Posted on 04/16/2005 3:41:44 PM PDT by LibWhacker
LARGE sporting events have an "ecological footprint" thousands of times the size of the pitches they are played on. That's according to researchers who have calculated a sporting event's environmental impact for the first time.
Andrea Collins of Cardiff University in the UK and her colleagues looked at the 2004 soccer FA Cup final, held at Cardiff's Millennium Stadium. They converted the energy and resources used on the day of the match into an ecological footprint - the hypothetical area of land required to support the use of those resources. Energy consumed, for example, was converted into the area of forest needed to soak up the carbon dioxide generated in its production, while food consumption was represented as the amount of farmland needed to make it. This method gave the match a footprint of 3051 hectares.
More than half the footprint came from transport. The 73,000 supporters collectively travelled nearly 42 million kilometres to reach the match. Fewer than half travelled by car, but car use generated 68 per cent of the transport footprint. If those fans had travelled by bus instead the footprint would have been 399 hectares smaller.
Food was the second-largest contributor, weighing in at 1381 hectares for the 36,500 snacks consumed. The researchers say this could easily be reduced: for example, substituting all the beef with chicken would have taken 428 hectares off the footprint.
The impact of waste disposal, at 146 hectares, was surprisingly low, says Collins. Recycling would have trimmed this by 39 hectares.
Collins argues that the footprint is a useful management tool to assess the effect of activities. "We'd like to see organisations and policy makers look at the results and hopefully instigate measures to reduce the impact," she says.
"It's in principle a very good idea," says environmental statistician and self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg of the University of Aarhus in Denmark. "But how do you translate energy used into an area?" The size of the footprint depends on what assumptions you make. For example, calculating the land in terms of windmills to generate the energy rather than forest cover to soak up CO2 would give a much smaller footprint.
"some species of cockroach will be the dominant species!"
Why does the discussion always have to turn to Hillary!?
I've never seen these guys whine about Woodstock, and about nine zillion other outdoor concerts since then that libs love so much. Just think of all the megatons of human waste organizers have to try to haul off afterward. 'Course, hauling that off takes time. Meantime there's all the runoff. Too bad for people downstream.
ungh. you first.
I'm not sure what to make of this study. It seems to show the obvious: if everyone who went to a sporting event never left (and there were no imports and exports from the stadium), all the fans would die of starvation and dehydration because sports stadiums do not contain lakes and farmland. Stadiums also do not contain oil wells, refineries, or landfills. But then again, we knew that anyway.
Of course, the authors obscured the obviousness of their conclusions in liberal propaganda. Oh, yeah, and someone needs to tell them, we do not lack farmland in this country, it's just not in sports stadiums. And cattle produce milk and leather in addition to beef. But maybe that'll be their next study. One only can hope.
Lol . . . Don't forget the BS power. You'd have to go to the stockyard to find more BS. Burns good, I hear.
Nope, they all belong. It's far from a complete list, though. You'd have to add pickups, as someone suggested, plus tobacco and alcohol. That's assuming "sports" includes huntin' and fishin' along with spectator sports. I have no doubt there are other worthy additions.
This just in: human beings have effects on environment!
Did you say "Unnngh.."? http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1235991/posts
. . .lick the wind.
By doing what? Going to ballgames? Driving F-250's? If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property near Cleveland I'd like to sell you. I suppose that "we" could destroy the "biosphere" (whatever you want to define that as) by mass detonation of nuclear weapons. Short of that, it would be pretty damn hard to do. Modern industrial and post-industrial economies are the cleanest they've been since the industrial revolution got going full bore. There is more forest in the continental U.S. than there was 100 years ago. The economic systems doing the bulk of polluting (Soviet bloc countries) have closed up shop. Under current trends, the human impact on the "biosphere" is nothing but UPside, baby. Cavort with the cockroaches all you want, but human progress, at least from an environmental standpoint, will march on without you.
Their arrogance is exceeded only by their ignorance.
Thanks for making that point. I was waiting for it. Now add into the equation all of the commerce that was done, (or would not have been done) and all the lives and families that earned income or a salary from the services provided. Enviros disgust me.
You really believe that. You have the whiff of publick school education about you...don't worry, after you've been around here awhile it wears off. Welcome to FR.
Why does the discussion always have to turn to Hillary!?
heheh!!
I can live with them picking on professional sports; specially the doofus millionaires variety.
What!?! And let the Frisbee and Hacky Sack championship games off scott free? No way! :-)
Either that, or they just suck.
Nah, they'll be back next year.
Haven't you heard? Cleveland is not only the "best location in the nation" it is also the "capitol of the North Cost".8^)
Cleveland, City of Magic, City of Light
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.