[John Kavanaugh]

I tried the one shower a day thing yesterday. It’s not hygienic and possibly unhealthy. Working on a solution.


Three showers every two days.

Does that include two 18 hole rounds of golf in those two days?

Yes, I play everyday except Mondays in Florida teeing off at 7:30am. My particular issue is that I like to shower every morning when I wake up. Now that I have a bidet I may be able to skip some morning showers and still stay “fresh”. Monday is often a hygiene free day. That gives me 9 showers the remaining 6 days. I think I can do that.


The hot shower is going the way of the smoke after dinner.

[John Kavanaugh]

I read my wife the new plan. Not a fan. It’s not going to be easy to change.

[ward peyronnin]

Why wouldn't this group target John Kerry rather than a golf course?
Much bigger carbon footprint and HUGER Hypocracy.
It is more about socialism they are fed by the institutions we built where they spend their formative years and the press they read everywhere than climate change

[Craig Sweet]

Mike Wagner, lift your head from the sand. 


The ski industry has a program called Protect our Winters.....


What is the golf industry doing?


Many wealthy folk have several homes, fly on private jets, and have a very large carbon footprint....The protesters targeted the right group.

[Mike Wagner]

Mike Wagner, lift your head from the sand. 


The ski industry has a program called Protect our Winters.....


What is the golf industry doing?


Many wealthy folk have several homes, fly on private jets, and have a very large carbon footprint....The protesters targeted the right group.

LOL. Can you provide the exact % of "rich guys contribution to global warming?" No, you can't ... but you can vilify them all day because it's easy. I'm not saying you're wrong, but an across the board "rich people make it worse" is honestly stupid and non productive. I (unlike most) have read quite a bit on both sides ... and if you're not questioning the easy things to believe regarding global warming, you're just part of the problem .. creating divisiveness with agenda based information. What if there's a possibility you've been duped? Is it possible?


What is the golf industry doing? Well, what's the "carbon footprint?" Do you know? I'm guessing things have moved in the right direction since Al Gore came along and told the greatest story of all time.


Do you know for a fact how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and how much human beings contribute to levels above "normal historical averages?" How much do rich people contribute? What's the income cut off for "rich?" Do these "rich" peoples' charitable contribution get deducted and factored? Do they get carbon credits?


My head is the one that's actually above the sand trying to question everything the government tells me .. whatever side it is. Looking at all the info I can get. Helps me make informed decisions rather than being soon fed by a media that wants us to believe an agenda. Can anyone here name even 1 of the 99% of climate scientists (without looking something up)? Easy to put labels on things when the other side is censored for disagreeing.


They were talking about the coming ice age in the late 70s. That was "real" too. I'm not saying climate change isn't real .. I'm in AZ right now FFS. I'm just saying Al Gore ain't Mother Nature ... and if you think rich people are responsible for any of it .. well, then these idiot protesters should be at John Kerry, Leo, and everyone else who takes a private jet to a climate summit's house.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I know we're quite off topic now, but I want to try again to illustrate earlier is how younger generations have a different perspective on this. If it's unwelcome, fair enough. I'm just trying to communicate our perspective. Not trying to change anyone's mind here, just trying to describe what leads to the angry protests.

Those of us who are younger don't have to trust the government, because we were at academic institutions during this period. I was in Earth Science classes at Boston University around 2000, where we were actively studying the reasons why and how scientists (especially individuals at the university) were testing and measuring the changes is ice sheets, any changes in energy reflected from the sun, ice cores, surface temperatures, etc.

This really isn't controversial stuff in academia because there, accurate predictions talk, and bullshit walks, and we've had 30 years of accurate predictions of everything from sea level temps, to ice sheet reductions, to changes in weather patterns (these are smart folks). This is why I link to sources like NASA, because they aren't exactly the paragon for controversial ideas.

I also understand why there were some concerns about global cooling in the '70s (I linked to the wikipedia entry earlier). Ice ages were historically cyclical, and very likely caused by variation in the earth's tilt (it sort of wobbles) and orbit (which is elliptical). We studied it in college, and if it weren't for anthropogenic warming, it would probably still be a concern.

Thus, it's hard for someone of my cohort to really understand why others keep will say things like "but prove it" after 30 years of extremely accurate predictions (really, fairly accurate predictions go back to the mid-70's, and if anything the predictions in the early 2000's were too conservative). So I absolutely understand the skepticism in 1992, but it's 2023, I'm not some kid taking earth science classes, I'm over 40. Now days, casual skepticism comes off more as a result of how it's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary lifestyle depends on his not understanding it.

It's why I'm a bit more understanding of these kids' protest (even if I think it is, at best, counterproductive). After all these decades, it can feel pretty challenging to take casual skepticism as being in good-faith. Unfortunately, I see the real challenge of fighting extreme climate change (the ship has sailed for keeping things normal) as one of convincing regular folks to change their lifestyles, which is always challenging... but that's exactly why I want to see some damn e-bike parking at the golf course! 

