Rugby and The Environment

With so much discuss about the prospect of Argentina in the upcoming Rugby Championship, the opportunity for grow the game, the develop players of Argentina and effect on club rugby in Europe where so many Argentina players are make money was something miss?

Already heavy on "carbon footprint" the trinations expand to rugby championship and will be the second most unenvironmental friendly sporting tournament in the world behind F1 circuit, involving even more staggering number of airmiles over longer period of time than before.

Should the organisers designed the tournament to be "hosted" by each country and rotate each year? Would that make some more interesting anyway?

That's not a bad idea actually.

I think the question of a 4 nations cup each year rather than home and away fixtures is a good one. But the reasons against arent gonna be from envioromental reasons. Obviously things in a perfect world be localised more- but thats for the growth of the game in my eyes.. A couple of flights isnt material. We can aid the enviormoment every day of lives if we want..

The top nations love the home and away fixtures. And offcourse its all about time zones for tv viewings to maximise turnover

anotherworldofpain wrote:With so much discuss about the prospect of Argentina in the upcoming Rugby Championship, the opportunity for grow the game, the develop players of Argentina and effect on club rugby in Europe where so many Argentina players are make money was something miss?

Already heavy on "carbon footprint" the trinations expand to rugby championship and will be the second most unenvironmental friendly sporting tournament in the world behind F1 circuit, involving even more staggering number of airmiles over longer period of time than before.

Should the organisers designed the tournament to be "hosted" by each country and rotate each year? Would that make some more interesting anyway?

Really? DO you have any evidence of that?

I would have never thought that the Rugby Championship, or Quad Nations, or whatever, could have a higher carbon footprint than the WRC or Motor GP, and I would have thought that the Champions League would have a pretty high carbon footprint seeing as the football teams fly to every match and there are far far more matches acorss the whole of europe than there are (across a slightly larger distance, granted) in the Rugby Championship.

Forget the Carbon footprint, it isn't chartered flights that will add to global warming, it is existing flgiths that they get on.

As for hosting it in each nation on a rotation basis, it has been discussed before, the fans won't fall for it.

Nother reason to adopt a rugby "fat tax". Bigger players=more injuries and greater fuel consumption by planes to transport them and their foodstuffs.

Limit player weight unless carbon credits are purchased, and get rid of jiffy who is a waste of oxygen and spouts noxious gasses.

World saved.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Nother reason to adopt a rugby "fat tax". Bigger players=more injuries and greater fuel consumption by planes to transport them and their foodstuffs.

Limit player weight unless carbon credits are purchased, and get rid of jiffy who is a waste of oxygen and spouts noxious gasses.

World saved.

Very insightfull peter Perhaps Jiffy or the rest of us could say the same about you and the tripe you post on here.

LordDowlais wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Nother reason to adopt a rugby "fat tax". Bigger players=more injuries and greater fuel consumption by planes to transport them and their foodstuffs.

Limit player weight unless carbon credits are purchased, and get rid of jiffy who is a waste of oxygen and spouts noxious gasses.

World saved.

Very insightfull peter Perhaps Jiffy or the rest of us could say the same about you and the tripe you post on here.

Paperless and using remote communication, plus my jokes are largely recycled. Im all green.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Nother reason to adopt a rugby "fat tax". Bigger players=more injuries and greater fuel consumption by planes to transport them and their foodstuffs.

Limit player weight unless carbon credits are purchased, and get rid of jiffy who is a waste of oxygen and spouts noxious gasses.

World saved.

Very insightfull peter Perhaps Jiffy or the rest of us could say the same about you and the tripe you post on here.

Paperless and using remote communication, plus my jokes are largely recycled. Im all green.

anotherworldofpain

Highest carbon footprint... even before we get to the joke that is carbon footprints... (its not the worst offender by far in greenhouse gases, its only highlighted because countries can now make money off the trading of the product) the rugby championship being near the worst is laughable.

In the end the 4N will only mean 24 trans continental flights overall... 3 trips per side. Hardly any away fans travel so its only players and support staff.

I could list dozens of annual tournaments which are surely far worse. How about the NBA basketball league in the USA???? There are near 1500 games played each year by these sides who travel all over the continental US.... do you think these sides will travel by coach across a country the size of the USA????

