RE: Calgary Flames - Five Edmontonians

67 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

If the Calgary Flames lost there Five Edmontonians -They would probably be a very weak team.

Three of there two top Six Forwards are from Edmonton... and one something else.
1. Jarome Iginla (C)
2. Jamie Lundmark
3. Daymond Langkow

Their top two defenseman
1. Dion Phenuf
2. Jay Bouwmeester

A loss of 90 Goals, 153 Assists, and a total of 243 Points.

Objection! Relevance?

http://tinyurl.com/yd2zmua

Temple. Are you a hockey fan? Or is Ultimate the only sport that you keep really close tabs on?

I am a big hockey fan. I, like the majority of sports fans in Vancouver, am also a Canucks fan.

Being a Canucks fan usually means at least two things:

1) You really couldn't care less about the Edmonton/Calgary rivalry.

2) You take every opportunity you can to further the Vancouver/Edmonton and
Vancouver/Calgary rivalries by taking the piss out of Edmonton and Calgary fans.

The same thing could be said for taking the Swede out of the Canucks (though less so now I suppose), or the Canadian out of any US team.

I second the objection.

Although since it was brought up...

Perhaps does that stat speak less about Calgary and more about the fact that Edmonton can't
even afford to convince natives to live in their city?

Profesional sports rivalries summarized:

Our mercenaries are better than your mercenaries.

Elephant in Room - Environmental impact of professional sports somehow ignored by people who
consider themselves 'green'.

"Perhaps does that stat speak less about Calgary and more about the fact that Edmonton can't even afford to convince natives to live in their city?"

'Natives'. I am assuming we are speaking of Edmontonians playing with the Edmonton Oilers.

I don't completely agree with that. At first glance it does seem like that. However, there are several points that attribute to that.

(Fore)
1. Draft. You can't choose where you play.

(Against)
2. I believe the Edmonton Oilers have tried. However, the players could not flourish for the atmosphere that is created in Edmonton. (Examples: Erik Cole, Joffery Lupul (Spelling))

(Against)
3. Trades at important times.
(Example: I can't really think of any)

At the same time, we have 4 Edmontonians with the Edmonton Oilers.

1. Gilbert Brule
2. Mike Comrie
3. Fernando Pisani
4. Jason Strudwick

Now. I guess all those reasons are the same for any other team.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the same time I believe that you have brought up a few good questions though.

1. Why can't we keep any strong native Edmontonians to Edmonton?
- The Edmonton Oilers have lured some strong Edmontonians to Edmonton. However, it doesn't work out for them? Why?
a. Too much pressure?
b. The coaching system is flawed?

2. Why is it that the Edmonton Oilers cannot lure in strong first class talent?
- Maybe I am biased but whats so wrong with Edmonton?
a. Edmonton has close to one million people living in the city, just like calgary. (Whats the difference?)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stats: They maybe useful so I will keep there here.

1995 - Jarome Iginla (Calgary. 11th Overall)
1995 - Daymond Langkow (Tampa Bay, 5th Overall)
1999 - Jamie Langkow (New York Rangers, 9th Overall)
2003 - Dion Phenuf (Calgary, 9th Overall)
2002 - Jay Bouwmeester (Florida, 3rd Overall)

I will munch on the troll's bait:

Professional sports teams that operate in 'green' stadiums:

Tennessee Titans (District Energy System)
Nashville Predators (DES)
Washington Nationals (LEED certified)
Penn State Medlar Field at Lubrano Park (LEED certified)
Phoenix Suns - solar pv electricity generation fed into the grid
University of Colorado - offsetting 100% of electricity used during home games - plus all football team travel and other related energy use.

...And, perhaps more related to this audience:
100% solar-powered stadium in Kaohsiung, Taiwan for the World Games.

Our very own olympic village:
- net zero building (sr centre)
http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/story.html?id=1635782
- all other buildings LEED gold
- district energy system using heat from sewer - the most advanced of its kind in the world.

Point being: efforts are being made to make professional and amateur sports, particularly the facilities they are using, less environmentally damaging. Of course, the more stadiums that are located on transit, the better.

Scire, I think you missed my joke.

The troll would point out that while a few stadiums may ostensibly be 'green' the jet travel of professional teams, disposable items, and food waste associated with pro sports has a big impact on our environment and are incompatible with the professed goals of GHG reduction that scientists, the UN, et al have said are absolutely crucial to our continued well-being.

