How much does sustainability drive your e-bike use?

How important is environmental sustainability in your decision to ride an e-bike?

  • It's my main motivation — I ride specifically to reduce my carbon footprint and car dependency

  • It's a major factor — not the only reason, but sustainability strongly influences my choice to ride

  • It's a nice bonus — I ride mostly for fun/fitness/commuting, but I appreciate the environmental bene

  • I've never really thought about it — I ride for other reasons entirely

  • Not at all — I ride purely for fun/performance/convenience

Results are only viewable after voting.
Systems Autocorrect

if we check correctly, Human Population growth, is more in Asia, Africa and South America.

CHINA, has already started the "downfall", imagine that! that's 4 years in a row, with population decline (no need to place links. a quick search will show that).
 
⚡ EMTB Pro Go Pro — exclusive discounts & ad-free Peaty's 25% off & more · Ad-free browsing · Pro badge See the deals →
NumbBum said:
You are not wrong but along with the growth in human biomass comes all the supporting infrastructures, industries, and expanded food chains.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and those are all very good things. Those infrastructures and industries are the reason humans today are able live at levels of plentitude and luxury unfathomable even to royalty not that long ago.
 
pagheca said:
Quick poll out of genuine curiosity: no right or wrong answers here!

We all ride for different reasons: fun, fitness, commuting, exploring, or simply because it beats sitting in traffic. I'm curious to know how much environmental sustainability plays into your personal decision to ride an e-bike.

Please be honest, this isn't about judging anyone or starting a debate on sustainability, EV, or climate change. Every answer is equally valid. Someone who rides purely for the thrill is just as welcome here as someone who sold their car to reduce emissions. I'm just interested in getting a real picture of what motivates this community.
Click to expand...
Zero
 
irie said:
"Environmental Sustainability" is a concept propagated by the great and mighty making profit from it, and neatly sidesteps the real issue.

Which is global population growth.

In 1900 about 1.6 billion and in 2000 over 6 billion which is about 6/1.6 = 375% increase.

That is the real problem but hey, let's look the other way and get jiggy about CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
This is hardly the forum to discuss demograhics but as someone who has studied the subject for decades you are misinformed using 1980's Paul Ehrlich era totally debuncted data. Almost all industrialized nations are presntly reproducing at below replacement levels & the World's population will peak in approx. 25 years at about 10B & rapidly decline if current birth rates continue. Even the omniscient Elon Musk has stated..." The biggest problem facing humanity is population ...DECLINE" & who are we to argue with him? :)
 
Wow, quite surprised by these comments and the poll results...

I used to commute 4 days a week on my old ebike before kids, it was a major part of getting one. My wife got an ebike hardtail and we went up to work together most mornings. It also allowed us to make do with a single car between the two of us. Now with small kids that isn't possible anymore, but I eventually changed to 2 electric cars to try to compensate for daily driving.

The other major advantage of the ebike is it allows me to get to 4 different riding spots from my house, so I don't take the car for most of my rides. Some of those need 20-30 minutes of riding on the road before hitting trails but it isn't too bad.

That said, I am replacing my bike more often now, roughly every 18 months, so I'm pretty far from really sustainable.
 
Johneracer said:
Sustainably and environmental policies have been corrupted by money and politics. But mostly money. We spend hundreds of billions fighting climate change. That amount of money has caused corruption even sadly at science and research level. Thr more doomsday evidence paid researchers provide, the more grants they get, the more governments can tax and spend to fight climate and the sun. I’m a science guy but have doubts in our study of climate change. I’m not saying it’s not real, im
Saying climate science study is corrupted by money and used to back ever increasing fees and taxes. Carbon credits, carbon offsets, just another way to generate revenue. I recycle, conserve, drive EV, have solar and ride emtb purely for fun.
Click to expand...
Heretic!!! You can't question settled science. :) I'm old enough to have lived through previous scams cloaked in science for profit. We were doomed by over-population, the 1975 famine, desertification, Amazon rain de-forestation, key mineral shortages, peak oil , ice-free summers at the poles & others which have now morphed into climate change, sea-level rise, increased hurricane strength & frequency etc.

Just be affraid & send money!
 
