting that monkey shot, you know you're gonna get it
  • 2 1
 @irafd: Objectively, you're right in that Governments really really like to keep laws that force people to pay fines if they don't conform. A long time ago, John Stossel did a piece on this called Illegal Everything. It has only become more pronounced in the last decade.
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).
  • 3 3
 @sonuvagun: yep, i often watch stossel, wish more people did.

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
  • 7 0
 @irafd: you'd have to be something close to a moron to argue against covid measures because:

"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
  • 3 4
 @overconfident: i'm not even going to say you're close to a moron, you're way past that point unfortunately.

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)
  • 5 1
 @irafd: neither of us are getting anything out of this exchange: I'm out
  • 2 2
 @overconfident: see? we can always at the very least agree to disagree. have a good day
  • 9 0
 @irafd: "very few people actually died of covid"

www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/covid-19-hidden-heartbreaking-toll-millions-of-orphaned-children

Accept that you are a monster and go away.
  • 2 9
flag irafd (Jul 27, 2022 at 11:07) (Below Threshold)
 @Mtmw: hahahaha, go get boosted
  • 5 1
 @in2falling: The USA lost the internet today
  • 2 0
 @RidleyRijder: most steel being used in the world has been recycled
  • 4 0
 @uk-hardtail: Biking is the worst for "get more stuff". Look at all the outdated sizes/standards etc just to sell more stuff. I have perfectly good Race face stems that simply are no good as they are 25.4 clamp. But they are CNC machined aluminum and will last for life......at least in theory. Or bb interfaces, tire sizes....rear end gearing.....
  • 2 0
 @mknott9: go take an economics class in which capitalism is not a scenario. Learn that socialism is something you not only need, but heavily rely on already, and enjoy having in your life.
  • 1 0
 @in2falling: no one is fear mongering. You just watch too much fax news.
  • 3 0
 @irafd: YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, YOU CANT YEET YOURSELF OUT OF THIS.
  • 1 2
 @5afety3rd: go ahead, state your grievances
  • 4 0
 Being content with what you have also makes life simpler and less cluttered. Two other ways to reduce your carbon footprint are to ride your bike to work and not take unnecessary flights around the world for vacations.
  • 1 3
 @HelterSeltzer: go hug a tree, or greta doomsberg, i don't care. just make sure you have your mask on
  • 6 0
 @irafd: you may not necessarily be the dumbest person on pinkbike, but you'd better hope that person doesn't die.
  • 1 2
 @WildboiBen: that's ok, i never meant you any harm
  • 1 0
 @mknott9: We need to start beating the sheet out of children so that your kind gets rooted out. So you have a sheety job and you claim right by it. If you worked less and read more you'd know how wrong that is, because you are not the first human on this planet, only could be last. Talking about communism...
  • 8 0
 id just like to say this escalated quickly but fuck me you lot have been at it for days
  • 4 0
 @Compositepro: ...and still got nowhere.
  • 2 5
 @irafd: Most of them all believe the same:
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.
  • 5 0
 @sonuvagun:
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.
  • 2 5
 @ryanandrewrogers: @sonuvagun:
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.
  • 2 3
 @ryanandrewrogers:
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.
  • 4 0
 @sonuvagun: lol where do YOU think scientists get their funding? It's called grants. They can come from the government, universities, and various non-governmental agencies. Meanwhile, most of the scientists who deny man-made climate change have ties with the oil industry. You literally believe whatever the conservative pundits tell you to believe with zero critical thinking.
  • 2 3
 @WildboiBen: And that is exactly my point. They get money from the government. And coincidentally, it turns out that based on government funded research, the best thing for us all is more government control over the air, more taxation, because you know, the government, who Big oil is in bed with, can be trusted to do what's right.
It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
  • 1 3
 @WildboiBen: so government, spending taxpayer money, and other organizations, spending their own money, don't expect anything in return? they do it out of the goodness of their heart? no strings attached?

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
  • 2 5
 @WildboiBen: also, i knew you're employed in academia without even checking, so no wonder you're illiterate on finance and real life, you've never had a real job in your life.

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'
  • 2 1
 @sonuvagun: the money comes from government and that's it. Often it's coming from the state level. Lol theegovernment isn't dictating scientists' findings though. And yeah taxes should absolutely fund science. Sorry that the science doesn't tell you what you want to hear but facts don't care about feelings, right?
  • 1 0
 @irafd: I'm guessing you found my ratemyprofessor page. I don't even have my full name on my profile here so, uh nice digging you f*cking psycho. You've gone to some trouble here to try and get under my skin, like a middle school bully. How pathetic. Shows how insecure you are.
  • 1 4
 @WildboiBen: it doesn't come from the govt - it comes from tax payers. of course that you want more taxes from those who actually work to fund you and other parasites to play pretend science
  • 1 0
 @irafd: lmao coming from a guy who doesn't even know what science is, that's hilarious. Keep em coming. You're making my day.
  • 1 3
 @WildboiBen: i just wanted to confirm my suspicion, and i even gave you the benefit of doubt, but of course my hunch was correct

literally one google search, relax

but nice getaway from actually addressing anything stated above
  • 3 0
 @irafd: lol you got me. I worked in academia while I was a student, and I had some angry students. You're a real Sherlock there. Your statements are so asinine, I'm tired of trying to educate you. But keep coming at me with the personal attacks. It makes you look really good.
  • 1 5
flag irafd (Jul 29, 2022 at 9:52) (Below Threshold)
 @WildboiBen: i don't blame you, educating people has obviously never been your strong suit. funny how after calling someone a moron, and dumbest person on pinkbike first you still have the audacity to call someone out for personal attacks.

either way, i'm done
  • 6 0
 @irafd: Here's the reason you believe all the misinformation you believe:

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.
  • 2 5
 @WildboiBen: Yes, of course "that's it." Corrupt people never do corrupt things as long as you say so.
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."
  • 1 3
 @DoubleCrownAddict: some other clown has already sent me that same link, it's posted somewhere above. greenpeace are so apolitical, and so all about environment and science, that they run stories on 'voter suppression', 'environmental justice', 'racial justice in climate movement' and on just about any progressive point. it's not by coincidence, they have to tie environment in with racism. or any other political issue, otherwise it doesn't sell.

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'
  • 1 1
 @sonuvagun: dude, you're telling that to someone who probably got two doses of the same 'vaccine', and then got boosted with the same shit, somehow believing that the virus that MUTATES will somehow be stopped by something that didn't help in the first place.

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
  • 3 0
 I'm not sure whether the vaccine works or not, but it certainly doesn't work very well.
  • 3 0
 @DoubleCrownAddict: I wonder if any of the fossil fuel propagandadists ever dreamed they'd be so successful as a few people here are proving.

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
  • 2 0
 @DoubleCrownAddict: in fact it appears Regan was acting on climate change in the 1990s

climateconservative.org/americas-original-climate-hero

I wonder what he'd think of Trump
  • 3 3
 @overconfident: Perhaps there are people who believe it their right/duty to pollute the hell out of everything they can. Of the skeptics I've spoken with, most of us live a rather green lifestyle. We don't buy new gadgetry as a fad, we hang on to things as long as we can, and we don't over-eat cause we think about things.

