Most coaches promote the message that is beneficial to their employer. So probably the later. The question is is there a way of bringing in teams like Toronto but preserving traditional clubs and promotional relegation lets expand but keep the history and foundations of the game. No doubt poss a good to have Toronto in SL when negotiating next TV deal.

In isolation though , is it morally correct promoting/expanding at the expense of the planet ?

Teams will only be filling up seats on a plane where the flight already exists. It’s not like each club are buying their own plane and putting on extra flights to and from Toronto, the flights would be going to and from Manchester and would arguably be full whether rugby teams are on them or not.

Why? Do you think they will need to put on extra flights? I would seriously doubt it. The scheduled flights will be going anyway. They may be carrying a full payload but the difference in fuel used and subsequent increased emissions should be negligible.

It’s not up to Rugby League to solve climate change.

It’s the responsibility of governments and industry to do this.

It’s up to the energy and transport industry to come up with clean ways of travelling across the world

It can be done, it just requires vested interests to make less short term profit. Which is where government comes in.

More demand = more flights so, I think that your supposition is just wrong.
If your analogy was right, there would only be one runway at Manchester and there would be no pressure to build a 3rd runway at Heathrow.
If demand increases, either the price will go up or they will put on more flights (or both).

When did he say "JUST" city based teams?

Since when has UK sport been BASED on local derbies and long-standing rivalries?

For the last 20 years we've been told UK sport is based on promotion and relegation, haven't we?

You are right in that it's government who set the tone for how we are able to go about our everyday lives.
However, with pressure on environmental issues certain to increase over the coming years, there could well be a point where there is serious pressure on all of us to reduce how much and how often we travel, especially with regards to flying and this could impact on all sport (not just RL).

We're not there yet and probably not even close but, it's coming.

Just like Emma Thompson flying first class from her American home to support extinction rebellion, she stated to media it was flying here anyway, total rubbish as demand always stokes supply and vice versa, don’t believe otherwise, but as I say this is an opinion and we all are entitled to one, mine may be as wrong or right as yours.

I think it’s really up to all of us but on your other points I think are absolutely spot on.

All of this and then some, great post

Extinction Rebellion will not solve climate change.

They block up streets, meaning cars sit in jams for longer, pumping out more emmisions.

Technology and Enterprise will lead to the reduction in climate change. But whether it is already too late is a different matter.

Either it is only delaying the inevitable, we will see ourselves off one way or another. It's just about how many other animals we will take with us.

Good points, but the carbon footprint generated by the action of sitting in streets and causing jams will be offset by the publicity it generates and the group will see it as a nett positive, probably in the same way as Emma Thompson turning up , she to be fair to her probably saw it as a nett gain for the group, we will all have our own thoughts on it though, I generated the debate because I thought it would be healthy to talk about a current plight that involves us all and on this occasion involves our sport, I find the views of others interesting.

You can't offset carbon emissions with publicity.

The point ER were trying to make was smoke-screened with ordinary people who were disadvantaged and inconvenienced through their disruptive actions.

Net result was people thought ER and Emma Thompson were bellends.

The point that should have been made was lost.

Probably no different to the champions League, playing finals in stupid locations, and the excessive amount of games in the europa League, also NFL playing several games at Wembley

THIS USED TO BE A RUGBY FORUM

Still is I guess, the fact I linked a rugby issue with an environmental issue still makes it a rugby related one do you not agree

What a load of crap global warming is it’s bloody Nature and it was when I was young and it will always be so

Your right global warming is down to nature. Nature made a species that has the capacity for a short period to live outside the laws of evolution.

The species has become so successful that it over populates, which leads to a shift in the balance of nature. However, Newton was no idiot and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Over population will be solved by nature being out of balance and reducing resources and environmental factors that would maintain the dominant species.

RL travelling or not travelling to Canada 15 times in a year will make no difference.

and this year's Nobel prize for science goes to.....

They definitely wont solve climate change but, their aim is to raise awareness and "persuade" the Government to act.
Their mass protest and disruption tactics have at least helped to increase awareness, which is a decent starting point.

Unless someone give them a "shove", people dont tend to act on anything that they believe doesn't directly affect them.
Even catastrophic events elsewhere on the planet wont change enough opinions.
Until the lights go out or there isn't any water to drink, most people will just carry on.

We live in a consumer driven ecconomy, which just doesn't fit with any form of preservation of resources.

Block this stupid thread now ffs

.

At this moment in time I reckon there are other sports with much larger carbon footprints than rugby league.
Let's celebrate the fact that the game is trying to expand and stop knocking it.

Governments throughout history have never changed at the expense of profit without pressure from the people. The responsibility lies with the people. This is very naive.

You misunderstand what I mean. I mean that pressure should be brought to bear on governments and industry to make the necessary changes.

However what often happens is that that responsibility is actually passed on to the public and the individual.

The governments and industries remain passive and simply say it’s up to the market ie putting the responsibility on you and me to massively change our lifestyles and put huge amounts of effort into researching which products, which companies, what kind of energy usage, what kind of transport means etc etc is environmentally friendly and then being able to use these instead of what is made widely available and more cheaply by the current market.

That will never work. Quite understandably most people don’t have the time for that or the knowledge or ability to do so.

So people should absolutely pressure governments and industries. But the responsibility for change should not be on the average person. Whilst we can all recycle etc as an individual we can’t ensure transport is made clean, energy, production of goods etc are made clean. But governments and industry can.

Good example being electric cars. Their sales are quite naturally limited because customers are concerned about the number of charging points, range, charging time etc.
So we should pressure government to work with the car industry and invest in a mass network of super fast charging points along with research into faster charging batteries etc.

The vitriol that was thrown at Emma Thompson for using a now standard and accepted method of transport was pathetic. That is not her responsibility. It’s the responsibility of governments and the airline and manufacturers to come up with better cleaner alternatives, not Emma Thompson.

The pressure is directed at the wrong areas of society. It’s currently directed at the people when it should be full square on governments and industry.