For athletes and co., sustainability isn't even an idea thought about. Like, I've built quite a few bikes and I've rode with some of the world's best MTBers/cyclists: not once has someone proposed, "How can we make this bike more environmentally friendly?" It's a concept that exists squarely within the minds of some commuters and environmentalist nerds. I'm not making a counterargument: I'm saying, don't expect to win over the enthusiast market if your suggestion is "Buy a heavier (i.e. non-carbon) bike."

> In addition, many carbon-intensive bicycles are bought for recreation and are not meant to replace cars at all – they may even involve more car use as cyclists drive out of town for a trip in nature. In all those cases, emissions go up, not down.

I'm impressed: In discussions about cycling, cyclists always get lumped together, and the default assumption is cyclist = commuter, and cycling = less emissions = good. Except that in reality, Dave is transporting 1-2 $10k+ bikes on his 8-15 MPG modified Jeep Wrangler, 3-7 times per week, for drives that he otherwise wouldn't perform.