Well put saddened, rugby league does have a carbon footprint but it is low & yes should help & seek to be reduced but let's not get issues out of context.
The 20k of more planned 40k over two weeks day & night will will eat, drink,wee wee, deffracate & Fart beyond what games gatherings rugby league creates, there isn't enough toilets 24/7 for them for a start which all has to be cleaned up for public health, paid for by London tax payer this the carbon footprint they cause is just as irresponsible, two wrongs have never made a right !
So onwards & upwards to our sport - RUGBY LEAGUE !

I suppose if we all just carry on, everything will be fine
The rising sea levels may just affect some of the South Seas nations, which may prevent them doing anything, let alone play RL.

It all comes down to who you want to believe but, if the scientists are right, some islands will be swallowed up by the seas, which makes playing RL rather difficult or you could believe blokes like Trump.

As I said, everything is deemed fine, until there is a direct effect on you.

I was reading a newspaper article a few weeks ago about a massive glacier in Alaska. Apparently,it has been shrinking since the days of the America Revolution which was long before humans invented mass mechanisation ,global travel etc. Ironically,all our little clubs will be more famous in Canada than in the UK.

I'm not worried as such, as I will be long gone before the floods come

I don't know the science, but would one plane flying to Toronto, that would have gone there anyway, be worse than 500 cars from Featherstone travelling over the Pennines to Wigan, who wouldn't have gone there otherwise, for example?

You can suggest a move back to 3pm Sunday games to reduce floodlit games (unnecessary power consumption) but the focus on TV money overides that in some cases - hence businesses will always tend to prioritise income over environmental concerns.

We could ban all away fans. Season ticket holders only. That would make for a cracking product.

We could just shut up shop completely and reduce our impact on the environment that way

www.vhemt.org/

www.vhemt.org/

Fair enough. I did misunderstand your original post.

Some thought that the world was over populated in the 1800's when the total population was less than one billion. As a species we are pretty good at development and advances in science and technology.
The best way to reduce population is to let the rest of the world including Africa etc is to let them develop and improve their lives and use fossil fuels in this development.

There are two ways to interpret this...

Not sure what the 2 ways are?

I want all of the world to continue to develop specifically countries when compared to Western countries and have underdeveloped infrastructure, low life expectancy and poor medical resources.
Why shouldn't these countries be allowed to improve their living standards?
What is the other interpretation?

Some would argue that the continued burning of fossil fuels will indeed be an effective way of reducing the world's population. Starting with Bangladesh, various low-lying Pacific islands etc. It's certainly complicated. Raise living standards - which no decent person would oppose - might well reduce birth rate. The downside is that although the population might decrease, consumption and carbon footprint invariably increases with elevated living standards - and the aggregate is overall greater.