Tumid1 said:
This is hardly the forum to discuss demograhics but as someone who has studied the subject for decades you are misinformed using 1980's Paul Ehrlich era totally debuncted data. Almost all industrialized nations are presntly reproducing at below replacement levels & the World's population will peak in approx. 25 years at about 10B & rapidly decline if current birth rates continue. Even the omniscient Elon Musk has stated..." The biggest problem facing humanity is population ...DECLINE" & who are we to argue with him? :)
Click to expand...
I was under the impression, mistakenly it seems, that this thread is about environmental sustainability now, not post 25 years time as you say. I stand corrected. :)
 
RustyIron said:
Zero. Nada. Zilch.
I ride a mountain bike on mountain bike trails.
When I'm commuting, I drive a 10 mile per gallon, CO2 spewing behemoth.

If I'm driving to the trailhead, my mountain bike is in the back of my 10 mile per gallon CO2 spewing behemoth.

View attachment 184525
Click to expand...
I'm way more environmentally conscious, my RAM 2500 diesel is getting almost 15 mpg.
 
Oil and gas are unsustainable as it took a monumental disaster plus a few million years to create the stuff. Personally, with the exception of burning it for any reason, the remaining products are ok. I’m no scientist so if there are products that are harmful (well micro plastic debris from disintegrating plastic is definitely a problem, so we should probably try to reduce or eliminate plastics the contribute to that issue).
But in any case, oil/gas on earth will eventually run out, so we will have to either go without or find other ways to emulate products that today come from oil. I believe that once we stop burning oil & gas, the cost of locating, obtaining, shipping and refining will be prohibitively highly costly. So then it becomes a question of who can afford it. I predict at some point we will stop looking for oil as it just will not be economically feasible, so there will remain oil in the ground. My $.02 anyway, not looking for a fight.
 
Not really, @irie. I'm a senior scientist who spent decades working on atmospheric science alongside my main field of astronomy. The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming. And in my experience, the loudest sceptics tend to quietly change their tune when something climate-related hits close to home.

The persistence of denial, despite the evidence, is itself a well-studied phenomenon. Research points to three converging factors:

Psychological: denial is rarely about ignorance. It's a cognitive defence mechanism: people who have full access to the facts reject them anyway, because accepting them would mean confronting uncomfortable threats to their lifestyle, finances, or identity.

Ideological: study after study shows denial correlates with conservative political orientation, authoritarian attitudes, and the framing of climate policy as cultural or economic imposition.

Industrial: fossil fuel companies and aligned think tanks have spent decades deliberately manufacturing doubt through coordinated disinformation, a playbook later turbocharged by social media algorithms that reward outrage and reinforce echo chambers.

These three layers together explain why denial in the general public persists in the face of consensus that, within the scientific community, is simply not up for debate.

For anyone genuinely curious rather than just looking for a fight, here's some reading:
  • Hornsey & Lewandowsky (2022), "A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism." Current Opinion in Psychology
  • Jylhä (2016), "Psychological correlates of climate change denial." Personality and Individual Differences
  • Nature Climate Change (2025), "The political psychology of climate denial" → nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02523-7
  • Stanford Report (2020), "Pathways to changing the minds of climate deniers" → stanford.edu
  • Wikipedia, "Psychology of climate change denial" — a solid entry point with further references
That said, thanks to those that voted and expressed their honest opinion. Keep them coming this is exactly the kind of conversation I want having openly.

And for those who preferred jokes and insults over arguments: noted... and entirely forgotten. :)
 
Last edited:
pagheca said:
Not really, @irie. I'm a senior scientist who spent decades working on atmospheric science alongside my main field of astronomy. The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming. And in my experience, the loudest sceptics tend to quietly change their tune when something climate-related hits close to home.

The persistence of denial, despite the evidence, is itself a well-studied phenomenon. Research points to three converging factors:

Psychological: denial is rarely about ignorance. It's a cognitive defence mechanism: people who have full access to the facts reject them anyway, because accepting them would mean confronting uncomfortable threats to their lifestyle, finances, or identity.

Ideological: study after study shows denial correlates with conservative political orientation, authoritarian attitudes, and the framing of climate policy as cultural or economic imposition.

Industrial: fossil fuel companies and aligned think tanks have spent decades deliberately manufacturing doubt through coordinated disinformation, a playbook later turbocharged by social media algorithms that reward outrage and reinforce echo chambers.

These three layers together explain why denial persists in the face of consensus that, within the scientific community, is simply not up for debate.