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.
  • 2 2
 @overconfident: i posted a few facts above, and stated that the model of climate change driven by human factor does not and can not explain what we observe - the same thing that causes the earth to warm can not cause it to cool down. the fact is that winters are getting longer and cooler, and both sides agree on that - the only problem is that your side is attributing that to co2 emissions - and it doesn't take a degree in physics to see that's bs.

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
  • 2 1
 @sonuvagun: haha, i keep telling myself the same story - i'd rather be wrong and crazy than right. unfortunately everything that keeps happening just proves me right.

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
  • 3 0
 @sonuvagun: I work as a climate mitgation researcher, and I can tell you the UK and USA governments are incredibly resistant to doing any of the things the researchers they fund are calling for, and most of the people I work with are very critical of government action. I mean, the USA government have been stalling global climate talks for decades, while funding research that concludes they should be doing the exact opposite.

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
  • 3 4
 @overconfident: ok, so here we have a climate scientist and climate mitigation researcher pushing co2 nonsense, interestingly the same people who wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for a human driven climate change myth (i mean, otherwise you'd have to go out and do something productive).

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
  • 1 0
 @irafd: man, I thought we'd decided to agree to disagree
  • 1 0
 @overconfident: don't worry, still the only thing i can agree on with you
  • 1 0
 @irafd: we did, at least, also manage to agree that finance and the real world are different things
  • 4 0
 @irafd: btw, since you work in finance, do you happen to know when you guys are planning to give the government back the trillion dollars you borrowed in 2008?
  • 1 0
 @overconfident: hahahaha, that would be one of the last things i'd agree with. you sure you didn't mix me up with someone else?
  • 1 0
 @irafd: na, it was you, but I think it was probably a Freudian slip
  • 2 1
 @overconfident: They are hesitant to do anything EXCEPT tax the consumer. That's the bottom line.
  • 1 0
 @overconfident: i'm not going to defend EESA (www.investopedia.com/terms/e/emergency-economic-stability-act.asp), but to you got it VERY wrong:

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?
  • 1 1
 @overconfident: hahahahahahaha, can't blame you, i'd be out too if i were you. let's see if someone jumps to the rescue
  • 3 0
 @irafd: wait wait one more question, and I ask this sincerly: what shape do you think the Earth is?
  • 5 0
 @irafd: ah yes, helping people is BS. Trying to reason with you is exhausting because you're incapable of separating fact from opinion. You're forever lost and it's sad. You didn't "own the libs" like you think.
  • 2 1
 @overconfident: what happens when i say it's round? i'm sure you'll figure out another way to label me

@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
  • 5 1
 @overconfident:

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.”
  • 1 4
 @Mtmw: You're the pigeon, pal.
  • 2 0
 @irafd: ME TOO! I also believe it's round!

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!
  • 2 1
 @irafd: I hadn't responded to you because all I've been able to come up with is "you're right."
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.
  • 2 1
 @irafd: A somewhat related bit of news: The UN (somehow UNESCO, the World Jewish Congress, The European Commission and Twitter are working together) has declared war on "worrying and dangerous" conspiracy theories. Only the REAL media can now decide if something is a conspiracy or not.

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
  • 5 0
 @irafd: Please excuse me for butting in after such a long and interesting debate, and since I started this comment back up the top, I thought I'd add my thoughts based on 30 years of lay reading and research as well as an undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in geography that covered amongst other things, atmospheric management and climate science.

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.
  • 2 0
 @JapanDave: Nice, thoughful explanation of the difference between climate and weather. Unfortunately, the climate deniers will read through this and label all of it "propaganda", even though it's well thought out and completely logical. They'll tell you that you've learned to parrot exactly what the media tells you or something, and that you've fallen for the "liberal agenda".
  • 3 1
 @JapanDave: I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying I don’t really know.
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.
  • 2 1
 My point is YOLO. Life is to be lived.
  • 3 0
 @jaame: ok so YOLO, let's keep using fossil fuels because it's "fun" and that's what life is all about. Who cares about our children, or grandchildren. People who aren't alive yet especially don't matter.

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.
  • 3 2
 @WildboiBen: man, i haven't had time to reply to JapanDave and jaame, both of whom make some great points and i'm genuinely looking forward to replying to them when i find some time, but by god, you must the most annoying, preachy and hypocritical piece of shit i ever came across in my life.

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
  • 1 0
 I can say totally seriously, I don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone who hasn’t been born yet. That doesn’t make me a bad person.
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?
  • 3 0
 Well hey then pleasantly surprise me because I'm just going off the way you and every other climate denier I've interacted with have responded to information that contradicts their narrative. Guessing your response may change now that you've seen my comment lol. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

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
  • 1 0
 @jaame: apathy to human suffering doesn't necessarily make you wholly a bad person, but it is certainly a bad trait. And history will not reflect well on the people who trashed the planet for future generations.
  • 1 3
 @WildboiBen: think of the tigers and the world’s fish stocks.
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!
  • 3 0
 @jaame: ah yes, because refugees are always treated so well! Who cares if people lose their homes! Wait until the refugees number in the millions. "Where they will buy iphones to play on" - if that isn't the most ignorant statement I've heard in awhile, holy shit. You sir are giving me every reason to believe that you are in fact a pretty shitty human being.
  • 3 0
 @jaame: here's an analogy for you:

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
  • 1 1
 @overconfident: Analogies are needed when the subject lacks quantitative material.
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.
  • 1 1
 @overconfident: yes, that is a good analogy.

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!
  • 1 0
 @jaame: you should be moaning 1.4l engine what kind of twat does this to themself
  • 3 0
 @jaame: Thanks for the chance to read how you have see the situation Jaame, I have to say I agree with you that I too, don't really know. I just attempt to give the benefit of the doubt to non-client journalists and non-client academics.

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.
  • 3 0
 @sonuvagun: most climate researchers I know get really pissed off with the obsession with individual solutions, and point their anger at precisely the corporations you suggest

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
  • 1 1
 @overconfident: Well who ultimately decides what gets put forth as public policy? It's not the good-hearted "climate researcher."
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.
  • 2 0
 @sonuvagun: you make good points that I agree with.

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.
  • 3 0
 @sonuvagun: it's not a "CO2 is the devil argument". It's "CO2 is a greenhouse gas and any increase in atmospheric concentration will raise the global average temperature by some amount. A large enough increase will result in widespread climate catastrophe."

