eCoWarRiors should Of mayd There TentZ frOm LoVe and UnIcoRn bReaTh utHerwize thEir MesiJ iS HypOcritIcal
/satire off 😉
MTBing (sport) never had ‘green credentials’. As soon as it took off all the local hardcore heroes scared the wildlife away by mashing up the woodlands to build trails. Then they ‘grew up’ and bought thousands of diesel vans to drive their bikes around in, sometimes 100s of miles just to nail a drop. Then it ruined my two favourite (road) hillclimbs to the (offroad) moors (this is true), by choking them up with uplift-vehicles full of MTBs and MTBers.
I therefore declare this to be a strawman thread.
Sincerely,
A. Hareshirt Esq.
(ATB Counter-Culture Warrior)
The Wrecktory
Miffington In The Dale
Any sport fails to have green credentials;
A good friend of mine is a big player in the skateboard industry was unaware of the highly toxic carcinogen used in the manufacture skateboard wheels.
Surfing has highly toxic TDI isocyanates in its supply chain.
Bikes are far worse if you followed each component back through the manufacturing chain.
Well I'm off to buy a fracking great V8 Merc jeep a couple of ebikes and start driving to the Lakes every weekend. Seems it's the same thing to most people.
A good friend of mine is a big player in the skateboard industry was unaware of the highly toxic carcinogen used in the manufacture skateboard wheels.
Surfing has highly toxic TDI isocyanates in its supply chain.
It's an odd argument.
Like asking people do they realise their food comes from soil which would also make you quite ill if you ate it.
How the factory controls those chemicals is a different matter.
Well I’m off to buy a fracking great V8 Merc jeep a couple of ebikes and start driving to the Lakes every weekend. Seems it’s the same thing to most people.
I really can't understand why you feel the need to be so facetious.
Are you just upset that people pointed out MTBing on the whole has never been inherently "green"? And that shock horror some MTBers own cars that perhapse exceed what would be considered appropriate for environmental reasons?
It’s more complex than that. Firstly, they are definitely right – we are **** up the environment regardless of whether or not they’ve driven to a protest
the environment is fine and the planet will adapt to the changes. The real question is will that leave it in a state suitable for human habitation which is a completely different question. IMHO the answer to that is no but I’m happy to accept, like all dominant species that have lived on this planet, our period of dominance will end and as a species we will become extinct like many before. The fundamental flaw with the green lobby is the assumption that the planet should stay as it is so we can remain the dominant species. If we are serious about extending our species time on the planet then we need to slow down the birth rate and have significantly fewer of us just as giai hypothesis states
the environment is fine
We’re in the middle of a global extinction crisis. The current rate of species loss is around 1,000 times faster than at any time since 65 million years ago, when the earth was hit by an asteroid that led to mass extinction.
You define ‘fine’ somewhat differently than do biologists. Much of biodiversity loss is irreversible.
The fundamental flaw with the green lobby is the assumption that the planet should stay as it is so we can remain the dominant species.
You just made that up! Strawmanning.
Background and Principles
PP100 All Green Party policies are based on the principles of ecological sustainability, equity and justice.PP101 There is a limit to the level of ecological impact the Earth can sustain. The number of people on the planet, their levels of consumption and their local and global impacts are key factors determining how far the Earth's ability to renew its resources and to support all life is compromised. Even within this limit, high rates of population growth, as well as local depopulation can have a damaging effect on sustainability, equity and justice.
PP102 'Carrying capacity' is the term used to describe the population that can be sustainably supported in any given region. It is not a fixed number but depends on consumption patterns.
PP103 There is a need to explicitly consider population since, if it is ignored indefinitely, the risk of over-consumption of natural resources will increase, leading to conflict and ultimately a reduction in carrying capacity
https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pp.html
.
*my bold
Slight tangent, but what do you folks do with dead Carbon components?
... I recently had to dispose of a cracked carbon bar.
Just chuck it in the bin.
The LA will either landfill it or incinerate it.
There are ways of recycling some parts of it, but I'm not sure the carbon footprint of getting it to the facility is ever going to recoup it just being incinerated for energy. It's more for getting rid of things big things like cars, boats and planes.
I tend to throw broken carbon parts at old ebikers with Rangerovers*
*May not be true
We’re in the middle of a global extinction crisis. The current rate of species loss is around 1,000 times faster than at any time since 65 million years ago, when the earth was hit by an asteroid that led to mass extinction.
