For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Nonsense...shadooby's numerous, unhinged posts in this thread, coupled with the sources of the links he posted, had already made the thread overtly political. I simply observed that it was quite clear which side he was approaching the matter from...and I can also tell you're obviously on the same side as he is.Quote
nickQuote
keefriff99Looks like this topic made you blow a head gasket. It's obvious who you voted for.
And the politics have begun.
Quote
shadooby
...and by the way, no farting...contributes to green-house gas...
Quote
Stoneage
Anyway you look at it; these large scale world tours makes a big biological footprint. Think of all the traffic going in and out, dozens of trucks carrying the stage.
People travelling from all around the world. You can't deny that.
Quote
keefriff99Nonsense...and I can also tell you're obviously on the same side as he is.Quote
nickQuote
keefriff99Looks like this topic made you blow a head gasket. It's obvious who you voted for.
And the politics have begun.
Quote
Stoneage
The thing is northernale that most vehicles are not needed for. Most people live in big cities (or medium-sized). Public transports should be enough for most. Or cycles.
And trains could replace airplanes. And so on. But then comes the self interest. People like to hold on to what they got. That is when politics comes in...
Quote
northernale1Quote
Stoneage
The thing is northernale that most vehicles are not needed for. Most people live in big cities (or medium-sized). Public transports should be enough for most. Or cycles.
And trains could replace airplanes. And so on. But then comes the self interest. People like to hold on to what they got. That is when politics comes in...
that maybe true in some countries, however in Canada 20% of the population is rural, and another vast majority live in "bedroom cities", due to over population in the major cities,
these people ( me included) need vehicles to commute,
so it gets back to my point, driving is essential for most, where as air travel is not essential, and is done more as a luxury
Quote
StoneageQuote
northernale1Quote
Stoneage
The thing is northernale that most vehicles are not needed for. Most people live in big cities (or medium-sized). Public transports should be enough for most. Or cycles.
And trains could replace airplanes. And so on. But then comes the self interest. People like to hold on to what they got. That is when politics comes in...
that maybe true in some countries, however in Canada 20% of the population is rural, and another vast majority live in "bedroom cities", due to over population in the major cities,
these people ( me included) need vehicles to commute,
so it gets back to my point, driving is essential for most, where as air travel is not essential, and is done more as a luxury
You don't have subways, buses or commuter trains in Canada?
Quote
Stoneage
I agree, Northernale. As I pointed out earlier: Self interest never lies. That's why this is political dynamite. Who's going to give up what and in which order...
That's true, but if it results in an overall net decrease in fossil fuels used, then that's a positive. That's also a big IF. I'm not sure it will pan out that way.Quote
grzegorz67Quote
Stoneage
I agree, Northernale. As I pointed out earlier: Self interest never lies. That's why this is political dynamite. Who's going to give up what and in which order...
It is indeed political dynamite. Climate change is real and there's irrefutable evidence that it's caused by the activity of humans. The prosperity and economic development of the World's wealthiest countries, i.e. Europe, North America and the Pacific Rim has been delivered by burning fossil fuels. We are consuming resources far faster than Planet Earth can replenish them.
Whenever Economic Prosperity comes into conflict with environmental concerns the former always wins because those in charge tend to benefit the most. Again quoting Northernale, self interest never lies.
As emerging economies like China and India industrialise and their demand for fossil fuels increases exponentially, we in the West have no leg to stand on if we criticise them for doing so because they're only trying to get where we in the Western World are economically.
Another elephant in the room rarely discussed is World human population growth. There are now 7.4 billion of we humans on this Earth and the carbon footprint per human is rising. Double whammy. Having fewer children (but not reducing to none at all!) will help but the benefits will not be felt immediately. That in itself is political dynamite.
There are little things we can all do like recycling and driving smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. Turning the heating down a few degrees in winter helps too. Keeping clothes and gadgets for longer and not buying lots of stuff we don't need or seldom use. Again that conflicts with economic progress.
Personally I think the jury's out on electric vehicles. The vehicles themselves certainly cause far less pollution where used. The electricity which powers them has to be generated and unless done so sustainably such as nuclear or hydro electric, you're merely moving the pollution from the point of use to the power station.
It's a complex multi pronged issue with many factors to consider and the steps taken so far barely scratch the surface. Pathetic really. Ultimately it means that we're all going to have to live much less well than we're used to and who's going to do that?
Some people here in Britain give themselves a pat on the back because our pollution is less than it was 30 years ago. True in itself but meaningless. Much of what we produced here ourselves then is now produced abroad and we import it back in cheaply, exporting the pollution to where we buy from instead.
As for the Stones, their modern day tours are far shorter and their stages less complex than in the 1989-2007 period.
Quote
bv
If everybody parked their cars and changed from meat into vegetables for meals, then that would have 10,000 more times impact on the climate changes.
It is all about numbers. The Stones play in fromt of less than one million people this summer. At the same time, millions and millions eat meat and fly for all sorts of activites and so on and so on.
I would not worry so much about the tour really.
Quote
BV
The Stones tour is totally irrelevant to the climate problem. In fact any tours. It is what every person do every day on this planet that matters.
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
bv
If everybody parked their cars and changed from meat into vegetables for meals, then that would have 10,000 more times impact on the climate changes.
It is all about numbers. The Stones play in fromt of less than one million people this summer. At the same time, millions and millions eat meat and fly for all sorts of activites and so on and so on.
I would not worry so much about the tour really.
No it wouldnt. Humans cant change climates on earth. There is zero consensus about the reasons were once again in a slightly warmer (for some reason Sweden is not affected) cycle (not as warm as the last one btw).