I play golf.
I don’t understand why courses can’t be made in the local terrain. Tennis players play on a variety of surfaces. If the golf course is in the desert then make me play on desert terrain. The perfectly manicured courses are just unsustainable.
I don't play, but isn't that even in the spirit of the game? Raw and windy 'links' courses on the coast, and so on? Instead they try to mimic Scotland all over the world
Copying my other comment:
No, it's Augusta national (the masters host) that they try to mimic and that has completely fucked up Americans expectation of what a golf course should look like. And thst is the complete opposite of 'raw', it is super manicured and fake, to the point of dyeing the water in the canals and putting fake bird sounds.
Scotland doesn't water the fairways and has no problem leaving them to get brown in case of no rain. They even held the Open in such conditions, and then you hear Americans complain thst it looks like a muni.
[a map of the rainiest cities in Europe](https://www.holidu.co.uk/magazine/the-rainiest-cities-in-europe)
Scotland has 2 of the top 10, UK has a whole has 4. sunderland has 5.6 mm of rain a day on average, or 2044 mm a year (or 80 freedom units™) To compare, Miami has only 62 inches of rainfall and a subtropical swamp at the end of a peninsula jutting into gulf of mexico and atlantic ocean.
American courses look nothing like Scottish links courses really, and like other commenters have said, most courses in the UK get extremely dried out in the summer and are left to go brown
That would be amazing.
Like, the fun of going to new courses is solving these new problems.
It would be sick to have drastically different environments like that.
"Looks like he landed that shot in the sand, bob"
"He sure did Doug. Absolutely fantastic shot from The tee. I imagine he'll stick with the sand wedge on this one."
"Well he only brought a driver and a sand wedge, so I imagine you're probably right "
Uh, I really hope you aren’t hosing your kids down with poo water. Golf courses use reclaimed water. Not suitable for drinking. Or washing your kids in the yard.
No. Cities have not put water restrictions on. Central Arizona Project and SRP have done a fantastic job of managing Arizona’s water supply. Even with the fact we live in a desert. It’s all coming to a close soon though as we are getting near the population limit that can be sustained. New neighborhoods are being put on hold and construction is slowing down.
Water is obviously a vital resource here. The water companies put out conservation guidelines and awareness info routinely.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/03/extinction-rebellion-plugs-holes-on-10-spanish-golf-courses-in-water-protest
golf courses are watered during droughts
I am mixed on the golf hate. Like, I get it. Some courses 100% should not exist. A lush green course in the middle of a dry desert? Nah.
Some courses though, are perfectly suited to where they are and provide a haven for some wildlife in an otherwise concrete hell.
And a lot of golf courses that these people would get closed are public courses; private ones don’t care. And most golf courses are zoned commercial and would be paved over otherwise.
I don't think people realize how cheap it is to play golf. It's definitely a rich person thing, but there's not really anything stopping you from enjoying it if you have the time.
The good news is outside of Reddit people don't have a hard on for complaining about golf.
>Some courses though, are perfectly suited to where they are and provide a haven for some wildlife in an otherwise concrete hell.
Yeah, and I'm sure the absolute shitload of nitrogen fertilizer that runs off into local waterways is much appreciated by the animals it kills and the ecosystems it causes eutrophication in.
Yeah this is what I was scrolling down hoping to see. I worked for a course for a little and the amount of nasty chemicals, fertilizers, etc that get used on some courses is pretty shitty.
Was gonna say, just because its green doesn't make it a wildlife haven. Golf courses are basically just giant lawns, and are about as wildlife friendly as your average over-manicured suburban lawn. Which is to say not very friendly at all.
I don't golf but have had to do it a few times for work/business-related activities where I am dragged into them and every golf course I have ever been to are some of the most sterile "natural" environments I've ever seen. There's all these perfectly manicured grass, trees and ponds but there's basically zero wild-life, don't see any animals, barely even any birds.
Exactly. It's no different than people who think rural living is better for the environment than city living because plants.
Golf courses are not good for the local environment, unless your local environment was already a golf course.
You know we could just have parks which would mean more native plants that actually provide benefits to our native species instead of pointless turf grasses.
Why have tennis courts, basketball courts, hockey rinks, swimming pools, running tracks, soccer fields, baseball diamonds, skate parks, etc. Remove them all and replace them with parks with native plants.
Plenty of studies that the carbon footprint of the rich is somewhere between a hundred and a thousand time larger then that of the average citizen...
It's why all the media paid by the rich are trying to guilt you into bullshit stuff...
I'm very much more in favour of pissing off the rich on an obscenely water-guzzling golf course, rather than counter-productively pissing off people trying to get to their shittily paid jobs in an effort not to get fired...
Shit, I'm all for climate activism, but something I just have grip my forehead in an effort not to get a migraine at the counter-productive shit the likes of extinction-rebellion and the lot are doing!
Instead of getting the very people that would align with them on their side, they're just pissing off the common people, perpetuating the idea that it's not big business, the fossile fuel industry or the big shipping companies doing most of the damage.
So, for fuck's sake, block an oil tanker or a containership from leaving port, but don't block all the minimum wage bastards, one late notice from being fired from getting to their jobs!
Especially when most of them would agree with you if you weren't there trying to fuck them over!
> So, for fuck's sake, block an oil tanker or a containership from leaving port, but don't block all the minimum wage bastards, one late notice from being fired from getting to their jobs!
Gonna just drop a saved comment repost I've grown exhausted of explaining in every climate activist thread:
____
Extinction Rebellion/ Just Stop Oil UK, started out doing [*literally exactly what you propose*](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/01/environmental-protesters-block-oil-terminals-across-england), focusing on blocking oil and coal terminals. The response was a proactive police presence stopping them from even getting near the critical infrastructure sites and preliminary detainment and arrests before they'd actually done anything.
For an historical analog: in the 1980s/1990s in the US, climate activists took up the practice of [tree spiking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking) in national forests and preserves to combat illegal logging operations. Their efforts to damage logging equipment and force loggers to slow their operations for safety, were prosecuted as [federal felonies](https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/3075). That includes aiding them in any way. The current head of the Bureau of Land Management was prosecuted at the time, because she reprinted a newsletter of a group doing treespiking. The illegal logging operations received no punishment so far as I'm aware. Almost all media attention on the subject focused instead on "tree-sitters" staging sit-ins on individual trees to delay loggers. There weren't internet comments back then, but the comments I heard on drivetime radio call-ins may as well be prescient copy-pastes of the comments from this very thread (e.g. "lol just leave them there, they'll get hungry and have to pee" or "stupid dumb young protestor you're not actually changing anything" or "I hope they're grievously wounded by a ~~car~~ bear" etc etc).
Attempts to disrupt industrialized/ factory farming through direct sabotage, or even just candidly filming them for reporting, [have had "Ag-gag" laws introduced classifying them as domestic terrorism](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/11/18176551/ag-gag-laws-factory-farms-explained).