In terms of the 4N being held in host countries I don't see it working for the below reasons.

If they went on a revolving host plan, these countries would also host 12 matches every 4 years, but crucially only 6 of those will be home ties.. the revenue generated will be far less in a SA vs. NZ match in Cape Town for instance compared to a Argentina vs. Australia match in the same city.

Then you have TV money... if matches are all played between 2pm & 8pm SA time the matches involving NZ & AUS will be shown in the middle of the night. Viewers will be down, advertising money will be down.

If it doesn't at least mean that countries will be able to equal their current revenue then their is zero chance of it happening... we're already losing players left right and centre to Europe and AUS, reduced revenue will mean we have even less to pay our players with. Thats unacceptable.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:With so much discuss about the prospect of Argentina in the upcoming Rugby Championship, the opportunity for grow the game, the develop players of Argentina and effect on club rugby in Europe where so many Argentina players are make money was something miss?

Already heavy on "carbon footprint" the trinations expand to rugby championship and will be the second most unenvironmental friendly sporting tournament in the world behind F1 circuit, involving even more staggering number of airmiles over longer period of time than before.

Should the organisers designed the tournament to be "hosted" by each country and rotate each year? Would that make some more interesting anyway?

Really? DO you have any evidence of that?

I would have never thought that the Rugby Championship, or Quad Nations, or whatever, could have a higher carbon footprint than the WRC or Motor GP, and I would have thought that the Champions League would have a pretty high carbon footprint seeing as the football teams fly to every match and there are far far more matches acorss the whole of europe than there are (across a slightly larger distance, granted) in the Rugby Championship.

Have you ever flown from Auckland to Buenos Aires? or Cape Town to Auckland?

anotherworldofpain wrote:and will be the second most unenvironmental friendly sporting tournament in the world behind F1 circuit

I'd be interested in seeing your working please

anotherworldofpain wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:With so much discuss about the prospect of Argentina in the upcoming Rugby Championship, the opportunity for grow the game, the develop players of Argentina and effect on club rugby in Europe where so many Argentina players are make money was something miss?

Already heavy on "carbon footprint" the trinations expand to rugby championship and will be the second most unenvironmental friendly sporting tournament in the world behind F1 circuit, involving even more staggering number of airmiles over longer period of time than before.

Should the organisers designed the tournament to be "hosted" by each country and rotate each year? Would that make some more interesting anyway?

Really? DO you have any evidence of that?

I would have never thought that the Rugby Championship, or Quad Nations, or whatever, could have a higher carbon footprint than the WRC or Motor GP, and I would have thought that the Champions League would have a pretty high carbon footprint seeing as the football teams fly to every match and there are far far more matches acorss the whole of europe than there are (across a slightly larger distance, granted) in the Rugby Championship.

Have you ever flown from Auckland to Buenos Aires? or Cape Town to Auckland?

Nice to see AWOp once again getting right to the crux of the issue once again and answering the key points raised in one well aimed, cutting response

Please do not troll my thread SmirnoffPriest. I can see you in the other place complaining about trolls so not being the hyprocrite please.

Please answer the points made above by other posters - the point on the amount of travelling done by NBL teams is interesting. Also the impact of the Wrold Rally Championship and MotoGP must be staggering - particularly the WRC as you need to transport the cars and teams around the world, though of course the cars may not weigh as much as some rugby players.

But if you post the evidence to show that the Quad Nations will have a greater effect on the enviornment, then I will humbly apologise.

As said above playing the Quad Nations/Rugby Championship as a cup in one country each year is interesting/attractive, but you'd need to overcome so many obstacles to make it possible, and commercially attractive, then it would be difficult.

You should remembering that some sports that have the high immediate environment impact also offset their impact by participate to the schemes.

I am talk about NET environment impact. So maybe something that SANZARG might want to looking at.

Does it matter if its the second fourth most contributing event, the point remains that the amount of travel involved is frankly ridiculous, especially when added to the superdooper rugby club fixtures
lets even put aside carbon issues...the effect on players is surely detrimental.
There are advantages to hosting games in one country, whether that outweighs the negatives is debatble though.

