Burning Question: Do Bike Brands Have Targets To Reduce CO2 Emissions?

Oct 8, 2021 at 9:12
by Seb Stott  

2021 is a critical year in the fight against climate change. We've seen the record-breaking heatwaves, droughts and flooding, making the issue feel more immediate than ever. You may also have seen the IPCC's latest "code red" climate report, and the crucial COP26 climate talks are due to start later this month.

In the bike industry,Trek released the first-ever sustainability report from a major bike brand, and we've seen a growing number of cycling companies making climate-friendly changes to the way they operate. But in many cases, it's hard to quantify how much difference these actions will make, and some policies may be pretty negligible on the scale of a company's total emissions.

Looking at companies outside the bike industry, a growing number are now setting voluntary targets to track and reduce their own emissions. In the best cases, they pay third-party auditors to keep track of all their emissions, including those generated by their suppliers, and have concrete plans to reduce and offset them.

Although cycling is among the greenest modes of transport, mountain bikes are more of a luxury good than a transport solution; our bikes are more often in a car than replacing one. And according to Trek's report, the high-end carbon bikes many of us covet have the biggest emissions.

Besides, climate science tells us we need to get CO2 emissions to zero to stop global warming. It's like a bathtub that's rapidly filling up and about to overflow; if you don't want water all over your floor, at some point you need to turn the tap off completely. In other words, net-zero means eliminating or offsetting all emissions from every sector. No exceptions. The fact that cycling's carbon footprint is smaller than many industries is no excuse.

With this in mind, I asked representatives from over forty bike industry companies the following questions:

What are the main sources of CO2 emissions for your company? Have you set any targets to reduce your emissions, and if so, how do you intend to do it?

Below is a selection of responses from brands of various sizes:

Eric Bjorling, Trek

We recently published our first-ever Sustainability Report and plan at the end of July 2021. This report took us a little over a year to compile all of the research and then make a plan around the findings. In it, we outline exactly what our emissions are, where they come from, and our plan for not only reducing CO2, but also waste, improving access to bikes, and building and preserving mountain bike trails with the establishment of a new Foundation.

Essentially what we’ve landed on in terms of carbon mitigation is that there are a couple of operational things we can do (batch shipments, reduce air freight usage) but the biggest impact we (and frankly the entire industry) is convincing people to replace carbon-based transportation with bicycles.
Trek Slash 2021
We’re working on a number of ways to increase cycling mode share as our research discovered that if we could move just the US by 1% mode share, that would be the equivalent of 17 Trek Bicycle companies’ annual carbon output.


We have completed an evaluation of our Scope 1 and 2 emissions in the US and our main GHG [Greenhouse gas] emissions are from powering our HQ. To mitigate this, we have a green energy purchase agreement with the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Project and have installed a solar array on the building that houses Purist water bottle production and the Win Tunnel aerodynamics testing facility.

We are in the process of a broader evaluation of all GHG impacts including our supply chain. We assume from the work done in other sectors, and from the lifecycle assessment (LCA) work we did with Duke University that in excess of 80% of our GHG impact occurs in the supply chain.

To effect change here, we are engaged with our peers in the bike industry through a number of collaborative efforts that are focused on improving supplier social and environmental performance.

Responsible Sport Initiative (RSI),
PeopleForBikes Sustainability Working Group
CIE-CONEBI sustainability experts group

In October 2019 Specialized joined the Outdoor Industry Climate Action Corps in order to provide technical support for our GHG evaluation efforts and to align us with industry leaders. The OIA CAC have a stated goal of being climate POSITIVE by 2030. The roadmap for how we get there is not complete, but the process of measuring our impacts is well under way, and the framework for collaborative reduction efforts is in place.

Ruben Torenbeek, RAAW Mountain Bikes

Most of the CO2 emissions caused by our products will come from production and logistics, but we don't have studies (yet) showing how much exactly. But reducing CO2 is mainly achieved by increasing the lifetime of a product. We generally have a very strong focus on durability for a number of reasons, but one is the reduction of the carbon footprint. The longer the life of a bike, the better for the environment.

Also, we offset our activities through Ecology and plant a tree for every order and we ship with DHL 'GoGreen', offsetting the CO2 of the parcel being transported.
Raaw Madonna V2 review

Is that carbon offset for the shipping of bikes from the factory to the consumers, or does it cover more than that?

The 'GoGreen' covers the shipment from us to the customer. Ecology (planting trees to offset) is more general, we pay for planting trees per employee to offset our activities and on top, the one tree per order is just a little addition. It is not with the intent to offset the specific footprint of an order.

Cy Turner, Cotic Bikes

I would say the main CO2 impact for us is shipping. We aim to ocean freight as much as we can because this has lower CO2 per kg shipped than airfreight, but we do still airfreight some items. The raw material is processed in Germany, the tubes are processed in Birmingham then airfreighted to Taiwan for the TW frames. This is the unfortunate part of the process because there isn't really a way we can work our supply chain to ship via ocean. We are manufacturing some frames in the UK to try and reduce material mileage.

In the Reynolds 853 tubing we use, the iron element is 100% recycled, so that side of the equation is relatively low. We aim to make durable products that are easily recycled at the end of their life, and we carry spares for models dating back 10 years, so even older Cotic frames can be kept going if at all possible.

Packaging would be the next big thing. In terms of parts, we just have to hope that the large companies like Shimano and SRAM that we deal with are trying to be as clean as they can be because at our size we don't have any influence with those big players. Although there have been some positive moves from the bigger players on this, it's not enough.

We haven't set any specific targets, but as a company, we keep going with constant improvement. We have increased the amount of material we can recycle instead of going to landfill this year. We use an energy supplier that generates 100% renewable electricity. We switched to paper-backed packing tape. We minimise staff travel because I don't insist that everyone has to be in the same place every day.

We support Trash Free Trails, and that's brought us a keen awareness of how much single-use plastic and is still used in bike part packaging. All our packaging is cardboard from sustainable sources. Re-using packaging from all sources is another thing we do well.

There are lots of things we do which add up to using less. I firmly believe the best thing we do is what we have always done; make a sensible number of frames and bikes that last a long time.

Bike Park Wales

Climate change is something that none of us can hide from anymore and here at BikePark Wales we are fully committed to becoming the world’s first carbon-neutral bike park. Not because we feel we should but because we feel we must and now is the time for action!

In addition to using 100% green energy from Ecotricity, BikePark Wales will be balancing all carbon emissions from fossil fuel use across the business. From running our uplift busses to the machinery we use to create our trails. With the help of the team at Temwa, we have estimated that the park produces approximately 170 tonnes of C02 per year, all of which will be balanced with community-led tree plantation, rewilding and sustainable agriculture projects in Malawi.
13.06.13. Bikepark Wales PIC Andy Lloyd

Do you have any plans to further decarbonise your direct emissions on-site? Have you done much to improve the ecology/carbon sequestration on the BPW site its self?

We are trying to look at everything in the business, I’ve been in a meeting just today discussing living roofs and solar thermal heating for the shower facilities we hope to build in the next 18 months. Direct emissions are a challenge, Offsetting is just a stop-gap whilst we work out what technology can help us get carbon neutral. Electric vans would be a big one, as soon as a viable and affordable option becomes available we are super keen to go down that path.

We’ve done quite a bit on-site, we built a Reed bed to treat all the foul water from our bike wash which acts as a small carbon sink. As part of the developments we just did (car park and new building) we have planted a tonne of new trees, created wildflower areas and hibernacula for small animals as well as nesting boxes for birds and bats. In the grand scheme it’s small fry and we are learning as we go but it’s always high on the agenda of any decision we make. My take on it is that businesses have to roll up their sleeves and get stuck in, governments just aren’t setting targets or introducing help for private businesses fast enough so it’s our responsibility to do what we can.

Joe McEwan, Starling Cycles

The main sources of C02 emissions from Starling Cycles come from the materials that we use, in particular the steel used to construct the frames. We use Reynolds tubing, who source their steel from the EU, all of the steel is from a recycled source and much of the energy used to produce comes from renewable sources. The world is set up to recycle scrap steel and it is done very efficiently.

As part of a government-funded project, we are involved with, conducted by the National Composites Centre, a Life Cycle Assessment of the CO2 impact of different frame manufacturing processes was completed; including steel and carbon epoxy frames. The final Global Warming Potential metric (kg CO2-eq) gave a value of 4.2 for the European-made steel frames, vs. 68.1 for the epoxy carbon frames made in Asia (16 times greater).
Starling Cycles project - Reece Richards. All images by Dave Price Photo.

[Editor's note: this report is not yet published, but I have seen a preprint version and the numbers Joe quotes are consistent with the current version of the report. However, it should be noted the report assumes the carbon and steel frames weigh the same, which is of course not realistic, but this shouldn't change the broader conclusion of the paper - that carbon has a higher carbon footprint than steel.]

The vast majority of the impact for the carbon was in the production of the raw material [transport made up less than 1% of total carbon emissions], typically manufactured in countries still using highly polluting energy sources. The metric considered only the initial frame manufacture, the comparison is swayed further toward the benefits of steel when you consider the longer lifetime, repairability and reduced manufacturing scrap rate of steel frames. In summary, steel frames are vastly less impactful than carbon!

Other than raw steel manufacture, our company has a relatively low carbon impact. Brazing is low energy, we only have a small workshop, we have no heating (it's bloody freezing in the winter), all but one of the staff cycle to work. We are about to replace my diesel van with a cargo ebike to take the frames to the powder coaters a short distance away. But it is acknowledged that small scale production may be less efficient than mass manufacture.

We do import products and parts from Taiwan, and we do ship our frames worldwide. These are perhaps the key areas where we could make the biggest impact and something we would love to be able to improve.

Chris Holmes, Marin

We are well aware of how important it is for everyone to lower carbon emissions, and have been actively working to reduce ours via achievable means. We did an internal audit a little over a year ago, looking at the areas where we can make improvements in our day-to-day business and found a few that we have already implemented.

Some of the bigger areas we have focused on are limiting travel and sustainable packaging initiatives. The pandemic has shown us that we don’t always have to have a crew fly around the globe to present forthcoming models to our distributor partners and that using videoconferencing is actually preferable to most of those who would have made the trek to our meetings in the past.
26.11.20. Marin Bikes Alpine Trail E2. Pinkbike. PIC Andy Lloyd www.andylloyd.photography
On the packaging front, we are working diligently to eliminate non-recyclable materials used in our bike packaging. We have also asked our dealers to join us on this journey, encouraging them to use green energy sources in their shops, use eco-friendly cleaners and lubes in their shops, and to properly recycle our bike cartons. You can learn more about Marin’s sustainability here.

Michael Zellmann, SRAM

We cannot share our emissions data just yet. And while we have captured our locations, we have not yet established our full carbon footprint. Our emission targets are in development. What we can share is an overview of some of our activities, see below.

