Environmental impact of mountain biking

fred22

I am interested if anyone else has any concerns, ideas or suggestions about the impact of mtbs on the environment. I am particularly thinking of the lubrication (synthetic oils, ptfe, etc, entering the water) and the cleaning (petrochemicals, or de-greasers that must then get contaminated with the previously applied lubes).
I see you can get Green Oil for chains -how far can you go with current products to minimise impact on evironment?
Does anyone else share my concerns, and are we doing enough?

loddrik

The fuel used in travelling by car (often with no alternative) to trail centres and places to ride

indysmith

Nope, don't care.
Bike lubrication and cleaning fluids aren't a problem or we'd hear about it.
There are thousands dying of hunger every day, children being exploited and sold, millions dying of diseases that could be cured with drugs that they can't afford due to greedy companies jacking up prices, and many of these people are being denied help by their own governments... I could go on for hours - Try fixing things that matter before worrying about lubrication falling off your bike and into a stream.

stumpyjon

I'd have thought the health benefits of riding would outweigh any environmental downsides (travelling by car to ride probably being the worst issue).

The more people are out using the countryside the more people are going to appreciate the environment they live in, there's a number of threads on here moaning about littering etc.

At least while w're riding we're doing very little environmental damage, many other pastimes (e.g. shopping) are much worse for the environment.

And since I discovered that China produces more CO2 each from out of control undeground fires in coal seams than the whole of the North American truck fleet I've given up worrying about my personal carbon footprint (still trying to save energy but that's for cost reasons alone). I think it's about time we stopped navel gazing over our relatively small impact on the environment, lets face it even if the whole UK went carbon neutral tomorrow it wouldn't make any difference. Global warming's already a reality, we're better off trying to work out how we're going to live with it rather than trying to prevent something that's unstoppable.

Biggest problem we're likely to face in our lifetime is the wars and instability that are coming when the oil runs out If our government had a half a brain and cared at all about the future they'd be pumping massive amounts of money into renewable energy systems, not to save the environment but to make sure we don't get caught up in the panic over the remaining oil and so we can sell the technologies to those countries that have been too short sighted to give up their addiction to oil. This approach may even have some environmental benefits, renewable energy and less wars (wars are not exactly environmentally friendly, all that burning releases CO2 and the depleted uranianium that gets cheucked everywhere).

Jimmy Mc

I agree Stumpy. Any personal change is going to make a minute impact on the over all scheme of things the only tangible incentive to make any changes is personal cost.

On the actual trails it must be an a tiny amount of lubricant, etc that any environmental effect is going to be minimal. Also there are many more sports/pass times that have a much more detrimental effect on the environment. Take people into 4x4s or motor cross - they have a much more detrimental effect.

MTBing is one of the only 'hobbies' that can leave you with a pretty clear conscience with regards to your environmental impact.

dav1

MTB can do a lot of damage to trails, especially if the soil is soft, however the areas where this would be a significant problem often ban the sport on their land.

Anonymous

Dav1, you're kidding, right, have you seen the damage done by hikers, or even worse, horse riders to soft trails? There's a trail not far from here, which you can't realistically walk or ride along now, because it became so destroyed by horse hoofs on ONE single occasion, then it hardened, and set.

Renewable energy needs to be researched much more seriously than it currently is. I keep hearing about our government giving grants and tax cuts to companies building windfarms, which realistically, will never provide sensible amounts of energy.
On the other hand, I hear that we are painstakingly close to getting Fusion reactors to work on a real scale, but they're under funded? WTF?

Chaka Ping

Yep, car travel to trail centres and other remote locations is the biggest worry, I'd assume.

If this government was serious about tackling climate change we'd have publicly funded world class mountain bike trails dotted around London and the south of England.

Anonymous

AND!!! we'd have electric powered rollercoaster trains everywhere, so people would WANT to use public transport, because it would be a rush

Dammit, I'd love to go to work by rollercoaster.

CraigXXL

Quite an interesting thread, I thought this was just some hippy green do gooder trying to make a point ( no offence intended Fred22).

I believe that global warming is part of our planets natural cycle, CO2 emmisions, nuclear testing and lots more man made pollutions have simply speeded up the process. The government has capitalized on this and taxed everything they can on under the banner of being green.

