A place where escape goats go to play
https://notplanetrugby.com/
Was talking yesterday with a friend who routinely does this stuff. Note he's not keen on it because he has a young family. His point was that in the "3rd world", decision makers still play heavy reliance upon people relationships. So he is stuck with trotting out to the likes of Kenya for now.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:15 am I wonder what the future of business travel is. I maintain that much more gets done in person, but the vast majority of people who control the travel budgets have never had to face a client in their lives. Maybe for most non master of the universe style roles it's a thing of the past.
I work a lot with India and it has been by and large pointless online. Not least as a few of the key guys in IT are stuck working from home in small multi-gen households by busy roads. All they can hear is beeping outside, the kids running round, partner also trying to work and grandma moaning. Not surprisingly they are very keen to get back in the office.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:20 amWas talking yesterday with a friend who routinely does this stuff. Note he's not keen on it because he has a young family. His point was that in the "3rd world", decision makers still play heavy reliance upon people relationships. So he is stuck with trotting out to the likes of Kenya for now.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:15 am I wonder what the future of business travel is. I maintain that much more gets done in person, but the vast majority of people who control the travel budgets have never had to face a client in their lives. Maybe for most non master of the universe style roles it's a thing of the past.
Imagine the horror.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:20 amWas talking yesterday with a friend who routinely does this stuff. Note he's not keen on it because he has a young family. His point was that in the "3rd world", decision makers still play heavy reliance upon people relationships. So he is stuck with trotting out to the likes of Kenya for now.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:15 am I wonder what the future of business travel is. I maintain that much more gets done in person, but the vast majority of people who control the travel budgets have never had to face a client in their lives. Maybe for most non master of the universe style roles it's a thing of the past.
For the Kenyans or he? He is Irish, so probably the former.Slick wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:30 amImagine the horror.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:20 amWas talking yesterday with a friend who routinely does this stuff. Note he's not keen on it because he has a young family. His point was that in the "3rd world", decision makers still play heavy reliance upon people relationships. So he is stuck with trotting out to the likes of Kenya for now.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:15 am I wonder what the future of business travel is. I maintain that much more gets done in person, but the vast majority of people who control the travel budgets have never had to face a client in their lives. Maybe for most non master of the universe style roles it's a thing of the past.
On the one hand, a lot of business travel is utterly pointless (not all) but on the other hand, it's a big status marker for managers. It's hard to say which will turn out to be a bigger priority.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:15 am I wonder what the future of business travel is. I maintain that much more gets done in person, but the vast majority of people who control the travel budgets have never had to face a client in their lives. Maybe for most non master of the universe style roles it's a thing of the past.
Hang on I'm not trying to overthrow capitalism here, I'm arguing in favour of the free market. You're the one who wants to tax the airline industry into oblivion. Owning a car isn't a right but it would be immoral for the government to deliberately raise taxes on it so that normal people could not afford one.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:58 amJHCButterfingers wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:51 am
Because restricting travel to just the wealthy is taking us backwards. Why should poor people have to sit it out while businesses fly people across the Atlantic 10 times a year to sit in a meeting they could do on the phone? Or millionaires fly privately while tweeting about climate change. If you want to go after aviation pollution that's where you should be starting.
Tourism is an important industry, 1 in 10 jobs world wide rely on it. You can't just sweep the rug out from underneath it in the vague hope of preventing climate change. There are better, more practical ways of reducing global Co2 emissions.
1) There are other modes of travel than aircraft. I assume you'll be calling for budget flights to Mars too?
2) BECAUSE flying, like owning a car, is not a right. You are banging the morality drum which is fine but then I suggest you vote Communist in an attempt to overthrow capitalism.
3) "millionaires fly privately while tweeting about climate change". Wealthy in hypocrisy shocker. I hope you aren't a royalist. Again, you miss the point. IF the wealthy can afford to "net good" whilst flying, then I'm okay with that i.e. they can afford to compensate more for the damage they cause then the damage they do. Anyway, in terms of air travel pollution, the super rich are going to be the pimple on the elephant's bum.
4) "while businesses fly people across the Atlantic 10 times a year to sit in a meeting they could do on the phone". Errr..... if you read what I wrote, one presumes that businesses will quickly work out that this is a poor use of funds and hence damaging profitability and will desist.
