Carbon footprint of a transatlantic league

[Davo5]

4 hours ago, slowdive said:

Given the damaging effects of air travel on the environment, surely the last thing we should be looking to do is to increase our carbon footprint by creating a transatlantic league.  Sorry, but on environmental grounds alone, I don't think it's the right thing to do.

If you refrain from posts like this the reduction in methane will help offset any air travel.

[slowdive]

14 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

I'm a local Green Party official, and I've no objection to Toronto or other North American sides - there's a slight whiff of troll around this thread.

I was having a debate the other week with my brother in law about why I've ditched my car and he claimed, with loads of sources which I admittedly didn't read, that air travel was in actual fact a far greater cause of man made climate change than cars.  Only this morning I was reading about Jordan running out of water. 

I think the direction of travel if you pardon the pun will increasingly be towards minimising unecessary global travel as the effects of global warming become increasingly more severe and frequent.  But who am I to argue the point with a Green Party Official.

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, slowdive said:

I was having a debate the other week with my brother in law about why I've ditched my car and he claimed, with loads of sources which I admittedly didn't read, that air travel was in actual fact a far greater cause of man made climate change than cars.  Only this morning I was reading about Jordan running out of water. 

I think the direction of travel if you pardon the pun will increasingly be towards minimising unecessary global travel as the effects of global warming become increasingly more severe and frequent.  But who am I to argue the point with a Green Party Official.

jeez the end of page 3 really has hit her hard... cant even pay her bills anymore!

[Clogiron]

1 hour ago, The 4 of Us said:

Worry thee not. Ralf’s sorted a new sponsor. Just getting the logos sorted. 

 

I name that Airship Parky and god help all who fly in her!

Actually it's a argument he's never used against TWP surprisingly

[Pyjamarama]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

I always find it amusing and hypocritical, the people who are so quick to jump on the Environmental band wagon who aren't doing everything they possibly can to reduce their own impact.

Take all those kids who took the day off school to march through the streets in protest, only for the very next day large numbers of them probably returned to being dropped off by car or used some highly polluting diesel powered bus. Followed by the lame excuses of its too cold, too dark, too wet, its too far, not safe, they have to get up too early, etc. for them not to walk or cycle to school.

Same with large numbers of the climate change protesters - how many of them have converted their homes to be fully eco friendly and are off-grid so not contributing to the demand for main grid energy ? very few probably. We then hear the "but I've got an electric car..." argument - big deal, you still charge it from the national grid, your batteries are incredibly difficult to recycle and most end up in landfill, your carbon brakes and rubber tyres still pollute the environment ! 

Its fine to protest and jump on the bandwagon as long as your doing all those things yourself, otherwise its completely hypocritical.

In environmental debates, 'whataboutery' usually appears at some point (eg - anyone with a pro-environment opinion should be living in a cave, scooping drinking water out of a stream & eating grass - or something along those lines). I'm not sure how anyone can know the integrity & efforts of every single person or protester who voices concern at the state of the environment. No doubt there will be some who have done very little, but there will probably be some who have done more than most. 

If we accept 'whataboutery' as an argument to do nothing, then nothing can be deemed wrong as long as we can think of examples of poor environmental behaviour by anyone with a pro-environmental opinion. 

 

[Dave T]

As a game I dont think we ever go on about being green or concerned about the environment or our carbon footprint, so I dont think we are on dodgy ground here.

But it is a valid complaint and individuals will make their own mind up on whether they support this, or are prepared to fly themselves to support it.

I think it is a valid concern, but as the game doesn't make a big deal about it, there should be little criticism.

[Saint Toppy]

10 minutes ago, Pyjamarama said:

In environmental debates, 'whataboutery' usually appears at some point (eg - anyone with a pro-environment opinion should be living in a cave, scooping drinking water out of a stream & eating grass - or something along those lines). I'm not sure how anyone can know the integrity & efforts of every single person or protester who voices concern at the state of the environment. No doubt there will be some who have done very little, but there will probably be some who have done more than most. 

