Co2 Emissions-Time to regionalise

Scrap the European Cups

Stay indoors. Consume media product. Save the world from doomsday by becoming meek and humble. Amen.

Im keen AF. It makes sense.
But
Gloucester City v Gateshead
WTAF.

League one and two use to be regionalized, it use to be division 3 North and division 3 South

You could say that about a lot of things. They all make a difference. We either sit still and do nothing or we look to ways to improve.

I remember a while back I started a thread on here about how we could be more environmentally conscious as a football club and as a fanbase. Didn’t go down too well, with a few even suggesting that climate change doesn’t exist.

Regionalising might be a good idea, but IMO the EFL and professional football in this country has evolved since the days of having three divisions, so you’d probably have to look at having two tiers of regionalised leagues, like a League One North and and a League Two North etc. It wouldn’t make practical sense for a Sheffield Wednesday to be relegated into the same league as Barrow have just been promoted into, the gap would just be too huge.

For that to work you’d probably have to invite the National League teams up and reduce the League size slightly from 24, bearing in mind you would essentially be creating two new separate divisions

It would be a shame not to play the likes of Sunderland or other big northern clubs in that format, as a bit of a ground hopper you’d certainly be missing out a bit in that aspect. Perhaps one of the ways to overcome that would be to merge the two leagues playoffs, into one big playoff, so that you’d still have a chance to play a Northern team at the end of the season.

Climate change most certainly exists. I think the issue is the limitations of rights and freedoms it brings. For example, air travel will become a luxury for the rich. Eating meat will become a luxury for the rich.

All of the models are just that - models. Many haven’t stood up to the test of time. As an example;

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

The article claims that “Arctic summers will be ice free from 2013”

Now, you can make all the claims that experts are all agreed etc etc, but that means either the experts who made that prediction in 2007 were mistaken, or deliberately misleading.

We are expected to believe, on a promise, which has already had vastly discredited former predictions, that the world as we know it is likely to end rapidly. This, in addition, to the fact most of us over 35 were taught in school that Europe’s main risk was an ice age returning.
That isn’t to say that the scientific method isn’t to be respected, but if it’s so often subject to frequent revision, many may baulk at the same scientists saying “trust us, what we know today is certain” - especially when the remedies involved lowering living standards for our children. Removing air travel as a recreational activity. Being colder. Making do with less.

Furthermore any movement which foretells the end of the world unless you do x y and z should have something of healthy scepticism about it as it’s not the first to make such bold claims.

I accept human caused climate change more or less as it’s presented, because I’m not a climate scientist. However, neither are most campaigners. Neither are you to my knowledge or neither is the public.
We read things on computer screens which explain how the world is, and we read that, and form our viewpoints around that. A lot of it rests on how much faith you have in the screen, or those who wrote what’s on the screen.

I think on the basis of ending the dominance of corrupt oil cartels I would like to move from oil, but in reality all of our emissions were outsourced to China and India 20 years ago, and a plastic cup brought to Starbucks or an electric car isn’t going to solve the problem.

The only thing which solves the problem is innovation.

If you read that article beyond the headline, the Cambridge expert casts doubt on the 2013 date and instead says he thinks it will be before 2040. That’s just science I guess, some experts are right, others are wrong. I think it’s dangerous though to take one or two headlines and use it as definitive proof that every climate scientist everywhere is wrong, I’m not accusing you of doing that, it’s just the sort of thing you see all the time on Facebook from that friend of friend you met once.

You’re right on the innovation stance and that innovation starts with the individual, if you find yourself worried about climate change, what are you as the individual football supporter, going to do that will help in some small way. That’s why I think threads like these have some sort of value, talking about climate change might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but I find it interesting to see what everyone else thinks about it and situate that in the context of being a Rovers supporter.

I appreciate that you probably want to start some philosophical debate about the consequences of climate change lobbying and the effects that will have on the consumer of tomorrow. Fair enough, interesting stuff and I’m not sure I have the answer to any of that but I really just posted with football and Rovers in mind on this one.

I agree to an extent, but isn't this view part of the problem? Everything we do in our lives, including our hobbies such as going to live sport, impacts on the environment. Small incremental change across all our habits will make a massive difference would it not? Of course this does not mean that the bigger issues don't need sorting as well, even more urgently, but every little helps.