SRAM has been deeply engaged in a range of sustainability efforts for years, including:

• Doing a thorough analysis of our carbon footprint and developing our long term sustainability strategy
• Analyzing Scope 1 & 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations [Editor's note: this article explains what's meant by scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.]
n a
• Enrolled in Renewable Energy Audits
• Developing Corporate Social Responsibility Plan
• Engaged with Climate Action Corps and P4B Sustainability Working Group
• SRAM HQ – LEED Certified
• Removing hard plastic packaging for all new AM products
• Using Biodegradable plastic in our poly bags
• Phasing out single-use plastic trays in OE and internal packaging
• Replacing with paper pulp or reusable plastic trays
• Procuring renewable energy globally [including factories]
• Made improvements based on energy audits
• Increasing serviceability of components
• Doing more repairs instead of replacements for Reverb
• Looking for opportunities in other products to repair instead of replace

Hans Heim, Ibis Cycles

The issue is urgent and we've been working towards becoming net zero or negative. The main sources of CO2 emissions for our company are the manufacture and transport of our frames.

On the manufacturing side, we developed a new manufacturing process to build carbon frames in the USA with solar power. We are generating 60% more power than we use which flows back into the grid displacing the need for non-renewable energy. The emissions created in the manufacturing of the carbon fiber material itself are roughly offset by our excess power production.

On transportation, about 3 years ago, we almost completely stopped using air freight for incoming shipments. The emissions from air freight are ~10x that of ocean freight and that was not acceptable.

We have recently taken almost all the plastic out of our bike packaging and now everything is 100% recyclable. We have been pushing our suppliers to take responsibility for eliminating plastic packaging.

Each company in the supply chain will need to work on reducing emissions at the source. It is all voluntary at this time. In the near future most companies will be compelled both internally (employees) and externally (market) to prioritize the environment.

We have been researching carbon offsets to find highly-vetted options for offsetting the rest of our business, though our preference is to reduce directly rather than pay to offset. The idea that you can just pay a fee to reduce your impact is better than nothing, but really, we need to be responsible at the source. So we will buy offsets while working on reducing emissions throughout our supply chain.

And finally, we are consciously making products that will last a long time and be able to be maintained which saves resources and waste.


As a manufacturer of bicycles that are sold and shipped all around the world, there’s no getting away from the fact we are a polluter. But in recent years, climate events and research into the environmental impact of ourselves and others make it clear we have a responsibility to drastically reduce our emissions.

Over the past 12 months, we have carried out a climate environmental audit of the entire business with the help of Climate Partners. We are currently hard at work diving into this data and defining timelines and plans for long-term solutions to reduce our CO2 emissions. But, as an indication of the expectations we place on ourselves- we are committed to the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTI).
2021 Canyon Sender CFR Photo Ga tan Rey Shaperideshoot

This initiative is striving for a zero-carbon economy- in an effort to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. We will be making headway on our ‘race to net-zero’ immediately with carbon offsetting programs while we work on the necessary changes to our future business practices. We hope to share a complete overview of our environmental goals with Pinkbike and the cycling community as soon as possible.

As a side note (without wanting this to sound like corporate BS) - if you look around Canyon the momentum has been shifting towards a more sustainable future for some time. Many of our facilities receive power from solar panels on the roof. We developed an improved Bikeguard box for shipping, which uses fully recyclable materials, and no tape. The transition to EV’s for our company vehicles is already underway, and we have made significant reductions to superfluous business travel. Our R&D teams are also investigating more environmentally friendly alternatives to carbon fibre- such as Flax fibre. But in truth these are the low hanging fruit- and we are not going to pretend that some EV’s and nice recyclable packaging will protect us from breaking the critical 1.5-degree global temperature gain. We have a lot more work to do.

Leo Kokkonen, Pole Bicycle Company

As a Finnish brand, we already have a head start over many in terms of our environmental ethics. The Finnish culture is one of respect for nature and is almost symbiotic in our day-to-day life. As a business, we have to adhere to stringent regulations concerning operation and production. Looking after our world is an everyday routine in Finland and something that we do unconsciously.

After ditching our carbon project four years ago for ethical and environmental reasons, our decision to CNC manufacture frames was the single most significant ecological strategic step. In-house production not only avoids the overall cost to the environment by air and sea freight, but it also means we can develop and expand on producing other models in the range soon.
Pole Stamina

For us, by far, the largest source of CO2 emissions comes from manufacturing and shipping. Currently, we manufacture most of our products in our factory in Finland by CNC machining, and we are doubling our capacity next year. Now, we produce Evolink in Taiwan, and we assemble the bikes in Finland. Our packaging materials are made in Finland, and probably even the carton wood is from our local forests. CNC machining uses electricity produced by nuclear, wind, or water power plants with low CO2 emissions. Our factory uses geothermal heating, and we have solar panels for cooling. We recycle all metals, paper, and cartons. In our region, only a fraction of waste ends up in landfills.

For us, it's pretty hard to make any significant shifts to reduce our CO2 emissions as we are probably doing the best we can at the moment. Currently, our primary focus is to reduce waste and to recycle as much as possible.

What percentage of the aluminium ends up in the finished frame? What happens to the rest of the material - is it recycled locally, and is it the same quality?

We machine shell co structures with a wall thickness less than 1mm from billets. I can not give you a specific number because we have several parts, and some have a better production rate than others. I estimate that the end product has roughly 20% of the original billet weight. Our machined aluminium is single grade, and we recycle the scrap in Finland. Ideally, they don't downcycle the material, but that's up to the recycling facility who we sell the material. We get money from our scrap because it's worth money and it's not waste.

Producing less scrap is something that we are getting better at all the time. Making less scrap means fewer emissions, but another driver is that less scrap means more profit, and we want to sell more affordable frames. The bottom line from an environmental view is that metals are desired scrap at all lifecycles of the product and production methods. In addition, remaking metals use renewable or low CO2 emissions energy sources, and recycling aluminium needs only 5% of energy than its original process.

[Editor's note: If 20% of the billet weight in Pole's process ends up in the frame, then they produce 4Kg of scrap for every 1Kg of frame weight. If all that scrap is recycled and re-used (not down-cycled) and uses 5% of the energy of producing virgin material, then Pole's process will require 20% more energy than a process making frames from virgin material with zero scrap.]

Jackie Martin, Fox Factory

Thanks for your question. This year, we made a commitment to lean into environmental, social and governance (ESG) as a core element of our 5 year strategy, embarking on the journey via a comprehensive materiality assessment. Internally, we are working to establish foundational practices for our emerging climate strategy. This work aims to include building capacity and systems that measure company-wide emissions, ideally across Scope 1, 2, & 3 categories (per the GHG Protocol). We are analyzing feasibility for emissions reduction goals and standard governance and management systems. As we better understand our complete inventory and reduction opportunities, we plan to begin setting realistic impact goals and reporting out on progress made.
Fox 34 2022


Sending orders out to Endura’s network of dealers and direct to consumers has an impact on emissions but given that the relative distances are much smaller it has a lower impact than the process of moving containers from East Asia to its main markets in the UK, Europe and US. Endura’s manufacturing, warehousing and design base in Scotland also has a footprint – mainly the electricity and natural gas used to power its 5,000 square meter facility in Livingston. The biggest reductions in emissions will come chiefly by switching to renewables, particularly for electricity, and this is something that is currently being pursued.
Cumulatively, the activities under the direct control of Endura [Scope 1 emissions] represent around 74% of the total CO2 impact of their clothing. Consumer use – predominantly washing – contributes around 20% to a garment’s environmental impact and significant reductions can be made by influencing consumer behaviour in washing and extending the product’s life span.

Endura estimate that retail activities contribute 3% of an item’s emissions, with end-of-life management adding a similar proportion. Endura views end of life management as their responsibility, but from a CO2 emissions point of view, it’s not the lowest hanging fruit. However, planning has started on an initiative to retrieve and fully recycle products alongside packaging such as LDPE bags, something that’s already in place as part of the European Outdoor Group’s Single-Use Plastics project.

Whilst aggressively reducing CO2 emissions under their control is a key part of Endura’s future, the company’s One Million Tree Initiative can reduce their net carbon footprint much more quickly. The mangrove restoration project in Mozambique was chosen as it offers particularly high levels of carbon sequestration per plant, but also because the project was ready to start planting immediately. Endura are also planting trees closer to home, next to the trails at its charitable trust centre in central Scotland where native woodlands have started planting in 2021. This project will create a woodland of 85,000 broadleaf trees, capturing carbon and improving biodiversity on otherwise agriculturally unproductive land.

By pledging to plant one million trees per year over a ten-year timeframe, the carbon capture effect compounds as more and more trees are planted and then begin to reproduce naturally. This will see Endura first balance out the CO2 that their activities produce and rapidly move beyond this to remove much more carbon from the atmosphere than they emit. By 2030, Endura forecast that their net footprint will lock away more than 100,000 tonnes of atmospheric CO2 each and every year.

Research is underway at Endura to prove a chemical recycling process that can operate at scale and shift the mindset of the industry – and even the government. But these challenges are about infrastructure which will take years to change and we do not have the luxury of time. We're just trying to get a job done here and the fastest, most cost-effective and powerful way to do that is through carbon offset.


In December 2020, Outside CEO Robin Thurston announced an industry-leading set of sustainability commitments, and we've already made significant progress against them. The three key commitments are:

• Become climate positive by 2030 by working to lower our manufacturing footprint and neutralizing more than the balance that remains
• Convert our Boulder, Colorado, headquarters to a zero waste and solar-powered facility
• Eliminate 100 per cent of polybags from all of our publishing and mailing efforts
In pursuit of the first goal, we've recently completed a carbon footprint analysis of Outside Inc. that identified our total annual GHG emissions as well as the major sources of emissions. This data provides us with a road map for reductions, and we're forming an internal sustainability task force to drive progress. Early in 2022, we will share a report on our findings, the details of our plan to achieve carbon neutrality in 5 years, and the first pieces of content we will be producing to inspire our audiences to take action in their own lives.

With regard to the second and third goals, we've already made enough progress that we're confident our business will be polybag-free and Zero Waste by early 2022.

Closing Thoughts

I expected a universally lacklustre response to my questions, but I'm glad to see some bike companies are taking the issue seriously, and in many cases taking real steps towards cleaning up their act. In the past, there's been a lot of tinkering around the edges with the odd bit of plastic-free packaging here or a recyclable saddle cover there, so it's encouraging to see some bike brands looking at where their major sources of emissions are and beginning to grapple with them.

Avoiding air freight, buying renewable electricity, installing solar panels or buying materials from the greenest suppliers can all be significant steps towards decarbonising. But for now, the only way for manufacturers to get anywhere close to carbon-neutral is through carbon offsets, and companies like Raaw, Bike Park Wales, and Endura are investing in this approach.