For anyone genuinely curious rather than just looking for a fight, here's some reading:
  • Hornsey & Lewandowsky (2022) — "A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism." Current Opinion in Psychology
  • Jylhä (2016) — "Psychological correlates of climate change denial." Personality and Individual Differences
  • Nature Climate Change (2025) — "The political psychology of climate denial" → nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02523-7
  • Stanford Report (2020) — "Pathways to changing the minds of climate deniers" → stanford.edu
  • Wikipedia — "Psychology of climate change denial" — a solid entry point with further references
Click to expand...
You misunderstood my post. I am absolutely not in denial that the climate is changing, neither am I in denial about the human component. The above blatant attempt to pull scientific/intellectual rank to justify a tunnel vision position on climate change speaks for itself.

And FYI this is not an eBike forum, it is instead an eMTB forum.
 
pagheca said:
Not really, @irie
That said, thanks to those that voted and expressed their honest opinion. Keep them coming this is exactly the kind of conversation I want having openly.
Click to expand...
OK, you asked for it. 😜

I enjoy a good debate too. I'd go as far as saying that debate and skepticism are integral to the scientific method, and there is nothing more un-scientific than calling something "settled science". So I say this with all due respect. Your post is a logical fallacy called petitio principii where you're making an argument based on a false presupposition. And using slurs like "deniers" doesn't help your side's cause.

Overwhelming consensus is meaningless. A flat Earth was also overwhelming consensus. I work with plenty of academic researchers. What can be can overwhelming is the politics and pressures of funding. It's easy and very tempting for them to back into conclusions. I trust data (more on this later), not those that demand to interpret it for me and then try to shame me if I question their conclusions.

Good science usually uses control samples. What is the control sample to measure change against? What is the correct temperature of the Earth? Why isn't change a good thing? Perhaps we should accelerate global warming? As far as I know, none of the predictive models have even been close to reality. We seem to still have polar bears, penguins, Pacific islands and ice caps despite being assured these would all be long gone by now.

I mentioned data. I am not a climate scientist, but I spent my career interpreting large datasets. Most of the climate "research" is based on extrapolating existing data and then trying to align it with other datasets to prove causality. There are multiple problems with this. First, historic climate data is suspect. Many long-term sensors have over time become surrounded by urban heat islands. But if they are moved, you can't pretend you can use the data for trend analysis. These are conclusions based on variations of 1/10th of a degree, so details matter.

For example, the fundamental tenet of the climate cult is that the tiny % of anthropogenic contribution to increased CO2 causes warming, but I can just as easily use the same data to show that warming causes increased CO2. Correlation is not causality.

I could go on and on about sunspot activity, coming out of an ice age, CO2 saturation points and a dozen other things, but ultimately it doesn't matter, the climate will do what it does.

What does matter is what we do about it, if anything. If you follow the money, this is less about climate and more about centralizing power and authority into unelected bodies and using them to redistribute our money to fund whatever ultimate goals they have. I can't fathom why anyone would support that short of blind trust of authority. And that's a much more dangerous thing than climate change. I hope our global overreaction to the recent viral unpleasantness has taught more of us what happens when we let the power-hungry among us coerce the unquestioning among us.
 
AirKuhl said:
OK, you asked for it. 😜

I enjoy a good debate too. I'd go as far as saying that debate and skepticism are integral to the scientific method, and there is nothing more un-scientific than calling something "settled science". So I say this with all due respect. Your post is a logical fallacy called petitio principii where you're making an argument based on a false presupposition. And using slurs like "deniers" doesn't help your side's cause.

Overwhelming consensus is meaningless. A flat Earth was also overwhelming consensus. I work with plenty of academic researchers. What can be can overwhelming is the politics and pressures of funding. It's easy and very tempting for them to back into conclusions. I trust data (more on this later), not those that demand to interpret it for me and then try to shame me if I question their conclusions.

Good science usually uses control samples. What is the control sample to measure change against? What is the correct temperature of the Earth? Why isn't change a good thing? Perhaps we should accelerate global warming? As far as I know, none of the predictive models have even been close to reality. We seem to still have polar bears, penguins, Pacific islands and ice caps despite being assured these would all be long gone by now.

