Stack
Leave Women's Football Alone!!!
A percentage of tv rights going towards increasing the size of wilderness areas
Decommissioning and the likes is currently at least very very inefficient, albeit that’ll be the case whenever the transition is made and we will get better at everything we can out of everything we can from them before scrapping. add in the difficulties with mining the necessary materials, manufacturing and transporting them then over a lifetime that poster is probably completely correct.This simply isn’t true, where on earth did you get this from?
Hopefully nothing. It's all BS. Another stupid narrative we're all suppose to follow. People will believe anything the media keeps feeding you...
Hate this comment so much.Ok boomer
Correct answer.Hopefully nothing. It's all BS. Another stupid narrative we're all suppose to follow. People will believe anything the media keeps feeding you...
Yes but that’s what you’d expect with the phasing onto a new technology right? Very different to that poster who said it wouldn’t do anything (which is ridiculous) and that it would be redundant tech/scrap in 3-4 years.Decommissioning and the likes is currently at least very very inefficient, albeit that’ll be the case whenever the transition is made and we will get better at everything we can out of everything we can from them before scrapping. add in the difficulties with mining the necessary materials, manufacturing and transporting them then over a lifetime that poster is probably completely correct.
These are all factors that will probably only get the focus and improvements necessary when they’re already running so it is a bit of a grin and bear it up to a point.
Most of the new technology being used now probably would be redundant in 3-4 years, however as I said it’s a something that does have to happen at some point because until the transition starts we’re not going to see the funding necessary in these sectors to fix it.Yes but that’s what you’d expect with the phasing onto a new technology right? Very different to that poster who said it wouldn’t do anything (which is ridiculous) and that it would be redundant tech/scrap in 3-4 years.
It won’t be redundant what are you taking about? What will be redundant in 3-4 years? We still use tech in cars from decades ago.Most of the new technology being used now probably would be redundant in 3-4 years, however as I said it’s a something that does have to happen at some point because until the transition starts we’re not going to see the funding necessary in these sectors to fix it.
So basically I don’t think they’re wrong, but also it is a hit that is necessary for long term advancement.
They could play all matches on Microsoft TeamsWhat other ways can football reduce its carbon footprint?
By working on financials for car manufacturing, especially in the electric business, I can easily tell you it's true but I don't want to go in detail about it.This simply isn’t true, where on earth did you get this from?
‘I can easily tell you you’re wrong but I don’t want to go into detail’ ….okBy working on financials for car manufacturing, especially in the electric business, I can easily tell you it's true but I don't want to go in detail about it.
It's a simple calculation in terms of early technology, battery lifespan, imact of weight over reliability, risk, amount of rare metals used, etc. That's how it is in terms of financial prospecting.
The fact it's cheaper to run and it doesn't burn fuel doesn't mean it's green, especially in countries where electrical power still comes from traditional methods.
I look forward to reading your published research article where you can put weight behind this statement regarding carbon emissions and its impact on human health and future prospects. Will you be pubishing in Nature or The Lancet?Hopefully nothing. It's all BS. Another stupid narrative we're all suppose to follow. People will believe anything the media keeps feeding you...
This argument has been made quite a lot, but its never been backed by research literature anyone takes seriously. It had a lot of public interest in 2018, primarily fronted by the auto industry who have an extreme vested interest in selling combustion engine vehicles, although several of them are moving away from new engines alltogether and will only manfufacture EVs going forward.I know. Sending a message would still not make any noticeable difference as long as industry and transport still do jack shit about it.
I get it's about sending a positive message out there, but it still won't make any difference.
Also, it's about how you send the message. For example, going electric, be it in driving or flying doesn't do jack shit for the environment in the long run, it only sounds cool so that idiots pay more to fly electric or to buy an electric car that's scrap metal in terms of technology and usability in 3 to 4 years.
If you hate it more than the comment I replied to, I'm glad you found it offensiveHate this comment so much.
I don't find it offensive as such, just such a banal, unimaginative, pompous comment.If you hate it more than the comment I replied to, I'm glad you found it offensive
Think he's referring to the electric vehicle battery which isn't the most eco-friendly. Not to mention all the deep sea mining which is going to be involved in its manufacture.This simply isn’t true, where on earth did you get this from?
There is no need for friendlies or tours in places like the US or Singapore.
Money?There is no need for friendlies or tours in places like the US or Singapore.
Sure, but it's at a cost to a much wider picture and the revenue gained isn't enough to justify it. Take United for example, though they are offsetting their carbon emissions of 20'000+ miles this tour, they already have a massive global reach and are going to get fans from all over the world investing in merchandise and other things for the club.Money?