Carbon offsets are often accused of being a sticking plaster rather than a real solution, and even as an excuse to keep polluting, But this Climate Care article makes clear that while offsetting can't be the whole solution, it is nevertheless a necessary part of getting to net-zero. Research shows that companies who paid for offsets cut their scope 1 (direct) emissions by 17% on average, while comparable companies who didn't buy offsets reduced their direct emissions by less than 5% in the same timeframe. While this doesn't prove that offsetting causes companies to cut their emissions, it puts to bed the idea that they act as a license to carry on polluting. This makes sense because if a company pays to offset their emissions, they have a strong financial incentive to reduce them on the balance sheet.

And while some carbon offset projects don't deliver the carbon reductions they claim, carbon offset projects such as Gold Standard have verified efficacy and have co-benefits too, including contributng in a measurable way to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The point is, although carbon offsets aren't a full solution and some offset programmes are better than others, companies who invest in well-vetted projects (such as Gold Standard or Verified Carbon Standard) should be applauded, especially when combined with direct emissions cuts.

Where does this leave us, the consumers? Although the role of personal action is often overstated, what should you do if you want to minimise the environmental impact of your cycling? According to the report Starling cited from the National Composites Centre, making a steel frame results in smaller emissions than a carbon frame, and according to Trek's sustainability report, carbon frames and components have higher emissions than aluminium ones too. However, the report Specialized cited from Duke University found the aluminium frame to have a higher carbon footprint than the carbon one, so it's not a clear picture. Trek's sustainability report and this article from the European Cycling Federation both put the carbon footprint of making a whole bike somewhere in the region of a few hundred kilograms of CO2 equivalent, and other papers I've seen put the figure in that rough ballpark.

Despite what some commenters may think, I’m not interested in persuading you to buy more bikes. If you’re still shredding your 1993 GT Tequesta then more power to you, and the most environmentally friendly bike is the one you already have. But while buying fewer bikes is a good thing for the environment, it's worth keeping that in context. The average European is responsible for about ten tons of CO2 per year and the average American about twenty, so even if you bought a brand new bike every year (which I would call excessive), that's only around 1% of your personal "carbon footprint". Trek says that making a Fuel EX produces 153Kg of CO2. That's the equivalent of driving a typical internal combustion car about three hundred miles. Perhaps the best thing you can do as an individual is to ride your bike instead of driving, and not drive to where you ride your bike.

Author Info:
seb-stott avatar

Member since Dec 29, 2014
268 articles

  • 196 17
 I work as a sustainability consultant and we focus on decarbonising value chains and products in many industries. I am also an addicted bike rider. The intro to this piece is excellent. Calling out MTB's as luxury goods and the nature of their relationship with cars is absolutley spot on. The industry needs to adjust. These answers are depressing. Comapnies looking solely at scope 1 and 2, which is essentially just the buildings they own or use, is typically between 1-5% of a carbon footprint for companies like these. Scope 3 is the value chain where all these emissions will lie in reality. All comapnies should be pushed to report on this in detail and provide a carbon amount for each product, very much like a calorie counter on food. Extending the life of products is a small part of the circularity argument. Designing frames and components for longer life and re-use is the key. The blunt truth is that this is an industry based on generating consumption. Every year a new model of every piece comes out and we are encouraged to buy it. The model is broken but it can be made less harmful.
  • 30 4
 @mikerory Glad you approve of the intro.

As someone who presumably knows a lot more about this than I do, what do you think of Trek's sustainability report? As I understand it, the figures they quote include scope three emissions and are calculated by a third-party organisation. A good start, wouldn't you say?

Also, the SBTI initiative which Canyon has signed up to appears to be a good framework to me, but again, I'd like to know the opinion of someone who works as a sustainability consultant.
  • 17 4
 I also work in sustainability/climate change. It's good to see some progress being made but there's lots more to do, especially on Scope 3. Lots of people are calling this out as greenwashing, it would be great to know what claims have been independently certified. I'm not surprised that the commenters are so cynical as mountain bikers we have marketing bs rammed down our throats on a daily basis and endless new standards. As consumers we need to demand that bike companies transparently demonstrate that sustainability claims are credible. Same applies to claims on new standards, geo etc.
  • 16 1
 @justanothermatt: I completely understand the scepticism. Greenwashing is so prevalent and devious in other industries. I just think that if a company makes genuine steps towards taking responsibility for their emissions or decarbonising, even imperfect or incomplete ones, they should be applauded. Instead, it's those who make these imperfect steps who receive all the flak for greenwashing, while the majority who carry on with business as usual get away without criticism.

It's a classic case of perfect is the enemy of good.
  • 29 107
flag jaame (Oct 20, 2021 at 4:39) (Below Threshold)
 @justanothermatt: I’m an avid bike rider, I see this as greenwashing and also, I don’t give a rat’s ass about carbon footprints.
I’d be happy for the title to be “What are bike companies doing to reduce their carbon footprints, and does anyone care?”.
I think there is a definite generational/cultural divide on this subject. I would imagine a huge percentage of the 40-50 y.o. bracket really does not care about the climate cult.
My kids certainly do care though so I guess it’s here to stay. It will be interesting to see the lip service turn to concrete measurable changes as the younger generation gets more power over the coming decades.
  • 11 0
 Same, also climate consultant and avid biker. the lack of reporting of multinationals towards CDP or pledging to SBT's is astonishing.
You perfectly framed the problem: very few (almost no bike company) report scope 3 cats 1-3. and Transportation. End-of-Life. Value chain emissions are probably 98% of the GHG footprint of these companies, however, they "buy" themselves green through i-RECs, VER's and other market mechanisms.
  • 1 5
flag m1dg3t (Oct 20, 2021 at 4:46) (Below Threshold)
  • 8 5
 If only there was a way to harness hot air and use it as an energy source. On a positive note, Outside introducing a paywall will result in less time spent on devices for a lot of us here, every cloud...
  • 2 0
Just because companies don't report it, doesn't mean it's not happening. Some companies may be doing more than others, it just isn't reported.
Hopefully this will change in the future.
The issues with COVID and supply chain have not helped matters, but some companies are ahead of their targets even with significant headwinds over the last 18 months.
  • 5 1
 @betsie: thank you for the comment.
In theory you are right. Unfortunately the reality i see on a daily basis is different. the companies that take action are eager to communicate and to show progress (also because it sells nicely).
A certain level of transparency is needed to understand a company's operations. this is also the reason why lots of companies report scope 1&2 but fail to report scope 3. the business practice of a company is shown there (as an example: if a company reports towards purchased goods i will be able to see from which country the steel or aluminum is sourced due to specific emission factors). not every company feels comfortable to show that level of detail.

honestly, covid did nothing. the reported emission reductions due to covid are already way passed and we are above 2019 levels. sad reality.
  • 6 0
 @RecklessRascal: I would have to second this. There is little of no action without reporting. Sustainable progress is such a good PR piece that everyone takes advantage of it.
  • 16 0
 @seb-stott: The SBTi is the bets standard out there. It aligns to the Paris agreement and aims to limit warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Anyone looking at decarbonisation should be using this and they are developing new sector based stanadrds to increase accuracy all the time. They are also just about to announce their new Net Zero guidance (on the 28th) whih helps lay out pathways towards reaching an emissions balance. sciencebasedtargets.org/net-zero

As for Trek I applaud them for releasing the report. Including scope 3 is a big deal and opening up facts like carbon frames are worse than alloy for example, is a big step and could hurt their bottom line. The bog hope is that this creates a cascade of reporting. If more comapnies start reporting fully there can be real comparison. WIth this we will see a drive towards genuine carbon reduction as thost that don't will be phased out of the market. No one will purposefully buy a frame or component that is categorically worse for the trails we ride and the planet.
  • 18 0
 I work for the University of Warwick, I look at sustainability for foundation industries primarily and wider implications for manufacturing. I completely agree that scope 3 is the trouble maker and companies really need to look at how they source materials, and put pressure on their suppliers to be more sustainable. Circularity of material is part of the solution, but not the whole solution, reducing emissions at the start of the supply chain has a massive impact on emissions. As an example - don't mine materials, use recycled material as raw product, use renewable energy to power that recycling and manufacture into finished parts, then keep that material in circulation (reuse, remanufacture) before eventually recycling it and emissions will tiny compared to where they are now.

I'm not sure that Cotic's assertion that all of the iron content in their frames is recycled can be correct, their tubes can come from recycled steel but because of the way electric arc furnaces work it can't just be iron. The emissions will be a lot lower than steel that comes from a blast furnace process, but it doesn't sound quite right (I'm an academic, we're pedantic at the best of times).

It's not good enough for purchasers to rely on their suppliers (like Shimano and SRAM) to do the right thing, pressure needs to be applied, or they won't do it. Legislation like CBAM (carbon border adjustment mechanism) will be be a big help in forcing suppliers to change their behaviour (it will cost more to buy from heavy emitting countries) but it will only work if everyone adopts it. It would be great to see the bike industry joining up to do carbon insetting into it's supply chain (carbon insetting is investing in a supply chain to reduce it's emissions), one bike company alone coudn't do it, but a consortium could and it would really help the big mutual suppliers to all bike companies become lower emitters.

This is a great article, and a great start, it's good to know that these things are being thought about in a sport that we love.
  • 2 0
 @Scaryfast22: very good points. I think Cotic assertion about the iron comes from Reynolds' LCA on their product
  • 4 0
 @Scaryfast22: Agree with you fully. especially the part about insetting. Just be aware that right now it is difficult to have accredited insetting projects that can count towards SBTi since this field is very new - with the new net-zero standard released on the 28th we expect further insights and a push for this type of projects.
  • 16 6
 @jaame: thanks for trashing the world your kids and the next generation will inherit hope you have a shifty day today bud
  • 10 0
 @seb-stott: I'm with you on this it's great to see the bike industry taking responsibility, we need to do everything we can at scale as soon as possible but we also need to ensure it is transparent and credible. For the big players this is achievable by aligning with Science Based Targets or similar, for smaller organisations just being honest and transparent is a good start. It's great to see Trek taking the lead, I'm following with interest.
  • 3 0
 @mikerory @RecklessRascal We should set up a bike industry sustainability side hustle!
  • 17 1
 @RecklessRascal: I couldn't agree with you more. Part of the problem we have is a lack of definition around what terms like "net-zero" and "green" actually mean. This is in part due to differences from one country to another and also due to shifting sands of legislation.

@mikerory: Further to the lack of definition regarding terms like "green", we also have a problem that there is no industrial standard to LCA. There are a lot of very good offerings but they all take different approaches. In the case of Reynold's LCA, it would appear that it lacks some fundamental knowledge to do with manufacturing, but then it probably doesn't have to have it.