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.
  • 2 0
 @jaame: yeah I have to agree with overconfident that we need top-down solutions for climate change. Large unregulated corporations are the most culpable. Us consumers have to do what we can with what's available to us. It's not like you can get by in society without a smart phone. So accusing environmentalists of being hypocrites, because they use an iphone for instance, is just a strawman argument.
  • 2 0
 @jaame: this is the kind of black-and-white thinking that's not helpful

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
  • 2 0
 @WildboiBen: my dad functions in society without an iPhone. It is possible. Most of what they do is fluff, case in point : this debate.
  • 1 0
 @jaame: not a case and point at all. Idk what your dad does, but most of us need cell phones for our occupations, etc. We can live and function in society as normal people while working to implement changes that will, for example, reduce the environmental costs of smart phone production. Not sure why that's so hard for some people to understand.
  • 2 1
 @WildboiBen: We will agree to disagree on CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Every explanation I've seen or read revolves relies on isolating the last 200 years from the greater timeline, as well as ignoring every other warming period which data indicates have occurred as far back as we can go.
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.
  • 2 2
 @sonuvagun: you really just do not understand the science and are only paying attention to the extensively debunked arguments that support the conservative narrative. We have also demonstrated experimentally that CO2 is a ghg, as early as the 19th century.
  • 2 0
 @WildboiBen: need is a very strong word in this case. I have a couple of phones, yes. I use them. I’m using one now. It’s not really adding much to my life, this almost pointless debate with a random stranger on the internet. I say almost pointless as it does provide me with amusement.
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?
  • 2 0
 @sonuvagun: if you consume more calories than you use, you’ll put on weight. Have you noticed how many fat people there are these days compared to the 70s? I swear more than half of the people I see on a daily basis are too fat. I wonder if that’s because of smart phone poisoning.
  • 2 0
 @WildboiBen: Ah yes, the ol, "you don't understand 'the science'" argument, throw in a lil catchphrase "debunked," sprinkle a bit of "conservative" and you've covered all your bases.

"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.
  • 3 0
 @sonuvagun: In the 70's they said an ice age was coming. 80's was acid rain. 90's was ozone layer. 2000's to now is global warming. Your above post is correct, and in fact it has been much warmer in the past with higher CO2 levels (where were the people so where did the C02 come from?). And when it gets cold, it gets cold (ice ages are actually the norm until we get snapped out of them like now being in an interglacial period). I find the debate laughable that we are going to make a difference when India and China, with about a third of the worlds population, keep spewing out C02 (and people to boot) and no one thinks that is a bigger issue. Guilt is just as effective as ignorance I guess.
  • 3 0
 @JapanDave: man, i've been out of shape for the last few days - crazy busy, but finally have a chance to add a few things here - most of which were already said by @sonuvagun and @jaame

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
  • 4 0
 @irafd: Thanks for the reply; ther are many points you make that I agree with. There is one that I agree with mostly:

"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.
  • 2 1
 @JapanDave: well said.
  • 67 3
 And remember boys: it only takes 152 miles in your Tacoma to produce the same amount of carbon as you saved with your fancy new steel bike!

Big compliments to Starling to push this. Would not have expected this from a small brand!
  • 4 1
 Peng.... that hurts. Do we really wanna catch the big fish? Let's focus on plastic bags and bike frames....
  • 3 0
 @stax81: we better catch every fish we can to not ruin everything nice on earth
  • 76 36
 Its time to tax appropriately, CO2 emissions are not going down or hitting targets anywhere in the western world. So tax the extra CO2 at all levels, including supplyier, manufacturer, brand and consumer. Have every single product we purchase include a number that shows you its C02 impact on the price tag and then make your decisions.
  • 38 6
 I like my CO2 free, just like my PB content.
  • 26 17
 @sirbikealot I totally agree. However, word of advice: don't call it a tax, call it a price on pollution. There should be a price on carbon pollution. It's an effective and fair way to reduce our society's emissions, especially when combined with rebates (the money returned to everyone). Canada's federal carbon pricing is like this, and most people get more money from the system than it costs them, while everyone is incentivized to reduce emissions.
  • 17 2
 Generally, the brands (like Starling) which produce lower-carbon impact products come with a significant price increase which price an already expensive hobby like mountain biking out of the range of lower-income or young individuals and dramatically increases the barrier to entry.

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.
  • 20 20
 Pollution isn’t the problem. Co2 emissions aren’t the problem. Humans are the problem and it’s way too fun and easy to make new ones.
  • 19 12
 @cedric-eveleigh: ok so who gets to keep all the tax money? The government? Give me a break
  • 21 13
 I couldn't agree less. Taxes are already miles too high. If you want change, don't make people pay more tax. Cultivate an idea at the grass roots and let it propogate through the youngsters as they grow up. Taxing just results in rich people doing whatever they want and poor people missing out.
  • 10 5
 Yeah, And then charge them to ride the bikes or use thier posessions because exercise and use make more CO2 than doing nothing. And give all the extra tax to the government so they can govern you harder because they really know whats best!
  • 28 6
 @jaame: It's pretty much the exact opposite of that. Tax is our way of redistributing wealth. You take money off the people who earn enough and spend it on things that benefit the whole of society. You've been misled by governments who keep trying to tell you that low tax means that 'more of your money stays in your pocket' when in reality more of your money is now going to shareholders through the resultant more expensive basic services that used to be helped by tax. (see dental treatment, heating, water, public transport).
  • 7 1
 > Cultivate an idea at the grass roots and let it propogate through the youngsters as they grow up.

@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.
  • 5 2
 @thingswelike: redistribution of wealth only works with income tax (preferably progressive rate), a tax on carbon is effectively a sales tax as the cost will no doubt get passed onto the consumer. And sales tax disproportionately effects poorer people.