If we accept 'whataboutery' as an argument to do nothing, then nothing can be deemed wrong as long as we can think of examples of poor environmental behaviour by anyone with a pro-environmental opinion. 

 

I'm not saying everyone should be living I caves but if those people really want to make a difference and want others to stand up and take notice then set the example. Don't be a placard waving protester and slope off home to your house powered from the national grid, drive to work, drop your kids off at school and fly off on holiday. Its these kind of Eco bandwagoners I find so hypocritical.

The more people that start living this environmentally friendly lifestyle the more others will see its a viable way to live and will make the switch themselves. If you try and force something on someone they are more likely to reject it, if you show them there's a viable alternative and let them make up their on mind, or provide incentives for them to make that switch then your far more likely to get large numbers onboard and make the difference you ultimately want.

[Rupert Prince]

5 hours ago, slowdive said:

Given the damaging effects of air travel on the environment, surely the last thing we should be looking to do is to increase our carbon footprint by creating a transatlantic league.  Sorry, but on environmental grounds alone, I don't think it's the right thing to do.

Then go and live in a cave.

[Rupert Prince]

5 hours ago, slowdive said:

Some good points Cheshire.

Given the pace of climate change and the increasing pace of opposition to pollutants, particularly air travel, I wonder whether the idea of setting up a transatlantic league will seem quite anachronistic before very long. 

It's very easy I agree to get on your high horse and criticise this and that without examining one's own practices, but actively establishing a trans atlantic league which involves multiple air miles seems to be actively heading in the wrong direction.

What utter rubbish. Should people from Sydney be prevented from travelling to Perth and back. Should the NRL refuse to open a team in Perth.  Should the AFL close down the West Coast Eagles? 

What utter and compete tripe.  

[RP London]

33 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

I'm not saying everyone should be living I caves but if those people really want to make a difference and want others to stand up and take notice then set the example. Don't be a placard waving protester and slope off home to your house powered from the national grid, drive to work, drop your kids off at school and fly off on holiday. Its these kind of Eco bandwagoners I find so hypocritical.

The more people that start living this environmentally friendly lifestyle the more others will see its a viable way to live and will make the switch themselves. If you try and force something on someone they are more likely to reject it, if you show them there's a viable alternative and let them make up their on mind, or provide incentives for them to make that switch then your far more likely to get large numbers onboard and make the difference you ultimately want.

but at which point are you allowed to have a comment? 

We use eco friendly lightbulbs and buy our electricity from OVO who are all about using renewable forms (and as such are a bit more expensive). I run into work instead of drive and my wife cycles. My kids both walk to school. I try to buy food etc that is locally sourced as much as possible (as a small businessmen [food manufacturer] this is for more than just ecological reasons). I put a jumper on instead of the heating, my kids are both wanting to go into ecology/conservationism and so are very (of their own volition) conscious of recycling, non single use plastics, turning lights off etc etc.. 

Does that mean that my voice has more weight than a person who does none of the above.. and do I then have less weight than my brother who has solar panels (I would but our house does not face the right way or something) but yet drives into work because he lives further away and whose kids go to school on the bus, because it is far too far for them to walk/cycle etc.

lets get this all in proportion..  I am by no means an expert and much of my opinion I could not back up by science or facts but it just "seems the best way to do things"... my opinion should certainly not hold more weight than someone who is furnished with loads of information but due to circumstances HAS to drive/fly etc.. if their opinion is bobbins and is not backed up by fact and science then fine call them on it but if it is then their lifestyle makes no jot of difference. Hypocrite or not doesnt make them wrong.

[17 stone giant]

1 hour ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

I'm a local Green Party official, and I've no objection to Toronto or other North American sides - there's a slight whiff of troll around this thread.

I assumed it was intended to be lighthearted and slightly tongue in cheek, although being concerned about the environment is of course a good thing.