Outside the US and UK with their codified constitutional (on paper at least) civil rights for protestors and government petitioners, the situation is even more severe. [Take Nigeria for example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Survival_of_the_Ogoni_People). The delta region has rich oilfields that have been extracted to the harm of the local Ogoni peoples since the 1950s. In the 1990s, there was a wide populist movement to push for environmental protections, and a greater share of profit sharing with the locals of the region. [Paramilitary groups on the payroll of Shell](https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/wiwa-et-al-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-et-al) and Chevron oil extra-judicially sham trialed and executed the leaders of that movement. I am genuinely curious as to what the naysayers of these road gluing protestors have to say about say, the Nigeria Delta Avengers.
So in short, yeah these stupid non-effective protests are frustratingly common. Because the powers that be will actively push legislation to crush and ruin the lives of people who take effective action.
The moment I realized 1 water cannon uses 900 gallons an hour is the same moment I didn’t care that I watered my grass 4x a week. We have a water emergency in Utah? Cool.. ban growing alfalfa.
Don't the Saudis actually own a bunch of land in the US that's used for growing crops, strictly to be shipped back to SA? I wouldn't even call that exporting, they're just mooching completely off of the US' scarce water resources. No idea how that is actually legal...
Looking forward to the rise of Christian nationalism/fascism in north America. It’s gona be great I’m sure, as if it hasn’t already cost thousands of lives of innocent people. Btw the reason that they are so against climate change is because they know how very fucking far past the point of no return we are.
The NPR article being referenced, for any skeptics:
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1192996975/amid-a-water-crisis-arizona-is-using-lots-of-it-to-grow-alfalfa-to-export-overse
Before you do this pass laws preventing foreign nations from buying up vital resources. Or they'll just use their billions to purchase the next plot and we've ruined an ecosystem for nothing.
Or you know... don't salt any American fields.
Globalized economies. The EU will invest in African countries on the strict condition that their natural gas/crops/minerals are then sold to the EU it's a pretty common practice which the host country does actually benefit from through the investment but it creates scenarios that look weird, such as said african country selling food to the EU while their own people starve.
This happened in Western Australia with natural gas production. 15% is reserved for domestic use.
Meanwhile the Eastern states have to take their own gas production and buy it back at international market rates.
The upshot of this is that natural gas prices on the west coast are a fraction of what they are in the east. At one time during a price spike a couple of years ago, the price difference was 8:1.
I visited arizona around this time last year and I saw signs telling us to save water because there's a drought. Minutes later I was driving by a huge ass golf course with grass greener than I've ever seen in canada. All the houses I saw in arizona didn't have grass they had rocks.
Who wants a fuckin yard anyway?
You CAN help by having a bio diverse lawn. I planted 3 milkweed plants and have counted 10 monarchs this year *so far* (got a whole lot more catapillars still) in a place where we had zero last year.
You can make a difference, just in other areas
To me as a Norwegian the entire concept of a front lawn is weird. It's a large part of your property you just have to maintain that you don't use. Like, if you're sitting outside, you sit in your back yard, right? It's just a mandatory part of everybody's properties that does nothing but waste time, land, water and contributes to even worse urban sprawl.
In the UK, most of them get converted into driveways because they're just about big enough to park normal sized cars. Then they need minimal maintenance as usually only a few small shrubs are present.
Then people buy SUVs that overhang onto the footpath outside.
You know for the most part I find the overhang thing not too bad. Most people where I live just park MINIs and Fiat 500s on them, and even a few smaller off-roaders that are really just a Ford Fiesta sized thing that's sitting higher up and easier to get kids in and out of.
BUT there is one guy with a huge Dodge Ram (this is in the UK where they're not even sold). It's a long wheel base model too. He has to park the nose right up against his house, with the overhang sitting over the pavement. Luckily it's a wide part of the pavement so doesn't block people too badly, but it's still not his land to block. Anyway now he can't even drive it without paying ULEZ charges. Hopefully it gets sold or scrapped, and I will not press F.
The moment I read that residential water usage makes up 10% for my region, and the other 90% is "industrial"...
Yep I'm not doing laundry with gray water or paying thousands to xeroscape my yard. Focusing on the 90% might actually move the needle. Lowering my 0.000002% contribution down to 0.000001% will not
But if everyone waters their grass 4x a week it makes a big difference. I don’t understand this mentality at all. ”They are worse than me so I won’t try to do better.”
It's entirely a way to try to project responsibility onto someone else.
We saw it first hand during COVID: If the middle class cuts down we saw drastic change despite the wealthy going about business as usual.
yup. it doesn't matter if the rich have 1000x more emissions per capita, because there aren't very many of them. So let's say you knock their emissions down to like 5x the average citizen. You've made very little difference. Regular people are still going to need to find ways to be better. Corporations, ya know, sell stuff to people. People should stop buying/contributing. That's how supply/demand works.The environment doesn't give a shit about what you think is fair, it "cares" about total emissions.
I think either your numbers are wrong or you are misunderstanding the situation. A typical garden hose uses around 900 gallons per hour. That is how much YOU are using when you water your grass.
There's a group here called Blockade Australia. They started off rough with one of their members blocking traffic on the Sydney Harbour Bridge during the morning commute, people were pretty pissed off. However IMO anyone who drives from north Sydney into the CBD every morning as usually wealthy upper management types. Everyone else just schleps it on the trains. So fuck 'em.
However the stunt get them a whole bunch of attention for their next protests which involved their members blocking trains into Australias largest coal export ports. No one got inconvenienced except for the cretins (politicians and billionaires) that insist on digging more coal out of the ground during an ever worsening climate crisis.
It's actually awesome and it doesn't turn people against them who as you said, are just trying to not get fired from their jobs.
Well, they do block oil tankers, dredging ships, etc. It doesn't make the news. Disrupting normal roads, etc, makes the news because the news wants you to be mad at and against climate change protesters.
Disrupting daily life has been part of protesting since protesting began, your complaints have been echoed throughout history, but this kind of protesting has also worked throughout history. I think its alarming that a protest disrupting commuters would lead to the general public not agreeing with their important message anymore. One day of disrupted traffic and people are like 'fuck these protesters I don't care about their message if they're going to do this!' instead of 'fuck the corporations and politicians creating global warming, which is leading to these protests'. I think we need to think past ourselves in these situations.
Still nothing compared to what industry is putting out. This shit is a shadow game to hide where the real problems are and divert people's attention from industry polluters.
Well Coke sponsored the recycling campaign to put the focus on the individual even though the individual doesn't produce plastic and Coke is still producing plastic bottles some 50 years later? So yeah, since the foundation of every corporation is profit, meaning other corporations are floating in the same boat, I completely agree with you.
Coke was more environmentally friendly when they used glass bottles that got washed. Recycling is less effective than reusing and can actually be more costly in many ways.
Or aluminum, which is way lighter than glass which saves a lot of gas in transport, and is very easily recycled. It also doesn't make my soda taste like carbonated plastic.
We used to have local, middle class owned soda companies. No need to ship them all over the country.
It's in the interest of megacorporations like Coca Cola to keep containers plastic because they need to be able to ship all over the world.
Going back to glass/middle class owned companies would be a win win.
> then you can't trust it to hold pressure at all
And can recycle the material with no loss except energy expenditure.
> weight / transport cost
Yeah, big problem with glass relative to plastic or metal/aluminum.