Let me know when the Canucks have 'Bring Your Own Mug' night! :-) or the NHL reduces its schedule by 20% as a means of lowering the amount of jet fuel burned to ferry players to and fro.

I know I'm ostensibly the kook here, but the excess that accompanies our entertainments deserves closer scrutiny.

NHL Players Association: Carbon Neutral Challenge

"part of the partnership between the National Hockey League Players’ Association (NHLPA) and the David Suzuki Foundation. It enables NHL players to purchase high quality, Gold Standard carbon credits through Montreal-based not-for-profit, Planetair. These credits offset the travel emissions associated with playing professional hockey and minimize the players’ carbon footprint for their regular season travels. "http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews03260901.asp

~M

I wonder if the NHL could attempt to do a schedule that includes the travelling salesman problem. Basically minimize the number of miles travelled.

Decreasing the number of games in my opinion shouldn't be the goal, you still get the same amount / game (or the same amount of GHG per entertainment unit)

But really, what's the food waste argument? Is it because those awful hot dogs make so many people just hurl them right back up?

Excellent, someone else has done the research for me:

The Greenest Professional Sports.

As I said before: things are happening. The intent and means is there. It is a slow process, yes.

Re food waste - some of the examples include food waste-to-energy projects in the works. Supa cool stuff.

to quote: "While many argue these steps don’t entirely negate the negative impact professional sports can have on the environment, the initiatives do make a difference. If you consider how many professional sports teams there are, simply making even the smallest step can have a massive affect not only on the environment, but also on the millions of fans who watch them."

Keam: "Elephant in Room - Environmental impact of professional sports somehow ignored by
people who consider themselves 'green'."

Funny, in light of the info YourMom's been posting, that statement can certainly read like you
were talking about yourself.

I confess myself to be rather surprised. Who'd have guessed that these organizations - NASCAR no less - are paying attention? Carbon-offsetting aside, I still think that the footprint of pro sports is enormous compared to any purported benefit, but if it's not going away (and it certainly doesn't appear to be doing that any time soon) the least that can be done is to improve it's operation. The cynic hiding (?) inside of me wonders if this isn't a bit of greenwashing, and also about the impact of all of the less visible and less-profitable organizations (triple-A baseball, sub-NHL hockey etc) that still travels but might not have the money upfront to do so responsibly. Then again, if the big leagues' efforts are more publicized, it can be an opportunity to push it more into the awareness of the average joe, and I think some of those "joe"s (Nascar fans, anyone?) could use a bit more awareness, just like most of the population.

Thanks for the link, Mom.

Great links. Glad to see a start is being made.

Scary that 400+ NHL players offsetting their team travel only equals approx 900 cars coming
off the road for a year, especially when placed into the context of over 250 million vehicles in
the USA alone. That number (NHLPA figures) equals 328,500 car/days (900 X 365) removed
from the GHG total, which seems like a lot until we do more math.

Based on an 82 game season, 30 (teams) X 82 (games) = 2460 regular season games in an
NHL season. Average attendance 17,265 people. 2460 X 17,265 = 42,471,900. Assume 5% of
that spectator total drove to the game and we find that the NHL generated 2,124,595 car trips
in a single regular season. Probably many of those people were already at work and simply
detour to the (weekday) game on their way home, so the number may be a bit high. But, no
doubt all or most of the Saturday games necessitate special trips to the arena. Suppose we
assume an even distribution of games throughout the week and divide by seven, just to keep
things simple (351 Saturday games).

351 X 17,265=6,067,414. Now we see the NHL plays host to 6,067,414 Saturday spectators
over the course of the regular season. Presume only 1% of spectators arrive via a dedicated
auto trip and we're still talking about over 60,000 car trips created by Saturday game car-
driving spectators alone. In other words, the players' efforts to mitigate their travel emissions
roughly equals 5.4 times the amount of car trips made by spectators for Saturday games, if
we make some very big assumptions:

a) a very low percentage of spectators travel by car
b) none of the spectators flew to attend the game
c) BikerCK's math skills are better than his high school report cards would indicate
d) Saturday games are NOT more numerous than games throughout the rest of the week.

Makes me wonder what the numbers would be for events that can draw tens of thousands of
spectators, such as NASCAR and other auto races, NFL games, etc.