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
  • 4 5
 Throw your computer away and get rid of your internet.
  • 6 3
 @CFR94 @jaame @colebmx @loosegoat Carbon pricing in most cases does not increase the money out of your pocket and to the government. In carbon pricing systems such as the federal one in Canada, the money that the government gets from carbon pricing is returned to people evenly. It doesn't increase the amount of money that the government gets, but it does incentivize people to cause less emissions. With this sytem, most people get more money from the system than it costs them. It's only those who cause a lot of carbon pollution that end up being financially worse off. This system works and it's fair.
  • 8 2
 @cedric-eveleigh: the price of pollution? I live near aspen, Colorado, and every year there is a conference held in aspen to discuss environmental issues affecting Colorado. This conference draws dozens of wealthy people from all over the world who fly their private jets into a mountain town to discuss co2 emissions. A carbon tax has no effect on the people who do not care about money. It only hurts the working class who’s vehicles produce less annual emissions than one of those private jets flying to aspen.
  • 4 2
 @cedric-eveleigh: If the system worked, climate change would be an issue of the past.
  • 7 0
 @tfriesenftr: I don't think you're grasping what I said. Those working class folks with relatively low emissions would get more money from the carbon pricing system that it costs them. The carbon pricing system essentially transfers money from high polluting citizens to low polluting citizens.
  • 1 4
 @cedric-eveleigh: lol. No it won't.
  • 5 0
 @colebmx: Carbon pricing is a new thing and it the pricing is increasing in places like Canada and Europe. The price on pollution can be made as high as needed for the pollution to practically stop, but this takes support from the people for governments to implement that high carbon pricing.
  • 6 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: It seems clear from the responses to your posts that people have very little understanding of the concepts of carbon pricing and how the mechanisms work. On the one hand, there is all sorts of research available for people to dive into and learn about how and why it is supposed to work. But on the other hand there is all the political rhetoric and misinformation against it that seems to be having a far greater reach Frown .
  • 2 2
 @cedric-eveleigh: that's sounds great but with the level of corruption and greed we have in the US it would never work like that
  • 4 2
 @cedric-eveleigh: So you take away a percentage of wealth from a 'high' polluting citizen, thus reducing their ability to pollute, and transfer that percentage of wealth to 'low' polluting citizen, thus increasing their ability to pollute. Where is the reduction of pollution in this equation?
  • 4 2
 @nedD: Communism kills lots of people so there ya go, less people to pollute.
  • 6 0
 @nedD: Everyone involved is incentivized to choose buying options that cause less pollution because everyone wants to save money. As an extreme example, let's say that there is a flight that costs $1000 with fossil fuels and another one that costs $1500 with carbon neutral fuel, and let's say carbon pricing made the polluting $1000 flight actually cost $2000; everyone would buy the non-polluting $1500 flight. Meanwhile, the fact remains that only heavy polluters are worse off financially because the money collected by the government is returned to the people. Make the price on pollution high enough and pollution stops. Carbon pricing not only works but is also fair, because you don't have the government picking winners for the best solutions to reduce emissions. The market decides.
  • 4 0
 @thingswelike: this is so true, most people are net receivers of government spending/taxes and are typically hurt by tax cuts but have been sold the lie that somehow tax cuts help them. The trickle down economy has been shown repeatedly to be a fallacy.
  • 5 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: bless your patience with people who aren't actually interested in learning about how carbon markets work. Most people would rather "win" an argument than gain understanding.
  • 2 0
 @ohio: haha thank you!
  • 1 0
 @ohio: "Most people would rather "win" an argument than gain understanding "
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.
  • 2 0
 @bitterrooter: So it's the mere presence of humans that's the problem? I never understood why people use this argument to refute the scientific consensus on climate change, because it's not a real argument. Like, what you're saying is basically "it's not the things people do that harms the planet, it's just them existing." It makes zero sense.
  • 1 0
 @WildboiBen: I’m not trying to deny the science. I believe the scientific consensus is a majority climate change is being caused by humans. Population growth is exponential. I’ve been pretty salty about this subject lately and I don’t have much hope that anything will change. Sounds like you might have a more positive view. If people would actually agree on things, work together and make sacrifices maybe there’s a chance but I don’t see that happening on a large scale anytime soon.
  • 1 0
 @bitterrooter: you don't believe that population growth will slow? Lol what are you reading.
  • 2 3
 @cedric-eveleigh: So we need to charge for CO2, so rich people can afford to pollute because they have money and poor people are forced not to. This does not sound like freedom.
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?
  • 4 0
 @colebmx: not a single word of that was logical or coherent and all of us are dumber for having listened to it
  • 2 0
 @bitterrooter: population curves are sigmoidal, so before they begin to level off they appear exponential. Human population growth is slowing.
  • 1 2
 @bikingwithpanda: Removing fossil fuels without making up for renewables (which includes nuclear) is literally anti human and you're an awful person. It's about as smart gluing your hand to a painting.
  • 3 0
 @colebmx: I will reply under the naive assumption assume that this is a genuine question. ' What happens when the continuous supply of fossils makes too much fossil fuel to be contained in the ground?'
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.
  • 1 4
 @CFR94: The main thing Canadians want is as much government regulation as possible- they honestly can't imagine how it will go badly. The best thing for Canada at this point is for as many immigrants as possible to take over, cause there are just too many gullible white boys who think like women.
  • 31 3
 If I ever need reminding why my kids won't enjoy the same standard of living as I've enjoyed, I just head to PB comments.. I'm appalled by the myopic entitlement shown by many here. Well done Joe and all at Starling. Bigger brands, take note.
  • 1 2
 So, so true. Probably just a reflection of society as a whole.
  • 28 2
 The real takeaway is buy frames and components manufactured as close to you as possible, and have it delivered by ground freight. Carbon or whatever, who cares, it’s the tires, drivetrain and suspension that will kill the planet… or cost you a fortune.

WAO’s local part sourcing is looking even better now.
  • 12 11
 We Are One rocks. What I doubt these environmental reports accurately capture is the effect of having something durable like We Are One rims versus aluminum rims. There might be less emissions from manufacturing the aluminum rims, but if they need to be replaced several times for the life of one carbon We Are One rim, which one causes less emissions?
  • 5 0
 @tkrug check out Kruch cycles in Calgary. New company doing locally designed and welded steel frames including full suspension.
  • 22 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: my EX471s have five years of use on my enduro bike with them and two of those years I raced and had heavy park use and are still going strong. My EX511s have two years of solid abuse on my aggressive hardtail and are as true as the day I laced them up.
What are you guys doing to destroy wheels so much? Proper tire pressure does wonders.
  • 2 2
 @lifeofloon: I'm not saying which rim material has less environmental impact, and anecdotes aren't going to answer that question. It takes rim durability info from a large number of riders.
  • 4 2
 I love what WAO is all about. That said, I have heard some interesting tales when it comes to warranty on the Arrival frames. As much as I would love to have one, if I'm putting that much cash into a frame, Ill take Santa Cruz warranty every time.
  • 2 0
 @lifeofloon: you must not ride as hard as they do bro.
  • 2 0
 @lifeofloon: +1 over here for dt Swiss rims outlasting anything else.
  • 6 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: Just doing the napkin math, WAO carbon rims don’t compare favorably to DT Swiss alloys, not in the way you’re looking at it. According to Trek's study and research by others like Enduro Mag, the production of carbon composite structures like frames and rims cause about three times the amount of CO2 pollution compared to aluminium alternatives. Not accurate surely, but probably accurate enough for a bit of napkin math.