Great thread though. Lots of good humour in the responses. A very enjoyable read.

Regarding the issue raised, I think most people (be they rugby league fans or not) will conclude that the benefits of encouraging people to play and watch sport will in this instance outweigh the negative environmental impacts.

[Kayakman]

11 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I assumed it was intended to be lighthearted and slightly tongue in cheek, although being concerned about the environment is of course a good thing.

Great thread though. Lots of good humour in the responses. A very enjoyable read.

Regarding the issue raised, I think most people (be they rugby league fans or not) will conclude that the benefits of encouraging people to play and watch sport will in this instance outweigh the negative environmental impacts.

This thread is a disaster!...it have given Rimmer and Elstone an excuse to impose a special 'carbon tax' just on Toronto; the cost 500 000 Pounds annually payable directly to the RFL and SL.....you can trust them to spend the money wisely preserving themsel........I mean preserving the environment.

[Saint Toppy]

30 minutes ago, RP London said:

but at which point are you allowed to have a comment? 

We use eco friendly lightbulbs and buy our electricity from OVO who are all about using renewable forms (and as such are a bit more expensive). I run into work instead of drive and my wife cycles. My kids both walk to school. I try to buy food etc that is locally sourced as much as possible (as a small businessmen [food manufacturer] this is for more than just ecological reasons). I put a jumper on instead of the heating, my kids are both wanting to go into ecology/conservationism and so are very (of their own volition) conscious of recycling, non single use plastics, turning lights off etc etc.. 

Does that mean that my voice has more weight than a person who does none of the above.. and do I then have less weight than my brother who has solar panels (I would but our house does not face the right way or something) but yet drives into work because he lives further away and whose kids go to school on the bus, because it is far too far for them to walk/cycle etc.

lets get this all in proportion..  I am by no means an expert and much of my opinion I could not back up by science or facts but it just "seems the best way to do things"... my opinion should certainly not hold more weight than someone who is furnished with loads of information but due to circumstances HAS to drive/fly etc.. if their opinion is bobbins and is not backed up by fact and science then fine call them on it but if it is then their lifestyle makes no jot of difference. Hypocrite or not doesnt make them wrong.

And I commend you on all those things that you do. You should encourage as any people as you can to follow your lead and show them that they too can live a 'greener' lifestyle.

What I find totally hypocritical are those that join protests against vehicles on the roads or planes and disrupt other peoples lives only for themselves to then go home and drive to work / kids to school etc. or to fly off on holiday.

[RP London]

Just now, Saint Toppy said:

And I commend you on all those things that you do. You should encourage as any people as you can to follow your lead and show them that they too can live a 'greener' lifestyle.

What I find totally hypocritical are those that join protests against vehicles on the roads or planes and disrupt other peoples lives only for themselves to then go home and drive to work / kids to school etc. or to fly off on holiday.

but thats the point i was making.. I have the luxury of being able to do what i do other people do not have that luxury.. If was still in my old job i would be flying off with work 2-3 times a month to different offices around Europe. I would have had to drive as I lived an hour away from the office while my wife was an hour away from hers in a different direction.. I may not agree with how I have to live my life but the protests are not about a single person doing what I or anyone else does but about how a country behaves (incentives etc) or how companies behave (making me fly rather than having video conferencing) etc. 

I make very little difference in the grand scheme of things but companies and countries do and to protest that and to try and make them change will make much much more difference than walking to school instead of individuals driving etc.

What has to be realised it is a balance between doing something, anything you can within the constraints of your life (car pooling instead of single drivers, sending kids on the bus instead of every single one of those kids being in a car and idling outside a school gate). its different from people just refusing to change the things in their life that make no difference to them but make a difference to the world. 

To think as you do does mean you can only have an opinion if you live in a cave.. as everyone does some for of hypocritical act in terms of environmentalism but as I say those protests are not about individuals but about corporations and countries for whom small change has a massive impact.