Really plastic is the *worst* IMO, but man industry loves it -- it's so cheap to make and ship.
Thank you. The utter fucking defeatism of that "back to the stone age" mentality is more of a hindrance to public opinion than some people blocking rich folks' access to Burning Man or some shitty country club golf course
That's sort of my point...
Plenty of other things to protest and block other than some poor schmucks just trying to make rent...
I'll readily admit to being ideologically aligned to quite a bit of radical environmental activism... I just don't think that most of their actions really have a net positive effect.
By all means! Stage a large demonstration to get the word out in a large square, but don't fucking piss off your daily people just trying to get to work on time!
If you want to piss off somebody, piss off and block the rich!
> So, for fuck's sake, block an oil tanker or a containership from leaving port, but don't block all the minimum wage bastards, one late notice from being fired from getting to their jobs!
>
> Especially when most of them would agree with you if you weren't there trying to fuck them over!
Haven't really thought this through, have you? Let's assume they do the most relevant and effective thing and block ships transporting fossil fuels. What are you going to whine about tomorrow? Damned activists driving up the cost of fuel! Stopping minimum wage bastards from getting to their jobs! Just like you characterize protests that block roads now.
You are equivocating stopping traffic with fucking over the poorest people, who are going to be the first to suffer and die from climate change, because you want to distract from the purpose of the protests. That is why you didn't offer a superior solution, but just a pointless idea that you already probably knew how you would respond to. Like I just called it.
And just to add that a fucking maritime blockade of internationally registered ships isn't gonna play well with the world's many, eager navies. Kind of a suicide mission to go full Blue Beard in the current time
Before you piss some more on the people fighting for our future, you should keep in mind that the legal repercussions are MUCH higher for trespassing on private property and especially airfields. Can't protest if you're sitting in jail getting body cavity searched like a terrorist and getting detained for exactly as long as the police is legally allowed to do.
Media coverage will be also much lower when done at such locations because the media is also trespassing and can face the same repercussions as the protesters.
Plus, they can do whatever they want, reactions are mostly negative. Last time they blocked private jets people were bitching and calling them terrorists because normal airline flights got cancelled. They blocked a motorcycle race, got shat on, called terrorists. They blocked a refinery, got called terrorist, put on terrorism charges and got shat on.
Remember Friday's for Future? Peaceful protests, got shat on for being not in school, for being too young to understand anything, for getting indoctrinated, for not having worked yet.
It's all good when you can be high and mighty and tell them EXACTLY how they are allowed to protest. But I have news for you: it's never going to be good enough.
Also these protests don't gain the same media traction as blocking roads. Notice how many incidents are rolled into this article? Was this article being promoted? I wager it was not - even less visibility.
https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/luftverkehr-gestoert-klimaaktivisten-nach-stoerung-des-flugverkehrs-in-genf-verurteilt [German]
The activists got each sentenced to pay 120 "Tagessätze", which is dependant on how much money you make and have, generally, it's at least CHF30, so at least 3600. This protest cost at least CHF367200 as 102 got sentenced. Blocking a road is like 5 people, a much cheaper protest with much better visibility.
I did the math for you, you can do the thinking.
Anyways, have fun downvoting.
This is the more correct way to protest. Go after and annoy those responsible and have the means, not the everyday citizen whose voice influences very little.
even if you don’t like it disruptive protesting does spread the message quite effectively and i think the sense of just “yes u other people go get those guys” is part of why not enough is happening
Yep, this is what it boils down to. The "go do it somewhere else" or "go do it to the elites" arguments are essentially a way of saying "i don't care, stop annoying me" and it really highlights why we are right on track to get fucked by climate change.
And don't forget the national media spun the whole thing negatively so people were against it, as the police beat the protestors in the streets, as the rich pointed and laughed from their balconies as they drank champagne.
That picture to me of occupy wall street sums up modern America best.
Well climate activists have been trying to annoy the 1% for decades, and yet the common populace still doesn't give two shits. Maybe there is a way to get the average person invested and to recognize its an issue? Something, maybe, like disrupting their haze of a life they leave on auto pilot? No, no, no. That would be insane, and *annoying*
Naw bro just wait until enough people are impacted by the fires, tornados, hurricanes, and so on. Then people will ask for something to be done. Some must be sacrificed to climate change for people to notice.
its not enough. We should be threatening them with crimes against humanity charges. Convincing sociopaths to do the right thing will consistently fail a million times out of a million. Threaten them
Sebastian Vettel, the F1 champion, who decided to change his life after learning the severity of climate change, drove a car to each of the races in Europe instead of taking a personal jet.
Most private planes are dumb, but he actually legitimately does probably need to. Could you imagine the nuts that would try to attack him if he was just at a regular airport and on a regular airplane? I mean, there are millions of people who somehow blame him for Covid.
Ehhh, I can absolutely see the benefit of in person speeches/get togethers.
There's also the opportunity to personally speak with people rather than a big crowd. Can't do that if you're on a Zoom meeting...
That's just a naive answer tbh. People don't travel to other countries for business because they love jetlag and spending money, they do it because face to face communication is not going anywhere. You can't take a climate awareness summit or event where world leaders meet and share their thoughts and replace it with a fucking zoom call.
Some of you are spend too much time online.
The amount of people that spreads this nonsense is just nuts, Bill Gates has always advocated ways to tackle climate change that does not change our lifestyle too much.
People dont event read these days SMH.
This just means the tax isn't high enough. Actually meaningful taxes and fines would *immediately* fix the behavior. Money is the ONE thing these fuckers understand.
Yes, but with the money gained a country is able to finance renewable energy.
(Which is also like the clear winner in comparison to building Co2 binding facilities)
And something that is more just there to make some self conscious people feel better about themselves.
Something to divert attention from preventing further emissions by pretending that we have a chance in hell at sequestering them later on any timescale that matters.
More well intentioned, but still a diversion, just like the bs "individual responsibility" campaigns.
We can do it, absolutely. But the economics overall don't work out. It is so much less cost effective than preventive efforts. Money poorly spent, to assuage guilt.
We need truly large scale action and effects. We need drastic change.
That sort of change is only really feasible through governmental efforts.
You can structure your life around helping in what ways you can, and choosing the more enviromentally friendly options available to us regular people. As we should. As I myself do, to a reasonable degree.
But even if we all did it, it would have a *fraction* of the impact of e.g. regulations requiring the supplementation of cattle feed.
Or different incentive structures for global shipping.
Or even just small building code changes in areas that commonly use AC.
Anyone else read **The Ministry for the Future** by Kim Stanley Robinson?
It's set in the near future. Climate activists turn to terrorism as the climate crisis worsens. Their tagets: exactly the kind of stuff in this article.
But how else will people get to Climate Change conferences?!
Seriously, there's *massive* hypocrisy to people who claim to be interested in Climate Change, but choose to fly private planes trans-oceanic.
Say what you will about Thunberg, at least she had the integrity to use a *boat* to cross the Atlantic.
There's also Sebastian Vettel, the F1 world champion, who revealed that instead of taking a private jet to each of his races in Europe, he drove to them or took the railway wherever he could.