[John Kavanaugh]

I would on occasion ride my e-bike to the course. Chain it to a bench. Leave before dark or you might you catch yourself lighting the path home with an iPhone.

[Mike Wagner]

This really isn't controversial stuff in academia because there, accurate predictions talk, and bullshit walks, and we've had 30 years of accurate predictions of everything from sea level temps, to ice sheet reductions, to changes in weather patterns (these are smart folks). This is why I link to sources like NASA, because they aren't exactly the paragon for controversial ideas.

I also understand why there were some concerns about global cooling in the '70s (I linked to the wikipedia entry earlier). Ice ages were historically cyclical, and very likely caused by variation in the earth's tilt (it sort of wobbles) and orbit (which is elliptical). We studied it in college, and if it weren't for anthropogenic warming, it would probably still be a concern.

Thus, it's hard for someone of my cohort to really understand why others keep will say things like "but prove it" after 30 years of extremely accurate predictions (really, fairly accurate predictions go back to the mid-70's, and if anything the predictions in the early 2000's were too conservative). So I absolutely understand the skepticism in 1992, but it's 2023, I'm not some kid taking earth science classes, I'm over 40. Now days, casual skepticism comes off more as a result of how it's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary lifestyle depends on his not understanding it.

Because, along with government, I question everything academia has to say .. about just about everything. 30 years is a blip. Timelines have been used to get desired data. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong .. but there's just as much information, studies, etc. to the contrary. Those are essentially censored from the masses. If the so called experts were right, we'd all be under water 10 years ago.


These loser protesters have actually been duped into thinking rich people's lifestyles are warming the planet. They have been misguided and could rather put efforts into something productive. 


... and I'm all for the bike racks .. ride mine quite a bit to practice!

[Steve Lang]

    TIME OUT....


Isn't an eBike just a two wheeled street legal golf cart?


... and I don't think the earth is done with ice ages and glaciers, just going to have to wait 30,000 years or so as we wobble around Ol SOL

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

This really isn't controversial stuff in academia because there, accurate predictions talk, and bullshit walks, and we've had 30 years of accurate predictions of everything from sea level temps, to ice sheet reductions, to changes in weather patterns (these are smart folks). This is why I link to sources like NASA, because they aren't exactly the paragon for controversial ideas.

I also understand why there were some concerns about global cooling in the '70s (I linked to the wikipedia entry earlier). Ice ages were historically cyclical, and very likely caused by variation in the earth's tilt (it sort of wobbles) and orbit (which is elliptical). We studied it in college, and if it weren't for anthropogenic warming, it would probably still be a concern.

Thus, it's hard for someone of my cohort to really understand why others keep will say things like "but prove it" after 30 years of extremely accurate predictions (really, fairly accurate predictions go back to the mid-70's, and if anything the predictions in the early 2000's were too conservative). So I absolutely understand the skepticism in 1992, but it's 2023, I'm not some kid taking earth science classes, I'm over 40. Now days, casual skepticism comes off more as a result of how it's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary lifestyle depends on his not understanding it.

Because, along with government, I question everything academia has to say .. about just about everything. 30 years is a blip. Timelines have been used to get desired data. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong .. but there's just as much information, studies, etc. to the contrary. Those are essentially censored from the masses. If the so called experts were right, we'd all be under water 10 years ago.


These loser protesters have actually been duped into thinking rich people's lifestyles are warming the planet. They have been misguided and could rather put efforts into something productive. 


... and I'm all for the bike racks .. ride mine quite a bit to practice!

I too question everything the government and academia has to say from experience.  I have been being p**sed on and told it is raining for too many years!



In my young and idealistic days as a scientist & engineer dating back to my time in academia I watched as actual science was perverted and bastardized over and over to achieve a desired result(s).  Again I was idealistic and thought that academia and pure science was just that "Pure" but I remember my first foray into a government research project when I was diligently doing what actual scientists should do, recording data to prove a theory or belief we were chasing.   When my "data" was not sufficiently proving the theory that one of my superior colleagues wanted to obtain I was told how to selectively throw out results that did not meet what we were trying to prove.  I said that did not seem to be "scientific" or even "morally right" I was told, yes but if the data doesn't show convincing progress towards the goal we will loose our government funding. OK now I see...


We were working on a way to "recycle" and recover precious metals from waste circuit boards, and if the concept could not be proven successful the government (and private industries that had been convicted and strong armed by environmental agencies to support it) would pull their money.  So guess what the results were. 