Hard to imagine how we can manage to achieve GHG reduction targets without a wholesale
re-structuring of our society, including perhaps, the end of the era of mass spectator events?

emd By emd

This is in jest, but me thinks the ideal society for mister BikerCK is one whereby everyone sits at
home, in the dark, eating dried, self-grown rice and playing paddy-cake with their partner. No
children are allowed due to the immense strain the put on society.

Of course, all that boredom (how much paddy-cake can one play?) will give rise to fighting,
which will then get organized, then scored and suddenly we are back at mass spectator events!!

"But really, what's the food waste argument?"

Most food waste at special events has to go to the landfill. It would take a whole lot of green
cones to deal with the waste that comes out of a sporting event, rock concert, etc, rather than
having to truck it to a far-away landfill.

The NHL should reduce the number of teams. 30 teams is way too many. Plus the first round or two of the playoffs should be best of 3 or 5 games instead of 7. But since the NHL is a business there's no way they will reduce anything, including GHG, unless it makes them money.

Keam, you make me laugh.

Rather than target the means of conveyance for change, you are now suggesting we target
the *destination choices* and eliminate those entirely?

Have fun advocating "Don't Do Things You Like™, an Environmental Action Plan by Keam".

How many elephants are there in this proverbial room? What are the other "things that people
like" that should be eliminated (as opposed to changing the conveyances)? Are mass
spectator events even in the top 50 of unnecessary pursuits that could be ended in order to
help the environment? Please enlighten us.

You were spoiling for a fight, got shot down at your own game and then came back with that
inanity. People who act like that do more harm than good for the Environmental Lobby.

PS: This is very, very bad math: "Based on an 82 game season, 30 (teams) X 82 (games) =
2460 regular season games in an NHL season."

"This is in jest, but me thinks the ideal society for mister BikerCK is one whereby everyone sits
at home, in the dark, eating dried, self-grown rice and playing paddy-cake with their partner. No
children are allowed due to the immense strain the put on society."

Link goes to child having problem finding the humour in unequal distribution of wealth.

PS: This is very, very bad math: "Based on an 82 game season, 30 (teams) X 82 (games) =
2460 regular season games in an NHL season.

Good catch. Number should be halved. My mistake. I think the gist of my argument holds up
despite that error however, esp when considering I'm only picking one relatively small
sporting league from the huge amount of games we play for money and the amount of travel
(partic. air travel) that accompanies elite level sports (and rock concerts, and film
productions, and trips to Disneyland, etc, etc, etc). The Happy Fun Time of the twentieth
century is over and we can start to pay the piper now, or our kids and their kids can foot the
whole bill with interest.

I'm not spoiling for a fight. Just wishing to discuss some of the issues we ignore when we
cheer on our favourite team.

Rather than target the means of conveyance for change, you are now suggesting we target
the *destination choices* and eliminate those entirely?

I think if we are serious about addressing climate change then we can't have any sacred cows.

"Are mass spectator events even in the top 50 of unnecessary pursuits that could be ended in
order to help the environment? "

They are certainly one of the more wasteful ones in terms of resources used for discretionary
activities. Clearly the idea upsets you and I apologize for that, but the discussion deserves
more than ridicule if we are going to take the implications of climate change seriously.

Link goes to quoted article.

" The FIFA 2010 World Cup will have the largest carbon footprint of any major event with a goal
to be “climate neutral”—estimated at more than two million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent,
with international travel contributing more than 65 percent.Offsetting the domestic carbon
footprint of the tournament could cost between US$6.8 and 12.0 million, while offsetting
international travel would, on its own, be double this amount, according to the recent feasibility
study conducted by Greening 2010 FIFA World Cup team."

Do we have a prize for the best thread-jacking of the year? Methinks BikerCK deserves top honours.

Not to say that this isn't a much more relevant/interesting discussion, but the speed at which we went from a nonsensical discussion about the number of players from Place A on team from Place B to accidentally killing polar bears is ASTOUNDING.

link goes to study of new Arsenal F.C. stadium. Percentage of spectators arriving by car =
12.5%. I would suggest the number is much higher for North American professional sporting
events.

To redeem my bad math up-thread, total number of spectators (regular season and playoffs)
NHL season 08/09 equals 23,114,825. Estimating a conservative 1% of those spectators to be
driving a car and we are still left with over 230,000 car trips to the stadium (and back) annually.
I would suggest that the percentage of people driving to 'the game' is way, way higher. If we
are to take the dire warnings of impending disaster vis a vis climate change seriously, clearly we
have to start looking at non-essential activities and adjusting our behavior accordingly. I for one
am not willing to live like a caveman in order to offset the carbon emissions of the professional
sports industry.