Likewise making sure everyone is still at their desks every day at 5:30. Been a tough time for middle managers stealing a wage this crisis.robmatic wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:43 amOn the one hand, a lot of business travel is utterly pointless (not all) but on the other hand, it's a big status marker for managers. It's hard to say which will turn out to be a bigger priority.Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:15 am I wonder what the future of business travel is. I maintain that much more gets done in person, but the vast majority of people who control the travel budgets have never had to face a client in their lives. Maybe for most non master of the universe style roles it's a thing of the past.
Might well be true but also a meaningless attempt at equivalence. I suspect more than 90% of the planet now uses the web in one way or another whereas I'd bet that the % of people who have ever flown is miniscule by comparison.Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:48 am There was an article in Scientific American a few years ago that stated the WWW and all the devices connected to it accounted for as large a carbon footprint as the entire aviation industry. I've had a quick look but I can't find it just now, I'll keep trying.
I imagine that lockdown buying will have increased some carbon footprints, with delivery vans shuttling about streets all day long rather than people buying stuff from central points, ie shops.
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:03 amMight well be true but also a meaningless attempt at equivalence. I suspect more than 90% of the planet now uses the web in one way or another whereas I'd bet that the % of people who have ever flown is miniscule by comparison.Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:48 am There was an article in Scientific American a few years ago that stated the WWW and all the devices connected to it accounted for as large a carbon footprint as the entire aviation industry. I've had a quick look but I can't find it just now, I'll keep trying.
I imagine that lockdown buying will have increased some carbon footprints, with delivery vans shuttling about streets all day long rather than people buying stuff from central points, ie shops.
FyiTorquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:03 amMight well be true but also a meaningless attempt at equivalence. I suspect more than 90% of the planet now uses the web in one way or another whereas I'd bet that the % of people who have ever flown is miniscule by comparison.Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:48 am There was an article in Scientific American a few years ago that stated the WWW and all the devices connected to it accounted for as large a carbon footprint as the entire aviation industry. I've had a quick look but I can't find it just now, I'll keep trying.
I imagine that lockdown buying will have increased some carbon footprints, with delivery vans shuttling about streets all day long rather than people buying stuff from central points, ie shops.
Thanks. Surprised the 1st is as low as that and the other is as high but still a huge difference. I was being overly simplistic anyway because stuff likeHappyhooker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:57 am Fyi
I was reading something the other day which quoted that 51% of the world's population accessed the internet.
Think the flight numbers are around 20%
If switching back to turboprops made financial sense, Michael O'Leary would have done it already. We'll have to force 'em.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:11 amOr more practically for now, dump jets in many arenas and switch to turboprops. But won't happen because everyone has become wedded to the need for speed.
Isn't bitcoin mining incredibly energy consumingTorquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:15 amThanks. Surprised the 1st is as low as that and the other is as high but still a huge difference. I was being overly simplistic anyway because stuff likeHappyhooker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:57 am Fyi
I was reading something the other day which quoted that 51% of the world's population accessed the internet.
Think the flight numbers are around 20%
- necessity of use
- volume of use linked to environmental cost per unit of use (phones use electricity which is much simpler to produce green).
would all need considering. That said, I wonder if one Sleazy flight to Paris is more than a lifetime of internet use age?
It only makes financial sense if your audience is accepting........ which it isn't. Hence my point about speed obsession. Plus there is a perception that it's an inferior good.Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:40 amIf switching back to turboprops made financial sense, Michael O'Leary would have done it already. We'll have to force 'em.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:11 amOr more practically for now, dump jets in many arenas and switch to turboprops. But won't happen because everyone has become wedded to the need for speed.
I'm a fan (heh heh) of turbo props - SAA use them and jets between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth (1 hour 10 minute flight vs 50 mins by 737) and can't say I saw anyone moaning about the slightly longer flight. The lack of headroom in the bog was another issue.....
Hah. There is an explanation of this on that thread i.e. yes, it uses the graphics cards at high intensity. But since only 37 people worldwide are stupid enough to think they can make money using their home pcs this way, it's noise.
It’s been well established by now that the agricultural systems producing our food contribute at least one fifth of global anthropogenic carbon emissions—and up to a third if waste and transportation are factored in. A troubling new report points to a previously overlooked source: an industrial fishing process practiced by dozens of countries around the world, including the United States, China, and the E.U.