[henage]

6 hours ago, slowdive said:

Some good points Cheshire.

Given the pace of climate change and the increasing pace of opposition to pollutants, particularly air travel, I wonder whether the idea of setting up a transatlantic league will seem quite anachronistic before very long. 

It's very easy I agree to get on your high horse and criticise this and that without examining one's own practices, but actively establishing a trans atlantic league which involves multiple air miles seems to be actively heading in the wrong direction.

climate changes at its own pace . 

[Saint Toppy]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

but thats the point i was making.. I have the luxury of being able to do what i do other people do not have that luxury.. If was still in my old job i would be flying off with work 2-3 times a month to different offices around Europe. I would have had to drive as I lived an hour away from the office while my wife was an hour away from hers in a different direction.. I may not agree with how I have to live my life but the protests are not about a single person doing what I or anyone else does but about how a country behaves (incentives etc) or how companies behave (making me fly rather than having video conferencing) etc. 

I make very little difference in the grand scheme of things but companies and countries do and to protest that and to try and make them change will make much much more difference than walking to school instead of individuals driving etc.

What has to be realised it is a balance between doing something, anything you can within the constraints of your life (car pooling instead of single drivers, sending kids on the bus instead of every single one of those kids being in a car and idling outside a school gate). its different from people just refusing to change the things in their life that make no difference to them but make a difference to the world. 

To think as you do does mean you can only have an opinion if you live in a cave.. as everyone does some for of hypocritical act in terms of environmentalism but as I say those protests are not about individuals but about corporations and countries for whom small change has a massive impact.

Except those mass demonstrations rarely (if ever) affect the big corporations but they do impact the individuals, many of whome are probably like yourself and do what little they can. But they then find their lives massively disrupted by the actions of others. Do they think their actions are then more likely to get these people on board - doubtful !

As I said earlier - set the example and encourage others to do as you do and your far more likely to get large numbers of people to change. Try and force your opinions on others and disrupt their lives just leads to anger and more often than not discourages people to change.

[RP London]

28 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Except those mass demonstrations rarely (if ever) affect the big corporations but they do impact the individuals, many of whome are probably like yourself and do what little they can. But they then find their lives massively disrupted by the actions of others. Do they think their actions are then more likely to get these people on board - doubtful !

As I said earlier - set the example and encourage others to do as you do and your far more likely to get large numbers of people to change. Try and force your opinions on others and disrupt their lives just leads to anger and more often than not discourages people to change.

but thats the nature of mass demonstrations and happens on all issues.. people marching for or against Brexit.. is it going to make any difference.. no but it will disrupt people's day to day lives.. 

with regards the last paragraph its not about getting individuals to change.. we need the govt to use its influence on the larger polluting countries to change otherwise everyone can "do their bit" and it still wont even come close to being good enough. We are way down the line of "people changing a bit" thats been being tried for years.. the mass demonstrations (of which there really arent that many) are not about the individual and changing their mind.

However I dont think we are going to agree on this.. however, should make for interesting reading on this board if we applied the same logic.

[This Sporting Strife]

3 hours ago, Celt said:

W.T. actual F.?

Why do you mean?

[hindle xiii]

I've read this thread very carefully and taken in to account all sides of the argument (I haven't really).

I'd firmly point the finger at the pit villages like Featherstone first for the damage done to climate change.

Ban them from joining Super League!

FACT.

[damp squib]

13 hours ago, slowdive said:

Given the damaging effects of air travel on the environment, surely the last thing we should be looking to do is to increase our carbon footprint by creating a transatlantic league.  Sorry, but on environmental grounds alone, I don't think it's the right thing to do.

Troll or not you've made a valid and interesting point that has brought out the usual strawmen arguments from the gammons.

My take on it is that it is absolutely inconsistent with my morals and values for large numbers of long haul flights to be taken just for a sport.