So the food waste is just the extra food they make for the event that never gets sold? (Essentially?) I can definitely follow the GHG argument for the event, but I'm not convinced the food waste is significant (although I'm prepared to be wrong)

I think that the regional divisions are a nod to less travel. Mostly to make it easier to do so and decrease cost than to reduce green house gasses.

For me the problem is not that we as a society value entertainment to some capacity. There's no reason why it can't be sustainable to have professional sports leagues. I think the problem is that organizations don't have to pay for the 'free' dumping ground of the atmosphere. Having a cost associated with this would be a more reasonable way to deal with it. However that cost (presumably a carbon tax) would have to go directly into the removal of the pollutants in order to really make sense.

This would be enforcing the free market by ensuring using the shared resource (the atmosphere) is treated as a cost to the businesses that are making money off of exploiting it. Yes that cost would be passed on to the consumer, but that's the way it's supposed to work.

I got timed out on a longer response again and forgot to copy my text before trying to post,
so Grrr. but anyway:

"There's no reason why it can't be sustainable to have professional sports leagues."

Every facet of the sports and entertainment industry is quite wasteful. I don't share your
perspective. As an example, consider a fully-equipped hockey player and tell me how you
would recycle their uniform and equipment when they were beyond their useful life span? The
materials and construction methods mean pretty much all of it is destined for a landfill. That
means making more and more gear, using more and more resources. That's not sustainable in
the long term.

" I think the problem is that organizations don't have to pay for the 'free' dumping ground of the
atmosphere."

There's also the problem of resource allocation. Not everybody gets to have an equal say in
where we apply the benefits of fossil fuels. The kid in Africa who can't go to school because
he/she has to spend most of the day looking for firewood would probably object to the burning of
gajillions of gallons of kerosene for the express purpose of entertaining North American
spectators, when that same substance could quite literally fuel his future by providing heat, light,
cooking, and electricity for his family and neighbours.

I like to watch me some nascar... dem cars go mighty fast

*sits down and cracks open a bud light*

"I think if we are serious about addressing climate change then we can't have any sacred cows."

Who says we're being serious about this? I haven't seen much evidence supporting that anywhere...

Excellent point Kermit. I wish I had been as succinct.

I'm not rejecting the idea that professional sports have waste in them as they stand now. But I believe they're valuable to society and if we want to make a difference perhaps we should talk about solutions to the problems.

For instance, food could be made to order rather than cooking so much that's discarded. Give everyone an electronic pad to order with and the food could come to you even!

I think rejecting the idea that the industry could be made sustainable is wrong. Just because that's how uniforms are made now (you know, like all our ulti gear... have you given up ulti?) and that the pads are made of plastic (also like our ulti discs) doesn't mean they always have to be made that way.

If it's true that they're currently non-recyclable, that doesn't necessarily have to be the way forward. In a hypothetical society where there is actual action and accountability for sustainablility this is a trivial issue. You could make the pads out of different materials to alleviate that issue.

p.s. That kerosene is not 'global' property. It's a shared resource for the citizens of their country of origin. Children of other countries have no more say in how it's used that we should. If someone in the USA got to decide how trees grown in BC are used I'd be pretty against that as well. (and I AM!)

"p.s. That kerosene is not 'global' property. It's a shared resource for the citizens of their country of origin. Children of other countries have no more say in how it's used that we should. If someone in the USA got to decide how trees grown in BC are used I'd be pretty against that as well. (and I AM!)"

I think the point was more that, in the grand scheme of things, wouldn't it make the world a better place if that resource were used to make life for millions more tolerable (often simply possible) rather than be used to entertain far fewer people who have the means of many other forms of entertainment? Besides, that kerosene probably originated outside of North America in the first place, ultimately fattening the wallet of someone who likely has no need of more wealth.

Another point (which applies to life in general, not just sports), in considering impacts it is best not to equate "recyclable" with zero impact or even low impact. Recycling is only better than creating from new materials, and often only marginally, which is why it is the last of the "R"s. Rethinking, reduction and reuse create far more benefit.

wooo, Gin-Boh - you're starting to sound like a tree loving hippy. Me likes!!!

"That kerosene is not 'global' property. It's a shared resource for the citizens of their country
of origin"

Notwithstanding the fact that the profits accrue to shareholders, who could be from anywhere,
I'm pretty sure there were no imaginary lines on a map delineating who owns what when the
dinosaurs started to rot. All natural resources are global property because you can't own the
Earth. If we accepted that reality we'd be way further along the road to an equitable,
sustainable global economy.