We all want a clean world, we just need to get better at delivering it and start delivering it faster.
  • 1 2
 I'm disappointed at the number of brands who point to the whole planting trees as a solution. Planting trees (as with most carbon offsets), has very little effect for 30+ years, and even then, they are often cut down or burned prior to this time, resulting in a net positive carbon footprint, not a net negative.
  • 5 0
 @justanothermatt: I'm up for starting a group for sure. Something I've been thinking about for a while.
  • 4 0
 @ratedgg13: With the new net zero definition from SBTi there's more clarity on offsetting. It's becoming a dirty word in the sustainability world and is being ever more tightly controlled.
  • 2 0
 @Scaryfast22: Exactly that re the LCA.
  • 2 0
 @RecklessRascal: We don't publish our figures or use them for PR. We are a billion dollar company and were formally part of a fortune 50 company and manufacture with a global fortune 500 list company.

COVID did impact semiconductor supply chain heavily (along with other factors, including climate action and companies from other countries being forced to shut due to power outages to meet some of their targets).
  • 2 1
 @mikerory: And in my opinion it is the right step to move away from RE offsets to removals, eg to natural or even better technical sinks.

@justanothermatt: All in for the side hustle!
  • 11 2
 Put environmental impact facts on product packaging similarly to nutritional facts on food packaging?? Consumers should know
  • 2 0
 @betsie: then, in your case, i stand corrected and please take my apologies. however, this is unusual in the business world as i see it on a daily basis.
  • 6 22
flag Alfie110 (Oct 20, 2021 at 8:17) (Below Threshold)
 @jaame: mate fully agree...a load of crap
  • 12 1
 @Alfie110: What about pollution then? Do you believe the black stuff coming out of your tail pipe and factory chimneys is real?
@jaame Maybe have your kids fill you in on the basics, you've missed a bit.
  • 10 3
 @hhunterr: It's Not his fault. He comes from a generation of narcissistic indoor smokers who had unlimited opportunities, inconsiderate consumption, and zero debt. A product of his environment if you will.
  • 6 1
 @mikerory: And while it may be that we are acting exactly as companies like Trek want, when we chose to purchase one bike over another. it fundamentally reassures a company that their organizational behaviour is being recognized as positive and forward thinking.
Sure, it may very well be a case of greenwashing for the sake of upticking sales, but if a company is making sizable contributions and reporting it aptly, I personally am more inclined to buy a bike from them than another company that is making negligible amendments / is not reporting. We can send a market signal with our purchasing power as consumers to reinforce a strong commitment to sustainability. If Trek is making the biggest commitments and taking the most aggressive risks with their carbon strategy, then we reward that by all buying Trek (I've also never owned a Trek).
My next bike purchase will undoubtedly be strongly affected by the companies green initiatives.
  • 2 0
 @shltler: not sure you are right about the generation who grew up in the 70s and 80s.
Normal life back then is called extreme poverty in 2021.
We had a blast though, outdoors on our bikes, down the river, camping in the woods, playing football. A dook in the river was better than 3rd had bath water for a wash. Haha.
  • 2 1
 @betsie: Nah, people of that generation never had to make any sacrifices to get on in life, everything was just handed on a plate. Haven't you heard?
  • 1 0
 @commental: it is true. We were so very lucky.
I remember when my home town got a tiny arcade and we had top gun or gauntlet to play. Well... We could watch the rich kids play until we got kicked out as there were 6 people in the arcade.
  • 4 23
flag Baller7756 (Oct 20, 2021 at 15:15) (Below Threshold)
 @Mtg999: Your next bike purchase will be even more strongly influenced by its cost. Are you willing to pay a premium to satisfy your desire to fall in line... say 10-15%?

We shut down the entire planet for a year and CO2 levels remained within the year to year variation. How far will we go down this road... how much will we spend... how much will we alter our society... how much freedom will we surrender... before the masses come to realize that we do not have influence over this 5 billion year old planet's evolution.

If humans never existed... CO2 levels would be exactly where they are now. The planets geological processes control its atmosphere... and its going to do what its going to do... we are just along for a short part its journey.

Cleaner is better for ecological health, sure... and who wants a bunch of plastic pilling up everywhere... but to think we have ever impacted this planets course is just simple human narcissism and reflects the power and influence those seeking power have over weak minds.
  • 3 0
 @Baller7756: Meanwhile: Somewhere in the artic, Holes the size of Rhode Island appear out of thin air. Perhaps Aliens?
  • 11 1
 @Baller7756: Hi there, as a PhD in climate science and technology (and former specialist in energy technology for both public and private sector), everything you said about CO2 levels is wrong.
  • 1 0
 Why is Venus hotter than mercury
  • 2 12
flag Baller7756 (Oct 20, 2021 at 17:38) (Below Threshold)
 @ratedgg13: Only elitist (and the Sith) spec in absolutes. The fact that you believe that your information and your perspective is without error and fault says it all. No one else can have a competing or contrary facts and opinion.

Where do i report for reconditioning?
  • 5 3
 @Baller7756: Yeah normally absolutes are wrong. But going back and checking *every* thing you said about CO2 levels *is* wrong.

Also lots of irony in "Only elitist (I assume you mean scientists?) speak in absolutes." Most scientists spend their entire careers worrying about uncertainty and how to reduce it.
  • 2 16
flag Baller7756 (Oct 20, 2021 at 19:31) (Below Threshold)
 @fusedshut: IDK... i wouldnt say "every" thing I said was wrong. Here is just one chart showing I may have some logic to my reasoning. It illustrates exactly what I said... with or without humans, the planets CO2 levels do what they are going to do regardless. Levels increase and decrease "naturally".

  • 6 2
 @Baller7756: If you read the article that your chart was from, you'd know that the papers conclusion is: "If CO2 continues to rise further into the twenty-third century, then the associated large increase in radiative forcing, and how the Earth system would respond, would likely be without geological precedent in the last half a billion years." So, no. You are wrong.
  • 6 0
 @Baller7756: I know you're not suppose to engage trolls, but your move of linking a chart from the paper titled "Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years" to show that recent changes are totally normal is pretty ballsy.
  • 2 0
 @mikerory: agreed. Trek has taken a small risk here but opened a dialogue that’s important to consumers. We may all appear to only be interested in the technology but this issue is on the minds of many. Transparency regarding the impact of some technological advancements like carbon frames, batteries, etc helps consumers make informed decisions that consider not only their needs/desires but their beliefs and convictions. Trade offs can be made to balance these in purchasing related decisions. Of course this relies on there being choice. Companies and consumers can evolve together to direct the industry beyond just blind pursuit of lighter, faster, etc. One can dream anyway...
  • 2 11
flag Baller7756 (Oct 20, 2021 at 22:01) (Below Threshold)
 @fusedshut: I’m not a “troll” just because I have a different opinion than you. I use the chart for data not the individual’s conclusion/opinion… which is speculative and clearly not based on the data. Which is my entire point… people are blinded by their desire to take a side, or belong to a tribe… so much so that they will ignore the obvious to support a cause.

The planet is clearly in a warming cycle… there is nothing we can do to stop that. Instead we should accept the change and work toward adaptation.

Thought exercise for you… an opportunity to independently use your critical thinking and reasoning instead of what you have been conditioned and influenced to believe…

If Earth was in a cooling cycle right now… what would we be doing? Would we be pushing futile attempts to stop it?
  • 3 0
 @mikerory @justanothermatt

Another sustainability consultant's input: Scope 3 is almost always the highest source of emissions for a product-based company. I couldn't agree with your comments more - we need to see brands tracking Scope 3 and setting SBTi goals. Plenty of fossil fuel companies publish their emissions...

I think Trek's report will spur some other companies into action, and it will be interesting to see which brands rise to the occasion. Be on the lookout for those actually creating change versus those hastily putting together a sustainability pledge to keep up with Trek. An actual materiality assessment would benefit most of these brands to know what sustainable initiatives to focus on.

A quick comment on carbon offsets: everyone loves trees, but it's challenging to measure their carbon sequestration ability. Plus, if you haven't calculated your emissions, then how can you rely on tree planting offsets as a reduction strategy? You don't even know how much to offset! You're just blindly throwing trees in the ground!
  • 7 0
 @Baller7756: No one is going to argue that the earth has cooling and warming cycles. The suggestion is that the recent burning of more than 50,000,000,000,000 (yes, 50 trillion…) gallons of oil may have had a significant additional impact.

There’s lots more here: climate.nasa.gov
  • 5 0
 @Baller7756: I'll grant you that the planet has previously gone through phases of increased and decreased temperature, but never in the observable history of this planet (with the sole exception of extinction level asteroid impacts) has the change occurred so rapidly as it has in the last 150 years of human occupation.
I won't call you a troll for having a questioning mind, hypotheses need to stand strong on their evidence, but this is an agreed upon theory, more defensible than the theory of gravity. The place for opinions is on on how we fix the problem, not if there is one.
  • 3 1
 @natealator: I'm no sustainability consultant but I am aware that trees can be problematic unless well-vetted and monitored. From what I've heard, trees planted outside the tropics can have a more-or-less neutral effect on the climate. I wonder though if carbon offset markets (which could be massively accelerated by carbon pricing) will spark an industry for more reliable, scalable and permanent carbon drawdown industries like accelerated rock weathering, biochar, BECS, direct air capture (maybe) - there seem to be more ideas every day.

I agree that if companies aren't measuring their carbon footprint accurately, they can't claim to be offsetting their emissions. But I would argue that some carbon offsets (assuming they're well vetted) are better than none, and none is the default for now. So I hope I don't seem naive for congratulating those who offset at least a little.
  • 3 0
 @natealator: @natealator: Agreed, I'm looking forward to the other bike players stepping up. Great to see so many cycling sustainability consultants and climate scientists on Pinkbike!
  • 3 0
 @natealator: @mikerory @RecklessRascal @justanothermatt @Scaryfast22

Thanks all for your insights on this thread. I never knew there were so many environmental consultants on PB, only that this is a complex topic and I'm way out of my depth here!

If you guys do end up setting up some sort of cycling sustainability group please keep me in the loop!
  • 4 0
 @seb-stott: Hi Seb, offsets have their purpose if used correctly think of it as avoid, reduce, offset. The offsetting is the last think you should be doing to mitigate for an organisations unavoidable emissions. For voluntary offsets organisations should really be using either Gold Standard or Verra certified credits. There's 2 types of offset reductions and removals. The market is moving more towards using removals mainly because of SBTi. Removals are either nature based or technology based. Technology based aren't really credible or at scale at the moment, which leaves nature based. The issue with nature based is around permanence i.e. can you guarantee that this reduction claim will exist in the future, with increased drought, forest fires etc it is pretty hard to guarantee permanence. People often get tree planting and offsetting confused, if you are buying nature based carbon credits these normally have a buffer built in so the permanence can be guaranteed to an extent (still not great though), the offsets also have to be 3rd party verified whereas most tree planting schemes have no verification or buffer so you don't really know what you are getting unless you visit the site yourself. Carbon offsets have been great at getting corporates to engage with their emissions and start to put a value on their impact, you don't want to spend money offsetting when you can avoid the emissions in the first place. For this to be really effective the value of the offsets needs to be really high. Better still we need a carbon tax. I think other climate finance mechanisms will accelerate carbon capture technologies.
  • 2 0
 The ironic thing in all of this is that bike companies are part of the better overall solution, which is basically amongst other things cycling and walking instead of driving, yet they are still not addressing the elephant in the room which is that we all need to reduce, reduce, reduce. Just stop consuming so much stuff..! Food, water, products you don't need, the list is endless!