I mentioned data. I am not a climate scientist, but I spent my career interpreting large datasets. Most of the climate "research" is based on extrapolating existing data and then trying to align it with other datasets to prove causality. There are multiple problems with this. First, historic climate data is suspect. Many long-term sensors have over time become surrounded by urban heat islands. But if they are moved, you can't pretend you can use the data for trend analysis. These are conclusions based on variations of 1/10th of a degree, so details matter.

For example, the fundamental tenet of the climate cult is that the tiny % of anthropogenic contribution to increased CO2 causes warming, but I can just as easily use the same data to show that warming causes increased CO2. Correlation is not causality.

I could go on and on about sunspot activity, coming out of an ice age, CO2 saturation points and a dozen other things, but ultimately it doesn't matter, the climate will do what it does.

What does matter is what we do about it, if anything. If you follow the money, this is less about climate and more about centralizing power and authority into unelected bodies and using them to redistribute our money to fund whatever ultimate goals they have. I can't fathom why anyone would support that short of blind trust of authority. And that's a much more dangerous thing than climate change. I hope our global overreaction to the recent viral unpleasantness has taught more of us what happens when we let the power-hungry among us coerce the unquestioning among us.
Click to expand...
AirKuhl said:
OK, you asked for it. 😜

I enjoy a good debate too. I'd go as far as saying that debate and skepticism are integral to the scientific method, and there is nothing more un-scientific than calling something "settled science". So I say this with all due respect. Your post is a logical fallacy called petitio principii where you're making an argument based on a false presupposition. And using slurs like "deniers" doesn't help your side's cause.

Overwhelming consensus is meaningless. A flat Earth was also overwhelming consensus. I work with plenty of academic researchers. What can be can overwhelming is the politics and pressures of funding. It's easy and very tempting for them to back into conclusions. I trust data (more on this later), not those that demand to interpret it for me and then try to shame me if I question their conclusions.

Good science usually uses control samples. What is the control sample to measure change against? What is the correct temperature of the Earth? Why isn't change a good thing? Perhaps we should accelerate global warming? As far as I know, none of the predictive models have even been close to reality. We seem to still have polar bears, penguins, Pacific islands and ice caps despite being assured these would all be long gone by now.

I mentioned data. I am not a climate scientist, but I spent my career interpreting large datasets. Most of the climate "research" is based on extrapolating existing data and then trying to align it with other datasets to prove causality. There are multiple problems with this. First, historic climate data is suspect. Many long-term sensors have over time become surrounded by urban heat islands. But if they are moved, you can't pretend you can use the data for trend analysis. These are conclusions based on variations of 1/10th of a degree, so details matter.

For example, the fundamental tenet of the climate cult is that the tiny % of anthropogenic contribution to increased CO2 causes warming, but I can just as easily use the same data to show that warming causes increased CO2. Correlation is not causality.

I could go on and on about sunspot activity, coming out of an ice age, CO2 saturation points and a dozen other things, but ultimately it doesn't matter, the climate will do what it does.

What does matter is what we do about it, if anything. If you follow the money, this is less about climate and more about centralizing power and authority into unelected bodies and using them to redistribute our money to fund whatever ultimate goals they have. I can't fathom why anyone would support that short of blind trust of authority. And that's a much more dangerous thing than climate change. I hope our global overreaction to the recent viral unpleasantness has taught more of us what happens when we let the power-hungry among us coerce the unquestioning among us.
Click to expand...
pagheca said:
Not really, @irie. I'm a senior scientist who spent decades working on atmospheric science alongside my main field of astronomy. The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming. And in my experience, the loudest sceptics tend to quietly change their tune when something climate-related hits close to home.

The persistence of denial, despite the evidence, is itself a well-studied phenomenon. Research points to three converging factors:

Psychological: denial is rarely about ignorance. It's a cognitive defence mechanism: people who have full access to the facts reject them anyway, because accepting them would mean confronting uncomfortable threats to their lifestyle, finances, or identity.

Ideological: study after study shows denial correlates with conservative political orientation, authoritarian attitudes, and the framing of climate policy as cultural or economic imposition.

Industrial: fossil fuel companies and aligned think tanks have spent decades deliberately manufacturing doubt through coordinated disinformation, a playbook later turbocharged by social media algorithms that reward outrage and reinforce echo chambers.

These three layers together explain why denial in the general public persists in the face of consensus that, within the scientific community, is simply not up for debate.