If the air and oceans belong to us all, so do the riches beneath the ground.

Countries are a joke. It's time to put away one of the worst ideas we've ever come up with
and start working as a species instead of letting ourselves be manipulated by power brokers
who would have us believe there's good reasons to pit people against one another because of
where they were born or live. Countries are just racism writ large.

"If someone in the USA got to decide how trees grown in BC are used I'd be pretty against that
as well. (and I AM!)"

You're using an imaginary line on a map to prejudge someone. Do you think it would be
acceptable to replace the citizenship in your statement with ethnicity or religion?

Countries are irrelevant in this day and age.

"For instance, food could be made to order rather than cooking so much that's discarded. Give
everyone an electronic pad to order with and the food could come to you even!"

And what are you going to do with the electronic pad when it wears out? E-waste is another
problem our planet faces.

"I think rejecting the idea that the industry could be made sustainable is wrong. Just because
that's how uniforms are made now (you know, like all our ulti gear... have you given up ulti?)
and that the pads are made of plastic (also like our ulti discs) doesn't mean they always have
to be made that way."

Except for the cleats, most everything an ultimate player wears is easily recycled, as is the
disc. The sport's relatively eco-friendly approach is one reason why I choose to play.

Make the cleats from canvas/leather/natural rubber and they are biodegradable. Something
like a hockey helmet contains metal, plastic, synthetic fabrics, extruded foams, etc. It's
nearly impossible to pull them apart and sort the various materials. That's why they end up in
landfills. A modern hockey stick as I mentioned before, has the same problem, as do the
pads, the skates, and so on.

The comparison doesn't work. And is only a small part of the problem. The bigger part of the
problem is the inherent waste in mass entertainments.

ATTN: Important decree forthcoming.

Hockey equipment is used and disposed of in landfills, because its nearly impossible to
recycle.

You are mistaken if you thought you've ever:

- Been the 2nd (3rd, 4th) owner of hockey equipment.
- Seen anybody with gear that is more than a few years old (let alone decades).
- Ever donated your old gear to those who can't afford it.
- Seen railings, cabinets, frames, chairs, benches, coat racks, bike racks, art displays, etc,
etc, etc made out of used sticks/gear.
- made use of a hockey equipment recycling program

You are also mistaken if you thought you ever saw a frisbee or bicycle tire/rim/frame/helmet
thrown away.

Please await further instructions on leading the Righteous Life. The next topic will be on how
making a living in the entertainment industry, while decrying all forms of 'needless' mass
entertainment is *not* in fact hypocritical.

Temple: As I said earlier, the topic clearly upsets you and I apologize for that. Rather than pollute a reasonably civil and worthwhile discussion with snide comments why not just ignore it?

You're right. I'm sorry to have used sarcasm to impair your ability to promulgate your activistic
ignorance on the subject at hand.

There is a certain expectation that one should be able to make absurd and unfounded assertions
on an internet forum without having those statements mocked. I've breached that code of
conduct. I'm sorry. I will refrain myself in the future.

Sorry Temple, but it's not absurd to suggest that we can survive just fine without professional sports or mass entertainment, nor that we may have to severely curtail them to meet GHG emission targets. Mock away, but you're just demonstrating how little you understand regarding the size and scope of the problem.

Hate to break it to you, but understanding the "size and scope of the problem" is not rocket science. We are effed and we all get it. We are simply grappling with how to change. I mean society as a whole, here, not just forum posters (the sarcastic and sincere ones).

Your suggestions are mediocre, at best, because they are not feasible in today's society. I understand you want to change all of society in one swoop thereby changing the playing field, so to speak, but that cannot and will not happen. Why, you ask? Sorry, but I'm just not hopeful (naive?) enough to think it/we ever could.

In the meantime, I continue to edumacate myself and work in my field to affect change in whatever small way I can. It is all one can do.

M

Keam: "Sorry Temple, but it's not absurd to suggest that we can survive just fine without
professional sports or mass entertainment"

I might even agree with that, though I'm not sure it wouldn't be harder to eliminate sports
than it would be to make the conveyance and operation of those to be ecologically viable,
making such an argument not only somewhat pointless, but also harmful to the movement to
get people to think ecologically.