No bike company, especially the big ones like Specialized and Trek, are ever going to turn around and say

"..yeah our plan is to make less bikes, make them out of mainly re-cycled materials and also make them easy to re-cycle once they're at the end of their life. We're also only going to release new models when there are genuine innovations that make the model truely a better bike, not just half a degree off the head angle. Then as we are spending less on r&d for superficial small improvements, and less spending on marketing, because we shouldn't be encouraging you to buy our bikes when you don't really need one, we can then carry this saving across to sell our bikes to you for less money. This should hopefully get more people cycling rather than driving as more people can afford our bikes. We may then still make an ok amount of money as more people will be buying them, and anyway, profit isn't the most important thing in the world is it anymore, the environment is..."

They won't say that, will they.
  • 1 4
 @T-J-0: no, they won’t. It will never stop. The majority will never change their behaviour. One day when humans are extinct every other species on the planet will rejoice.
The planet will be just fine without us, and doesn’t need saving.
  • 1 2
 @commental: The paywall will be financed with carbon offsets! I want to know how an office building can be Zero-Waste? So no office workers can fart, sh*t, or puke at work? Oh sorry Randy, I just farted! That will cost you $7.50 in carbon offsets!
  • 3 0
 You hit the nail on the head mikerory, bravo. Reading the industry statements here, all I really heard was "Keep consuming as much as you can while we whisper sweet nothings in your ear..."
  • 110 7
 Poles solution is making bikes so ugly no one will buy them. Saves ghg emissions from shipping.
  • 12 0
  • 28 0
 Sram even did a self burn;
> Doing more repairs instead of replacements for Reverb
  • 8 1
 @gadabout-garth: There's not a landfill big enough to take all the faulty ones if they just bunged them away.
  • 2 0
 @chakaping: They could have turned them into a not-fully-functioning art installation at least. An ode that the Reverb surely deserves.
  • 7 0
 @BenPea: And display it at pop-up art exhibitions. Then again perhaps not.
  • 2 0
 @commental: Title: "The rise and fail of the RS Reverb"
  • 60 2
 Just buy less stuff. Repair before replacing. Minimise your possessions and treasure your friends, family and nature instead. Ride with your friends more often Stop feeding the need to fucking replace a whole bike because the head angle is 0.5 degrees too steep
  • 3 0
 Yup. Lovin the local repair meets where old folks teach kids about fixing anything from toasters to bikes to stereos. Life skills...
  • 1 0
 Plus ride to the trailhead like Seb suggested, especially if the car runs on fossil fuels.
  • 39 2
 I mean really the issue is global economics right? If bike manufacturers wanted to reduce their emissions in a meaningful way they would be producing bikes where they sell them, cutting out the shipping and production across seas. I feel like Guerrilla Gravity is the only bike company that has taken this meaningful step and they don't even brag about it. Trek put some solar panels on their roof and this whole article is about it.
  • 10 0
 ^^this x 1000
  • 31 4
 Making bikes where they are sold is not a solution for two reasons. 1) most of the components and raw materials (including bauxite for aluminium and carbon pre-preg and epoxy) are made in the far east and (for Bauxite) Australia, so if you avoid shipping the bikes, you just ship the components and materials. 2) Shipping accounts for about 1% of the bicycle supply chain emissions according to one report. Shipping by sea produces about 3g of CO2 per ton-kilometre, meaning to ship a 25kg bike box 10,000km across the world releases about 0.75kg of CO2, whereas to manufacture one releases several hundred kilograms. The main emissions come from manufacturing the bike, not shipping it.

However, I totally agree that it's the global economic system that needs to change. Greenhouse gases are the only pollutants that can be emitted mostly for free and without restriction. In my view, we need to put a price on carbon of at least $100 per ton of CO2e, so the cost reflects the environmental damage. That money could then be used to subsidise or invest in green alternatives, or simply be given back to the people as a small form of Universal Basic Income, which would more than cover the extra cost of living for most people. We didn't get rid of CFCs by making consumers feel guilty about buying deodorants or refrigerators; we did it by forcing manufacturers to find less damaging alternatives.


  • 7 0
 @seb-stott: Good to know, but elaborating more on your point; so the main source of pollution is from manufacturing of the bike which I'm assuming is mostly because of energy consumption (ie welding aluminum frames, baking carbon frames etc) wouldn't it make more sense to do these processes in a country with more stringent regulations? Would the overall CO2 production of bike manufacturing be less if it was done in a country that uses more renewable energy? Taiwan's energy is mainly produced by coal while the US's is mostly produced from natural gas which produces much less CO2. I'm not trying to pick on Taiwan, that's just where my bike frame was made, and I know there are much more energy efficient countries than the US to build bike frames in, but I think my point is valid. This isn't a problem unique to cycling, I think any industry where their main product is produced in the far east is in the same boat (literally and figuratively), just cycling companies are more aware because it matter to their consumers.
  • 8 1
 @seb-stott: you need to chat with Devinci about this. Canadian made aluminum with very low carbon cost, which is produced only a few doors over from where they make their frames - most of their lineup has an aluminum counterpart, which are now almost all made in Canada. So there is at least one HUGE exceptionm
  • 1 1
 @seb-stott: According to GG's website, the raw material for their Revved carbon frames is sourced from the US. I know you're saying the manufacture of frames is the real issue, but at least with GG, they're using a curing process that is a lot faster than what they do with traditional layup frames. Not sure if that means using a lot less energy overall tho.
  • 2 0
 @seb-stott: Not entirely true for aluminium there is alot of alloy floating about the recycling chain that can be reworked. I work for a recycling company and we literally ship hundreds of tons to local reprocessor a year. Also i seem to remember the figure that apparently 75% of all aluminium EVER produced is still in use in one way or another I doubt the same can be said for the landfill fodder thats carbon fiber
  • 1 0
 @McMeta666: Never heard that figure before. 75% though, that's impressive. I'm sure it's getting better by the year too.
  • 1 0
 @seb-stott: I totally agree about the need for steep carbon pricing. Fortunately, Canada's on track for having a price of $170CAD/tonne CO2e by 2030. That is one thing our current government got right.
  • 8 8
 This sport won’t survive the climate crisis
  • 7 1
 @kleinblake: I don’t think that’s true. Notice how so many ski resorts are pivoting to build mountain bike trails. There’s money to be made in the other 5-8 months of the year, and when the climate is really screwed, downhill mountain biking could conceivably replace skiing at these mountains that simply become too warm to even generate snow. Total capacity may be reduced as trails are more narrow but overhead costs could be significantly less than paying groomers, blowers, patrollers, snow plowers, etc
  • 10 1
 @sjma: I mean after climate disaster and civilization comes out the other side. A sport so rooted in consumption can’t exist in that world.
  • 5 12
flag p-m-z (Oct 20, 2021 at 9:04) (Below Threshold)
 @kleinblake: what crisis??
  • 2 1
 @sjma: a place in Virginia (Bryce) only opened for biking a few years ago and they just extended this bike season all the way to the end of November. I think you're right.
  • 3 0
 @sjma: what losses from fewer skiers can be offset by the cut in overheads, that's the question. I think A LOT of people aged 3-103 are going to have to suddenly develop a taste for downhill mountain biking.
  • 3 0
 @kleinblake: you mean modern capitalist society won’t survive it!
  • 2 0
 @mikedk: hopefully not!
  • 23 0
 What a bunch of HORSESHIT.Bike manufacturers have been pushing ebikes HARD these past few years.Any company that pretends they are “trying” to lower their emissions is FULL OF SHIRT!
  • 8 0
 You have a point. I'd think a e-mtb would be a good alternative to ride TO the (approved) trail, but I see these gd things on hitch racks more often. Ride your damn e-mtb to the trail you hosers.
  • 13 0
 @twozerosix: ebikes maybe a good alternative to ride to WORK instead of driving but in terms of replacing your regular bike = bad and much worst for the environment.Humans have successfully managed to take what has arguably been the greenest mode for transportation and make it dirty af by slapping a battery on it…And they call that evolution …
  • 22 0
 Burning Question: Do Bike Brands Have Targets To Reduce CO2 Emissions?
Burning Question: Does the ever increasing, very often changing of "standards" in the Bike industry...... Have Targets To Reduce CO2 Emissions?
  • 10 0
 I know I’m cynical, but this (along with other recent articles) feels like an industry push to convince carbon users they need buy alloy bikes. It’s hard not to believe that the $$ is not the ultimate factor. Reminds me of the auto industry: “buying our new car is the solution to the climate crisis!” If we were really serious at all about this, we would admit that mountain biking isn’t something any of us need to be doing. Companies that exist to sell goods and make money would like us to believe we can change things without altering our decadent lifestyles. Or even worse by consuming even more. I doubt it.
  • 18 2
 These companies are only telling consumers how much they want to reduce their carbon footprint to use as marketing to sell even more bikes and look woke.
  • 4 2
 hence the term greenwashing
  • 5 0
 I really don’t believe that but in the end of a company has a competitive advantage by being green and others follow that’s still a good result because emissions are reduced
  • 18 2
 Great article Seb, thank you.
  • 13 0
 Im pretty sure shipping tubes from Birmingham to Sheffield via Taiwan isn’t the best approach!
  • 20 9
 Meanwhile China keep pumping billions of tonnes into the atmosphere per year. Bicycle manufactures cutting emissions is like a drop in the ocean to what China spew out, will make little difference.
  • 13 1
 Quite some of the emissions from China might also be caused by the production and shipping of products ordered from companies outside of China. In a global economy everything sticks together.
  • 12 0
 @XIVXV: That's basically it. You can just export your emissions to China where they wont be sanctioned. And your labor, woohoo.
  • 11 3
 Think why China is emitting so much. Because the west has outsourced all its manufacturing to them so we can buy stuff they make. Blaming China alone when the west keeps having stuff made there using non renewable energy is hypocritical. If YOU stop buying stuff from highly polluting countries then you will be doing your bit to reduce their emissions.
  • 2 1
 @inside-plus: How do you think they went from a nation of farmers to the world's largest manufacturing nation in ~50yrs?
  • 4 9
flag jrocksdh (Oct 20, 2021 at 6:59) (Below Threshold)
 @lukeb: ya we took ourselves out of work with overtime/unions/maternity/dfi task focres/and on and on
  • 5 1
 @jrocksdh: I'm worried about our wealthy 1% too. Please don't let us get paid for overtime/ parental leave/unionize. Keep the extra money from each of us to buy yourself an even bigger super yacht/ spaceship.
  • 2 0
 Who do you think China is pumping out all these emissions for my friend? The idea of carbon accounting linking emissions to the producer (nation, state, company) and not the consumer is a monstrous problem in the fight against climate change.
Consumption drives production. Consume less, and then those who produce for us (In the Global North) will indeed produce less.
  • 11 0
 Great article. Like it or not the environmental impact of the bike ride or any other product we use matters.
  • 7 0
 Want to reduce CO2 emissions? Stop changing the standards every f_cking year driving obsolescence. Stock replacement parts on older product lines.