We’re a tiny island, but we should really do more to have ‘Road game periods’ where teams play 3 away games in the same parts of the country.Hi everyone, horsechoker here
Today's question is what football teams and clubs can do to reduce their impact on the environment
I find it silly that United fly to some domestic games when coach or train journeys would be far less harmful to the environment
Also the manufacturering of 3 brand new kits every season needs to stop. I think Brentford have decided to reuse their kit for a second season and I hope other teams follow suit
I'd like to see more teams use trains to travel to continental games, for example, Ajax could take the train to Paris (not sure if they don't already do that)
What other ways can football reduce its carbon footprint?
Having issues with price and method of production is very different to the technology becoming redundant…Think he's referring to the electric vehicle battery which isn't the most eco-friendly. Not to mention all the deep sea mining which is going to be involved in its manufacture.
Great thread though. Footballers should use their platform and more action, less talk. Reduction in fly time, kits - those would be good starting points. Clubs can also invest in renewable energy sources in and around their local community
I don't find it banal, it has actually lots of subcontext.I don't find it offensive as such, just such a banal, unimaginative, pompous comment.
Change kits to singlets and you’ll save on fabric. Hell, make the away team play topless and just the home team wearing their kit would save even more.Hi everyone, horsechoker here
Today's question is what football teams and clubs can do to reduce their impact on the environment
I find it silly that United fly to some domestic games when coach or train journeys would be far less harmful to the environment
Also the manufacturering of 3 brand new kits every season needs to stop. I think Brentford have decided to reuse their kit for a second season and I hope other teams follow suit
I'd like to see more teams use trains to travel to continental games, for example, Ajax could take the train to Paris (not sure if they don't already do that)
What other ways can football reduce its carbon footprint?
Isn't radioactive waste disposal a big issue though?We need to go for the nuclear option.... literally. Over the last 10 years Germany has bizarrely shifted from Nuclear power to coal, oil and gas which is not just a disaster for the environment but also helped to facilitate Russia invading Ukraine.
Nuclear is the cleanest fuel there is really and we need to build more nuclear plants, especially in China and India who are the largest polluters. They are both still building huge amounts of coal plants which is a disaster for the environment. No amount of wind turbines and solar panels and taking trains instead of planes etc etc can compensate.
Agreed with the bolded parts.By working on financials for car manufacturing, especially in the electric business, I can easily tell you it's true but I don't want to go in detail about it.
It's a simple calculation in terms of early technology, battery lifespan, imact of weight over reliability, risk, amount of rare metals used, etc. That's how it is in terms of financial prospecting.
The fact it's cheaper to run and it doesn't burn fuel doesn't mean it's green, especially in countries where electrical power still comes from traditional methods.
But definitely, the technology won't become redundant. If anything, there'll be a push to find alternative metals, means for production provided the legislation exists to prevent the over-mining in the oceans.Having issues with price and method of production is very different to the technology becoming redundant…
Very little of it is produced. The US produces 2k tonnes of it per year, which is not that much considering that they have a lot of nuclear plants. I guess mining uranium produces emissions but still a whole lot less than coal plants.Isn't radioactive waste disposal a big issue though?
Agreed with the bolded parts.
But definitely, the technology won't become redundant. If anything, there'll be a push to find alternative metals, means for production provided the legislation exists to prevent the over-mining in the oceans.
I've seen studies showing that keeping an old car running as long as you can, is better than purchasing a new EV. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of us actually purchase used cars (though I suppose contributing to a healthy used car market has a knock on effect to increased production of newer models)This argument has been made quite a lot, but its never been backed by research literature anyone takes seriously. It had a lot of public interest in 2018, primarily fronted by the auto industry who have an extreme vested interest in selling combustion engine vehicles, although several of them are moving away from new engines alltogether and will only manfufacture EVs going forward.
While technology certainly improves and gets updated at a fast paced rate, primarily in regards to driving computers annd self-driving technology, the research data concludes in no uncertain terms, over several studies in several markets with different climates, that gas cars have a significantly larger carbon emission impact than EVs. That takes into account the life cycle of batteries, mining, production and increased load on grid, as well as electric output by coal plants etc.
It should be noted that Europe especially is largely moving towards more sustainable energy sources, and coal plants are becoming rarer and fever. Blips in history such as the Ukrainian conflict and re-dependency on more polluting sources should not be used as an argument for a large picture.
Overall, there is a huge consensus in the literature that EVs greatly reduce overall carbon emission over the vehciles entire lifecycle, which is what we want for the sake of the planet we inhabit.
There are problems regarding solving effeciency for large EV vehicles, but its not very informative to say it does "jack shit" without providing an answer other than calling people idiots.
"it" = reducing carbon footprint?Is this still a thing? Thought people knew it's just a big scam to make big companies more money and everyone else poorer.
go on…Is this still a thing? Thought people knew it's just a big scam to make big companies more money and everyone else poorer.