Jump to content

Carbon footprint of a transatlantic league

slowdive

By slowdive
in The General Rugby League Forum

Recommended Posts

themainbrace

themainbrace

Posted
Posted
11 hours 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.

I take from your use of the word PROBABLY that you have no idea how most of the children on the protests lived their lives but you've decided that they must be hypocrites because you don't like their protests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply
RayCee

RayCee

Posted
Posted
16 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.

All I can say is on yer bike (shipped from China on a boat burning fossil fuels, from a factory powered by coal burning). 

Should the Catalan Dragons and Toulouse Olympique use horse drawn canal boat to get their away games and visa versa? Ah, that pesky channel!

My blog: https://rugbyl.blogspot.co.nz/

It takes wisdom to know when a discussion has run its course.

It takes reasonableness to end that discussion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DEANO

DEANO

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, north yorks trinity said:

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.

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. 

Lol. The plane that took me to Toronto was going anyway reggardless of wether there was a rl game or not 

sometimes you have to take a step backwards to move forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RP London

RP London

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

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. 

oh my.... :kolobok_fie:

I am amazed, in this day and age and with the knowledge we have, that anyone can say that with a straight face.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rupert Prince

Rupert Prince

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RP London said:

oh my.... :kolobok_fie:

I am amazed, in this day and age and with the knowledge we have, that anyone can say that with a straight face.. 

Just because you are brainwashed by propaganda still does not change things.

But beyond that the original poster was clearly raising the issue to rant on with a political polemic piggybacked on a website interested with rugby league.   Even within its own inner circular logic it spouted rubbish.

CO2 is not a pollutant.  Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.  There is no correlation between the CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming.  The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour (97%). CO2 constitutes about 0.039% of the atmosphere.

In geological ages gone past, ice core data shows much higher, naturally produced CO2, but temperatures went up before the rise of CO2 not after its increase.

 

In reality...

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RP London

RP London

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Just because you are brainwashed by propaganda still does not change things.

But beyond that the original poster was clearly raising the issue to rant on with a political polemic piggybacked on a website interested with rugby league.   Even within its own inner circular logic it spouted rubbish.

CO2 is not a pollutant.  Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.  There is no correlation between the CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming.  The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour (97%). CO2 constitutes about 0.039% of the atmosphere.

In geological ages gone past, ice core data shows much higher, naturally produced CO2, but temperatures went up before the rise of CO2 not after its increase.

 

In reality...

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf

yes indeed CO2 is needed etc however, the point is that everything needs to be in balance and there is a delicate balance to be had with all parts of the atmosphere.. too much nitrogen in the air would also be damaging yes.. and if that was what was increasing, towards damaging levels then I am sure that would be high on the agenda of what needs to be tackled. The delicate balance can be disrupted by what would appear to be the smallest of changes (percentage wise) however, it still has a massive change. 

CO2 levels are increasing in the atmosphere (undisputed fact i believe) and this is dangerous to life on the planet and yes CO2 is needed by the trees.. however if we keep chopping these down then no matter how "vigorously" they grow there wont be enough to produce the oxygen we need to balance the atmosphere. 

Geology goes back to before life was sustainable on the planet (i would assume we dont want to get to the point in the earth where life is unsustainable) so probably using "its happened before look at geology" as a gage is not a great one. Temperature fluctuations have occurred across the ages (hence an ice age, global warm periods and so on) however, it is the unnatural increases that have never been seen at such speeds using the same ice core information, that is the concern along with the changes to the climate both with heat and with storms, flooding etc. 

We have increased significantly our output of CO2 since the industrial revolution at the same time as mass deforestation. slight warming of the atmosphere along with factory output increases the Water Vapour in the atmosphere (they are not mutually exclusive).. all of which increase the "greenhouse gasses".. its really not brain surgery to put it all together and to ignore it is madness... even if we are wrong does any of what is being suggested (not releasing shed loads of gas and smoke into the atmosphere, and not chopping down our rainforests killing loads of animal and plant life that can contribute so much to the biodiversity of this planet) do anything but good to the people and the planet??

For your 2002 paper (16 years old... much of our understanding of this subject has changed in 16 years!) that has been uploaded to that site I'll point you towards the NASA website.. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

however, as with the Scotchy on a rant about whatever his next thing will be I know from experience those that do not believe in human influenced climate change are somewhat entrenched (as i am sure you would say those that do believe in it are).. so I'll leave this debate here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
damp squib

damp squib

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

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. 

Snowflake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sir Kevin Sinfield

Sir Kevin Sinfield

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Mr Wind Up said:

Man-made climate change isn't real. Climates do change cyclically in the same way that spring follows winter. And this thread needs to be locked, binned, and confined to the depths of hell, where it remains a balmy 21 degrees.

Man made climate change is real, that is not debatable, but linking it to Toronto Wolfpack is absolutely crazy.

Why does Rugby League fear a strong Toronto Wolfpack so much? That is what this thread is really about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RP London

RP London

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Mr Wind Up said:

Man-made climate change isn't real. Climates do change cyclically in the same way that spring follows winter. And this thread needs to be locked, binned, and confined to the depths of hell, where it remains a balmy 21 degrees.

It is widely accepted by climatologists that climates do change but the speed it is changing at the moment is unprecedented and unduly influenced by humans. To argue against that is to argue against the science... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Omott91

Omott91

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Just because you are brainwashed by propaganda still does not change things.

But beyond that the original poster was clearly raising the issue to rant on with a political polemic piggybacked on a website interested with rugby league.   Even within its own inner circular logic it spouted rubbish.

CO2 is not a pollutant.  Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.  There is no correlation between the CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming.  The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour (97%). CO2 constitutes about 0.039% of the atmosphere.

In geological ages gone past, ice core data shows much higher, naturally produced CO2, but temperatures went up before the rise of CO2 not after its increase.

 

In reality...

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/deFreitas.pdf

You sir, are completely wrong. Co2 has been increasing since the industrial revolution and is intrinsically linked with climate change and the warning of the earths temperature.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Wind Up

Mr Wind Up

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Just because you are brainwashed by propaganda still does not change things.

 

Don't bother with these miserable louts. Let them regurgitate their propaganda amongst themselves. The best you can do is sleep soundly knowing that the world will continue to undergo the cycles it has since the dawn of time, and that it will be fine whether Barry keeps the engine running or not at red lights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Copa

Copa

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Leonard said:

What happened to those countries that would be under water by now with all the ice melting?

Tuvalu is having all sorts of issues not far from Australia. Tuvalu’s highest point is 4.6m and king tides can now reach nearly 3.5m. Erosion and salt water intrusion into crops etc is freaking them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.