But please lets not get bogged down trolling the debate by niggling at one point just for petty points scoring which really has no bearing on the crux of the issue, the travelling is excessive and wasteful.

well I don't think they will ever be able to beat the following with a host tournament setting.

Currently each country hosts 12 home matches every 4 years... all of them with their own country involved.

If they only host the competition once every 4 years they also get 12 matches every 4 years but crucially only 6 will include the home side.

Then you have viewing times which will be all over the place for games not involving the home side.

I can't see how it will work from a financial perspective.

The players already spend much of their lives on the road for SR... telling them they have to do the same 3 years out of 4 for the 4N for another 6 weeks of the year will be tough for them and their families.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Does it matter if its the second fourth most contributing event, the point remains that the amount of travel involved is frankly ridiculous, especially when added to the superdooper rugby club fixtures
lets even put aside carbon issues...the effect on players is surely detrimental.
There are advantages to hosting games in one country, whether that outweighs the negatives is debatble though.

But please lets not get bogged down trolling the debate by niggling at one point just for petty points scoring which really has no bearing on the crux of the issue, the travelling is excessive and wasteful.

Very true, but Peter there is no other realistic alternative, unless the (environment assists) and the tectonic plates move us all closer together.

If you want to save the Planet etc.FIRST dump your cars,travel by Public transport.Walk that couple of hundred yards to the Pubs or shops.How many of your families have Car for each adult member instead of just one?Is even one really required or a status symbol?.What on earth has that let alone Air Miles to do with the 4Ns.The 3Ns originally was a great idea contested by THE best 3 teams in the World by the record.A home and away fixture for each side,then the the bean counters got hold of it.With 6 matches 2 Home one away match draw by rota.THEN the pointless extra Bledisloe game excuse let the less fortunate Japan or Hong Kong host it.Apart from RWC years the 6 match format
held for 2006,2008,2009,and 2010 the AllBlacks won 3 of those ONLY 2006 against the draw.Super titles and 3Ns usually are won by NZ or SA at home by nicking the odd game off Oz.The Practice introduced 2007 in fielding weak sides to favour a RWC win intro duced 2007 repeated 2011 throws the stats out.Also the fact that to the AllBlacks away results in the 3Ns are at 77% almost as good as there 81% or So Home one.Would seem to advantage them lousy idea the whole charm of thing is the Home and Away bit.Further take the fact that with a brief period either side of WW2 .The SA v Nz results were identical Tour going to the home side in each case.

biltongbek wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Does it matter if its the second fourth most contributing event, the point remains that the amount of travel involved is frankly ridiculous, especially when added to the superdooper rugby club fixtures
lets even put aside carbon issues...the effect on players is surely detrimental.
There are advantages to hosting games in one country, whether that outweighs the negatives is debatble though.

But please lets not get bogged down trolling the debate by niggling at one point just for petty points scoring which really has no bearing on the crux of the issue, the travelling is excessive and wasteful.

Very true, but Peter there is no other realistic alternative, unless the (environment assists) and the tectonic plates move us all closer together.

The alternative is tournament hosting (unless they play virtual rugby tournament on the Xbox once per week )

emack2 wrote:If you want to save the Planet etc.FIRST dump your cars,travel by Public transport.Walk that couple of hundred yards to the Pubs or shops.How many of your families have Car for each adult member instead of just one?Is even one really required or a status symbol?.What on earth has that let alone Air Miles to do with the 4Ns.The 3Ns originally was a great idea contested by THE best 3 teams in the World by the record.A home and away fixture for each side,then the the bean counters got hold of it.With 6 matches 2 Home one away match draw by rota.THEN the pointless extra Bledisloe game excuse let the less fortunate Japan or Hong Kong host it.Apart from RWC years the 6 match format
held for 2006,2008,2009,and 2010 the AllBlacks won 3 of those ONLY 2006 against the draw.Super titles and 3Ns usually are won by NZ or SA at home by nicking the odd game off Oz.The Practice introduced 2007 in fielding weak sides to favour a RWC win intro duced 2007 repeated 2011 throws the stats out.Also the fact that to the AllBlacks away results in the 3Ns are at 77% almost as good as there 81% or So Home one.Would seem to advantage them lousy idea the whole charm of thing is the Home and Away bit.Further take the fact that with a brief period either side of WW2 .The SA v Nz results were identical Tour going to the home side in each case.

