Carbon (CO2) Off-setting option for Zwifters?

Using an electric trainer, computer and phone for all of our Zwifting sessions must be using a reasonable amount of energy, and there there are the servers supporting our Zwift experience.

Who would be interested in Zwift partnering with a carbon off-setting organisation and offer carbon off setting packages to subscribers? Similar to off-setting your flights.

Zwift could also remind users to turn off their trainer after a session to conserve energy (during the blue loading screen).

Along a similar vein, why do our trainers need to be plugged in? Surely the power that we’re generating with them could make them self-sufficient.

PS. I know that’s not a Zwift issue.

1 Like

Every country uses a different proportion of fossil fuels/nuclear/renewables to generate electricity, and every computer a different amount of power. It would be completely impossible to come even close to estimating the carbon cost of an individual’s session. Then you’ve got room lights/heating/cooling/humidity etc etc etc.

If carbon-offsetting is important to you just do/pay what you can/want. What’s the point in trying to estimate this small effect?

Seems like a very 1st world ‘solution’ to a 1st world ‘problem’. The vast majority of the world can’t afford to offset their carbon, so long term solutions are needed not ways of making rich people feel better. You couldn’t even come close to being able to detect the total effect Zwift is having on the environment, so let’s focus effort on the bigger things that affect the environment!

Just my opinion…


Hi Paul and Lauren,
the Tacx Neo is able to be used with out plugging in to the wall.
I believe you loose some downhill assist and the unit feels a
little bit different, sort of lifeless, in that it grinds to a stop more
readily, but under constant rider input its really good.

Hi Marcus,
I like your 1st world solution comment. It makes me think…

“Ride On” All

1 Like

Is that first paragraph the new definition of whataboutery?

Don’t worry Marcus, the OP wasn’t asking for it to be made compulsory, just an option.

‘Whataboutery’ means protesting at hypocrisy without directly refuting; I certainly didn’t do that so I think you are using the incorrect obscure word there. I was just stating that since Zwift doesn’t know any of the variables, it’s impossible to estimate the cost. I’m unsure what the objection to that is.

Also, I wasn’t worried. Simply stating that perhaps trying to estimate such a minute factor is an ineffective procrastination from larger concerns. Again, unsure of the nature of the objection.

I think this is a very noble request, we all should be concerned about the environment we live in. But I think the responsibility lie with us to make the change not to request that change is being unforced. Start by riding your bike to work or walk to the shops. Rake leaves instead of using a leaf blower.

I think by just turning off the lights off in the training room will save more than the power a trainer use.

As was stated above a lot of these trainers can work with out power, most of the power is to broadcast the ant+ signal and that can be done with with very small amount of power.

You didn’t consider that it might be possible to make a relatively accurate assumption based upon averages?

I’m no eco-warrior, I’m just sick of hearing people saying that such & such is too small to make a difference. It is the small things that we as individuals can all do. It’s the small things that if done by enough people, add up to make a relatively big thing.

My objection to your post, was that somebody asked a perfectly good and reasonable question about making a small difference. A difference that a business like Zwift might well be all over very soon. And you, for some reason, responded with a load of absolute rubbish to try to poo-poo their question/idea.

It’s not rocket science, if somebody calculated that on average it would cost $1 per month to offset the average Zwifter’s footprint; Zwift could simply offer two subscription rates.

1 Like

I did consider taking a rough average, as you say, it’s not rocket science. But also gives no indication of the individuals’ use so what’s the point in the exercise?

I did not say it’s too small don’t bother doing anything about it, I was arguing that it’s too small to sit there and try and calculate. As I said in my first post, just give what you can/want. Why calculate something that is a fraction of a dollar or pound? There is no purpose to that other than for a ‘feel good factor’, just do something and not bother with the superfluous calculations.

I would also argue that sometimes doing small things is not helpful, and is perhaps negative when it consumes time, effort and resources. We only have so much effort we are willing to give to things, wasting it on tiny things that make no detectable difference can detract from the effort we will put into larger things. I’ve seen many people fly half way around the world for a holiday, then later smugly post on social media that they are using a biodegradable paper straw. The small things do clearly take attention away sometimes (hence my reference to procrastination in the second post).

And finally, what was rubbish? We cannot calculate it, it is tiny and it may detract attention. You may disagree, I would indeed welcome discussion, but to sweepingly state everything is rubbish with no reasoning is a bit playground.