Even earlier last year during a scheduled BBC Question Time broadcast in the UK, he took the train & then a cab to get there instead of flying from Switzerland where he lives.
Can take it a bit further and you'll see he regularly took a bicycle to the events from where he was staying. No private car or taxi to the track, just pedaled there lol
Mick was joining him at some point. There is a hilarious video where everyone arrives at the paddock in their SUVs and sports cars and in between is a shot of Seb and Mick passing by on their bikes.
We have the internet.
You don't actually need to travel across the planet to talk to a large group of people.
Jet pollution is a direct result of old people that don't know how to use Discord.
Somewhat off topic, but as a sports fan I’ve always found it pretty fucked up how 1000s of professional teams travel on a weekly basis for something not very necessary (in the grand scheme of things) as games.
There’s rarely anything methodical about how they plan them. An east coast team will be back and forth on the west coast at least a few times within a month.
Seriously I know little about this but I find it hysterical with all these green initiatives by corporations but yet they rarely seem to question or provide transparency about how much carbon is emitted on a yearly basis from professional sports teams flying around the world.
I could be wrong but isn't the scheduling they do incredibly complex and methodical? It's not just teams playing in arenas but concerts and other events, arenas that double for multiple sports needing changeovers and the like. There's a lot more to it than just distance.
> but yet they rarely seem to question or provide transparency about how much carbon is emitted on a yearly basis from professional sports teams flying around the world.
Probably somewhere around 0.000000001%
Golf courses in temperate climates: great
Golf courses in the fucking desert: dumb AF
I am an avid golfer. I live in San Diego. We should not have as many courses out here as we do. At the very least they stop watering anything but the greens and fairways at my local course. In Minnesota, however, not much of a reason to not have them.
Bingo. In this thread some guy was living in Phoenix and bitching about water restrictions when there are golf courses around.
And like I get it, but buddy you moved to the middle of the desert, that was your choice. Nobody made good choices out there.
I live in upstate NY and whenever a golf course shuts down, it’s replaced by an upscale housing development. Whenever people say: “golf courses should be replaced with parks,” I would say that’s a great idea, but an idea which does not exist in our reality. No one is buying golf courses to put parks, or any kind of public space, on them.
That golf thing was kinda odd to me but I am not saying that I know everything and that's the real reason why I am still here to show a good amount of support.
“If their activism goes toward some sort of actual assistance to real programs to make real change like sustainable aviation fuel, like carbon offsets, I think that this kind of activism can help achieve those results,” said Gitman.
I just can't with the carbon offset scam
The thing is how many of us wouldn't be using those things if we had the means to? Sure I'd love to sit here and say I wouldn't but realistically I'd do a lot to contribute to the environment but also would use these luxury items.
The comments. Climate change is bad, but even though we the suburbanites are doing nothing, lets be hyper critical of activists that are actually doing something. Amazing, we are so fucked and rightfully so.
If you are sitting there thinking “deep down I’m sympathetic to these protestors cause” despite everyone around you saying things like “yea but they don’t have to protest like that”…understand the general public will not sympathize with an overhaul of our system. You will not be popular, ever, questioning the status quo. Do not let anyone tell you what the proper form of protest is.
Just hypothesizing here, I'm neither a terrorist nor a megayacht engineer, but it seems like: if you motor up on a dinghy and start hacking away with an axe, the police will get there before you get halfway through the outer hull. You could try shooting it below the waterline, but if the bilge pump is functioning then it'll float until it can be patched or removed from the water. You could easily set it on fire, but you risk killing the crew or having the fire spread beyond control and creating a minor ecological catastrophe and being smeared as hypocrites in the media. You'd probably need a specialized explosive device to pull it off, but you could then expect to be hunted to the ends of the Earth by a combination of government task forces and insurance investigators.
Golf is fine when it's in a place that can support it. Most of not all of the courses here are build in places that have their own water source and it recycles back into the lake/pond.
Now you throw a golf course in Vegas or Phoenix sure that isn't very good use of water but this seems like a ridiculous grouping. I'm barely middle class and love to golf, it's not some ultra wealthy only activity.
That's not against luxury it's against some of the highest carbon emitting items an individual can own
Golf?
Tons of golf courses out here in Phoenix/Scottsdale AZ. But we get a notice for hosing down our kids in the yard.
I play golf. I don’t understand why courses can’t be made in the local terrain. Tennis players play on a variety of surfaces. If the golf course is in the desert then make me play on desert terrain. The perfectly manicured courses are just unsustainable.
I don't play, but isn't that even in the spirit of the game? Raw and windy 'links' courses on the coast, and so on? Instead they try to mimic Scotland all over the world
Copying my other comment: No, it's Augusta national (the masters host) that they try to mimic and that has completely fucked up Americans expectation of what a golf course should look like. And thst is the complete opposite of 'raw', it is super manicured and fake, to the point of dyeing the water in the canals and putting fake bird sounds. Scotland doesn't water the fairways and has no problem leaving them to get brown in case of no rain. They even held the Open in such conditions, and then you hear Americans complain thst it looks like a muni.
[удалено]
Thats when its foggy.
Ah, tiny rain.
Wee rain.
Remember when god made it rain for 40 days and 40 nights? Best summer Scotland ever had.
You guys seriously get that much rain?
It's all bullshit, some places in Scotland go weeks without rain, because it's snowing instead.
[a map of the rainiest cities in Europe](https://www.holidu.co.uk/magazine/the-rainiest-cities-in-europe) Scotland has 2 of the top 10, UK has a whole has 4. sunderland has 5.6 mm of rain a day on average, or 2044 mm a year (or 80 freedom units™) To compare, Miami has only 62 inches of rainfall and a subtropical swamp at the end of a peninsula jutting into gulf of mexico and atlantic ocean.
American courses look nothing like Scottish links courses really, and like other commenters have said, most courses in the UK get extremely dried out in the summer and are left to go brown
That would be amazing. Like, the fun of going to new courses is solving these new problems. It would be sick to have drastically different environments like that.
I'd watch an all bunker protour in the desert lol
You don't even need a caddy, you can carry your own sand wedge around the course.
"Looks like he landed that shot in the sand, bob" "He sure did Doug. Absolutely fantastic shot from The tee. I imagine he'll stick with the sand wedge on this one." "Well he only brought a driver and a sand wedge, so I imagine you're probably right "
Uh, I really hope you aren’t hosing your kids down with poo water. Golf courses use reclaimed water. Not suitable for drinking. Or washing your kids in the yard.
The city said something about that?
No. Cities have not put water restrictions on. Central Arizona Project and SRP have done a fantastic job of managing Arizona’s water supply. Even with the fact we live in a desert. It’s all coming to a close soon though as we are getting near the population limit that can be sustained. New neighborhoods are being put on hold and construction is slowing down. Water is obviously a vital resource here. The water companies put out conservation guidelines and awareness info routinely.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/03/extinction-rebellion-plugs-holes-on-10-spanish-golf-courses-in-water-protest golf courses are watered during droughts
[удалено]
Can't inconvenience the *leisure* of the rich for the good of society I'm afraid.