I don't own a car, and I go by public transporting except when is broken (quite a lot on the moment) and I always walk to the pub and shops.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:With so much discuss about the prospect of Argentina in the upcoming Rugby Championship, the opportunity for grow the game, the develop players of Argentina and effect on club rugby in Europe where so many Argentina players are make money was something miss?

Already heavy on "carbon footprint" the trinations expand to rugby championship and will be the second most unenvironmental friendly sporting tournament in the world behind F1 circuit, involving even more staggering number of airmiles over longer period of time than before.

Should the organisers designed the tournament to be "hosted" by each country and rotate each year? Would that make some more interesting anyway?

Really? DO you have any evidence of that?

I would have never thought that the Rugby Championship, or Quad Nations, or whatever, could have a higher carbon footprint than the WRC or Motor GP, and I would have thought that the Champions League would have a pretty high carbon footprint seeing as the football teams fly to every match and there are far far more matches acorss the whole of europe than there are (across a slightly larger distance, granted) in the Rugby Championship.

Have you ever flown from Auckland to Buenos Aires? or Cape Town to Auckland?

AWOP - I assume you don't have any evidance that the Carbon Footprint of the competition is now the second biggest for any sport.

4Ns will involve

Buenos Aires to Cape Town (x2)
Buenos Aires to Auckland (x2)
Buenos Aires to Sydney (x2)
Cape Town to Auckland (x2)
Cape Town to Sydney (x2)
Auckland to Syndey (x2)

Now compare that to the football Campions League (just doing by team names, not too sure where the cities for all the teams are)

Pool A

Bayern Munich v Napoli (x2)
Bayern Munich v Manchester City (x2)
Bayern Munich v Villareal (x2)
Napoli v Manchester City (x2)
Napoli v Villareal (x2)
Manchester City v Villareal (x2)

Now that is just one pool, and there are 8 pools. So I would say that before the knock out stages are reached that is one hell of a lot of flights.



Anyway to the question asked at the end of the original post, no they shouldn't have one team host the 4Ns just down to some theory about carbon foot prints.

Well AWOP if you really live in mayfair- why would you have a car mate. Thats not really a valid argument. Its just not practical, most people dont have a car in london, trust me its not because they are green!!

Cape Town to Auckland (x2)
Cape Town to Sydney (x2)

It's actually less, we travel to both at the same time, we visit NZ and OZ in one trip. Saves on Carbon footprint.

Same goes for Argentina.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:With so much discuss about the prospect of Argentina in the upcoming Rugby Championship, the opportunity for grow the game, the develop players of Argentina and effect on club rugby in Europe where so many Argentina players are make money was something miss?

Already heavy on "carbon footprint" the trinations expand to rugby championship and will be the second most unenvironmental friendly sporting tournament in the world behind F1 circuit, involving even more staggering number of airmiles over longer period of time than before.

Should the organisers designed the tournament to be "hosted" by each country and rotate each year? Would that make some more interesting anyway?

Really? DO you have any evidence of that?

I would have never thought that the Rugby Championship, or Quad Nations, or whatever, could have a higher carbon footprint than the WRC or Motor GP, and I would have thought that the Champions League would have a pretty high carbon footprint seeing as the football teams fly to every match and there are far far more matches acorss the whole of europe than there are (across a slightly larger distance, granted) in the Rugby Championship.

Have you ever flown from Auckland to Buenos Aires? or Cape Town to Auckland?

AWOP - I assume you don't have any evidance that the Carbon Footprint of the competition is now the second biggest for any sport.

4Ns will involve

Buenos Aires to Cape Town (x2)
Buenos Aires to Auckland (x2)
Buenos Aires to Sydney (x2)
Cape Town to Auckland (x2)
Cape Town to Sydney (x2)
Auckland to Syndey (x2)

Now compare that to the football Campions League (just doing by team names, not too sure where the cities for all the teams are)

Pool A

Bayern Munich v Napoli (x2)
Bayern Munich v Manchester City (x2)
Bayern Munich v Villareal (x2)
Napoli v Manchester City (x2)
Napoli v Villareal (x2)
Manchester City v Villareal (x2)

Now that is just one pool, and there are 8 pools. So I would say that before the knock out stages are reached that is one hell of a lot of flights.