Mountain bikes and their components are becoming more and more disposable because of industry practices.

Taking a couple steps to reduce your carbon footprint in manufacturing is just sh_tty lip service when the entire industry has shifted to a planned obsolescence business practice.
  • 12 6
 Heavy engineering, the automotive industry, animal husbandry - the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is disproportionately greater than bicycles. But we will tell you what our companies are green and kawaii. I am not saying that you should not pay attention to the environment. But this is complete self-deception.
  • 13 1
 Yesterday I was browsing through some windsurfing boards to see what's new and it can be clearly seen that sustainability and low or even negativeCO2 emissions are "the thing" now. 5 years ago everything was about weight and durability and now it's extremely important that your foot straps arre 85% made from natural sources.

It's a nice touch but I call it BS. Just a good PR for new generations obsessed with sustainability while at the same time they have to have everything latest and greatest
  • 19 0
 Just putting the blame on others will not get anyone anywhere here. Everyone has to do their part and the bicycle industry and us consumers are part of that.
  • 6 5
 @XIVXV: I'm just saying that this is maybe not the best way to save the world. It makes us feel better about ourselves, that's sure, but I don't think is that much helpful.

You want to save the world? Feed the poor!
Give them a roof over their heads and some education.
So when we get one more billion of full fed and educated people maybe we will also get a chance to have a bit brighter future on this planet
  • 4 2
 @pakleni: The "new" generation has been handed a planet that has been severely degraded by the older generation. Whether intentional or not, this is the reality we live in, and while I dislike greenwashing as much as the next person, if a company can legitimately identify and make positive changes for the environment, then I, for one am indeed far more likely to buy their product. And I can either be part of the generation that caused this mess, or part of the solution; and I certainly know which group I chose to be in.
The real challenge comes in identifying which changes has measurable impact, and which do not. Carbon accounting and independent eco-auditing will become more and more prevalent.
  • 8 0
 Bike manufacturers - we are reducing plastic packaging to save the planet. Bike owners - we wrap our bikes in sticky plastic to save the paint.
  • 8 2
 To be fair the wraps increase longevity of bikes.
  • 3 1
 So, if the bike manufacturers would apply the wrap up front, they'd need less packaging for initial transport. The issue then becomes that these reports would indicate that such a manufacturer would have a larger footprint by pumping more plastic into the world.

Let's just accept that when you use your bike, it will eventually look used. My previous hardtail frame from 2008 (which my daughter is riding now) has some slightly rusty spots here and there. But it doesn't affect the function and I doubt it affects the strength by much. It's old, it's been ridden, it looks like that, it's fine.
  • 1 0
 But the wrap will possibly help the bike last longer..?
  • 1 0
 @vinay: That is true for metal frames (especially Alloy). In critical places for rockstrikes on composite frames I would argue a bit of helicopter or even mastic tape goes a long way towards increasing your bike's life.
  • 3 0
 @vinay: I actually I agree with that. I've never appraised a used bike depending on the number of small scratches at all, I look for larger mechanical issues like pivots and ovalization and if regular suspension maintenance was done.
  • 7 1
 Wow, @foxfactory - you’re getting ready to analyze feasibility of measuring GHG, impressive! Props to Trek for their work and for calling out the role the bike industry can play in replacing urban car trips with e-bikes. That’s where the industry can have the greatest impact. Surprised @canyon didn’t mention the work they’re doing in the urban mobility space.
  • 3 0
 I do like the (significantly) cheaper maintenance on the Lyrik over the 36, this Fox response just makes that Sram purchasing decision a little more clear next time.
  • 6 1
 Pretty disappointing to see the number of replies complaining about the article or that this topic is even being brought up. "Hey I come to PinkBike to be told what to buy to INCREASE my footprint, not how to be more responsible!" I've found it infuriating that companies like @foxfactory have basically waited until they were seeing targeted callouts about their sustainability intiatives (or lack thereof, in this case) to make any sort of change. We all need to do better, at the very least to try to help make sure climate change doesn't f*ck up our favorite riding spots.

Massive props to @seb-stott for this article and for calling companies out. From the PB/Outside perspective, these are almost all bigger companies and big potential advertisers, so the risk isn't small. Ultimately, we're walking away from this a little more informed, and hopefully people at least think twice as to whether they truly need that new upgrade - and if they do, who best to buy from.
  • 8 0
 Any bike mfr selling ebikes and pushing this narrative is full of crap. Batteries have a gnarly, filthy supply chain.
  • 9 4
 Some people be like:

Coronavirus: Not happening
Benefits of mass immunisation program: Not happening
Global Warming: Not happening
(Near) Spherical planetary formation: Didn't happen
Trump inciting riot: Didn't happen
Holocaust: Didn't happen
Leftist conspiracy to make the world more woke: Definitely happening
Bill Gates using 5G to control us via implanted chips: Definitely happening

The internet is amazing, now anything can be true.
  • 5 0
 @Outside mag - what I didn't see on your list of actions is providing a BuySell page on Pinkbike used by tens of thousands of people worldwide to encourage the purchase of previously used bikes and product, therefore extending the usable life of bikes and reducing the environmental impact caused by purchase of new product. This also provides a mechanism for those with less cash to get into the sport and get outside to ride bikes. This is massive, and a big part of what you do for the global community and environment. Please add this to your list, and commit to keeping it FREE, for all, forever! Signed, everyone.
  • 12 8
 Who even cares until china (the leading polluter of the planet) makes any form of an attempt to curb their emissions

They are building coal plants with no scrubbers as quickly as they can, dumping trash into the ocean and racing to pollute the earth while the rest of us bicker about our emissions
  • 17 3
 According worldometers.info, CO2 per capita from the USA is double that of China.
  • 4 0
 @andydmorris: Shhh... they want to remain ignorant.
  • 5 0
 @andydmorris: Per Capita though. China has a billion and a half people. More than 4x the US population.
  • 3 0
 @50percentsure: wait, what? are you suggesting, mass genocide in China? It’s the per capita figure that matters, or more accurately for the current populations it’s likely that the biggest impact on reducing global warming will come from the US (and other developed countries) reducing their emissions. but, every nation should do their bit.
  • 1 3
 @andydmorris: seems to be largely dependent on where you source your data
  • 2 1
 @stingmered: china is already working diligently on mass genocide so they're doing their part to achieve lower emission standards
  • 2 0
 And we are enabling them by offshoring all of our manufacturing
  • 2 3
 @pommie-shredder: yep, god forbid we stick to any sort of tariff. everyone wants domestic production until it means they'll have to pay more for luxury goods.
  • 4 0
 @seb-stott Brilliant article, well done gathering the info from all those companies. Comments section is also pretty rich in content. Would be great to see more articles on these topics.

Also good to link it to the big question of 'why' - direct answer here being that preventing environmental damage directly makes mountain biking more enjoyable. Simple but effective.
  • 4 0
 Having worked in the industry for 15 years. I've seen more and more Vendors market how there trying to be eco-friendly. unharmful dyes, biodegradable packaging, recycled materials, ect.

They boast this at trade shows saying look at us... we're saving the earth... Then they hand you a catalog with 100+ pages. After that they air freight in 1000's of products multiple times per year to keep up with demand. It's all joke for the companies to look good in the eye of the consumers to boost profits.
  • 5 0
 Regarding the tree planting programs, here is an important thread to read for pb users and bike brands mobile.twitter.com/forrestfleisch1/status/1444008823350603780
  • 5 0
 nice informative thread. it misses (i think) another important limitation of tree planting based offsets, though: while mature trees are capable of absorbing a great deal of co2. the issue is, no one plants mature trees -- they plant seedlings. these little trees absorb very little carbon for their first few decades of life, often less than is being released by the deadfall and tilled soil around them. while afforestation offsets this somewhat, replanting deforested land (which is what most tree planting based offset programs are doing) gives trees a carbon handicap that takes them years to overcome: the area they're planted in leaks carbon dioxide as leaves and discarded branches decay. once the new trees reach 15-20 years old, they are able to absorb more carbon dioxide than is leaking from the ground, and start to offset whatever emissions they were planted to address; until then, they're not even absorbing as much co2e as is being emitted by the deforested land they're growing in.
  • 1 2
 @boomforeal: Oh, come on! Way to be a buzz kill with the facts there. Wink m.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdKOmvIKyg
  • 2 0
 @m1dg3t: Good video, to sum it up, it says old-growth forests is what should be prioritized because they reduce CO2 And it takes 20 years for new plantings to start to pay off. The guy who says to stop tree planting, seems to be saying land restoration initiatives are better, and that involves tree planting plus more... which makes sense....

but we should still plant trees, just not come in and plant one species of the wrong tree.... however that's still probably better than no trees... trees release salts that trigger rainfall, contributing to more rainfall, more rainfall equals more biodiversity = which equals land restoration.
  • 2 0
 @boomforeal: depends on location and the species planted and expected longevity. Sure plant a black walnut in New England and it’s going to take a while to be CO2 beneficial, however it will be helpful in other ways before then and will be very helpful for decades after (CO2, nut production, wildlife habitat etc) and possibly decades after that if harvested and used for traditional uses (furniture, flooring etc).

Locally we are seeing a big change in newer tree growth as the forests that are now of a more mature age are starting to become much more diverse.
  • 1 0
 @DHhack: for sure, different trees planted in different conditions will take different amounts of time to come to carbon-sucking maturity

but the bottom line is that we've got ~10 years to address a huge chunk of the emissions we are generating before we lock in decades of (further) negative climate change impacts -- and trees planted during that period aren't going to do anything to address that
  • 2 0
 @boomforeal: I probably shouldn't say online what I think the solution(s) might entail. One look at the websites that track all the airplanes up in the air, or all the ships in the ocean, right now, makes me pessimistic that any meaningful changes will be brought about by man.
  • 13 6
 Get used to this, it's Outsides modus operandi.
  • 1 4
 To spin every topic to maximize views/clicks? Who would have thought?
  • 11 2
 @m1dg3t: Nah Green articles. Not that I am against the cause, but its that Pinkbike has always been a bubble from the rest of the world. Now the bubble is burst.
  • 2 2
 I was thinking the same thing — the beginning of the “Ouside-ification” of Pinkbike. Exactly the type of stuff Outside publishes.
  • 3 3
 @TheR: You mean parent company called "OUTSIDE" doing what it can to care for the very place to which it named itself; who would have thought.
  • 1 3
 @Mtg999: Robin, is that you? Be safe be well.
  • 2 2
 @Mtg999: I doubt that, their biggest interest is advertising dollars. They want to get as many people into the outdoors consuming products sold by people who advertise on their websites/publications.