You define ‘fine’ somewhat differently than do biologists. Much of biodiversity loss is irreversible.
So over the last 65m years the biodiversity has increased massively and is now in decline. Im sure the same thing will happen again and again. It shows that left t its own devices the planet is fine as Giai stated. So if there is another mass extinction event caused by man rather than an asteroid why wont the planet recover again as it did last time? If so then this is not a crisis from the perspective of the planet. Its only a crisis if you dont want the planet to change from how it is now. That wont happen, the planet is always changing, its changing at a much faster pace than in the past at the moment because there are too many of the dominant species on it using too much resource. The only meaningful solution is not tinkering round the edges with so called green initiatives but to encourage the dominant species to reduce its rate of reproduction to stem the growth in population.
Really not sure anyone who has routinely driven to ride a bicycle for the last 30 years can take the moral high ground here.
Not sure you can single out eBikes either in a society where electric vehicles (mainly charged off fossil fuels) are becoming very common and electronics featuring batteries are basically disposable.
Still better than the ****s who think “going for a drive” and then slinging McDonalds wrappers into a hedge is a valid leisure activity tho 😂
I have routinely driven to work and the shops for 30 years too, not sure what the point is. So anyone who drives to a shop has no business buying environment friendly products? I've pointed out that an activity I enjoy seems to have become less environment friendly over time. This seems true to me. Things are not black and white but it seems agreed here that MTB in general of any description is just not green in any way and their is no distinction between trail centre ebiking and cycling on your own in the wilds. I'll get my coat...
chrismac, that leaves me speechless.
Probably a good thing 😎
just don’t agree with your whole premise, that MTB was ever a particularly eco activity, when you talk about Driving for rides or holidays, etc or that now it has become worse than anything else. Everything in society is less eco nowadays, MTB is just following the general trend. For example, kids routinely being driven to school/clubs etc whereas those journeys would’ve been by foot or bike years ago.not sure what the point is.
It shows that left t its own devices the planet is fine as Giai stated.
Define 'fine'. The planet does not care about 'fine' because it's inert. Only we care about 'fine'. So by attaching a human judgement to the state of the planet you are placing your own criteria for what constitutes fine.
Now - if you don't change how things are being done, then things people treasure will be irrevocably lost; but more importantly hundreds of millions of people will die due to food or water shortages. So according to my definition of the world the planet will absolutely not be 'fine'.
The only meaningful solution is not tinkering round the edges with so called green initiatives but to encourage the dominant species to reduce its rate of reproduction to stem the growth in population.
No, the other meaningful solution is to use the resources available more efficiently.
electric vehicles (mainly charged off fossil fuels)
That is changing very quickly.
Don’t fit people ride ebikes too ?
Oh gawd, are you one of those that thinks buying an EV is going to save the planet? 🤣 Less cars/car journeys are what’s needed, how they’re fuelled makes VERY little difference. 😉electric vehicles (mainly charged off fossil fuels)That is changing very quickly.
how they’re fuelled makes VERY little difference
For the moment ignoring the assumptive ‘are you one of those bla bla save the planet ‘ strawman (and the assumption that EV owners are typically unaware of the need for reducing journeys overall)
..Do you have figures/some citation for the above claim?
You used caps punishment too, so I’m assuming that you mean ‘VERY little’ as in ‘almost negligible?’
My understanding is that (ie):
average “lifetime“ emissions from electric cars are up to 70% lower than petrol cars in countries like Sweden and France (where most electricity comes from renewables and nuclear), and around 30% lower in the UK.
They say the picture for electric cars will become steadily more favourable as nations shift to clean electricity.
So according to you, what does ‘VERY little difference’ look like? And which studies do you reference?
Define ‘fine’. The planet does not care about ‘fine’ because it’s inert
the planet will still be here in a million years and supporting life due to its position in space. The question it’s will that life be what we have now? My view it’s that it won’t be and a has happened repeatedly through the climate and geological record the dominant species of the day will die out, unable to cope with the changes on the planet and be replaced with one that can. Sure humans are doing their best to speed that process up.
If as a species we want to remain dominant then we can either use less, or have fewer people. Using less needs to be at an industrial scale. So do we carry on building cars, cruise ships, stop digging raw materials out of the ground?