For anyone genuinely curious rather than just looking for a fight, here's some reading:
  • Hornsey & Lewandowsky (2022), "A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism." Current Opinion in Psychology
  • Jylhä (2016), "Psychological correlates of climate change denial." Personality and Individual Differences
  • Nature Climate Change (2025), "The political psychology of climate denial" → nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02523-7
  • Stanford Report (2020), "Pathways to changing the minds of climate deniers" → stanford.edu
  • Wikipedia, "Psychology of climate change denial" — a solid entry point with further references
That said, thanks to those that voted and expressed their honest opinion. Keep them coming this is exactly the kind of conversation I want having openly.

And for those who preferred jokes and insults over arguments: noted... and entirely forgotten. :)
Click to expand...
I have witnessed & participated in climate change debates many times & sadly they all end with the same results ...no one's mind is changed & each participant keeps score of how many times he caught his opponents' mistakes, exaggerations or lies.

I believe the fundamental philosophical difference between the 2 sides is to whether or not mankind is the problem or solution to climate change & if mankind is even capable of effecting climate globally. My personal journey began after reading Ehrlich, the Paddocks & the Club of Rome & got a headfull of how they believed mankind was a force of evil. I switched teams after discovering Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource & found his view much more persuasive...ie. mankind is a solution, not the cause of whatever ecological damge the World is supposedly suffering from.

If you believe as many climate change believers do that mankind is a virus/plague on pristine mother Gaia, you won't believe we are capable of anything not promoting our selfish un-natural existence & the sooner we are eliminated the better the World will be. I grieve for anyone who thinks that way & denies our contributions during our stewardship.
 
The most important thing to focus on being sustained is yourself and your family. If riding a bike does that then mission accomplished, but nobody should fool themselves into thinking riding their bike is doing anything on a global level.
 
Tumid1 said:
I have witnessed & participated in climate change debates many times & sadly they all end with the same results ...no one's mind is changed & each participant keeps score of how many times he caught his opponents' mistakes, exaggerations or lies.

I believe the fundamental philosophical difference between the 2 sides is to whether or not mankind is the problem or solution to climate change & if mankind is even capable of effecting climate globally. My personal journey began after reading Ehrlich, the Paddocks & the Club of Rome & got a headfull of how they believed mankind was a force of evil. I switched teams after discovering Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource & found his view much more persuasive...ie. mankind is a solution, not the cause of whatever ecological damge the World is supposedly suffering from.

If you believe as many climate change believers do that mankind is a virus/plague on pristine mother Gaia, you won't believe we are capable of anything not promoting our selfish un-natural existence & the sooner we are eliminated the better the World will be. I grieve for anyone who thinks that way & denies our contributions during our stewardship.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your opinion in a respectful way, no insults or mockery, which is already rarer than it should be.

That said, I'd like to clarify a couple of things. First, it's not true that people never change their minds. It does happen, and I've personally seen it: a calm, civil conversation can sometimes make a difference.

Second, the issue isn't about "debates" on climate change. This isn't a philosophical question. It's built on decades of precise, documented data, including records from the distant past such as the ice cores extracted at Dome C, Antarctica, where I worked at some point, and on the consensus of actual experts in the field, people that knows how to read, understand and review papers published on international journal, not YouTube videos or X posts. Climate science is a scientific discipline, just like, say, the physical chemistry behind how our batteries work. The difference is that unlike batteries, you can't always see the effects directly. You have to rely on statistics that tend to slip past human intuition, simply because the timescales involved are too long.

Again, I'm not here to convince anyone on this forum. But who knows, maybe someone will find it worth thinking about... :)
 
Last edited:
all the talk about batteries (rightly so) and the very dirty lithium, people forget about the carbon frames. A lot of energy used to produce them and they cant be recycled. People have claimed they can, but nothing on a mass level yet. So landfill once they are done
 
Emtb not at all.

We have a Tern cargobike and it’s ideal for shopping/school/nipping out runs. Surprising how much fuel we save.
 
If it was charged using slave children fed on palm oil running on treadmills so be it... It would still be getting charged to 100% and flattened without a second thought... ;):p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Keep reading
    Browse all

    Similar Threads

    Community Stats

    Since 2018
    668K
    Messages
    40,726
    Members
    Join 30,000+ Riders, it's free!
    Back
    Top