Indysmith made a very valid point on inhuman regimes that go ignored by the rest of the world without intervention unless they have oil resources. The crimes and genocides against the people of Africa kill 100's of thousands every year but we do nothing whilst invading another country on the excuse of weapons of mass destruction because they have oil whilst other sub Asian countries are a real threat of using weapons on mass destruction but hey they have nothing we want. BEFORE anyone jumps on their high horses saying I'm not supporting our troops then remember that I'm ex-forces with lots of family and friends still serving.

Back to the Fred22 original question then I think we do have a negative effect on the environment using the non-biodegradable products on our bikes but this is becoming less and less as most companies are now making their products biodegradle. The plus side is that MTB's enjoy their trials and the positive land management this promotes far outweighs the negative aspects of the sport.

Jimmy Mc

Craig - I totally agree on the point about warming cycles etc.

I work in the motor industry and we've been doing a hell of a lot of work researching CO2 and the impact cars have on this. The focus put on it is daft when you put it into context...

CO2 produced from cars accounts to about 0.4% of total CO2 output world wide. A tiny amount I'm sure you'll agree. The reason it's so low is down to the amount of CO2 naturally produced CO2. Volcanoes, the oceans and animals produce a staggering amount. In the UK, of the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels only 14% can be attributed to cars. Still a relatively small amount.

When you consider that we're about 50% of the way through our oil supplies and we're using it at a faster rate then ever before it becomes apparent that the Govts heavy taxation isn't to do with the environment but more about encouraging us to look at fuel sources that aren't going to run out anytime soon. The really negative thing about this is the high tax on petrol/diesel is encouraging more people to use diesel vehicles which despite being lower in CO2 pump out much more in the way of harmful gasses.

Motor manufacturers are working hard to look at alternative fuels. In reality we could see hydrogen powered cars on the road in the UK in three years time.

Anyway, I've gone off topic somewhat but I guess the point I'm making is that - even as a collective group, we on our mountain bikes, have such a tiny effect that it's not worth worrying about.

Nick Dastardly

I'm no expert in the field, but aren't we still in an ice age? The earth has been a lot warmer in the past. I have no doubt that we've contributed to releasing loads of CO2 over the years, but I'm very sceptical over the link this has with global warming.

Something I'm more of an expert on is engines. Like Jimmy Mc said, diesel cars produce less CO2 than petrol, but there's much worse things coming out the engine than CO2. Same goes for direct injection petrol engines, they have serious NOx, hydrocarbon and soot issues compared with the old port injection engines. The research project I've been working on at uni for the last 6 months has been related to reduction of these emissions in GDI engines. The work I'm going to be doing for the next year or so is solving problems caused by diesel particulate filters, which they need to add to all new diesel engines to get them through emissions regulations.

One thing to remember though is that CO2 emissions are directly related to fuel economy, i.e. you reduce CO2 by burning less fuel. This is better for your wallet, and means oil reserves will last longer.

Would have to disagree with hydrogen powered cars for now, reasons being:
1. No refuelling infrastructure. Maybe we'll get a few pumps in big cities but it'll be a while before we see anything widespread.
2. Think about where the hydrogen comes from. It takes energy to create and unless this energy comes from renewable sources there's not much point.

Don't get me started on hybrids........

Surf-Matt

I ride a wooden bike with hemp tyres, bailer twine cables and a grass woven saddle.

CraigXXL

I must agree that Hydrogen isn't practical due to the large amount of energy needed to release it from it's bonds unless we are going to start using some kind of fusion to seperate the hydrogen whilst capturing the energy released at the same time.

A much more practical method of lowering the emissions from commuting is to have a government run free (to employed and retired people) and comprehensive public transport system based on some kind of electro propulsion. Running costs would be paid for out of additional PAYE contributions and Corporation tax. However no major schemes of this scale have been done since Victorian times and with spineless self serving governments unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

cee

yeehaamcgee wrote:

AND!!! we'd have electric powered rollercoaster trains everywhere, so people would WANT to use public transport, because it would be a rush

Dammit, I'd love to go to work by rollercoaster.

so thats what the humps on the forth rail bridge are for!

Anonymous

Public transport will never really be a solution in rural areas.

stumpyjon

Some surprisingly refreshing and educated responses on here so far, thought I'd get shouted down for not wearing my hair shirt.

One thing I forgot to mention is that probably the biggest environmental impact from Mountain Biking is the manufacture and distribution of bikes and accessories. By the time we get our hands on them most of the damage has been done. So we could stop riding to reduce demand for shiny new things and hence reduce the impact of production but if you're going to follow that logic you need to cut out all consumerism and grow your own veg.