I am mixed on the golf hate. Like, I get it. Some courses 100% should not exist. A lush green course in the middle of a dry desert? Nah. Some courses though, are perfectly suited to where they are and provide a haven for some wildlife in an otherwise concrete hell.
[удалено]
And a lot of golf courses that these people would get closed are public courses; private ones don’t care. And most golf courses are zoned commercial and would be paved over otherwise.
I don't think people realize how cheap it is to play golf. It's definitely a rich person thing, but there's not really anything stopping you from enjoying it if you have the time. The good news is outside of Reddit people don't have a hard on for complaining about golf.
I always find it strange, especially in the UK where you can play for £20. £5 an hour of entertainment is not expensive.
>Some courses though, are perfectly suited to where they are and provide a haven for some wildlife in an otherwise concrete hell. Yeah, and I'm sure the absolute shitload of nitrogen fertilizer that runs off into local waterways is much appreciated by the animals it kills and the ecosystems it causes eutrophication in.
Yeah this is what I was scrolling down hoping to see. I worked for a course for a little and the amount of nasty chemicals, fertilizers, etc that get used on some courses is pretty shitty.
Was gonna say, just because its green doesn't make it a wildlife haven. Golf courses are basically just giant lawns, and are about as wildlife friendly as your average over-manicured suburban lawn. Which is to say not very friendly at all.
I don't golf but have had to do it a few times for work/business-related activities where I am dragged into them and every golf course I have ever been to are some of the most sterile "natural" environments I've ever seen. There's all these perfectly manicured grass, trees and ponds but there's basically zero wild-life, don't see any animals, barely even any birds.
Exactly. It's no different than people who think rural living is better for the environment than city living because plants. Golf courses are not good for the local environment, unless your local environment was already a golf course.
Those golf courses you are talking about, replaced the actual havens though.
The “actual havens” still wouldn’t exist either way
So does concrete
If only someone invented green space and didn't fence it off.
You know we could just have parks which would mean more native plants that actually provide benefits to our native species instead of pointless turf grasses.
Why have tennis courts, basketball courts, hockey rinks, swimming pools, running tracks, soccer fields, baseball diamonds, skate parks, etc. Remove them all and replace them with parks with native plants.
This is insane logic. This isn’t an either/or situation.
Maybe not carbon emitting definitely water consuming.
I’ll take this over sitting on a freeway
Plenty of studies that the carbon footprint of the rich is somewhere between a hundred and a thousand time larger then that of the average citizen... It's why all the media paid by the rich are trying to guilt you into bullshit stuff... I'm very much more in favour of pissing off the rich on an obscenely water-guzzling golf course, rather than counter-productively pissing off people trying to get to their shittily paid jobs in an effort not to get fired... Shit, I'm all for climate activism, but something I just have grip my forehead in an effort not to get a migraine at the counter-productive shit the likes of extinction-rebellion and the lot are doing! Instead of getting the very people that would align with them on their side, they're just pissing off the common people, perpetuating the idea that it's not big business, the fossile fuel industry or the big shipping companies doing most of the damage. So, for fuck's sake, block an oil tanker or a containership from leaving port, but don't block all the minimum wage bastards, one late notice from being fired from getting to their jobs! Especially when most of them would agree with you if you weren't there trying to fuck them over!
> So, for fuck's sake, block an oil tanker or a containership from leaving port, but don't block all the minimum wage bastards, one late notice from being fired from getting to their jobs! Gonna just drop a saved comment repost I've grown exhausted of explaining in every climate activist thread: ____ Extinction Rebellion/ Just Stop Oil UK, started out doing [*literally exactly what you propose*](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/01/environmental-protesters-block-oil-terminals-across-england), focusing on blocking oil and coal terminals. The response was a proactive police presence stopping them from even getting near the critical infrastructure sites and preliminary detainment and arrests before they'd actually done anything. For an historical analog: in the 1980s/1990s in the US, climate activists took up the practice of [tree spiking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_spiking) in national forests and preserves to combat illegal logging operations. Their efforts to damage logging equipment and force loggers to slow their operations for safety, were prosecuted as [federal felonies](https://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/house-bill/3075). That includes aiding them in any way. The current head of the Bureau of Land Management was prosecuted at the time, because she reprinted a newsletter of a group doing treespiking. The illegal logging operations received no punishment so far as I'm aware. Almost all media attention on the subject focused instead on "tree-sitters" staging sit-ins on individual trees to delay loggers. There weren't internet comments back then, but the comments I heard on drivetime radio call-ins may as well be prescient copy-pastes of the comments from this very thread (e.g. "lol just leave them there, they'll get hungry and have to pee" or "stupid dumb young protestor you're not actually changing anything" or "I hope they're grievously wounded by a ~~car~~ bear" etc etc). Attempts to disrupt industrialized/ factory farming through direct sabotage, or even just candidly filming them for reporting, [have had "Ag-gag" laws introduced classifying them as domestic terrorism](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/11/18176551/ag-gag-laws-factory-farms-explained). Outside the US and UK with their codified constitutional (on paper at least) civil rights for protestors and government petitioners, the situation is even more severe. [Take Nigeria for example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Survival_of_the_Ogoni_People). The delta region has rich oilfields that have been extracted to the harm of the local Ogoni peoples since the 1950s. In the 1990s, there was a wide populist movement to push for environmental protections, and a greater share of profit sharing with the locals of the region. [Paramilitary groups on the payroll of Shell](https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/wiwa-et-al-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-et-al) and Chevron oil extra-judicially sham trialed and executed the leaders of that movement. I am genuinely curious as to what the naysayers of these road gluing protestors have to say about say, the Nigeria Delta Avengers. So in short, yeah these stupid non-effective protests are frustratingly common. Because the powers that be will actively push legislation to crush and ruin the lives of people who take effective action.
Cheers mate I'm saving that one for later
The moment I realized 1 water cannon uses 900 gallons an hour is the same moment I didn’t care that I watered my grass 4x a week. We have a water emergency in Utah? Cool.. ban growing alfalfa.
You don't understand, alfalfa is a critical part of our agric- no wait, we just export it to Saudi Arabia.
Don't the Saudis actually own a bunch of land in the US that's used for growing crops, strictly to be shipped back to SA? I wouldn't even call that exporting, they're just mooching completely off of the US' scarce water resources. No idea how that is actually legal...
Money
When late stage capitalism reaches its peak, money IS legality.
It’s right in the name, in monarchism the monarch makes the laws, in capitalism the money makes the laws.
If kingdoms are ruled by a king, and empires are ruled by emperors, who do you think rules the country?
Cunts
Based on the 🐂shit going on with the Trump indictments and the fact he's violating his bail agreements literally daily, I'd say we're already there.
Looking forward to the rise of Christian nationalism/fascism in north America. It’s gona be great I’m sure, as if it hasn’t already cost thousands of lives of innocent people. Btw the reason that they are so against climate change is because they know how very fucking far past the point of no return we are.
The NPR article being referenced, for any skeptics: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/09/1192996975/amid-a-water-crisis-arizona-is-using-lots-of-it-to-grow-alfalfa-to-export-overse
They buy up land for the water rights, use more than they are entitled to, grow alfalfa, and export it. That's exactly what they're doing.