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.
  • 3 3
 @ratedgg13: So we air freight a frame made half way round the world for the same result, nice thread hijack bro
  • 1 0
 And don't buy something new if its replacement is not broken.
  • 3 1
 I used to feel this way aswell; how are these people destroying wheels so often? Surely bad technique, i rarely ever got flats. and Then I moved… now I can’t seem to get a full ride out of an alloy wheel without it needing serious tlc or a replacement.
And for exactly this reason I now have we are ones, 18 months of abuse and not even a flat!
  • 4 3
 @Muscovir: It depends on the rider and riding location. Your assumption of the DT Swiss rim holding up for three years isn't valid for a lot of people.
  • 2 3
 @thewanderingtramp: the guy I was responding to is about 30 minutes from this frame builder, but sure, go off about how this thread is all about you.
  • 2 0
 @cedric-eveleigh: I'd say that your assumption that EX511's or even FR560's wouldn't hold up for 3 years isn't valid for the vast majority of riders. The people you are talking about are going to be an extremely tiny minority compared to the big picture. Sorry, but you guys in your north shore bubble should really start looking beyond the tip of your noses.
  • 1 0
 @Muscovir: @cedric-eveleigh: I'm riding my Gios wheel for 3 years. But yeah, I go pretty light on rims. A carbon rim would definetly last a lifetime.
  • 1 0
 @Muscovir: Sure, so the type of material for the least environmental impact can depend on the rider and riding location. But my earlier point remains that it seems like environmental impact assessments often don't take frequency of product replacement into account.
  • 1 0
 @CFR94: your right I certainly don't ride as hard as Gwin did on his EX471 when he flatted and shredded his tire on a world cup run. That wheel was still usable despite most of a world cup race with no tire.
  • 1 2
 @VPS13: easier to have 5 star customer service when you have a boat full of cheap communist frames.
  • 1 0
 @jdejace: 4 years on my cheap communist frame with cheap communist carbon wheels with no manufacturer related issues. Sure seems like theres a lot of people that enjoy their cheap communist frames out there but we must all be stooges.
  • 2 0
 @VPS13: It's not a quality issue and they are good bikes. I can't comment on whether or not you're a stooge. Regarding frame warranty which is what you originally brought up it's simply easier to meet the 2022 consumer's expectation of customer service when you mass produce stuff in China and can replace parts on a whim from your warehouse full of stuff that you paid very little for. This is a problem many small companies manufacturing locally face and isn't limited to bicycle parts. These companies can't operate like Amazon, but we all expect Amazon. SC, Yeti, Ibis etc.. give the Amazon experience. You have a problem, you get brand new stuff within a week, the problem goes in the landfill, you go online and praise the warranty experience. All you had to do was send them a picture of your frame being sawed in half. What a time to be alive.

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.
  • 50 26
 Welding shop with a handful of employees googles stuff, makes headlines somehow
  • 15 16
 I tried google too:
"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.
  • 8 26
flag yvidal (Jul 25, 2022 at 19:06) (Below Threshold)
 @IntoTheEverflow: We should start getting rdy for chariots and "The Flintstones" vehicle here soon.
It will be more important to live a billion yrs, than have a life.
  • 8 0
 If I turned in that report in middle school with that few sources cited, I’ve have two a*sholes today.
  • 1 0
 well duh, its in the name Carbon diOxide lol
  • 2 0
 @IntoTheEverflow: how much activity/ Co2 during 5 minute sex section. Asking for a friend.
  • 50 6
 Unfortunately Pinkbike has picked the click bait option with the article title. We learned a lot doing this report, for example, we need to do more to quantify out impact rather than qualitatively assess. Also we saw that airfreighting frames is our biggest impact, and we are working at ways to reduce this. We are fully aware this is only the first steps, but without these no progress will be made. The biggest finding not reiterated by Pinkbike is that of the 14 main components suppliers to Starling, only one two have proper environmental policies. My hope was that this fact would be the standout finding and it would encourage consumers to require more from the big companies who are doing nothing except putting out bullshit statements about how great they are and how hard they are trying... So you may well mock, but at least we're trying. Very few other companies are. If you bother to read the report you will see that we are very transparent and hide nothing. There is no greenwashing, it is just statements so fact.
  • 5 11
flag thewanderingtramp (Jul 26, 2022 at 2:10) (Below Threshold)
 @phutphutend: And yet you still choose to buy components from these companies , Virtue signalling at it's finest !
  • 26 3
 @thewanderingtramp:

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.
  • 6 4
 @phutphutend: Don't listen to the ignorant haters here (PB is as toxic as any other website!), It's amazing to see big and small bicycle manufactures seeing the long-term writing on the environmental wall!
  • 10 9
 @phutphutend: The solution is you stop, there is no problem then, no costs or pollution to anything , you can dress it up any way you like but at some point you decided to make something because you wanted a slice of the pie, simple, reality is you are a capitalist making a living from polluting the planet to produce your things.At no point did you or anyone think does the planet need yet another bicycle

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.
  • 8 4
 @phutphutend: like, if you actually cared about the environment you'd realize that about 30 to 40 companies world wide produce 90% of greenhouse gasses. You, as a sma company did this for publicity, and it clearly worked. Not to mention nobody REALLY cares about climate until we start putting up a new nuclear reactor every other month.

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.
  • 4 3
 butthurt kid moans on the internet.
  • 4 1
 @phutphutend: I just want to clarify that I like your company, I like your products. But publishing anything like this is gonna send people off the deep end and only look like pious greenwashing.

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.
  • 4 1
 @office: Idk if it's sending people over the deep end, but people with basic knowledge about where carbon emissions actually come from kinda laugh at this sort of virtue signaling that is done to gain pts from the supposed green people.
  • 2 0
 @phutphutend: aren’t Hope Iso14001 which means they have to have environmental policies? Plus they seem to be on point with their manufacturing and saving any waste they can

www.hopetech.com/sustainability
  • 3 1
 @thewanderingtramp: how do you survive? I guess purely through virtue signalling. how much does that pay an hour?
  • 3 0
 @bikingwithpanda: By being paid for my skills , I spend a lot of my time ensuring people leave Intensive care after major incidents, Have never felt the need to portray this as a good or bad thing which I suppose nackers your virtue signalling argument , Hopefully you wont ever end up in a situation with a spinal injury because virtue signalling isnt part of the MO
  • 39 19
 Good on them for looking into their impact, but until we stop people taking 15 minute flights in private jets emitting a literal ton of co2 each way I'm not going to care about my one purchase which results in 70kg of emissions.
  • 28 0
 Truth. I work in energy efficiency and our clients want us to fly out to present reports to them. Thank God covid put an end to that.
  • 23 1
 Both must be done
  • 8 1
 The problem is that the people taking short flights in their private jets are probably saying similar. So the issue continues and few people face the matter head on.
  • 5 2
 @joshdodd: there is a difference in scale of co2 output here...
  • 10 2
 @Mac1987: I know, I understand. We ALL need to deal with our own co2 though, whatever scale that might be.
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.
  • 6 1
 Snork - It's frustrating that there are many sources of CO2 that aren't being addressed (such as Chinese industry), and that our individual efforts probably don't make any meaningful impact. However our efforts do still make an impact, however small. If enough people make similar changes then the collective impact becomes worthwhile.
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...
  • 4 1
 @Sn0rk an understandable sentiment, however looking at it with a global perspective, there's literally billions of people making those individual purchases, multiple orders of magnitude more than the number of people taking 15 minute private flights.

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.
  • 11 1
 The whataboutism regarding Chinese industry never made sense to me. Who do you think China are making these expensive toys for? Us! Voting with our wallets is the most effective tool that we have, be it at the petrol station or buying a bike online.
  • 5 2
 Although these flights are absolute shit, it is not an excuse for us to not do anything. Everyone should strive to reduce their CO2 emissions. And not only do we reduce CO2 emissions, we also reduce waste by not buying a new bike every damn year.
  • 1 0
 @joshdodd: very true. However, the focus of government actions (the only place to enforce major changes, since personal responsibility hasn't worked out for most) seem to largely focus on small private gains and largely ignore the large industrial gains to be made. Pointing to that discrepancy is very important if we ever want to achieve any significant level of progress.
  • 1 2
 @slimboyjim: are you saying that only Chinese companies emit carbon? Have British companies discovered a magical way to not emit carbon? Maybe they should patent it and sell to China? Nice racism there from “great” Britain
  • 4 0
 @scamp123: on average the pollution involved in many industrial processes is significantly worse in China than in European countries because they have very relaxed rules in terms of waste management and pollution emission.

