They could use 100% renewable Energy for the Light- & Sound equipment -- at least buying the electrical Power from a provider which invests massively in renewable Energy (e.g. building Solar Parks + Wind Farms) ....

“Climate experts”...?!
Come on.

Quote
nick

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
shadooby
McDonald's new paper straws - described as "eco-friendly" by the US fast food giant - cannot be recycled.

Looks like this topic made you blow a head gasket. It's obvious who you voted for.

And the politics have begun.

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.

A stone tour will never have the same impact as a Western middle town pointlessly lit at night 365 days a year : shop windows, neon lights etc etc. Can you imagine the sheer madness of these gigawatts burnt for no reason...?
The best energy is the one that's not consumed!

Make sure the lights are off in your city at night. Lobby your city hall and your mayor! Then go to see the stones with a light heart!

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
shadooby
...and by the way, no farting...contributes to green-house gas...

Jumping jack flash.....

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.

They buy quotas, and that's just about the most sensical they could do - in addition to cut down on carbon emissions (which they also have done).

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
nick

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
shadooby
McDonald's new paper straws - described as "eco-friendly" by the US fast food giant - cannot be recycled.

Looks like this topic made you blow a head gasket. It's obvious who you voted for.

And the politics have begun.

Nonsense...and I can also tell you're obviously on the same side as he is.

You just did it again.

where as most air travel is nonessential

and yet in a lot of places to get to work, vehicles are needed, so the majority off vehicle usage is essential

so instead of a campaign to park the cars, how about a campaign to park the planes,

both campaigns are ridiculous however that being said one is more responsible than the other,

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
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
northernale1

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...

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?

If this was a true emergency, then the Stones would be deemed non-essential traveling and the touring prohibited.
Lots of other dramatic changes would be made.
Fuel costs would be taxed heavily and we'd begin the process of collecting the population into concentrated cities where public transport is possible. In Canada, for example, and even in the U.S., most of the population is rule or suburban where public transport is not established or possible.

I'm neutral on this. I don't know enough of the science to make any claims.
I do think it would probably be a better world if we all walked down to the local pub to hear the neighborhood band, and if we wanted the Stones they gathered themselves in a warehouse in London and put their shows out on the internet. Maybe we'd get a new album.

Quote
Stoneage

Quote
northernale1

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...

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?

go look at a map of Canada, just Ontario alone, the map will answer your question!

its very convenient to tell people to give up things that dont affect us. so lets try this,

lets stop concerts, sporting events, hey heck the internet creates about 2% of the world emissions, lets get rid of it

some people wont be happy till we are back living in a cave,(not sure what we will heat with as wood emits loads of co2), back when life expectancy was high 20s low 30s of age

so my point being is until people are willing to give up frivolous items, they need to step down from their soap box and recommend/tell others what they should be doing

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...

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...

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
grzegorz67

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...

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.

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.

Vegan Shepherd's Pie.

The Climate Changes are NOT about politics at all. However, politics do control our lives in most countries, so it is the politicians who need to adress the issue. For a start, they could realize and respect worldwide leading research and science who all agree on the fact that that there is a problem with the climate.

Secondly we can all vote for politicials who are under the age of 40, they will normally have a better understanding of the problem, than those who are old and not ready for changes anymore.

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. Everything we do 24/7/365 is adding up. What we do one time per year or ten years is not significant.

If you drink one beer per day you will not get drunk, but if you dring one beer every hour for the rest of your life then you will see the difference. Statistics is complicated, but it is basically what we all do every day that matters.

Bjornulf

the fact is though, few of us are interested in climate change, and even less of us worry about its effects, and even if scientists say climate change is real, and we all believe it to be real, it takes all of us to change what we can, even in a small way, and that includes politicians setting an example to the rest of us.

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.

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).

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.

That is a syllogistic fallacy. If what every person do every day matters so does what the Rolling Stones do. Use deductive reasoning.

Keith's famous backstage Shepherds Pie is now entirely plant based.

Redhotcarpet, I cannot believe to read this. There is a natural gas-cycle, in which organisms emit CO2 and plants store it (the carbon, that is) and produce oxygen with the help of the sun and water. But a few centuries ago we began to dig up and burn fossile materials and thus emit gases which had been stored in dead plants and organisms (coal, oil and natural gas) for millions of years to keep everything in balance and because of that more of it is now in the atmosphere than there ever was at the same time.
NOTHING is under discussion, it is a simple fact. And I am sure people in Sweden notice it as much as we do in Switzerland. I'm not that old but I remember winters being significantly longer than they are now and summers not as hot. You can literally watch the change year by year. And all of that has nothing to do with the natural cycle of the earth getting warmer like in times of the Roman Empire or ice ages or whatnot.
And it does not help that we breed more cows, pigs and chickens than would ever be naturally on earth in miserable conditions only to satisfy our selfish desire to chose meat over vegetables. With the vegetable calories used to feed all of those animals you could satisfy global hunger a few times AND help to stop global warming.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-13 23:42 by MonkeyMan2000.

A depressing, but informative animation of the data gathered at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, measuring the Co2 level in our atmosphere, going back a few thousand years: [www.youtube.com]

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-08-14 01:17 by nick.

There is no way to have known what the readings were for the majority of that timeline. These are the biggest arguments that occur between the 2 sides of the issue. Algorithms based on different inputs. As far as 1984 and up, it's what I said in my previous post - China and India stop your goddamn polluting and poisoning our planet.

It doesn't matter AT ALL what a band or an individual or a company does - it's not the individual effort that changes anything. Recycling has been a sham.

The only way anything will change - ever - is the industry of whatever aspects are involved.

There are 1.5 billion cows on earth. Source: TimeforChange.org

Quote
Redhotcarpet

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.

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).

Oh I see here we have one of those scepticals. Those who choose to believe in the part of science which is fitting in with their life pattern, then sort of ignore other parts of science.

So you trust science used to build bridges, high speed trains, mobile phones, elevators, skyscrapers, nuclear power plants, Internet, and clean water. Still, since it is not convenient for you, because you want to drive your car and have the steak and your other activities in life, you choose to ignore the scientific facts which thousands of scientists, meteorologists, physics and environmental researchers all are basing their models on now, including the United Nations.

May be Sweden is cold this week. That is not interesting. The point is that the climate is changing, and in a rapid way. Scientific evedent, undisputed.

Yes, I do know that some do still believe the earth is flat, and that Elvis is still alive, but sorry, the world is NOT flat, and Elvis is dead unfortunately.

Let us change the way of looking at it. There are may be five billion people on this planet, more or less. More than half of these people do never have a car or a steak or a holiday to the Carribean or wherever, they are struggling to find food and a safe place to sleep. When their food and homes are gone, due to floods and higher sea level, then they will start walking towards your safe home. Not in thousands, bujt in millions.

We are in this together.

Bjornulf