Post sale I would think there's very little environmental impact (bar driving to the trails), we don't generate much waste (most of us horde old components even if they are busted) and most of the chemicals we use are relatively benign and are used in tiny quantities.

fred22

My conscience is a little clearer just when I consider, as others have noted, that the chemicals we use we do so in very small quantities. And it was the chemical side of this debate that originally concerned me. I think the manufacture and distribution of bikes is a little outside our the area that I can have an immediate effect on, whereas what I do with my bike once I have bought it obviously isn't.

I still may give that Green Oil a go http://www.green-oil.net/ (Could I use this all year round?) though not sure about the wooden bike with the knitted hemp wheels...

jackmcd

I dont think these things are completely out of our circle of influence. Some of the countrys greenest people are older people who "remember the war" and have little money. My mum for example never throws anything out until it has been fully used for many years of service and even then puts it on free cycle and finds it a new home...

The people who come down the trails in the same bike year after year only replacing bits that really need it and giving there spares away are probably better for the planet than those that always have the latest gear.

passout

I think that your concerns are unwarranted. We are talking very small amounts of pollution - not significant to the most sensitive environment. Trampling / erosion is much more of an issue but most research suggests that the impact of the average MTBer is not much more than than the average walker. When a walker walks downhill there heels dig in, water collects om paths and eventually water causes erosion. Skid marks may look worse to some but are less deep and actually cause less erosion. This assumes that the MTB'er doesn't ride like a Prick! I did read up on this once in some detail - basically, don't worry! Driving to the Mountain is the real issue and even then I think the case is usaully overstated.

Mancunianfightingcat

Driving to the mountains etc, shouldn't be too much of a concern, there's a far greater proportion of greenery to CO2 in the country side, and as plants and trees live of CO2, they should lap it up!

As has been said before, it wasn't that long ago that the UK was under 2 miles of ice! I don't think that melted so recently as to blame global warming!

BlackSpur

What is going to interest me is the complete overhaul in plastics production when the oil runs out (assuming it will be within my lifetime). I have seen plastics produced from cellulose, but it has been pointed out that it would be very difficult to produce this on the same scale as alkene based plastic production. It seems as if ethanol will most likely be the source of plastic production in the future, so I am struggling to see how we will find room for all the crops to produce this. It will almost certainly rule out the possibility of biofuels going mainstream as there simply won't be the space!
What amazed me is that with the amount of media coverage of global warming and fossil fuels running out I have seen nothing on research into plastic production for the future. With more and more things being made out of plastics these days I find this amazing!

Nick Dastardly

BlackSpur wrote:

It seems as if ethanol will most likely be the source of plastic production in the future, so I am struggling to see how we will find room for all the crops to produce this. It will almost certainly rule out the possibility of biofuels going mainstream as there simply won't be the space!

Very true.
If the US was to use corn to produce ethanol to replace all the gasoline currently used to fuel passenger vehicles, 1.1 billion acres of land would be required for sustainable production. The entire land area of the US is 1.94 billion acres.

danhx

Get a hold of and watch Channel 4s "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (available on the net if you know where to look). Very worth a watch even if you arnt all that bothered about Eco stuff.

As many have mentioned the enviromental damage caused by bikes is mainly caused before they even get to the shops we buy them from. Its the same with cars; however as the bike has little ongoing polution (ie. it doesnt splurt out Co2 and other nasties) using your bike for 10years as opposed to upgrading every few years would have a huge effect on the overall enviromental effect caused by its initial manufacture and shipping.

Off Topic Slightly: If you 'upgrade' every 3 years to the newest 'more enviromentally friendly' car you are actually responsible for more Co2 etc. than if you ran the same car for 10years (assuming the car your running for 10years isnt a 6L V8...). The celeb fad car the Prius has huge enviromental impact in the production of its batteries due to the mining process, NASA use the area around one mine for testing/training as it resembles the surface of the moon as all the vegitation has been destroyed by the polution. The Prius overall including is manufacture, shipping and very importantly disposal (nasty battieres) has a higher envriomental impact than many small and economical cars (VW's Bluemotion Polo trounces it).

Jonr

passout wrote:

Trampling / erosion is much more of an issue but most research suggests that the impact of the average MTBer is not much more than than the average walker. When a walker walks downhill there heels dig in, water collects om paths and eventually water causes erosion. Skid marks may look worse to some but are less deep and actually cause less erosion. This assumes that the MTB'er doesn't ride like a Prick! I did read up on this once in some detail - basically, don't worry!

