Skip to comments.Is Cricket Sustainable Amid Climate Change?
Posted on 08/04/2022 10:22:24 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The joke is that if you want it to rain during this wetter-than-usual summer in the Caribbean, just start a cricket match.
Beneath the humor is seemingly tacit agreement with the assertion in a 2018 climate report that of all the major outdoor sports that rely on fields, or pitches, “cricket will be hardest hit by climate change.”
By some measures, cricket is the world’s second most popular sport, behind soccer, with two billion to three billion fans. And it is most widely embraced in countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and South Africa and in the West Indies, which are also among the places most vulnerable to the intense heat, rain, flooding, drought, hurricanes, wildfires and sea level rise linked to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases.
Players on the Royal Challengers Bangalore club of the Indian Premier League wear green uniforms for some matches to heighten environmental awareness. Team members appeared in a climate video during a devastating heat wave this spring, which included this sobering fact: “This has been the hottest temperature the country has faced in 122 years.”
Yet some in the cricket world counter that climate change cannot be expected to be the most immediate concern in developing nations, where the basics of daily life can be a struggle. And countries like India and Pakistan, where cricket is wildly popular, are among the least responsible for climate change. One hears the frequent admonishment that rich, developed nations that emit the largest amount of greenhouse gases must also do their share to lower those emissions.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Slow news day NTYIdiots?
2007 eh? I was already on FR by then. I quit TIME LIFE Inc. or was it TIME AOL or TIME Warner by then...I don’t know, but long before.
I was thinking they were worried about cricket as a food source.
You make an excellent argument. And if this were just a routine scientific topic, papers would be written defending your views. And debates would be held in lecture halls.
But this is of course “settled science” (never mind that science is never settled). So any scientist who defended your viewpoint would be heckled, booed, and cancelled. This is fascist behavior.
The greenies either can’t see that, or they just don’t care. It’s scary either way.
Well played sir!
If you want it to rain in Houston, you wash your car.
Wong question that serves their evil purpose!
Your friend Jiminy, his whole family, and all of his friends and acquaintances are going to be fricasseed tonight and served up with a nice Chianti.
That’s because the notion that any activity that the entire human race might engage in could affect our climate in any way, shape or manner is a lying scam. We can no more affect it than a fart in a hurricane. The climate does vary, incessantly, but human activity has nothing to do with it.
Simple move the cricket teams to Minnesota and make use of the Vikings stadium
"If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."-- Richard Feynman, 1965
Cricket may have three billion fans, but few of these are in the US. The Compton Cricket Club in Compton, Calif., not far from where I live, was active a few years ago, and may still be. However, they were an exhibition team, since there were no other teams nearby to serve as their opponents. They toured in Australia, the UK, and other places where cricket was popular.
Again, I’ve underestimated the stupid at the nyt.
Co2 has actually increased in atmosphere from about 320 parts per million in 1960 to about 4200 parts per million now. Its not that humans put lots of it out compared to the carbon cycle mechanisms in nature, its just that we are tipping the balance toward a higher equilibrium. Where the climate change alarmists are wrong is that the marginal effect of the co2 increaee toward warming is not significant. Its effect on helping plants grow and helping feed the world is though. The extra co2 is a net benefit.
sorry typo has increased to. Only 420 ppm NOT 4200
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.