Also, weird to call the British out for being racist, that was a big part of our thing when we were "great".
  • 3 1
 @scamp123: Fair call out and I'm always happy to be challenged and amend my opinion. I'd heard that China was a big producer of CO2 and not fact checked it. I've now put that right...
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...
  • 3 1
 @hungrymonkey: The point I'm making isn't that those the other billions of people don't add up, the point I'm making is address the larger issues first, transport is the biggest sector for emissions and private jets put out 5x more co2 emissions than even commercial flights.

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.
  • 1 0
 @slimboyjim: well Chinese industry is financed by western consumers so...
  • 1 0
 @Sn0rk: we had 2 years of pandemic reducing jet flights, where have you been? it sounds like it's your turn now. also, please don't travel to any bike parks! wouldn't want to be a hypocrite
  • 1 0
 @bikingwithpanda: For sure. I do try and buy local, both to support my local economy and to reduce carbon footprint, where I can but that's not always possible.
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.
  • 1 0
 BTW, here is an article about a recent study outlining celebs private jet co2 emissions. Tay Tay takes the W

"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
  • 16 1
 It does underline that flying produces eye poppingly large carbon dioxide emissions per unit mass. Offset a year's worth of red meat eating by skipping one trip to Europe.
  • 37 25
 Why not stopping eating meat as well?
  • 19 29
flag IntoTheEverflow (Jul 25, 2022 at 19:15) (Below Threshold)
 @ybsurf: To stay strong and healthy.
  • 17 8
 @ybsurf: Live in a pod. Eat bugs. Own nothing. Be happy Smile
  • 4 0
 In terms of moving people around, Google's flight searcher shows you the kg of CO2 that your flight will emit. I'm looking into flights from Boston to Austin and it's estimating ~450kg of CO2 each way for 2 people (total; nonstop in an A321). My car emits 152g CO2/km so on a 3200km one-way drive, I'd be emitting about 486kg of CO2 from my car exhaust. Since a train ride would take 55 hours one way and that burns diesel because murrrica, there really are no hiding from CO2 emissions in certain instances.

Maybe I should ride my steel-framed gravel bike, I'm sure my girlfriend would love that trip together!
  • 12 23
flag norcohavocdirtjumper (Jul 25, 2022 at 19:46) (Below Threshold)
 @skimgosu:

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 !
  • 4 3
 I’m going to walk downstairs, am I allowed a burger?
  • 1 0
 @sjma: LOL be careful dude! I know couples who broke up over less than that
  • 16 3
 Comparing 5 to 50 kg of CO2 is pretty pointless; both are a drop in the bucket compared to all the other stuff we do. Now before you jump on me with "every little bit helps" take a look at what you could cut out first. A short haul flight like London to Paris is about 50 kg, flying across the US closer to 500 kg. Anyone here drive to work, or maybe to the trailhead? Or eat bananas? Let's look for positive change, but also recognize this is pure greenwashing.
  • 8 2
 I don't think it's greenwashing, there is some good intent here, perhaps a bit of desperation

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
  • 7 1
 No question about the "drop in the bucket", but every little bit helps.
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.
  • 14 4
 I am a cyclist and I am extremely concerned with my carbon footprint. I don't know anything about carbon cycles, nor do I want to look into it with a critical mind and think for myself. I just want to act like I care so I can be seen as morally superior to those who are not as concerned.
  • 9 0
 Don't fly. Drive smaller car. Sell a car. Use less things. Spend less money. Don't want food. Eat local. Grow your food. Use your bike for long period. Don't use lift. Then........ Care how much your stupid BICYCLE FRAME emit?
  • 4 1
 So as long as we use ethanol gas in my Tacoma to shuttle my Enduro bros I can buy carbon parts. Got it. Now if only my Uber eats coffee would get here so I can start my day.
  • 10 5
 One thing that comes to mind. Look at the bikes locked up outside any trainstation in any city in Europe and you will see hundreds of 20 30 40+ year old steel bikes that look like deathtraps but are still being used as transport. This will never happen with carbon bikes.
  • 5 0
 invisiframe right
  • 4 0
 Why won't it? Plenty of old (15 years maybe) carbon bikes at the train station in my city already.
  • 1 0
 Cambridge railway station too, I can't think of anywhere else in the UK though
  • 5 0
 Just a bit of fact checking and perspective (correct me if I missed something)...

"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.
  • 4 0
 btw it's not a rant, what Starling has done is very good.

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.
  • 2 2
 @Uuno

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...
  • 1 1
 @phutphutend: ok that makes more sense Smile

Good thing you saw this here, I was going to send a message through your website to verify this asap haha
  • 7 0
 How about carbon footprint or energy consumption of a typical chair lift at a bike park/ ski hill.
  • 11 0
 Vs 400 e-bikes vs 100 pick-up trucks
  • 10 1
 Given that it is electrical and the electricity converted in Scotland is about 98% renewable we do pretty well in that area.
  • 17 13
 My carbon bike is the last thing I need to cut back on to save the world. I would stop procreating, driving, flying, eating meat and heating my house if I really cared. None of us - likely including the writers of this article - are prepared to do.this. Another bullshit greenwash.
  • 3 0
 I hope no one is planning to take their family to Mexico this winter; that's the CO2 equivalent of a lifetime supply of carbon frames for each person.
  • 6 9
 I don't really care about this bollocks either. If you really care, stop having kids. There are too many people. If we could reduce the population to 4 billion then there would be half the carbon emissions. Just stop breeding. If everyone did that, the humans that remained in 100 years could take all the flights they wanted, eat as much red meat as they wanted etc.
  • 8 0
 @jaame: fun fact, even if there were not a single baby born for the next three decades, the world population in 2050 would still be 5.5 billion

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
  • 2 12
flag Trailbossno1 (Jul 26, 2022 at 0:03) (Below Threshold)
 @jaame:
Maybe the natzis did the greenies a favor.
  • 3 1
 @overconfident: has this fact taken into account the report that showed the amount of pandemic drinking that went on in lockdown is going to cause shorter lifespans
  • 1 0
 Exactly!
  • 1 0
 @jaame: will the rise in school shootings in rich countries be enough to save us?

@tacklingdummy: open water skinny-dipping
  • 1 0
 @Trailbossno1: an interesting and oft ignored fact is that more Russians died in WW2 than all other deaths combined.
  • 6 2
 Without Aluminium shown there is no context and is misleading. Carbon is not the competitor to Steel, Aluminium is the logical competitor. A Carbon frame is a totally diffrerent offering to a metal frame with totally different properties and should not be directly compared like this.
  • 8 0
 Do battery production
  • 4 1
 Trek's environment impact report had a spotlight on their Rail emtb, stating that a complete carbon Rail was 229 kg CO2e, compared to a carbon Madone's 197 kg CO2e and Fuel EX's 152 kg CO2e.