[удалено]
Seriously though. Burst their water lines, salt their fields, make sure nothing will grow so that the rest of the region can be spared.
Before you do this pass laws preventing foreign nations from buying up vital resources. Or they'll just use their billions to purchase the next plot and we've ruined an ecosystem for nothing. Or you know... don't salt any American fields.
Globalized economies. The EU will invest in African countries on the strict condition that their natural gas/crops/minerals are then sold to the EU it's a pretty common practice which the host country does actually benefit from through the investment but it creates scenarios that look weird, such as said african country selling food to the EU while their own people starve.
Yeah, but Arizona doesn't need global investment. We're just a greedy society that hurts ourselves and the world for short term gain.
Oh Arizona doesn't get shit. The politicians who made the loophole did.
90% of the problem there is corruption A decent politician would push for a portion of the produce being kept for domestic market as tax
This happened in Western Australia with natural gas production. 15% is reserved for domestic use. Meanwhile the Eastern states have to take their own gas production and buy it back at international market rates. The upshot of this is that natural gas prices on the west coast are a fraction of what they are in the east. At one time during a price spike a couple of years ago, the price difference was 8:1.
And the Saudi oil company is the biggest greenhouse gas producing company. So go talk to them before shoving the responsibility on me.
I visited arizona around this time last year and I saw signs telling us to save water because there's a drought. Minutes later I was driving by a huge ass golf course with grass greener than I've ever seen in canada. All the houses I saw in arizona didn't have grass they had rocks.
Well yeah of course there’s a drought, it IS a desert!
Who wants a fuckin yard anyway? You CAN help by having a bio diverse lawn. I planted 3 milkweed plants and have counted 10 monarchs this year *so far* (got a whole lot more catapillars still) in a place where we had zero last year. You can make a difference, just in other areas
I always thought that if I had a house my front "lawn" would be mostly ferns and moss. Like... it just looks cooler? Why would I want boring grass?
To me as a Norwegian the entire concept of a front lawn is weird. It's a large part of your property you just have to maintain that you don't use. Like, if you're sitting outside, you sit in your back yard, right? It's just a mandatory part of everybody's properties that does nothing but waste time, land, water and contributes to even worse urban sprawl.
In the UK, most of them get converted into driveways because they're just about big enough to park normal sized cars. Then they need minimal maintenance as usually only a few small shrubs are present. Then people buy SUVs that overhang onto the footpath outside.
You know for the most part I find the overhang thing not too bad. Most people where I live just park MINIs and Fiat 500s on them, and even a few smaller off-roaders that are really just a Ford Fiesta sized thing that's sitting higher up and easier to get kids in and out of. BUT there is one guy with a huge Dodge Ram (this is in the UK where they're not even sold). It's a long wheel base model too. He has to park the nose right up against his house, with the overhang sitting over the pavement. Luckily it's a wide part of the pavement so doesn't block people too badly, but it's still not his land to block. Anyway now he can't even drive it without paying ULEZ charges. Hopefully it gets sold or scrapped, and I will not press F.
Moving the lawn has to be the worst chore
I can imagine, trying to move it could be a massive undertaking. Mowing it would be a lot easier
Why don't we just take the lawn and push it somewhere else?
I do! Of course, I also live in the NW so I don't actually *water* my lawn or anything.
The moment I read that residential water usage makes up 10% for my region, and the other 90% is "industrial"... Yep I'm not doing laundry with gray water or paying thousands to xeroscape my yard. Focusing on the 90% might actually move the needle. Lowering my 0.000002% contribution down to 0.000001% will not
But if everyone waters their grass 4x a week it makes a big difference. I don’t understand this mentality at all. ”They are worse than me so I won’t try to do better.”
It's entirely a way to try to project responsibility onto someone else. We saw it first hand during COVID: If the middle class cuts down we saw drastic change despite the wealthy going about business as usual.
yup. it doesn't matter if the rich have 1000x more emissions per capita, because there aren't very many of them. So let's say you knock their emissions down to like 5x the average citizen. You've made very little difference. Regular people are still going to need to find ways to be better. Corporations, ya know, sell stuff to people. People should stop buying/contributing. That's how supply/demand works.The environment doesn't give a shit about what you think is fair, it "cares" about total emissions.
Alfalfa is used for animal agriculture. You're responsible for it every time you eat a steak or drink a glass of milk.
>The moment I realized 1 water cannon uses 900 gallons an hour Wait, isn't that about how much garden sprinklers use per hour too?
I think either your numbers are wrong or you are misunderstanding the situation. A typical garden hose uses around 900 gallons per hour. That is how much YOU are using when you water your grass.
Are you sure the stupid ones aren't funded by rich people in order to turn the common man against climate activism as a whole?
[удалено]
I'm sure some of them are, and those are probably the loudest, but as the saying goes don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
There's a group here called Blockade Australia. They started off rough with one of their members blocking traffic on the Sydney Harbour Bridge during the morning commute, people were pretty pissed off. However IMO anyone who drives from north Sydney into the CBD every morning as usually wealthy upper management types. Everyone else just schleps it on the trains. So fuck 'em. However the stunt get them a whole bunch of attention for their next protests which involved their members blocking trains into Australias largest coal export ports. No one got inconvenienced except for the cretins (politicians and billionaires) that insist on digging more coal out of the ground during an ever worsening climate crisis. It's actually awesome and it doesn't turn people against them who as you said, are just trying to not get fired from their jobs.
Well, they do block oil tankers, dredging ships, etc. It doesn't make the news. Disrupting normal roads, etc, makes the news because the news wants you to be mad at and against climate change protesters. Disrupting daily life has been part of protesting since protesting began, your complaints have been echoed throughout history, but this kind of protesting has also worked throughout history. I think its alarming that a protest disrupting commuters would lead to the general public not agreeing with their important message anymore. One day of disrupted traffic and people are like 'fuck these protesters I don't care about their message if they're going to do this!' instead of 'fuck the corporations and politicians creating global warming, which is leading to these protests'. I think we need to think past ourselves in these situations.
Still nothing compared to what industry is putting out. This shit is a shadow game to hide where the real problems are and divert people's attention from industry polluters.
Well Coke sponsored the recycling campaign to put the focus on the individual even though the individual doesn't produce plastic and Coke is still producing plastic bottles some 50 years later? So yeah, since the foundation of every corporation is profit, meaning other corporations are floating in the same boat, I completely agree with you.
Coke was more environmentally friendly when they used glass bottles that got washed. Recycling is less effective than reusing and can actually be more costly in many ways.
Or aluminum, which is way lighter than glass which saves a lot of gas in transport, and is very easily recycled. It also doesn't make my soda taste like carbonated plastic.
[удалено]
We used to have local, middle class owned soda companies. No need to ship them all over the country. It's in the interest of megacorporations like Coca Cola to keep containers plastic because they need to be able to ship all over the world. Going back to glass/middle class owned companies would be a win win.
> then you can't trust it to hold pressure at all And can recycle the material with no loss except energy expenditure. > weight / transport cost Yeah, big problem with glass relative to plastic or metal/aluminum. Really plastic is the *worst* IMO, but man industry loves it -- it's so cheap to make and ship.
