|
Post by darkbluegas on Oct 21, 2021 8:15:20 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58595026How much longer can we justify the travel of fans and teams all over the country in the lower leagues. There can’t be any justification now for National Leagues below the top two tiers. Not just for the impact they have but also for the message it sends out
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Oct 21, 2021 8:19:55 GMT
Scrap the European Cups
|
|
|
Post by gasandelectricity on Oct 21, 2021 8:29:44 GMT
We probably took more away on Tuesday than some teams take supporters in total across the whole season.
Can you imagine if someone said this about league one / two - split it to a regional model?
The problem is not a football problem it’s much bigger than that. We’re making pretty poor progress though collectively
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Oct 21, 2021 8:31:05 GMT
Stay indoors. Consume media product. Save the world from doomsday by becoming meek and humble. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Oct 21, 2021 8:35:03 GMT
We probably took more away on Tuesday than some teams take supporters in total across the whole season. Can you imagine if someone said this about league one / two - split it to a regional model? The problem is not a football problem it’s much bigger than that. We’re making pretty poor progress though collectively I thought we were leading the way 🤔😂🙈
|
|
|
Post by Gasshole on Oct 21, 2021 8:52:55 GMT
Im keen AF. It makes sense. But Gloucester City v Gateshead WTAF.
|
|
|
Post by Quarters on Oct 21, 2021 9:11:43 GMT
Really what % of the problem are football fans travelling to games in lower divisions? If concerned use public transport to get there or at least fill the car to capacity.
Sort the big picture out first!
|
|
|
Post by wertongas on Oct 21, 2021 9:17:29 GMT
League one and two use to be regionalized, it use to be division 3 North and division 3 South
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Oct 21, 2021 9:19:02 GMT
As with anything, there are ways and means to offset the carbon footprint to make it "neutral".
I know we all take the proverbial out of Dale Vince and FGR for their eco warrior stance and whilst there are certain parts of that lifestyle that arent for me personally, I have to say that you cant ignore certain aspects of environmental impact which needs addressing asap.
Dale Vince certainly has the right idea on some things, for example making the shirts out of bamboo product and the development of the stadium using a very eco friendly method as well as electric and heat being sourced with renewable energy. Its something that every industry should look in to.
As many know, I'm in the motor industry, one of the industries targeted to reduce greenhouse emmisions and only this week I have been looking at each end user for recycled waste to see if we are using the right companies to dispose of things like scrap metal, waste oil and plastics (which form probably 75% of any cars base material) to make sure we are doing what we can.
Personally, I think that picking on the motor industry and the solutions car makers are putting forward with EV are not the answers everyone is looking for when it comes the reduction of greenhouse gasses. Electrification of everything is not the answer. Electric production to the scale that we need isnt carbon efficient or neutral by any stretch and neither are the lithium ion batteries that power motors and generators. Thats not even taking into consideration where the litium ore is actually coming from right now and who certain countries have mining it. But thats another argument.
Until we are at a point where things like hydrogen fuel cell can be developed and be manufactured on a large scale together with synthetic fuels as well as C02 capture travel will always be seen as a polluter of air. If we all lowered our use of technology (even crypto currency is a massive generator of C02) it would also help but as a world we are litterally peeing in the ocean with all of our efforts because humans are too selfish to give up what they are used to to make the real impact that this world desperately needs.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Oct 21, 2021 9:24:53 GMT
Really what % of the problem are football fans travelling to games in lower divisions? If concerned use public transport to get there or at least fill the car to capacity. Sort the big picture out first! 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.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyGas on Oct 21, 2021 9:33:17 GMT
Really what % of the problem are football fans travelling to games in lower divisions? If concerned use public transport to get there or at least fill the car to capacity. Sort the big picture out first! Changes required all over the world, in countless industries... so scrutiny, or at least some sensible conversations, should be welcomed everywhere. We can't just say "sort your bit out first" or we will get nowhere. I think it is positive we are now opening debate on this area. Just look at the publicity surrounding Manchester United flying to an away fixure that's only 100 miles away for example. We can all do our bit (and apply pressure, where possible, for others to do theirs - although perhaps blocking roads to hospitals might not be the tactical masterclass for awareness that some think it is!!!)
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Oct 21, 2021 9:56:24 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadontour on Oct 21, 2021 10:10:25 GMT
Make all matches available to watch online even if at 3pm on a Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Oct 21, 2021 10:17:16 GMT
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.stmThe 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.
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Oct 21, 2021 10:30:12 GMT
Doing that will only be a token gesture and will make almost no difference to global warming.
The main contributors are the USA, China, India and Russia and only when these nations make significant changes and reduce their emissions will we see any difference and that is unlikely in our lifetimes
E.G. China: its absolute coal consumption has been on the rise since 2017 as its total energy consumption continues to grow.
We (the human race) have been aware of global warming and the causes for 125 years and have done absolutely * all about it
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Oct 21, 2021 10:41:58 GMT
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.stmThe 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.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Oct 21, 2021 10:42:50 GMT
Doing that will only be a token gesture and will make almost no difference to global warming. The main contributors are the USA, China, India and Russia and only when these nations make significant changes and reduce their emissions will we see any difference and that is unlikely in our lifetimes E.G. China: its absolute coal consumption has been on the rise since 2017 as its total energy consumption continues to grow. We (the human race) have been aware of global warming and the causes for 125 years and have done absolutely * all about it The tide is turning young Sean. Its a long time coming but change is happening. The idea that Boris cares about this though and leading the way is rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by Jomo on Oct 21, 2021 10:46:11 GMT
Really what % of the problem are football fans travelling to games in lower divisions? If concerned use public transport to get there or at least fill the car to capacity. Sort the big picture out first! 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.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 21, 2021 10:48:00 GMT
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. Not really sure what you're talking about here. This is fundamentally misunderstanding what science is and the idea that experts all agree is nonsense. Using this as some sort of bullshitty response to undermine climate change science is desperate.
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Oct 21, 2021 10:51:16 GMT
Doing that will only be a token gesture and will make almost no difference to global warming. The main contributors are the USA, China, India and Russia and only when these nations make significant changes and reduce their emissions will we see any difference and that is unlikely in our lifetimes E.G. China: its absolute coal consumption has been on the rise since 2017 as its total energy consumption continues to grow. We (the human race) have been aware of global warming and the causes for 125 years and have done absolutely * all about it I’ve been in that sort of depressed mindset about climate change for quite some time, what difference can we make when other countries emit more carbon and do less to combat that than ourselves. I don’t think that mentality gets you anywhere though, I mean either we all do nothing and the world suffers the effects of climate change or some of us do something and encourage the rest of us to give it a go, and there’s a chance we don’t. Sometimes I think you’ve just got to lead by example, you can hardly complain about the next person not doing enough to combat climate change when you don’t yourself. Token gestures over time force bigger gestures from others. If we push ahead and find innovative solutions to reverse climate change, the more likely they are to be adopted elsewhere. Yes, Rovers using paper cups instead of plastic (Just an example off the top of my head) means nothing in the grand scheme of things but what if 100,000 Rovers sized businesses do one eco-friendly thing, which in turn encourages a large multinational corporation to do something, which in turns encourages a large Chinese business to imitate the large multinational, which is what happens already.
|
|