Anyway to the question asked at the end of the original post, no they shouldn't have one team host the 4Ns just down to some theory about carbon foot prints.

Yes, Italy to Germany is exactly the same as NZ to Argentina

I actually think there's some mileage (or less mileage rather....) in the hosting idea, and you could go back to playing each side twice.

No doubt less money to be made though, so I suspect it'll be a non-starter.

how many fans will travel from Munich to Napoli and vice versa.... probably in the region of 5,000 + given both have large support.

So lets say 5,000 fans each travelling the 1000km between those 2 sides there and back.

If all these fans took a standard plane between the 2 cities, say 200 people per flight then it would take what 25 one way flights between the cities.

That means the 1000km journey is taken 25 times (so total 25,000km).

How many fans will travel to Argentina from NZ.... less than 100 with all probability. So with the NZ team and their support staff you are still looking at less than 200 people. The larger plane will take 400+ people so you can say the match will only generate 1 games worth of emissions even if you inc. media people travelling.

The distance between Auckland and Beunos Aires is about 10,000km.

So overall, using the above logic, the away match for NZ in Argentina will cost about 1 planes worth of Co2 emissions for the 10,000km journey.

But if you assume 5000 people travel to Napoli from Munich then they will create 25,000km worth of Co2 Emissions.

So if Bayern Munich were able to send more than 2,000 fans to Napoli then that match will be more harmful to the environment by my own reckoning.

AWOP - Read the post. Champions league there are 96 flights in the group stages alone. Seeing as it takes more fuel to get the planes airbrone than it does to maintain flight.

4Ns will involve

Buenos Aires to Cape Town (17076 miles)
Buenos Aires to Auckland (25941 miles)
Buenos Aires to Sydney (29320 miles)
Cape Town to Auckland (29252 miles)
Cape Town to Sydney (27372 miles)
Auckland to Syndey (5348 miles)

Total Milage For Competition = 134,309 miles

Now compare that to the football Campions League (just doing by team names, not too sure where the cities for all the teams are)

Pool A

Bayern Munich v Napoli (2076 miles)
Bayern Munich v Manchester City (2820 miles)
Bayern Munich v Villareal (3376 miles)
Napoli v Manchester City (4628 miles)
Napoli v Villareal (3124 miles)
Manchester City v Villareal (940 miles)

Total milage for pool A group stage = 16,964 miles

SO then milage for all 8 Pool at the end of the group stage = 135,712 miles

Now you also have the knockout stages (home and away) to add to this (and another group stage 4 pools of 4?? not too sure).

The milage of the Champions League is more than that of the Rugby Championship and the flights are shorter which is less economic.

jeas..

i hate working out the quickest job routes on google mapsand I have about 200 sites to sort out.. if i give you aload can you do them for me please scarlet?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:AWOP - Read the post. Champions league there are 96 flights in the group stages alone. Seeing as it takes more fuel to get the planes airbrone than it does to maintain flight.

4Ns will involve

Buenos Aires to Cape Town (17076 miles)
Buenos Aires to Auckland (25941 miles)
Buenos Aires to Sydney (29320 miles)
Cape Town to Auckland (29252 miles)
Cape Town to Sydney (27372 miles)
Auckland to Syndey (5348 miles)

Total Milage For Competition = 134,309 miles

Now compare that to the football Campions League (just doing by team names, not too sure where the cities for all the teams are)

Pool A

Bayern Munich v Napoli (2076 miles)
Bayern Munich v Manchester City (2820 miles)
Bayern Munich v Villareal (3376 miles)
Napoli v Manchester City (4628 miles)
Napoli v Villareal (3124 miles)
Manchester City v Villareal (940 miles)

Total milage for pool A group stage = 16,964 miles

SO then milage for all 8 Pool at the end of the group stage = 135,712 miles

Now you also have the knockout stages (home and away) to add to this (and another group stage 4 pools of 4?? not too sure).

The milage of the Champions League is more than that of the Rugby Championship and the flights are shorter which is less economic.