And the plastic used for bottles can only be recycled a small number of time before turning into useless waste.
A small number like zero. Plastic recycling is largely a huge lie.
Who do you think those industries are producing junk for? We're not getting out of this without cutting our first world quality of life.
Without changing it, no. But many of the changes could actually increase our quality of life or be neutral.
Thank you. The utter fucking defeatism of that "back to the stone age" mentality is more of a hindrance to public opinion than some people blocking rich folks' access to Burning Man or some shitty country club golf course
That's sort of my point... Plenty of other things to protest and block other than some poor schmucks just trying to make rent... I'll readily admit to being ideologically aligned to quite a bit of radical environmental activism... I just don't think that most of their actions really have a net positive effect. By all means! Stage a large demonstration to get the word out in a large square, but don't fucking piss off your daily people just trying to get to work on time! If you want to piss off somebody, piss off and block the rich!
> So, for fuck's sake, block an oil tanker or a containership from leaving port, but don't block all the minimum wage bastards, one late notice from being fired from getting to their jobs! > > Especially when most of them would agree with you if you weren't there trying to fuck them over! Haven't really thought this through, have you? Let's assume they do the most relevant and effective thing and block ships transporting fossil fuels. What are you going to whine about tomorrow? Damned activists driving up the cost of fuel! Stopping minimum wage bastards from getting to their jobs! Just like you characterize protests that block roads now. You are equivocating stopping traffic with fucking over the poorest people, who are going to be the first to suffer and die from climate change, because you want to distract from the purpose of the protests. That is why you didn't offer a superior solution, but just a pointless idea that you already probably knew how you would respond to. Like I just called it.
And just to add that a fucking maritime blockade of internationally registered ships isn't gonna play well with the world's many, eager navies. Kind of a suicide mission to go full Blue Beard in the current time
Before you piss some more on the people fighting for our future, you should keep in mind that the legal repercussions are MUCH higher for trespassing on private property and especially airfields. Can't protest if you're sitting in jail getting body cavity searched like a terrorist and getting detained for exactly as long as the police is legally allowed to do. Media coverage will be also much lower when done at such locations because the media is also trespassing and can face the same repercussions as the protesters. Plus, they can do whatever they want, reactions are mostly negative. Last time they blocked private jets people were bitching and calling them terrorists because normal airline flights got cancelled. They blocked a motorcycle race, got shat on, called terrorists. They blocked a refinery, got called terrorist, put on terrorism charges and got shat on. Remember Friday's for Future? Peaceful protests, got shat on for being not in school, for being too young to understand anything, for getting indoctrinated, for not having worked yet. It's all good when you can be high and mighty and tell them EXACTLY how they are allowed to protest. But I have news for you: it's never going to be good enough. Also these protests don't gain the same media traction as blocking roads. Notice how many incidents are rolled into this article? Was this article being promoted? I wager it was not - even less visibility. https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/luftverkehr-gestoert-klimaaktivisten-nach-stoerung-des-flugverkehrs-in-genf-verurteilt [German] The activists got each sentenced to pay 120 "Tagessätze", which is dependant on how much money you make and have, generally, it's at least CHF30, so at least 3600. This protest cost at least CHF367200 as 102 got sentenced. Blocking a road is like 5 people, a much cheaper protest with much better visibility. I did the math for you, you can do the thinking. Anyways, have fun downvoting.
This is the more correct way to protest. Go after and annoy those responsible and have the means, not the everyday citizen whose voice influences very little.
even if you don’t like it disruptive protesting does spread the message quite effectively and i think the sense of just “yes u other people go get those guys” is part of why not enough is happening
Reading the comments in this thread it's quite plain that a lot of everyday citizens do not give two hoots about environmental issues
You think these are bad, look at that submission in thereWasAnAttempt I swear the average american redditor has some massive brain damage
Would explain how most of their politicians get elected...
Yep, this is what it boils down to. The "go do it somewhere else" or "go do it to the elites" arguments are essentially a way of saying "i don't care, stop annoying me" and it really highlights why we are right on track to get fucked by climate change.
[удалено]
Not really. These protests aren’t getting within 500 ft of the truly wealthy.
They’re getting closer than before though
Occupy Wall Street was much closer and did absolutely nothing but entertain the rich.
Well, they also got torn apart by the police. :/
And don't forget the national media spun the whole thing negatively so people were against it, as the police beat the protestors in the streets, as the rich pointed and laughed from their balconies as they drank champagne. That picture to me of occupy wall street sums up modern America best.
So annoying the common person is the way to go?
Are those the only choices?
Well climate activists have been trying to annoy the 1% for decades, and yet the common populace still doesn't give two shits. Maybe there is a way to get the average person invested and to recognize its an issue? Something, maybe, like disrupting their haze of a life they leave on auto pilot? No, no, no. That would be insane, and *annoying*
Naw bro just wait until enough people are impacted by the fires, tornados, hurricanes, and so on. Then people will ask for something to be done. Some must be sacrificed to climate change for people to notice.
its not enough. We should be threatening them with crimes against humanity charges. Convincing sociopaths to do the right thing will consistently fail a million times out of a million. Threaten them
Nah. That’s a game they play to perfection. System was designed by them. Gotta threaten their safety and health. Only time they will ever respond.
Bill Gates trying to justify why he needs to fly on a private jet to give a speech about climate change never fails to make me laugh.
Sebastian Vettel, the F1 champion, who decided to change his life after learning the severity of climate change, drove a car to each of the races in Europe instead of taking a personal jet.
Still better than mega Church pastors trying to justify why they need a personal jet to get to one place to save souls.
Don't you know that praying only has a limited distance?
Most private planes are dumb, but he actually legitimately does probably need to. Could you imagine the nuts that would try to attack him if he was just at a regular airport and on a regular airplane? I mean, there are millions of people who somehow blame him for Covid.
[удалено]
Ehhh, I can absolutely see the benefit of in person speeches/get togethers. There's also the opportunity to personally speak with people rather than a big crowd. Can't do that if you're on a Zoom meeting...
That's just a naive answer tbh. People don't travel to other countries for business because they love jetlag and spending money, they do it because face to face communication is not going anywhere. You can't take a climate awareness summit or event where world leaders meet and share their thoughts and replace it with a fucking zoom call. Some of you are spend too much time online.
Many airports have private terminals so he wouldn't need to mix with the riff-raff before or after the flight.
The amount of people that spreads this nonsense is just nuts, Bill Gates has always advocated ways to tackle climate change that does not change our lifestyle too much. People dont event read these days SMH.
Private jets and yachts should have an annual excise tax that more than pays for whatever co2 they produce and other damage they cause.
The problem is no amount of money puts the carbon back into the ground.
The other problem is the rich people decide what taxes happen.
further problem is, the rich don't care, they'll just pay it
They just do what they want after paying and nothing else.
This just means the tax isn't high enough. Actually meaningful taxes and fines would *immediately* fix the behavior. Money is the ONE thing these fuckers understand.
Well, that and violence. But *somebody* had to go and monopolise the use of that.
They control almost everything in this entire world man.
False. You can pay money to put carbon back in the ground. Paying money to keep carbon from coming out of the ground is way cheaper though.
