Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?




by Christophe » 29/06/21, 14:48

Rajqawee wrote:So I read the study on F1.

Well, if we take the 8400 T of CO² emitted, and divide by the number of spectators (only ...) which is 65 (figure from the study), that makes ... oh my god 000T of CO² per spectator! That is to say the equivalent of 0,12 terminals traveled by car ... It puts a little perspective anyway.

And there, we did not even count the viewers, who however also benefit from the event. And this is considering that the utility is only for spectators, not runners or teams (which is wrong).

In short, it does not seem to me so disproportionate at all.


Ah? Because you find “tolerable and not disproportionate” 65 equivalent km traveled for a few hours of racing? Because calculated in the other direction that's it ...

In addition, these 8400 T of CO2 omitted a lot of things (from memory, not reread the study since ...), in particular gray CO2 because the study and manufacture of the means (circuits and cars) do not seem to me taken into account ... (I may be wrong)

Finally, bread, games ... we know the adage ...
0 x
Rajqawee
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Occitania
x 577

Re: Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?




by Rajqawee » 29/06/21, 14:55

Christophe wrote:Ah? Because you find "tolerable and not disproportionate" 65 equivalent km traveled for a few hours of racing, because seen in the other direction that's it ... ? We must not have the same scales of values ​​...

In addition, these 8400 T of CO2 omitted a lot of things (from memory, not reread the study since ...), in particular gray CO2 because the study and manufacture of the means (circuits and cars) do not seem to me taken into account ... (I may be wrong)

Finally, bread, games ... we know the adage ...


Well, why would you find that intolerable? What is the difference between someone who goes once a year to see an F1 race (and therefore, let us charge him the 0,12T of CO²) and who the rest of the time stays at home or someone who is 20 * 50 km to go hiking during the year (and therefore which also emits 0,12T of CO²)? Basically none! Will one have occupied more time? Non pertinent. Everyone decides how they care.

In the end, they did issue the same for similar, non-vital activities.
It's like people who judge those who take the car to fetch bread 500 meters away: we don't really care. The guy can do that 4 times a week, if he's going to work 5km from home while you work 10km from home, you broadcast a lot more a year.
The same if you take the car to go on vacation to 500 terminals, he can make it back and forth to the bakery before catching up with you!

Once again, judging the usefulness of what is done (especially for entertainment) seems to me very risky or even arrogant "do it like that, because it's better!"
Again, with that kind of calculation, you could show that anything is as polluting as other stuff. It means nothing.
Yes, it has the merit of showing that this kind of event mobilizes a lot of resources: both financial and human.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

A




by Christophe » 29/06/21, 14:59

Rajqawee wrote:It's just that calculating production costs or whatever is my job. So when I see "oulah, but it costs a lot such and such a thing, so it's not good", I bristle.
It would be like saying "my god, look at the carbon footprint of building a road! Horrible!" Yeah. But if the road is used by millions of travelers, it is monstrously less polluting per unit of use (kilometer traveled, for example) than the 20m of asphalt in your driveway for the house.


Waww the killer comparison! With such biased reasoning, you could easily retrain yourself as a political speech preparer, given how you mess things up! : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:

It is not because it is used a lot that it cancels its climate pollution! Finally !! : Shock: : Shock: : Shock:

I could argue, conversely, that the carbon balance of the construction of a road is ridiculously low compared to the balance of its use during its lifetime and the more kms traveled on this road, the more it pollutes (well yes if it did not exist, the cars would not drive there ... logic Hallyday)!

On the other hand, you can tell me that a ruined and unused building is the worst part! (because we have to redo another one elsewhere) ...

But to reduce everything to the number of users to minimize the impact of something, I do not agree too much!

Here, if 100% of the population were passionate about football and suppose that currently this is 10% ... your reasoning would divide roughly another by 10 the climate impact of football ... except that in real life it would be worse that currently ...

In short, we can play like this for a long time ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?




by Christophe » 29/06/21, 15:03

Rajqawee wrote:Well, why would you find that intolerable? What is the difference between someone who goes once a year to see an F1 race (and therefore, let us charge him the 0,12T of CO²) and who the rest of the time stays at home or someone who is 20 * 50 km to go hiking during the year (and therefore which also emits 0,12T of CO²)? Basically none! Will one have occupied more time? Non pertinent. Everyone decides how they care.


Because if I reasoned like you, but conversely, I could say that every hour of F1 racing is the equivalent of more than 30 million km traveled by car ...