It's nice that they can say they lead the industry by making their printing operation more sustainable, but the ultimate goal in that printing operation is to sell as much polytetrafluoroethylene products as possible.

Don't believe any of this bullshit.
  • 5 2
 I don't care about this anywhere near as much as knowing that everyone in the supply chain of a bike is paid a living wage. To me, that's the real burning question, as the bike industry has a proportionately low environmental impact to other industries like construction and energy generation. I pay exorbitant prices for my luxury mountain bike. It's a whole lot easier to swallow if I knew everyone who worked to get that bike to me was paid an above market wage for it. That's probably an unpopular opinion, but I'd prefer Pinkbike to be asking that question than about the environmental impact.
  • 2 0
 The european bike industry moved to Taiwan (higher end) and China (lower end). Some taiwanese companies have their own subsidiaries factories in China. For sure above market wage and european standards. That trend has accelerated with the WTO deals in the nineties.
  • 3 0
 More transparency is good but a lot more information needs to be provided (for interested consumers).

Example: "We use alloy 'cause carbon is worse" means nothing unless you've gone into where the raw materials (bauxite for example) came from, how they were shipped to be refined and what power source was used to process them. We are just scraping the surface in many of these reports.
  • 4 1
 @seb-stott thank you for this article !
If Pinkbike keep put in show the good initiative, keep asking what industry does and why they don't do, it is a clear signal than people whant change.
Looking at the length of the comments section, it clearly encourage debat and discussion, it is also a nice point.

Pinkbike is doing is share of the job (just waiting for the public release of a third party audit Smile ), thanks !
  • 1 3
 PinkBike is pandering. Simple.
  • 3 0
 Biggest elephants in the room are carbon frames & ebikes.
Aluminium may use more power to recycle but can be done over & over again whereas carbon frames get land filled. Struggle for choice to buy a proper enduro bike that isn’t carbon. And ‘pedal’ bikes now need ‘batteries’ how green is that??
  • 6 0
 Target getting dat Moped Money
  • 2 0
 This is nothing new but my company has a program where they payout prizes once a year to random employees that submit all the "green" things they do each month. Including commuting w/o a car, carpooling, driving an electric car, using reusable mugs for water, reusable containers for lunch, buying energy efficient appliances, growing a garden, working out, etc. It incentivizes employees to fill it out and gives the company a cheap and measured way to get net zero credits. BUT it doesn't really change anything. I would be doing the same things regardless of the company. I'm just saying companies that claim net zero not only tap into their process and products, but in other creative ways as well. For better or worse...
  • 2 0
 Nothing is going to change until the 3rd world counties stop manufacturing for the rest of the world without any real regulation's. The elite & their planes do a enormous amount of damage, but hey lets focus on arguing over trivial stuff.
  • 5 0
 "But reducing CO2 is mainly achieved by increasing the lifetime of a product."

Whats the lifetime of an ebike?
  • 3 0
 For what it's worth, My dad's is 6 years and 12 000 km so far. Battery is definitely a little degraded, but still good for decent range. He's 75 and tries to ride 20km of road or easy gravel (sadly no singletrack anymore) on a daily basis.
  • 2 0
 Everything you do contributes to the problem. Take reading these comments for example. You are doing it with a device that had to be recharged last night- coal is burning somewhere to give you that power not to mention the mining of rare earth minerals to create the batteries
  • 3 0
 Nicely done Seb, thanks for that. Our comparitively little sport and it's associated industries still have a contributing negative environmental impact, thanks for pushing us along in the right direction.
  • 3 0
 The answer is simply no. What would be efficient would be to stop to change our bikes so quickly, and use the same one for 5-6 years, which is far from what brands want us to do
  • 2 0
 IMO this is a pure corporate propaganda to make some of the consumers feel good. The carbon footprint of a bicycle is so minute that it does not matter. For those who really want to reduce CO there is way more low hanging fruit to be picked. How about carbon footprint of a car or all the clothes we keep in our closet? Wanna reduce your carbon footprint? Start taking short showers in luke warm water. I bet within few weeks that will offset the carbon footprint of your bike.
  • 2 0
 Remember when we used to talk about trying to halt (or at least slow) the deforestation of the Amazon (and other CO2 neutralizing regions? Haven’t heard much of that in a while…
Not that striving for more sustainable practices is not relevant, it just seems that we’re a bit fixated. The up-side of using (at least the appearance of) carbon emission production transparency as a selling point is that it places the mechanism of change where it belongs: in the hands and on the shoulders of the consumer.
  • 7 2
 I'm only here for the ebike comments
  • 3 1
 Buy it. Buy it. Buy it. Buy it. Buy it. Buy it. Buy it. They gonna beat you over the head with articles, reviews, videos, etc until you do. So don't wait!
  • 2 1
 I think the last sentence diminished the article's intent. It's our choice to buy and ride bicycles for recreation. And while many people do ride bikes for transportation, I would presume the majority of Pinkbike's audience does not. This article was meant to assauge the platform's readers' environmental concerns, even though most of us fall into a cognitive dissonance mindset about one or more perspectives offered in this feed. I for one do drive my bike to ride, sometimes hours and over 100 miles from my home. I also ride my bike to pick up groceries from the market, or commute to work (when I'm not teleworking). It's my behavior that most needs to change rather than the manufacturers.
  • 1 0
 next step is to have a global picture, manufacturing is a portion of CO2 emissions of our sport. for sure bicycle manufacturing has an impact. We need to know impact of each brand and they have to be carbon neutral. but do mountain bikers themselves have targets to reduce their CO2 Emissions? personally I never use my car to go mountain biking. this is one of the reason I love this sport, no car needed to go to my favorite trails. depending the way you practice, shuttling/travelling could greatly exceeded CO2 emissions of mountain bike manufacturing.
  • 2 0
 Carbon neutral is a hoax. You cannot compensate emissions, it's way better not to emit them in the first place.
  • 1 0
 @zoobab2: You started off poor but got better here. Carbon neutral is not a hoax but is also not the end goal. Net zero is the goal and the terms do often get mixed. Carbon offsetting (compensation) is merely a required stopgap until net zero is reached. I agree completely its better not to emit at all, but offsetting is a temporary necessity, so long as it doesn't our (and companies') ability to achieve net zero.
  • 3 0
 Pleasantly surprised by this article, will bookmark for a more thorough read later. But it's good to see it confirmed that steel really is real, after all.
  • 5 0
 Solution, stop E-(moto?)mtb
  • 1 0
 What about tires? Vittoria pushing tech and energy supply, Schwalbe reusing tubes, and the rest just put on the website "we are working on that....". The real solution I see is we must individualy choose green options and the market would turn green little by little
  • 1 0
 "The fact that cycling's carbon footprint is smaller than many industries is no excuse."

There's room for improvement, but I think excess focus on the bike industry *needing* to reduce CO2 emissions is more of a feel good exercise. The focus is better spent looking at the major contributors to climate change.
  • 4 0
 If you want to do something about emissions, don’t buy new bikes. Buy used.
  • 2 2
 Haven't had a problem with this since the 2000s. I buy what ever I can 2nd hand. The only thing I like more than helping save the planet is saving my $$$
  • 1 0
 @seb-stott I’m not an Ebike hater per se, but I can’t help thinking they must be so much more polluting than a regular bike, due to the extra CO2 generated over the products lifespan by battery charging. Maybe responsible manufacturers could work out solutions to solve this problem? Could supplying Ebikes with a solar powered charging kit work? I also wondered if they could be made with a built in dynamo, but some charge back into the battery as the Ebike was in use? Just a couple of ideas, but I bet the pinkbike team/ contributors could work out some more?
  • 2 0
 One of the solutions may be for all of us to not buy a new bike until 2025 at the earliest...

...when they become widely available again?
  • 1 0
 Good to see Endura taking part in this. Would be interested to see other clothing manufacturers contributing as there is an element of fast fashion creeping in seasonly to all this as well.
  • 1 2
 This is what clothing/fashion thinks of climate change m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=mountain+of+clothes+in+africa

Buy. Buy. Buy. Buy. Buy. Buy. Buy. Credit is cheap, and they're giving it away! Buy now. Buy now. Buy now.
  • 2 0
 @m1dg3t: This is what the bike industry is copying...I've been saying this for years now. The bike industry has become what the ski industry has become - a fashion industry. Why do you see f*cking chain lubes selling at over $100 for a 4oz bottle or a fanny pack that sells for well over $100USD or stems, peddles, and gold color chains that sell for well over $200? It's like one of my colleagues who wears a Canada Goose jacket in 0*C weather because it's one of the most expensive jackets to show off that he can buy a $1000+ jacket.
  • 2 2
 Leo must be glad you gave him yet another platform to talk about how environmentally friendly he is…

Basically the west needs to lower their standard of living to save the world. Who’s actually doing this. No more flights, no more cars. Locally sourced food. No meat either. Riding an aluminum bike isn’t going to cut it. We need to radically transform our lifestyle to use less energy. And the rest of the world has to stop growing too. I did my part. I recycled my wine bottles. Everyone else needs to step up.
  • 1 2
 Ah yes, de growth movement lol
  • 2 0
 Embrace the aesthetics of austerity.
  • 6 3
 Well Fox's statement was the most underwhelming. The fact they have only just started looking at this is a bit depressing.
  • 3 4
 Hopefully they at least have a DFI task force. (Diversity/fairness/inclusion)
Cant make this stuff up.
  • 5 0
 #BuyLocal #BuyUsed
  • 1 1
 Basically carbon bikes for consumers make no sense they have shelf life and cannot be recycled. Oh and don't get me started on transportation. Steel can last a lifetime and can be recycled. It's also super strong and soaks up small bumps. Cro-mo for the win!
  • 3 1
 These are not targets, but only action plans, or at least ideas of action plans.
The target is quite simple : -55% of CO2 tonnage between 2020 and 2030 (Paris agreement)
  • 2 1
 I wouldn't worry about the bike industry reducing emissions, physical waste etc. If we want change it needs to be in massive industries like agriculture, that's where the problem lies.
  • 3 0
 While agriculture undoubtedly needs much bigger systemic changes, acting like our shit dont stink, and that we as a community (of bike producers and consumers), is toxic and leads to apathy and inaction. We all have a role to play in this, and luckily, with only one planet, we are certainly all in it together.
  • 1 3
 You're right you should stop eating.
  • 3 0
 @inside-plus: I'm sorry for your apathy.
  • 4 0
 E bikes are the real problem
  • 2 1
 Move someplace wet & cold. If you think humanity can work together to reverse what we've already done you don't know people very well. A person is reasonable, people not so much.
  • 1 1
 When I see offsets I read green washing without even trying to cover it up.