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.
  • 3 0
 Random rant directed at the three able-bodied North Bend WA d-bags who drive trucks to my local (flattish, rooty) trails only to ride e-bikes.

Now I feel better.
  • 3 0
 @twozerosix: Same rant, Spokane area...
I feel better too
  • 3 0
 Real trick if you care so much about the environment, stop traveling to ride your bike. Part/bike production contributes shitall compared to flying to BC for a week and driving to all the famous mtb spots. More greenwashing to make people who buy a product feel good about themselves while they creep contributing more than the average bear.
  • 6 4
 All of these ideas about buying less and being content with what you've got are laudable, but they're economically incoherent. If we all buy less, what do you think happens to the manufacturers - in this case, bike companies? They end up going to the wall. Spread this out over a number of different industries and you have financial armageddon.

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
  • 7 3
 I think you're looking at it the wrong way : It's financial growth that leads us to an environmental armageddon.
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.
  • 2 2
 @Will-narayan:
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
  • 4 2
 @Jprestidge: I agree, but that's the problem. Our current way of life is over our means, we'd need 3 planet earth for everyone to live as a French, 6 as an American, so what do we do ? Enjoy it while it lasts and maybe don't have kids.
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
  • 1 0
 *can'T last forever xD
  • 1 0
 @Jprestidge: who is the one really in cuckoo land? the eco warrior that thinks we need to change or the capitalist who thinks infinite growth in a finite system is sustainable or desirable?

of the companies die. they die.
  • 2 0
 A good start and great to see a smaller company take responsibility but the report could be improved with some links to the data sources and some 3rd party validation as it reads a little bit like an advert for steel bikes. I would also recommend some KPIs for the future action section and figuring out what your current baseline is, it's pretty hard to demonstrate change with out having measurable data. Good start though.
  • 4 1
 Yes, I agree. One of the key finding of the report is that we need to start recording data better. But if we hadn't made this first step, then we wouldn't know this!! The hope is to update the report next year with more detail and hopefully report some improvements...
  • 4 0
 CUT THE CRAP TO REDUCE CO2 STOP BUYING A NEW BIKE EVERY YEAR AND BE HAPPY WITH WHAT YOU HAVE. LESS PRODUCTION IS THE SOLUTION.
  • 2 0
 It's not all about what bike you ride, but rather 'where' you ride it. Traveling 250 miles to a trail centre and back with your favourite steel bike is going to emit just as much CO2e as the production of my fancy carbon frame has.
  • 2 0
 So from my math, whether you buy carbon or alloy doesn't really matter compared to where you buy it from?

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.
  • 2 0
 Really the big cause of Co2 released is burning stuff. Like fuel. Aircraft are the worst followed by your car . Burning garbage as fuel is called recycling. Yayyyyyyy. Riding your bike saves the planet. Think local act global.
  • 5 0
 Max commencal brought this up a few years ago
  • 2 0
 and during an interview at the recent world cup DH.
  • 5 0
 He does seem to be filmed at most WC rounds, does he fly or take the train?
  • 5 1
 @korev: a lot of business owners justify their behaviour in terms of something noble, when it's merely a marketing angle.
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.
  • 7 0
 From an environmental point of view the whole of the World Cup series is an environmental disaster from all the parts replaced when barely used to the travel north to recess and training camps. The ultimate point of the World Cup is to sell more stuff. It’s just a marketing exercise
  • 3 0
 @jaame: I don't pretend my MTB (or road) bikes are good for the planet. My town bike is as it means I don't run a car Smile
  • 2 0
 @korev: To be fair, it wasn't just the CO2 impact that motivated Max. He also didn't like the carbon processing/dust/waste. From what I've seen, carbon can be a superb manufacturing process if you care and take complete control (e.g. Hope Technology) and an absolutely awful one if you don't.
  • 12 7
 My study concludes that I don’t give a shit.
  • 7 0
 a drop in the ocean. These folks have no idea how unrestricted environmental policies are in China, where we get most of our stuff. Your bike's "footprint" is beyond less-than-significant
  • 4 2
 @ksilvey10: far from it, all human created c02 is an extremely small percentage of the total.
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)
  • 1 0
 @ksilvey10: you should look up what mountaintop removal mining in the Appalachian is like,or the recent USSC ruling on West Virginia vs the EPA....

people who live in glass houses
  • 1 0
 @bikingwithpanda: my case study on your comment concludes you’re a dork. Seeeeya
  • 4 0
 reduce your footprint by skipping this bogus news page and only use the buy/sell function of this website. Problem solved...
  • 1 0
 Yes, everything to try to reduce footprint and waste helps. However, the reality is that mountain biking will never be climate friendly. If people really want to be climate friendly then barefoot running is the best. I'm still going to keep riding and buying bike stuff as long as the climate change activist leaders are still flying around in private jets everywhere and have carbon footprints of towns.
  • 2 0
 Greta Thunberg took a sailboat to the climate change event. that didn't convince anyone to take her more seriously.
  • 2 0
 @bikingwithpanda: The sailboat was made out of mostly carbon fiber. That is the irony and most funny part.
  • 3 0
 @bikingwithpanda: Except when you look into it you find that 4 Atlantic flights had to be made by crew on the boat in order to get it from Europe to the US. So as usual with eco types it’s a case of being complete hypocrites.

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
  • 2 0
 @Jprestidge: Yep. Just like the climate activists around the world flew on 400 private jets to attend the climate accord to object and stop carvon emissions. Please. The hypocrisy.
  • 1 0
 Embodied energy and CO2 output of production is only one part of lifecycle of a product. Interestingly enough, human caloric needs have a c02 footprint and fueling the body of someone riding a heavier bike will emit more carbon than a lighter one. Where does the use case equalize? Not sure, but on automobiles carbon fiber tends to be more carbon friendly than steel after a certain length of use due to the weight savings.
  • 2 0
 The majority of manufacturing dies are made from steel. Which can be used to inter lay the carbon, plastics to form said part. I don't know how long consumers will believe the ecofriendly ideas.
  • 3 0
 Global Warming and CO2 emissions have been a concern since the 1950s. Its just recently changed its name to Climate Change and become an industry. How ironic...
  • 1 0
 Was Global Cooling before that.
  • 1 0
 Your not going to save the world by purchasing steel bikes over carbon fibre. Global oil consumption is.... get ready.... 3.8 OLYMPIC SWIMMING POOLS PER MINUTE. Let that sink in for a moment. That's all getting burned up and going into atmosphere.
  • 1 0
 "It's worth adding that the best way to help the planet is to stick with what you currently ride now".

