Well it depends how "green"? Organic food is "greener" and more effective than industrial. Eating good food is more efficient economicaly than eating sht, because of health costs. Mountain biking is not green at all in current form so it is hipocrysy to talk about it at all here. On the contrary actually. It would be "green" only if mountain bikers created local communities that would contribute to protection of nature by fighting for its rights. However at the moment it is hard enough to get people to work to maintain the trails so they give back what they took. In general "energy" is not the only thing. Global Warming is a fact, however even if we raise the temperature faster than nature can, temperature alone wouldn't probably hurt life on earth that much, as volcanoes and metheors have been doing it more violently in the past. What we are pioneers at is that we put toxins into environment at scale that even a super volcano can't. So it dos make a difference HOW you manufacture stuff. The biggest part of the story is probably WHERE. That is because in western countries it is much harder to put aside externalities like waste handling. If you empty a tank of chemicals into someones backyard in China, there will be calmer reaction than in Belgium or Sweden isn't it? It's all about handling externalities: who takes their consequences and when. We all do, question is when - when you see egzem on your grand child? or when your children loose fertility due to exposure to toxins that floated in in air and water from Asia? So you won't get grand children at all. So you can always make something "greener", when I athink about it it should be "a bit less filthy" rather than "green" :)

I like Bontrager for steping into "environmentaly friendly" tyres. I hope they made more of these. This tyre looks more or less like Rocket Ron, they had some minion looking like something as well. WHy not make "eco" versions of most popular tyres, since they nearly "copy" all of them?