You can't compare short haul and long haul mileage.

You also make bad assumption about similar destination miles on champion league groups which is not true and routing to SANZARG flights.

But I'm sure your internet web base 5 minute analysis based on simple flight lookups is more accurate than the working groups from the environmental organisation.

mystiroakey wrote:jeas..

i hate working out the quickest job routes on google mapsand I have about 200 sites to sort out.. if i give you aload can you do them for me please scarlet?

No, I hate doing it too. However what I hate more are people who spout nonesnece, refuse to state their sources, and then mock you as though you are simple (even though you are right), so I had to work it all out to prove I was right!

Also I forgot all about the travelling fans etc someone else mentioned (but sure as hell I aint going to calcualte average away fan numbers in the Champions League, 4Ns etc)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bloom/guides/transportemissions.shtml

Transport type - Emissions per passenger

Short haul flight - 130g/km
Long haul flight - 105g/km
Ford Mondeo 1.8i (driver plus 1 passenger) - 93g/km
Toyota Prius (driver plus 1 passenger) - 52g/km
Bus - 89 g/km
Train - 60g/km
Coach - 20g/km

AWOP - Do you want to come out with another 1 line reply to the facts and twist them to match your little world?

at the end of the day the CO2 caused by all this travelling does not even compare to the Co2 created by ants across the world farting! So, if you want to save the earth. Kill the ants.

If you really want to save the world, remove the plankton form the earths oceans! Plankton is officially the largest producer of greenhouse gasses. Followed by the release of methane gas form the metling ice of siberia.

Also, cows farting also cause more greenhouse gas than flying. So do your bit for the enviroment. Eat more steak!

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:jeas..

i hate working out the quickest job routes on google mapsand I have about 200 sites to sort out.. if i give you aload can you do them for me please scarlet?

No, I hate doing it too. However what I hate more are people who spout nonesnece, refuse to state their sources, and then mock you as though you are simple (even though you are right), so I had to work it all out to prove I was right!

Also I forgot all about the travelling fans etc someone else mentioned (but sure as hell I aint going to calcualte average away fan numbers in the Champions League, 4Ns etc)

Great work SS, it's just a shame that there won't be any counter argument with a well reasoned, logical argument backed up by similar stats.

As SS proves if the CL is around on a par/greater impact to the Quad Nations, then what about my earlier point AWOP on the World Rally Championship, which has to carry at least 2 cars per team, plus a large team of drivers, pit crews/engineers and a support team to locations across the world. Then once they get to the location they spend hours and hours for a few days burning large amounts of petrol racing around tracks.

tigertattie wrote:at the end of the day the CO2 caused by all this travelling does not even compare to the Co2 created by ants across the world farting! So, if you want to save the earth. Kill the ants.

If you really want to save the world, remove the plankton form the earths oceans! Plankton is officially the largest producer of greenhouse gasses. Followed by the release of methane gas form the metling ice of siberia.

Also, cows farting also cause more greenhouse gas than flying. So do your bit for the enviroment. Eat more steak!

Yeah but the more steak you eat (garnished in plankton) then the more you fart!

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

tigertattie wrote:at the end of the day the CO2 caused by all this travelling does not even compare to the Co2 created by ants across the world farting! So, if you want to save the earth. Kill the ants.

If you really want to save the world, remove the plankton form the earths oceans! Plankton is officially the largest producer of greenhouse gasses. Followed by the release of methane gas form the metling ice of siberia.

Also, cows farting also cause more greenhouse gas than flying. So do your bit for the enviroment. Eat more steak!

Yeah but the more steak you eat (garnished in plankton) then the more you fart!

Maybe a cow cull would be an idea, after all they are culling badgers in Pembs for a possible link to Bovine TB. Oh hang on lets just breed badgers that would kill off the cows.

Hey teacha, leave them steaks alone.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/bloom/guides/transportemissions.shtml

Transport type - Emissions per passenger

Short haul flight - 130g/km
Long haul flight - 105g/km
Ford Mondeo 1.8i (driver plus 1 passenger) - 93g/km
Toyota Prius (driver plus 1 passenger) - 52g/km
Bus - 89 g/km
Train - 60g/km
Coach - 20g/km

AWOP - Do you want to come out with another 1 line reply to the facts and twist them to match your little world?