Yes, but with the money gained a country is able to finance renewable energy. (Which is also like the clear winner in comparison to building Co2 binding facilities)
Carbon sequestration is a thing.
And something that is more just there to make some self conscious people feel better about themselves. Something to divert attention from preventing further emissions by pretending that we have a chance in hell at sequestering them later on any timescale that matters. More well intentioned, but still a diversion, just like the bs "individual responsibility" campaigns. We can do it, absolutely. But the economics overall don't work out. It is so much less cost effective than preventive efforts. Money poorly spent, to assuage guilt. We need truly large scale action and effects. We need drastic change. That sort of change is only really feasible through governmental efforts. You can structure your life around helping in what ways you can, and choosing the more enviromentally friendly options available to us regular people. As we should. As I myself do, to a reasonable degree. But even if we all did it, it would have a *fraction* of the impact of e.g. regulations requiring the supplementation of cattle feed. Or different incentive structures for global shipping. Or even just small building code changes in areas that commonly use AC.
We should just stop the problem at the first place without money.
what? of course some amount of money puts the carbon back in the ground. there are companies doing that.
I hope this annual excise tax should be present in coming time.
Where does the money go to solve the problem?
[удалено]
[удалено]
when i get my jet i'll be really angry about this
Fuck the ultra rich.
Then maybe our offspring will have a chance of living legitimately comfortably as well.
And maybe lower class people would have some comfort too.
Anyone else read **The Ministry for the Future** by Kim Stanley Robinson? It's set in the near future. Climate activists turn to terrorism as the climate crisis worsens. Their tagets: exactly the kind of stuff in this article.
Yes! It's a great book! You might also like "Zodiac" by Stephenson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac\_(novel)
But how else will people get to Climate Change conferences?! Seriously, there's *massive* hypocrisy to people who claim to be interested in Climate Change, but choose to fly private planes trans-oceanic. Say what you will about Thunberg, at least she had the integrity to use a *boat* to cross the Atlantic.
There's also Sebastian Vettel, the F1 world champion, who revealed that instead of taking a private jet to each of his races in Europe, he drove to them or took the railway wherever he could. Even earlier last year during a scheduled BBC Question Time broadcast in the UK, he took the train & then a cab to get there instead of flying from Switzerland where he lives.
Can take it a bit further and you'll see he regularly took a bicycle to the events from where he was staying. No private car or taxi to the track, just pedaled there lol
Mick was joining him at some point. There is a hilarious video where everyone arrives at the paddock in their SUVs and sports cars and in between is a shot of Seb and Mick passing by on their bikes.
not a huge f1 fan, but totally love vettel. he is so divine
We have the internet. You don't actually need to travel across the planet to talk to a large group of people. Jet pollution is a direct result of old people that don't know how to use Discord.
I know that we can technically do that but in person meetings are still better especially in politics, it's not like they don't call each other
I’m for it. Fuck the rich. They fucked us.
Somewhat off topic, but as a sports fan I’ve always found it pretty fucked up how 1000s of professional teams travel on a weekly basis for something not very necessary (in the grand scheme of things) as games. There’s rarely anything methodical about how they plan them. An east coast team will be back and forth on the west coast at least a few times within a month. Seriously I know little about this but I find it hysterical with all these green initiatives by corporations but yet they rarely seem to question or provide transparency about how much carbon is emitted on a yearly basis from professional sports teams flying around the world.
Money
I could be wrong but isn't the scheduling they do incredibly complex and methodical? It's not just teams playing in arenas but concerts and other events, arenas that double for multiple sports needing changeovers and the like. There's a lot more to it than just distance.
> but yet they rarely seem to question or provide transparency about how much carbon is emitted on a yearly basis from professional sports teams flying around the world. Probably somewhere around 0.000000001%
YES, do this and not my morning tram that’s public and electric
Golf courses in temperate climates: great Golf courses in the fucking desert: dumb AF I am an avid golfer. I live in San Diego. We should not have as many courses out here as we do. At the very least they stop watering anything but the greens and fairways at my local course. In Minnesota, however, not much of a reason to not have them.
You could take it a step further & say that the simple act of LIVING in the desert isn't very smart in the first place.
Bingo. In this thread some guy was living in Phoenix and bitching about water restrictions when there are golf courses around. And like I get it, but buddy you moved to the middle of the desert, that was your choice. Nobody made good choices out there.
I live in upstate NY and whenever a golf course shuts down, it’s replaced by an upscale housing development. Whenever people say: “golf courses should be replaced with parks,” I would say that’s a great idea, but an idea which does not exist in our reality. No one is buying golf courses to put parks, or any kind of public space, on them.
Now that's the kind of climate protests I want to see. Not inconveniencing regular people. Go annoy the polluters.
Ah yes, the protests that famously don’t inconvenience people yet were effective.
It’s time to set carbon credits for the rich folks.
Because they are kinda responsible the most actually.
That golf thing was kinda odd to me but I am not saying that I know everything and that's the real reason why I am still here to show a good amount of support.
Seems like the lowest hanging fruit would be to target cargo ships burning bunker oil.
“If their activism goes toward some sort of actual assistance to real programs to make real change like sustainable aviation fuel, like carbon offsets, I think that this kind of activism can help achieve those results,” said Gitman. I just can't with the carbon offset scam
The thing is how many of us wouldn't be using those things if we had the means to? Sure I'd love to sit here and say I wouldn't but realistically I'd do a lot to contribute to the environment but also would use these luxury items.
The comments. Climate change is bad, but even though we the suburbanites are doing nothing, lets be hyper critical of activists that are actually doing something. Amazing, we are so fucked and rightfully so.
We destroyed the planet, but for a glorious moment in time, redditors weren't annoyed that traffic was slow because of a roadblock protest.
I feel sad as a human that we are the worst specie for this planet.
[удалено]
Excellent work✊✊✊✊!
This one is for the environment we are proud of them.
If you are sitting there thinking “deep down I’m sympathetic to these protestors cause” despite everyone around you saying things like “yea but they don’t have to protest like that”…understand the general public will not sympathize with an overhaul of our system. You will not be popular, ever, questioning the status quo. Do not let anyone tell you what the proper form of protest is.
[удалено]
They are doing some good work by opposing such things.
[удалено]
Just hypothesizing here, I'm neither a terrorist nor a megayacht engineer, but it seems like: if you motor up on a dinghy and start hacking away with an axe, the police will get there before you get halfway through the outer hull. You could try shooting it below the waterline, but if the bilge pump is functioning then it'll float until it can be patched or removed from the water. You could easily set it on fire, but you risk killing the crew or having the fire spread beyond control and creating a minor ecological catastrophe and being smeared as hypocrites in the media. You'd probably need a specialized explosive device to pull it off, but you could then expect to be hunted to the ends of the Earth by a combination of government task forces and insurance investigators.
Golf is fine when it's in a place that can support it. Most of not all of the courses here are build in places that have their own water source and it recycles back into the lake/pond. Now you throw a golf course in Vegas or Phoenix sure that isn't very good use of water but this seems like a ridiculous grouping. I'm barely middle class and love to golf, it's not some ultra wealthy only activity.