The problem is you throw up these garbage assertions that, if anything, hurt your very
important underlying points.

My previous two posts were primarily pointed at the statements you made regarding the
purported lack of recycling that happens for hockey sports equipment. That statement
smacked of ignorance.

When your message is polluted with such ignorance, it takes away from the whole. It
certainly warrants critique and even satire.

"Your suggestions are mediocre, at best, because they are not feasible in today's society."

Today's society is not feasible. That's the whole point isn't it? Time to start thinking about what tomorrow's society is going to look like. As for changing in one fell swoop, you're suffering from Temple-itis and ascribing an intent that isn't there.

"My previous two posts were primarily pointed at the statements you made regarding the
purported lack of recycling that happens for hockey sports equipment. That statement
smacked of ignorance."

It's a bit of red herring, but to clarify, hockey equipment (and a lot of consumer goods) can't be recycled effectively at the end of its useful life, because of its construction. Whether or not it gets handed down a few times is irrelevant. In the end it ends up in a landfill. That's why there's increasing pressure on manufacturers to create goods that can be easily disassembled and the various materials kept out of the landfill.

Volvo provides an example (link)

Skinner: A half-ton of newspaper and all we get is seventy five cents? That won't even cover the gas I used to go to the store to buy the twine to tie up the bundles.

Hippie: It sounds like you're working for your car-r-r. Simplify-y, ma-an!

I very much disagree that countries are irrelevant. Whose rules would you propose to unite the globe under. Would that be the American constitution? The Canadian Bill of Rights? The Magna Carta?

However, clearly that should be it's own thread, so let's get back to the (a ha) topic at hand.... errr... Flames and Edmontonians.

I actually liked the original post. I didn't realize that Calgary was so heavy in the Edmontonian ranks. I guess it's true that everyone in Edmonton wishes they were in Calgary.

CK, you reject some ideas too quickly, but there's nothing in those rejections that indicates there isn't a solution to the problem of the waste. So if you're not a fan of the electronic ordering system, have someone come around with a pad of paper and a pen.

Your rejection of the equipment is also short sighted. You're assuming the same materials and the same construction. There are innumerable ways to achieve the same functional end, some will have better environmental implications.

And yes, recycling is only one of the Rs, but metals in particular recycle well.

re: resources. Not every resource can be allocated to the maximum benefit of the species or planet. Nor should it.

Did any of you turn on the lights last night? Was that the absolute best use of that energy? Are you reading this post? Is that the best use of electricity? Is there something less wasteful about your current behavior than the waste from an entertainment event? (frankly, I find these entertaining, so I might already be in the wrong here!)

"And yes, recycling is only one of the Rs, but metals in particular recycle well. "

It's true that (properly sorted) recycled metal is virtually indistinguishable from metal sourced from virgin ore, so it does "recycle well". However, that doesn't change the fact that it takes far more energy to recycle a can into other cans than to only use the one can. My point wasn't that recycling is only one of the "R's", but rather that it is the least desirable one, sometimes only slightly better than virgin materials and always worse than the other "R's" which is why it is last in that list.

"I very much disagree that countries are irrelevant. Whose rules would you propose to unite the globe under. Would that be the American constitution? The Canadian Bill of Rights? The Magna Carta?"

There's already international laws, U.N rules, etc. The three you mentioned are good starting points. Once we decide on a course of action, we can get to work on the framework.

"CK, you reject some ideas too quickly, but there's nothing in those rejections that indicates there isn't a solution to the problem of the waste. So if you're not a fan of the electronic ordering system, have someone come around with a pad of paper and a pen."

Sure, sounds good. I'll go one better and suggest a small white board and marker.

"Your rejection of the equipment is also short sighted. You're assuming the same materials and the same construction. There are innumerable ways to achieve the same functional end, some will have better environmental implications."

Nothing happens until some kook makes an issue of it. Now we are at least discussing the idea.

"re: resources. Not every resource can be allocated to the maximum benefit of the species or planet. Nor should it."

Easy to say when you're not the one going without. Anyway, there's a big difference between equitable and maximum.

"Did any of you turn on the lights last night? Was that the absolute best use of that energy? Are you reading this post? Is that the best use of electricity? Is there something less wasteful about your current behavior than the waste from an entertainment event? (frankly, I find these entertaining, so I might already be in the wrong here!)"

Silly hypothetical question frankly. There's a huge difference between people lighting and heating their homes or using a computer, and jet travel for the purposes of entertaining.

Pages