Having been a part of a carbon capture program as a farmer supposedly sequestering carbon, offsets are all about making regulators, consultants, and middlemen a bunch of money for generating and pushing paper. Recycled paper, I’m sure.

No actual testing of soils to see if there is carbon being sequestered, no farm visits to see if the required practices are being followed.

Only forms to fill out and photos of seeding equipment one allegedly owns and uses (taken by the farmer and submitted).
  • 1 1
 I care about reducing my CO2 Emissions. That's why I ride a bike. I care about the environment. That's why I belong to my local trail conservationist chapter. Not only do we save the trails, we make new ones. I also believe in diversity. Trails that have all types of features. I care about saving water. That's why I drink beer. I'm not racist. I like all bikes as long as they more than 150mm of travel. But most importantly, I don't have a carbon footprint. Mine is made out of Stealth S1 Dotty rubber.
  • 6 3
 Like wouldn't more carbon bikes reduce CO2?
  • 2 0
 So if I just buy a new bike every 3 years instead of 1 year I’m doing my part? Sounds good to me.
  • 2 0
 Yes, and moving production from Taiwan to China naturally makes sense! Covered for the Co2 balance .... blablabla
  • 3 2
 Short of civilian nuclear fusion becoming a reality we’re pretty well f*cked so just enjoy your bike, it’s hardly the reason for climate change.
  • 1 2
 The only thing i'd like to see them do is make more bikes locally. Made in USA/Canada would be real nice to see on a bike.

It's impossible to be worried about climate change while still importing 1 million immigrants to the frozen north every year.
See 'Century initiative' for Canada's plans to triple it's population by 2100.
Thats how I know it's all a big f*ckin scam.
  • 2 0
 is-int pooring concrete all over the world and covering the earth a bigger problem then the Co2 crises?
  • 12 9
  • 3 0
 damn, you win
  • 1 0
 Lighter bikes create less climate change....at least that is what notOutsideCEO told me.
  • 4 6
 This whole environmental mumbo-jumbo is all about good intentions, not about setting goals and achieving them. Because if that was the case, we would do that, period. We would set the course for a below-replacement birth rate, make sure it was enforced globally, and follow that until we had a sustainable population size, that allowed us to use all the resources and all the energy that we need to go ahead with our personal and global development projects and needs, without the problems that this causes when it's associated with a huge population size. This is also the only actual solution, that allows the coexistence of biodiversity on this planet with the desirable technological and social development. All the rest is really a childish, make-believe, or deliberately deceitful discourse. "Green" is really a strong marketing term nowadays, and one that we conveniently follow while refusing an actual solution that will provide actual results like the one I mentioned.
  • 6 0
 Overpopulation is nowhere near as large a problem as overconsumption: the carbon footprint of an average person in Subsaharen Africa is about a twentieth that of a North American
  • 4 3
 @overconfident: Both factors are inextricably linked. Yes, overconsumption exists, there's no doubt about that, but undercomsumption is also a very present factor, in fact, most people in the world suffer from it. And while the more developed countries rightfully try to address and correct the overcomsumption problem, third world countries are, just as rightfully, trying to improve the living conditions of their citizens and improve their consumption of all kinds of goods or even simply food, a really fundamental life/death differential. But let's imagine a worldwide equilibrium is reached. Our impact would still be way too much to prevent climate change and collapsing natural ecossystems. In fact, our global impact would even be much larger than today. So yes, let us correct inequality, which is mostly a social issue, but environmental impact is directly correlated to population size, and there is no possible correction of the environmental issue without a population reduction. That's just realism.
  • 1 2
 @overconfident: Also, speaking of immediate terms, people in the western countries might say that third world countries are the ones that are overpopulated and multiplying like crazy, which is true, but every birth on a more developed country has a much greater environmental impact, so a population reduction in these countries has a much greater immediate effect. Overpopulation in third world countries is a problem for a whole set of different reasons, but also an environmental time-bomb as living conditions increase (besides the extensive environmental destruction that it created already).
  • 3 0
 @DavidGuerra: It's an unfortunate truth that not many want to acknowledge. A friend of mine works for a drilling company, mostly in Africa. They used to primarily drill for minerals, but now their rigs are almost exclusively used for finding water. Look at the politics of water in the Nile basin. Future wars will be fought over dwindling resources.
  • 3 0
 @DavidGuerra: It's a complicated issue, you're right, and underconsumption is a big problem too and the time bomb issue isn't talked about enough. I research this stuff actually, and published the below recently, which basically says we could give decent living standards to 10 billion people with much *much* lower ecological impacts than we have today

That said, it wouldn't be easy, and more people does make it more difficult. And I think I dismiss population to quickly in that article (although to some degree I blame the editor and the word limits). I also agree that we should focus on further lowering birthrates in rich countries even if they are already low, for the reason you say.

The main problem with population is that it just takes so long to change. Even if literally zero human beings were born globally from today, the 2050 population would still be about 5.5 billion people

  • 1 0
 @commental: I think the problem is that, as with everything nowadays, the debate has gotten too polarised and moralized, so anyone using the phrase overpopulation must be prepared for someone somewhere to call them a racist or ecofascist without having attempted to understand their point of view

Rapid population growth in Africa has and will continue to make food and water provision more difficult. But climate change will make these issues much worse, and those changes are due primarily to overconsumption in wealthy countries (like ours)

These are two issues that are obviously deeply related, but I think they are, to some degree, more separate then people think. Overconsumption is the most important thing when we are talking of current ecological impacts and how to reduce those in the coming decades (as we must for climate change). But if we are talking of how many people are going to suffer from future environmental change, and how to limit global ecological impacts say, post-2050, population growth may be a more important factor
  • 5 7
 Pinkbike.. You should stop hiding unliked comments..that's no different from todays media censorship.. If you want a comment section .. You should not bias based on subjectivity as always bias will prevail... Specially on of topics like the above, which are supposed to be science based. The tool called Science, is searching for the meaning, unferstanding and truth of reality. Observations and measurements always go above theory, mathematics and consensus..and must of all, opinions. Be brave and let dialog prevail. Without it, waters will keep getting muddier...
  • 2 4
 What a joke, Most of these bike are made in Comunist countries. Does one really think that these countries care about the planet? the textile dies in East Asia are horendous, the smog and emmisions in Vietnam and China come on. just because these companies make feel good polices here in the state doesnt mean squat. I apprechiate their gusto however, just keep finding Cheaper Labor and countries to take advantage of.
  • 3 1
 Don't worry...soon "You will own nothing and be happy"...
  • 6 8
 Global warming is a hoax. Hence, they don't even call it Global Warming anymore. Climate change, i.e. weather. Cut the bullshit, we don't buy it. BTW, masks don't work either. Oh yea, neither do vaccines. Ever notice it's the same criminals pushing all this totalitarian bullshit. Actually wake up and see the Matrix. Which pill have you taken? I prefer the red pill.
  • 2 0
 @notoutsideceo what's your opinion on this?
  • 3 2
 We're green washing hard over here - we're actually using water recycled from the St. Patricks Day parade in Chicago to do it! Furthermore, what Seb failed to mention in the article is that I am committed to only driving Tesla's going forward and shaming anyone who does not! Elon the CEO over there is doing some great stuff! Be safe be well, Incognito Robin
  • 5 8
 Fun fact. Wood burning stoves put off more particle pollution than HGV/Semi Trucks. Time for the woke to put down the firewood.
  • 8 0
 Nice, I'm always looking for excuses to do f**k all myself

Got any other handy facts I can pull out when I'm feeling defensive?
  • 1 0
 Financial crisis will make you buy less bikes!
  • 5 6
 Human powered vehicles with no emissions being called out for not being "Carbon neutral enough"...if you can't see the lunacy in this you're part of the problem.
  • 2 5
 You are so right. This is so virtue signaling.
  • 3 6
 Pretty intellectually disingenuous to use a photo of a wild fire while there is little no evidence that climate change DIRECTLY start wildfires. There is more evidence compiled lately that arson and gross negligence contribute overwhelmingly to these issues. Governors like Gavin Newsome have been found to directly profit from these disasters too so small wonder little to nothing is done YOY in the way of prevention.

sources: Firepowermoney.com
  • 1 4
 3 downvotes and no replies. sums up the current discourse situation and ability of the progressive left to defend their arguments. Y'all literally are downvoting real investigative journalism? pathetic.
  • 1 3
 Lol yeah, it’s funny that in climate crazy states like Cali have crazy wildfires and meanwhile us in Idaho with our hundreds of thousands of 2 stroke dirt bikes and trucks that don’t use DEF we have calmer wild fires.
  • 1 4
 @BikesNRussets: firepowermoney.com
It's because the governor of California is legitimately financially incentivized to allow them to happen. There is an investigation into his involvement with PG&E who started a wildfire a few years back that destroyed thousands of homes. Gavin essentially gave the company a cash bail out (with taxpayer money go figure), which was in turn paid out to a private lobbyist for PG&E (a friend of Gavin, go figure), and then in turn the lobbyist made a hefty donation to Gavin's wifes' charity.......
but yet people still support him because they think to criticize any democrat official is to be racist, anti science, bigoted etc.
the amount of willful ignorance is astounding, these intellectual cowards won't even have a discussion nowadays because they know once it gets down to facts their whole argument falls apart. Democrats in CA actively support corruption.
  • 1 0
 When I was 5 in 1984, we had cross-country skiing in the nearby forests, now it's to the point that there is barely snow in winter. What happened?
  • 1 3
 @zoobab2: global climate fluctuations. tons of data that it happens historically. not the best argument for climate change but I'm not denying climate change is real. you're essentially doing the equivalent of "hey it's colder every year by my house, guess that global warming is a bunch of bullshit."
  • 2 2
 Damn good and honest article
  • 1 0
 Buy a reeb
  • 1 2
 Wondering why the stock photo of JPL and the station fire?
  • 3 2
 Because it sells the article.
  • 13 14
 Wow... Looks Pinkbike has gone to Hell. Wokebike
  • 5 8
 Seb Stott, could you please comment on climate change, before, during and after the last 6 ice ages??
  • 4 6
 I'm just here to signal my virtue.
Below threshold threads are hidden

Copyright © 2000 - 2023. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv42 0.063337
Mobile Version of Website