The study, published today in the scientific journal Nature, is the first to calculate the carbon cost of bottom trawling, in which fishing fleets drag immense weighted nets along the ocean floor, scraping up fish, shellfish and crustaceans along with significant portions of their habitats.
According to calculations conducted by the report’s 26 authors, bottom trawling is responsible for one gigaton of carbon emissions a year—a higher annual total than (pre-pandemic) aviation emissions. Not only does the practice contribute to climate change, it is extremely damaging to ocean biodiversity—the “equivalent of ploughing an old-growth forest into the ground, over and over and over again until there is nothing left” according to lead author Enric Sala, a marine biologist who is also National Geographic’s Explorer in Residence.
Bottom trawling is also one of the least cost effective methods of fishing. Most locations have been trawled so many times, there is little left worth catching, says Sala. “Without government subsidies, no one would be making a penny.” But Sala didn’t set out to condemn bottom trawlers when he designed the research project back in 2018. He was looking for the incentives that just might make the fishing industry, and governments, give up on the practice on their own. The carbon findings may just do the trick.
The study, which breaks the entire ocean down into 50-km-square units, measures how much each so-called “pixel” contributes to global marine biodiversity, fish stocks and climate protection, based on a complex analysis of location, water temperature, salinity and species distribution, among other factors. It also tracks how much CO2 each pixel is capable of absorbing as a carbon sink. (Overall, the ocean absorbs about a quarter of global CO2 emissions a year, though the amount fluctuates between regions).
By mapping those pixel-level baselines the study can then calculate the impact of increasing or decreasing fishing and other human activities. The overall goal was to develop a map of ocean locations that, if protected, would produce the maximum benefits for humans in terms of increased fish stocks, biodiversity and carbon absorption while minimizing a loss of income for the fishing industry. “The reason why we only have seven percent of the ocean under protection is because of the conflict with the fishing industry,” says Sala.
Refuting a long-held view that ocean protection harms fisheries, the study found that well placed marine protected areas (MPAs) that ban fishing would actually boost the production of marine life by functioning as fish nurseries and biodiversity generators capable of seeding stocks elsewhere. According to the study results, protecting the right places could increase the global seafood catch by over 8 million metric tons a year, despite the challenges of overfishing and climate change.
Bottom trawling, however, would have to stop, says Sala. While mangroves, kelp forests and sea grass meadows are good at capturing carbon, the bottom of the ocean, piled deep with marine animal debris, is a far greater carbon sink. But when the trawlers’ weighted nets scrape the sea floor that carbon is released back into the water. Excess carbon in water turns it acidic, which is damaging to sea life.
Worse still, the practice also impacts the ocean’s ability to absorb atmospheric carbon: if the water is already saturated from sources down below, it will be unable to absorb human-caused emissions from above, hamstringing one of our best assets in the fight against climate change. By combining publicly-available data on global bottom trawler activity with pixel-level assessments of carbon stored in the top layers of ocean sediments, Sala and his team were able to calculate the amount of emissions produced by the technique, down to the level of national fleets. The European Union, for example, releases 274,718,086 metric tons of marine sediment carbon into the ocean a year, while Chinese fleets release 769,294,185 metric tons, and the United States releases 19,373,438.
If, as a 2018 study on the economics of fishing the high seas points out, bottom trawling is the least profitable method of harvesting the ocean’s bounty while producing the most carbon, it makes little sense for industry to continue, says Sala. Now, armed with the science along with the math, countries could conceivably put a halt to bottom trawling while selling the offsets to pay for marine protection.
Technological innovations such as green power generation and battery storage are vital for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. But we still need to reduce atmospheric carbon, and so far technology has not been able to do that affordably and at scale. The oceans have been absorbing carbon for millennia, says Sala. The best way to reduce global emissions is to allow them to keep doing their jobs. “Most people still see the ocean as a victim of climate change. What people don’t realize is that nature is half of the solution to the climate crisis.”
If you consider the energy consumption of argentina or Switzerland to be just noiseTorquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:40 pmHah. There is an explanation of this on that thread i.e. yes, it uses the graphics cards at high intensity. But since only 37 people worldwide are stupid enough to think they can make money using their home pcs this way, it's noise.