Just like it is absolutely inconsistent with my morals and values for men to significantly increase their chances of debilitating and sometimes fatal brain damage just for a sport.

And yet I watch Rugby League any way 

[Cheshire Setter]

1 hour ago, hindle xiii said:

I've read this thread very carefully and taken in to account all sides of the argument (I haven't really).

I'd firmly point the finger at the pit villages like Featherstone first for the damage done to climate change.

Ban them from joining Super League!

FACT.

On the counter-side you’d have to give a franchise to Whitehaven by default for their efforts in cleaning up all that nuclear ###### in their big shed.   They’d be positively glowing at such good news

[north yorks trinity]

9 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

Its fine to protest and jump on the bandwagon as long as your doing all those things yourself, otherwise its completely hypocritical.

I disagree with this attitude.  I do agree that we should all consider our environmental impact and aim to reduce it but the real solution is only going to come from government policy and international cooperation.  Unless enough of us express our concern strongly enough, the politicians won't be brave enough to act. If only the whiter than white are allowed to express concern, it will look like nobody cares.

12 hours ago, DEANO said:

Point is these planes will fly to these destinations whether rugby is been played there or not. It’s not like they’re putting extra flights on

It's about supply and demand.  The expansion of air travel has happened because more people want to fly. One individual's decision not to fly won't make a difference but the collective decisions of many will. We should all do our bit and fly less often and/or less far.  To suggest that the same number of planes will fly irrespective of how many people wish to fly just doesn't add up.

I've got mixed feelings re the Toronto issue.  Rugby league is my passion and international rugby league is the pinnacle for me.  It's a tricky circle to square as an environmentalist when the best RL playing nations and leagues are on opposite sides of the planet!  I do feel uneasy about encouraging a transatlantic domestic league.  Perhaps we should actively discourage away fans (although we could target ex-pats where practical) and provide big screens at the away stadium to show the match. That way then, if a Toronto trip involved, say, 50 people travelling 3,000 miles it would be less environmentally damaging than, say 200+ people travelling 1,000 miles to Perpignan. 

[Kayakman]

18 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

 

I've got mixed feelings re the Toronto issue.  Rugby league is my passion and international rugby league is the pinnacle for me.  It's a tricky circle to square as an environmentalist when the best RL playing nations and leagues are on opposite sides of the planet!  I do feel uneasy about encouraging a transatlantic domestic league.  Perhaps we should actively discourage away fans (although we could target ex-pats where practical) and provide big screens at the away stadium to show the match. 

Do you know how big the screen would have to be for people from Great Britain to see the screen from Toronto..  Plus we would have to bull doze part of the Appalachian Mountains to get a clear view for people across the Atlantic Ocean....do have have any idea how many pixels that screen would be?

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, damp squib said:

Troll or not you've made a valid and interesting point that has brought out the usual strawmen arguments from the gammons.

My take on it is that it is absolutely inconsistent with my morals and values for large numbers of long haul flights to be taken just for a sport.

Just like it is absolutely inconsistent with my morals and values for men to significantly increase their chances of debilitating and sometimes fatal brain damage just for a sport.

And yet I watch Rugby League any way 

All you are doing is making bricks without straw.

As for your crude comment about "gammons"... All I have seen is a pathetic Liberal Democrat candidate (who is neither  liberal or democratic really) just exposed for demanding certain opponents be hung drawn and quartered. To be followed by burned at the stake. If that was not enough he wanted a "final solution" to destroy his opposition.

"Gammon" hey? You keep funny company. 

[Rupert Prince]

2 hours ago, hindle xiii said:

I've read this thread very carefully and taken in to account all sides of the argument (I haven't really).

I'd firmly point the finger at the pit villages like Featherstone first for the damage done to climate change.

Ban them from joining Super League!

FACT.

The good people in Featherstone should sleep safe.  They have done nothing wrong.  There is no such thing as man made global warming and CO2 is good for us. Trees grow greener and produce oxygen.