Well, I would explain to you why you are wrong and your argument line is naive but since you resort to some childish and petty attempt to patronising me and score some points in this undignified way then I don't see any point in conversating with you.

But you know, it is amusing your attempt to be the big brain and clever environment scientist by download some stats from BBC website. Hilariously aloof stuff!

anotherworldofpain wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/bloom/guides/transportemissions.shtml

Transport type - Emissions per passenger

Short haul flight - 130g/km
Long haul flight - 105g/km
Ford Mondeo 1.8i (driver plus 1 passenger) - 93g/km
Toyota Prius (driver plus 1 passenger) - 52g/km
Bus - 89 g/km
Train - 60g/km
Coach - 20g/km

AWOP - Do you want to come out with another 1 line reply to the facts and twist them to match your little world?

Well, I would explain to you why you are wrong and your argument line is naive but since you resort to some childish and petty attempt to patronising me and score some points in this undignified way then I don't see any point in conversating with you.

you mean someone has listed a load of facts that have disproved your original claims, and you would bring a load of evidence to this debating forum to show why your claims are actually right ... But you won't because 'he's' being childish!

Brilliant response

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/bloom/guides/transportemissions.shtml

Transport type - Emissions per passenger

Short haul flight - 130g/km
Long haul flight - 105g/km
Ford Mondeo 1.8i (driver plus 1 passenger) - 93g/km
Toyota Prius (driver plus 1 passenger) - 52g/km
Bus - 89 g/km
Train - 60g/km
Coach - 20g/km

AWOP - Do you want to come out with another 1 line reply to the facts and twist them to match your little world?

Well, I would explain to you why you are wrong and your argument line is naive but since you resort to some childish and petty attempt to patronising me and score some points in this undignified way then I don't see any point in conversating with you.

you mean someone has listed a load of facts that have disproved your original claims, and you would bring a load of evidence to this debating forum to show why your claims are actually right ... But you won't because 'he's' being childish!

Brilliant response

Because he became patronising and it ceased to be an adult discussion, and you have just continued to lower the tone further.

The "facts" and "reasoning" are all simplistic and in the manner of a primary school child set an assignment that is not think through properly and consideration of all the facets.

Besides which in his glee to score some minor point he completely miss the thread of the discussion and is consume himself in irrelevancy.

I am more than happiest to discuss in the adult rational manner, but not continue to bicker with self important children.

AWOP - I have asked you numerous times for you to explain your opinions and your claims. However so far you have not returned any facts, or figures. Your comments have been less that respectful so far.

When asked if you had any proof or sources for your calims your reply was;

anotherworldofpain wrote:Have you ever flown from Auckland to Buenos Aires? or Cape Town to Auckland?

When given examples of another competition that could quite easily rival the 4Ns carbon footprint your reply was;

anotherworldofpain wrote:Yes, Italy to Germany is exactly the same as NZ to Argentina

When the examples were then worked into figures (albeit approximations) your reply was;

anotherworldofpain wrote:You can't compare short haul and long haul mileage.

You also make bad assumption about similar destination miles on champion league groups which is not true and routing to SANZARG flights.

But I'm sure your internet web base 5 minute analysis based on simple flight lookups is more accurate than the working groups from the environmental organisation.

And then finally when

anotherworldofpain wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:........AWOP - Do you want to come out with another 1 line reply to the facts and twist them to match your little world?

Well, I would explain to you why you are wrong and your argument line is naive but since you resort to some childish and petty attempt to patronising me and score some points in this undignified way then I don't see any point in conversating with you.

But you know, it is amusing your attempt to be the big brain and clever environment scientist by download some stats from BBC website. Hilariously aloof stuff!

I think you may have the wrong opinion of me as some form of simpleton, I am not trying to score points or make you look stupid, I am simple trying to have an arguement. Seeing as I can come up with approximate figures etc, quickly and with ease online I would assume you could do the same to fight your side of the arguement.

Edit - BILTONG : This is my thread!!! I'm not "derailing it". I'm trying to get posters to understand my topic.

