@Cam - what['s the mileage on the tires in the main article photo? It looks like the side knobs are well on their way to going off and the centre tread looks untouched.
You forgot to mention - constantly tinkering with whatever PR system they have to 'tweak it to work better'.
You want parties with single focus, and special interests everywhere - vote PR. For every Green Party, you'll end up with an AFD. And still nothing getting done.
Poor people *do* have a smaller carbon footprint - but there's 100x more of them (China + India) as there are of us, and we are paying to pull their people out of poverty at a faster rate than at any time in history. So those 'poor people' are soon going to be no longer poor, but contributing just as much per capita (perhaps more) as we are.
And they want the same lifestyles we have - and why shouldn't they? Te approved method seems to be that we should destroy our lifestyle/economy to build theirs? We have imposed increasingly onerous burdens on businesses until they give it the Bill Murray, throw their hands in the say and say "Fuck it, I'm out." Only for that same product to return to the market, made in some country that cares more about the quality of life of it's citizens than virtue signalling against big corporations. Quebec has a moratorium against Alberta oil, but imports millions of gallons from a country half way around the world with an appalling human rights record.
To now offload responsibility back onto us, and pretend that we should reduce our carbon footprint to their level because they have a lower per capita number (for now) is sophistry. Destroy our economies so they can prosper, don't have kids so that they can have kids, ride a bike to work so they can have factories. The message only sticks because it suits the millenarian doom and gloomer inside the guilt ridden and shamed Western world. We love to worry about the end of the world because we don't have enough real things to worry about any more. Plus you can make good money to push the message. Little different in that regard to Y2K.
@Cam - if in 2012 China's CO2 output was only 16% directed to goods shipped overseas, do they have a responsibility to clean up the other 84%? If we have reduced our CO2 output by 10% , and they have doubled theirs in the last 10 years, who is needing to step up their game? It's not finger wagging, but expecting a level playing field. You seem to be suggesting that because we bankrolled their economy, we're responsible for offsetting it? Again - how long should we wait for them to get it under control if we only have 12 years?
We can't have it both ways - either you care for the environment and the worlds biggest polluters need to accept the same curtailments we have pushed on us (and that's going to suck big time for the people who live there). And by extension, stop preaching to the choir TOYER. Or accept that by not addressing the big dogs in the room, it's nothing but theatre and the equivalent to environmental 'thoughts and prayers'. Except thoughts and prayers don't cost us money out of every paycheck.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/18/china-average-europe-carbon-footprint < Again 2012, but where is it now?
Sorry - slow day...
Absolutely - that is a point I made above.
From the article you linked, the US is responsible for 5% of China's CO2, using their logic. 16% of total CO2 emissions were related to exports. That still leaves 84% that is related to their internal economy that is ripe for them to resolve without harming their external economic bottom line. If you want their economic bottom line to continue.
If we have 10 (or 12 or whatever) years left - how many of those years will go by before meaningful change happens in the countries that are producing the worlds CO2? The ball is in their court.
But they can't play it because doing so would destroy their internal economies. The only reason the Communist Party is still in charge in China is that they are able to point to a real legacy of improvement (for most - don't ask the Uighurs or any of the political prisoners, or anybody executed whose family was billed for the bullet) that is unchallenged. If that legacy of improvement is threatened (either internally or externally) they will have no future.
We are pulling people out of extreme poverty at an unprecedented rate (which is amazing and cool, given that the level for which 'extreme poverty' is set would have you living almost twice as well as someone in the UK 120 years ago). That was a country that had the largest economy in the world and a globe spanning empire.
This is happening thanks to the industrialization of the two most populous nations on earth. Without curbing their natural desire to have what we have, there is no meaningful way to achieve what self conscious hand wringing types like TOYER (shouldn't it be TOSYER - too close to what I think perhaps) want.
US and EU Co2 emissions are 10% lower than they were a decade ago - that's improvement overall right? How is that # for the two countries I mentioned? And how has that happened?
We either end that improvement of life for residents of those two big countries - driven by their desire for the same goods and services we have; as they don't care about the environment 'enough', or we deal with the consequences. At this point, probably not much short of global thermonuclear war will do it. As a plus the nuclear winter will reduce 'rising temperatures' and 'icebergs melting' etc and send us back to pre industrial revolution temperatures. Win/win for the environment (? fallout might be an issue), and I'm pretty sure the XR folks would be happy at last.
Off shoring manufacturing so that we can have endless plastic shit at Christmas, Easter, Halloween and any time we want a cheap geegaw has got us into this situation. We have supercharged those previously 'have not' economies and now we are wringing our hands about the results. And pretending we can fix it from 10,000 miles away - how privileged patriarchal is THAT idea?
We either force those countries to clean up their act, or suffer the consequences globally. And telling individuals in the 'west' that is is their responsibility to manage is about as Stalinist an idea as I can come up with.
We have built China's economy with massive trade imbalances, desire for cheap shit, and ignoring for decades their breaking of global rules and norms because it suits those making money from the situation. Now they and India are in the driving seat of global pollution what are we going to do about it? Make A+W use paper straws? Nice one! 2.7 BILLION polluters. The population of Europe AND the USA doesn't account for half that #.
Now India is getting in on the act - they've doubled their CO2 output in 10 years, but they are still only 25% of what China is at now. Their population growth is not slowing.
The good news is that China's population is stabilizing. So maybe we won't tip over 10 billion.
Reap the whirlwind.
With apologies in advance to Cam and Dave for being such a 'redneck'.
Makes sense - if SRAM can decide that .55mm is enough to justify a new crank/BB interface I can see how an extra 3.4mm+ would give some advantages.
Thanks for the insight. Super DH sits at the top of the pile compared to the Giro which seems even bulkier. I wonder if MEC will have some of these?
$350USD makes this a pricey helmet for Canadians. I thought the Super DH was pricey already. Chain Reaction has this at $540CAD - $140 more than the street price of a Super DH.
Worth the extra cash in your opinion Cam? Have you worn a Super DH as a comparison?
I agree with you here AJ - my G16 was amazing and changed how I view the trail, but in 29r guise it was far from perfect. HA around 60deg with two offset bushes to get the BB under control made it nimble like a super tanker loaded with crude.
*tacks #thatguy #mypleasure
Trek say no to inserts in carbon wheels FWIW. Of any kind. They don't even want to hear that you've used HN.
Maybe an article in this?
I must be thinking of a different trail.
That trail (all but the last photo) is actually in Squamish. Comes off Angry Midget. I'm surprised to see it featured so prominently.
Well today i learned that Saffers call chainstay protectors 'slap socks' @timmigrant can you verify please?