Would you find that "not disproportionate"? : Shock:
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9773
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?




by sicetaitsimple » 29/06/21, 15:09

Christophe wrote:Because if I reasoned like you, but conversely, I could say that every hour of F1 racing is the equivalent of more than 30 million km traveled by car ...


And every hour of paramotor for the pleasure of one person and the displeasure of tens or hundreds of people who are below and who have to endure the painful noise of it?
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?




by Christophe » 29/06/21, 15:10

Rajqawee wrote:Once again, judging the usefulness of what is done (especially for entertainment) seems to me very risky or even arrogant "do it like that, because it's better!"
Again, with that kind of calculation, you could show that anything is as polluting as other stuff. It means nothing.
Yes, it has the merit of showing that this kind of event mobilizes a lot of resources: both financial and human.


Disagree because we are in a society increasingly intolerant of certain ecological and societal aspects with respect to pollution (and many, are unjustified) but that we tolerate much worse things ... without saying anything! Without even asking the right questions?

I do not know the climate balance sheet of Football, a firm or experts have looked at it? A study exists or not?

All this smacks of ostrich politics, the tree thing that hides the forest!

On the other hand, we are pissed off, we are repeated, with the profitability and the eco-balance sheet or the impact study of any renewable energy installation? Too funny !! Too strong the lobbies !!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?




by Christophe » 29/06/21, 15:11

sicetaitsimple wrote:
Christophe wrote:Because if I reasoned like you, but conversely, I could say that every hour of F1 racing is the equivalent of more than 30 million km traveled by car ...


And every hour of paramotor for the pleasure of one person and the displeasure of tens or hundreds of people who are below and who have to endure the painful noise of it?


Why? Not know ! : Cheesy:

ps: less noisy than my bike ... : Mrgreen:
0 x
Rajqawee
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Occitania
x 577

Re: Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?




by Rajqawee » 29/06/21, 15:17

Well no. You could also say that each hour of use of the world fleet of container ships is 17 trillion minutes of heating for France (completely bogus figures eh.) And that does not put things in perspective.

In your previous examples: of course if, if there are more users, it reduces the carbon footprint per user. (Even just building the infrastructure.) Not the total bottom line, obviously. But with your reasoning, it's the same: let's not feed more people! Otherwise, it will increase the carbon footprint of agriculture!

If tomorrow, 100% of the population were passionate about football, this would not reduce the climate impact of football. But that would easily justify the construction of stadiums, right?

Christophe wrote:All this smacks of ostrich politics, the tree thing that hides the forest!


On the other hand, we are pissed off, we are repeated, with the profitability and the eco-balance sheet or the impact study of any renewable energy installation? Too funny !! Too strong the lobbies !!

Because one of the arguments of those who want to build it is that it pollutes less. If it's not true, why would you want to build one? If the idea is energy autonomy, then, of course, we don't have the personal reactor! :D

But yes, we are not going to lie to each other Christophe: I am not quite sure that organizing F1 races for millions of euros or thousands of tonnes of CO² is a very good social project. But who can tell? Not a single individual.
And then, attacking small wind turbines or solar panels is indeed like attacking an F1 race or the Euro ... it is the tree that hides the forest. This is not how we will solve the problem ... but with daily journeys, consumption patterns, the organization of global logistics, and so on.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 29/06/21, 15:33

sicetaitsimple wrote:
Christophe wrote:Because if I reasoned like you, but conversely, I could say that every hour of F1 racing is the equivalent of more than 30 million km traveled by car ...


And every hour of paramotor for the pleasure of one person and the displeasure of tens or hundreds of people who are below and who have to endure the painful noise of it?

It is not the fault of the paragliders if the noise standards are so lax. It is known to manufacture baffle exhaust systems which can make an engine very quiet. Unfortunately, we do not do it, we must not piss off the industrialists with nuts standards.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: Euro2020: football's carbon footprint?




by Christophe » 29/06/21, 17:53

You have doubly wrong Guy:
a) 80% of the decibels of a paramotor is the propeller ... so lost guy! Electric paramotors are far from silent!
b) The engines are efficient 2-stroke ... it is quite difficult to make an efficient 2-stroke very quiet but that would not be of much use for the reason a)

On the other hand, we could make your remark to the manufacturer of mowers: why are they still making so much noise in 2020 ?!

I'm sure they take into account the fact that mowing is made to piss off your neighbors ... and make them want to mow ... : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
1 x

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 134 guests