Passout - Just wondering if there is any real evidence based research published into this since you've mentioned it in a couple of threads, or whether its your own personal research which is really my position too - the conclusion I've come to from observation. I was out this evening - just got back - after having a healthy debate with a rambler who told me I had "no respect for the environment" which I naturally took issue with. Anyway I told her that there is research published that indicated that erosion from the same number of walkers in hiking boots has a far greater negative effect particularly when its muddy, however, in fact, I haven't read any such thing! It was quite a good debate actually and I think she at least went away understanding my arguments which went along the lines of - a country with an obesity problem and yet were not allowed to ride in the local woods - footpaths that should have remained as bridleways as they were used as such for hundreds of years before being closed off and of course the erosion issue. She is actually a sort of neighbour of mine so didn't want to inflame the issue too much, she only lives down the road.

Anyway this has nothing to do with bicycle lubricants infecting the environment but I would be inclined to agree with most other posters that the relatively small amounts renders the impact negligible.

ilovedirt

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Dav1, you're kidding, right, have you seen the damage done by hikers, or even worse, horse riders to soft trails? There's a trail not far from here, which you can't realistically walk or ride along now, because it became so destroyed by horse hoofs on ONE single occasion, then it hardened, and set.

+1, the trails around here get loads of horse riders, so about this time of year they become almost unridable when the ground dries out, luckily it gets better over the year, but horse riders have totally destroyed a lot of the trails around here. Walkers are culprits too, footpaths that were a foot wide are now ten feet wide because they've been walking all over the farmer's fields to avoid a bit of mud. If you don't like mud, then don't go bloody walking where it's muddy, and STICK TO THE FUCKING FOOTPATHS. It really irritates me, that.

bobcheese

oils, lubricants and cleaning products in the water supply? alot less than what goes into the water supply when you wash your car or boats that sail on our lakes etc.

All of this has less inpact on the enviroment that the total electricity used by the PC's of all the people who have posted on here!

Lets face it everything we do releases some form of gas or chemicals into the enviroment, including breathing and farting which I do alot!.

I once read an article that said the best way to cut CO2 was to cul all the cows in the world! And it was serious :shock:

now excuse me as I must go and introduce some more harmful chemicals into the water supply :oops:

solsurf

there is a real problem in the lake district with the state of the trails. All the national parks combined in the UK receive just under 19 p yes that's pence to look after the parks, much of the work to mend trails is carried out by volunteers. The Lake district national park has over 450 volunteers helping to ensure we (mountain bikers) and others have a great experience whilst here.

I get the feeling so far from this forum that people don't really care, I have to admit when fund raising for for the rebuild we get lions share of help and funding from walkers, however this does seem to be changing with the local bike shops also helping to fund raise to mend trails.

If you don't believe me you only need to see the change in state of Garburn pass (the majority of users are mountain bikers) over the past 2 years.

So if you want help why not; help mend trails, lobby to get more money for the national parks or donate directly to fix the fells and the like. Rather than saying its all these pesky walkers / horse riders that are the problem. We all contribute to the degregation of the paths how about we give a little more back than the 19p.

Any way thats my piece said

bails87

solsurf wrote:

there is a real problem in the lake district with the state of the trails. All the national parks combined in the UK receive just under 19 p yes that's pence

So the entire national park budget is less than 19 pence? :?

solsurf

well spotted 19p per person, good to see people actually read what you write. thanks for the correction

Northwind

fred22 wrote:

I am interested if anyone else has any concerns, ideas or suggestions about the impact of mtbs on the environment. I am particularly thinking of the lubrication (synthetic oils, ptfe, etc, entering the water) and the cleaning (petrochemicals, or de-greasers that must then get contaminated with the previously applied lubes).
I see you can get Green Oil for chains -how far can you go with current products to minimise impact on evironment?
Does anyone else share my concerns, and are we doing enough?

The lubricant, etc is in such tiny quantities as to be completely irrelevant. Think how long it takes to go through a tub of lube, how many rides? How many thousand miles? It's not particularily nice stuff but it's also not highly toxic.

The manufacture and shipping of the things, and driving around with them, and how they're disposed of are the things to worry about if you're an eco-worrier but it's so low in the list of issues I think we can worry about it later tbh.