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...
  • 8 8
 Rain forest's love CO2. 1977 beware of the coming ice age, 1989 warning Maldives will be under water by 2000. Plymouth rock at sea level 1600,s still at sea level.couple of hot days in the uk = climate crisis. 1977. 10 week heat wave good times. You need a time machine to change the weather go back to the start of the industrial revolution and you may ahave a slight chance. And Make shure you get your 5th jab wouldn't want to miss opening day at whistler apparently Justin's cutting the tape with safty scissors.
  • 4 1
 Hahaha, unless you are doing Carbon Capture you are accomplishing nothing, your are just spewing marketing drivel.
  • 3 0
 I this just making the frames or does this include things like refining the steel and making the fibres and epoxy?
  • 1 0
 SO, can we see more large manufacturers giving higher spec'd metal framed bikes. My last two frames, a hardtail and full suspension were aluminum and both exceeded my performance expectations.
  • 4 0
 I’d love to see the carbon footprint of a Broped vs an actual bicycle.
  • 2 0
 Buy a steel frame and keep it for 40-70 years. Isn't weird that the older we get the more things our grandparents did makes more sense!
  • 5 0
 Interesting thought, but Werthers Originals still suck
  • 2 0
 Reading through these comments paints a stark reality. Nothing is going to change until it's forced by nature. I'll be here for the ride.
  • 1 1
 @phutphutend: Nice to see you are taking this seriously and are getting an idea on how you can perhaps save some emissions in your products. I agree with some comments that bike frame manufacturing is a small fish to fry in CO2 emissions. But if making bikes is what you do, making bikes more CO2-efficiently is what you can do to improve.
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?
  • 2 0
 “Ride what you have”
Sounds good, but who gets to decide what that means. Is it a 1 year old bike, 2 years , 5 years, 10 years?
  • 1 0
 I think Starling got their units wrong in that report- according to this site, it's 500g per *metric ton* per km for air cargo

timeforchange.org/co2-emissions-for-shipping-of-goods
  • 2 1
 So the bike made of Carbon fibers has a larger carbon footprint than a bike not made of Carbon fibers... Who could have possibly guessed that one
  • 4 2
 IT'S MY MONEY. I'LL SPEND IT HOW I LIKE: GAS AMMO MEAT BEER NEW BIKE PARTS. COME AT ME GREEN BRO
  • 2 0
 They missed out by not titling the article “Star(t)ling revelations about CO2 production”
  • 2 0
 I mean I’m vegan so I can buy as many carbon bikes as I want…. And still take the moral high ground.
  • 1 0
 Unless you fart while riding!
  • 2 0
 Environmental Impact Reports are for selling stuff and raising taxes........
  • 3 0
 Do... Do aluminum now.
  • 6 0
 From the Trek report, a Marlin frame was ~17 kg CO2e. A Fuel EX 5 frame as 30% more. The carbon Fuel EX frame was 330% more than the Marlin frame.

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%.
  • 2 3
 or plutonium this is far easier to trace and has been recycled since the 40s
  • 3 1
 Wonder how much CO2 is emitted by riding a bike.
  • 5 0
 That would depend on how you source your fuel and the environmental impact of that. A globally-shipped beef burger could be 2-3kg of CO2. Whereas some plants grown in your own garden would be 0. Beef is bad, but shipping distance is probably worse.
  • 3 2
 wonder how much C02 is emitted because we feel the need to be outraged by stuff and write on forums
  • 2 0
 Bamboo E bike review is on the way.
  • 1 0
 What about the Carbon directly captured in the fibers of the composites? Does that offset the emissions at all?
  • 2 0
 No carbon fiber is currently made from direct air capture Co2, though this is possible in the future.
  • 7 6
 Lets get rid of 99% of life on earth then we won't have to talk about this ridiculous co2, carbon footprint bs..
  • 1 0
 It all depends on your narrative. Push the "save lives" narrative when it fits your agenda, push the "fewer people" narrative when it fits your other agenda.
  • 4 5
 So glad they killed all the Buffaloes on the prairies to eliminate CO2 emissions back in the day, because they would be a real contributor nowadays... Since we're weighing cow farts.
  • 3 0
 its actually cow burps and methane not CO2.
  • 10 4
 Yup, killed them, replaced them with a few hundred million people, 30 million cows, and destroyed the natural landscape that sequestered all that carbon. But you read that little gem somewhere and think it’s a real point.
  • 6 1
 @thisspock: That's not entirely true actually. Counterintuitively, there are actually more trees on earth than there were at the turn of the previous century. Turns out not constantly burning trees for fuel wasn't the worst effect of industrialization. But keep touting the western moral superiority that's keeping modern forms of energy from the worlds poorest developing nations...

left wing source for ya:
www.treehugger.com/more-trees-than-there-were-years-ago-its-true-4864115
  • 1 0
 @rideordie35: It isn't just about the amount of trees. Young trees don't use up as much CO2 as older bigger trees. All those trees are cut down and burned mostly so all their carbon is put into the atmosphere as CO2. The removal of the trees also disturbs the CO2 in the soil which gets released into the air. That article also seems to be talking about the USA only not the world.
  • 2 0
 A big problem is the Chinese throwing carbon waste in the sea.
  • 4 4
 This comment section is a dumpster fire. Sad to see alot of the ignorance coming from my home country in the US, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
  • 6 0
 Do you know how much carbon a dumpster fire adds to the atmosphere?
  • 1 0
 @Rhymer: brilliant but probably less than a barbeque fire in woodland
  • 2 0
 @Compositepro: E-bbq. As long as you ride it into the woods
  • 1 0
 For sure, they "elected" Biden.
  • 3 0
 Buy used?
  • 3 0
 whats wrong with CO2?
  • 3 0
 can't tell if this is a joke or not,
  • 2 0
 Trees are not offended by it.
  • 1 0
 Was this paid for by starling or did the NCC have some funds for something going spare
  • 1 0
 Just as I thought spare money
  • 1 0
 Did someone say chainslap? This frame would sound like a woodpecker on a downpipe with chainstays that close to the chain.
  • 2 1
 And it takes 3x as much out of your bank account too!
  • 5 7
 More pointless greenwashing. The only answer is to shut the company down as no one needs a mountain bike from an environmental perspective and then no pollution would be created.
  • 1 0
 REDUCE CARBON RIDE STEEL T-shirt.jpg
  • 1 0
 But steel is heavier than feathers
  • 1 0
 I prefer high carbon steel, best of both worlds...
  • 1 0
 FFS. That's it, that's the comment.
  • 1 0
 Did they calculate how much less C02 the rider emits on a lighter bike
  • 1 0
 Reason # 669 to ride a steel bike.
  • 2 1
 Looking at some of these comments, I'd be embarrassed to be an American
  • 2 1
 It is pretty hard not be embarrassed to be an American most days...
  • 1 0
 @93EXCivic: Simple solution: Move.
  • 1 0
 This is all good news for trees.
  • 3 2
 STEEL IS REAL
  • 3 4
 Barking up the wrong tree
  • 5 5
 Bullshit!
  • 5 6
 Gretas prefered bike company.
  • 6 1
 Swedish Doom Troll would not frequent this pnut gallery
  • 1 1
 Plant more trees
  • 6 8
 Going green until you puke
Below threshold threads are hidden





You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login
Copyright © 2000 - 2022. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.038103
Mobile Version of Website