Because SS, environmental impact is so much more complex than some simple equation: sigma[distance x emission] over some schedule flights based on some laughable simple assumptions. Now do I trust the environmental organisations with multiple PhD scientists who come to this conclusion, or your two minutes internet search and maths? Did you read the environment papers about impact of sportings on environment and the consequential chains?

Point is this is some irrelevancy. The ranking of RC to world sports is just some axiom to the argument. Not the point to attacking the axiom in the context of the debate. Because we trust in this fact and it source and continue at that point.

So if you want to talk about on topic point then let us argument about it. But I don't want to talk about simple maths in add up is one sport worse than the other and are orgnaisations reporting this facts incorrect or correct because is not the point.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:jeas..

i hate working out the quickest job routes on google mapsand I have about 200 sites to sort out.. if i give you aload can you do them for me please scarlet?

No, I hate doing it too. However what I hate more are people who spout nonesnece, refuse to state their sources, and then mock you as though you are simple (even though you are right), so I had to work it all out to prove I was right!

Also I forgot all about the travelling fans etc someone else mentioned (but sure as hell I aint going to calcualte average away fan numbers in the Champions League, 4Ns etc)

No dramas dude

back to work then

AWOP, debate goes two ways.

Statement
Counter statement
counter argument
once again counter.

If this was a political discussion and people had to vote, your insistence to argue against facts and then accuse your opponent of childishness will gain you no votes.

THe OP is yours, the rest of the thread is contributed by all.

Whatever. There is no point to discuss with people who just want to argue.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Edit - BILTONG : This is my thread!!! I'm not "derailing it". I'm trying to get posters to understand my topic.

Because SS, environmental impact is so much more complex than some simple equation: sigma[distance x emission] over some schedule flights based on some laughable simple assumptions. Now do I trust the environmental organisations with multiple PhD scientists who come to this conclusion, or your two minutes internet search and maths? Did you read the environment papers about impact of sportings on environment and the consequential chains?

Point is this is some irrelevancy. The ranking of RC to world sports is just some axiom to the argument. Not the point to attacking the axiom in the context of the debate. Because we trust in this fact and it source and continue at that point.

So if you want to talk about on topic point then let us argument about it. But I don't want to talk about simple maths in add up is one sport worse than the other and are orgnaisations reporting this facts incorrect or correct because is not the point.

Which PhD Scientists AWOP?, All we want is for you to post a link to this information, or any other information backing your claim.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:Edit - BILTONG : This is my thread!!! I'm not "derailing it". I'm trying to get posters to understand my topic.

Because SS, environmental impact is so much more complex than some simple equation: sigma[distance x emission] over some schedule flights based on some laughable simple assumptions. Now do I trust the environmental organisations with multiple PhD scientists who come to this conclusion, or your two minutes internet search and maths? Did you read the environment papers about impact of sportings on environment and the consequential chains?

Point is this is some irrelevancy. The ranking of RC to world sports is just some axiom to the argument. Not the point to attacking the axiom in the context of the debate. Because we trust in this fact and it source and continue at that point.

So if you want to talk about on topic point then let us argument about it. But I don't want to talk about simple maths in add up is one sport worse than the other and are orgnaisations reporting this facts incorrect or correct because is not the point.

Which PhD Scientists AWOP?, All we want is for you to post a link to this information, or any other information backing your claim.

Let it go Smirnoff, no point continueing the debate.

AWOP - I assume your topic is that the 4Ns (Rugby Championship) should be mosted in one nation, and rotated around the four competitiors nations in order to reduce the amount of travelling and carbon footprint. I noticed in the origninal post that you made a claim "Already heavy on "carbon footprint" the trinations expand to rugby championship and will be the second most unenvironmental friendly sporting tournament in the world behind F1 circuit, involving even more staggering number of airmiles over longer period of time than before." I thought this seemed incorrect to I asked. Your reply was not the most respectful (very flippent really), so I pressed the case. With each reply I made, your replied with another single line, which lacked repect. That is why I argued my case.

To the point of the thread -: If you were to host hte tournament in one nation and rotate it so it travels to each nation within four seasons, then the carbon footprint would be reduced, however the interst in the tournament outside of the host nation would dwindle, due to kick-off times (time zones etc), inability to attend games etc.