Fortunately I moved on from that academic world into industry.  But again I saw it among the "academic and scientific" communities within several industries.  You have to justify your existence, so your results better support what you are trying to accomplish or you will be out of a job.   I have watched it on several "environmental" fronts as it is no coincidence that "environmental scientists" tend to find there to be "overwhelming evidence" of things that require their services!!  Even if they have to put their finger on the scale to make it so. 


And people wonder why I was seduced by the Dark Side of The Force and became a salesman a long time ago.  At least there when you are BullS**tting people expect that to be the case.  You aren't sitting there lying to peoples faces with "facts" that the average person has no way to refute.  I now have the honor of working with the science and engineering guys within my customers, but knowing just enough to call BS when I see it.  I love when I have been dealing with someone for a while that does not know my technical background finds out and they kind of act differently around you from that point on.  So you'll pardon my skepticism..


Its like i told my son-in-law right here on the couch about an hour ago when he told me he was cutting down on red meat for environmental reasons.  I told him thanks that leaves more for me! (literally this weekend on the grill, and long term at the grocery store)






“You ain't the first son of a bitch to wake up out of their dream.” - Roddy Piper - They Live   


 #PutOnTheGlasses

[Matt Schoolfield]

Isn't an eBike just a two wheeled street legal golf cart?

Ha! I've never thought of it that way.

[Craig Sweet]

So many dancing on the deck while the ship sinks...


Mike Wagner, as a former elected official I have participated in a few climate change summits across America over the last 30 years.  It only stands to reason if you have several large homes and you travel on private jets you'll have a larger carbon footprint.  As you know from your research and questioning, there is a standard for measuring a carbon foot print.  There is also a standard for measuring your blood pressure. Do you question that standard?


We once believed that earth was flat....

[Tom_Doak]

So many dancing on the deck while the ship sinks...

Mike Wagner, as a former elected official I have participated in a few climate change summits across America over the last 30 years.  It only stands to reason if you have several large homes and you travel on private jets you'll have a larger carbon footprint.

Well, it only stands to reason that if ANYONE's living standards go higher, they'll have a larger carbon footprint.  This is the problem of the world . . . many people around the world aspire to live like Americans, and the planet can't handle that.  The one certain thing is that nobody is volunteering to take a step backwards to help out their fellow man.


If we banned new golf courses but allowed you to spend your day playing virtual reality golf, you'd have a larger carbon footprint, too.  The power requirements of everybody being online all the time are not small, but nobody seems to be protesting that -- until they need to put up a wind turbine in your backyard to provide the energy, and then even the most ardent environmentalist starts to question the efficacy of wind power!


The protest at Sebonack was not really about golf, or the environmental impact thereof.  The club was targeted because there are a lot of rich people there [and kudos to the kiddos, it's a pretty good choice on that basis].  I used to admire that the club didn't have a guard gate and anyone could just drive in -- because that's how I saw great courses when I was 18 -- but this might ruin that.

[John Kavanaugh]

 The one certain thing is that nobody is volunteering to take a step backwards to help out their fellow man.

No one is forcing me to take fewer long hot showers. Is it my imagination that many members and visitors to the finest clubs in the world brag about the decadent showers?

[Bernie Bell]

"THAT WAS TERRIBLE!  THAT WAS THE WORST SWING I'VE EVER SEEN! YOU PAID A MILLION DOLLARS TO HIT LIKE THAT!?" That's mean, and beside the point of the protest, but I laughed. Maybe they'd get more traction if they had better senses of humor.
On the merits, we older generation of skeptics have lived through so much alarmist BS.  I'm old enough to remember when the very brightest, most forward thinking people were all in on No Nukes.  Great music, crap science.  These days, I'll believe the climate warriors are serious when they embrace nuclear power as one obvious answer. Maybe (hopefully) the next Norman Borlaug will unlock fusion.  It is possible to accept "the science" and still refuse the responsive policy choices offered by the cocksure.  The problem with people like Kerry is that their proposed solutions, even if possible, are both economically catastrophic* and scientifically ineffectual, and the utter hypocrisy of their personal lifestyles makes them ridiculous as leaders.
* Unless you're like Al Gore and can cash in on government pork.

[Mike Wagner]

So many dancing on the deck while the ship sinks...


Mike Wagner, as a former elected official I have participated in a few climate change summits across America over the last 30 years.  It only stands to reason if you have several large homes and you travel on private jets you'll have a larger carbon footprint.  As you know from your research and questioning, there is a standard for measuring a carbon foot print.  There is also a standard for measuring your blood pressure. Do you question that standard?


We once believed that earth was flat....

Don't question it at all. If we're operating under the premise that more is bad, then less is good. Well, how much less? What's the daily standard we should all be at? Who says so? If we accomplish an individual standard, how much will it reduce global temperatures? A carbon footprint, like a good shower, is part of human life.


JK, if you haven't showered at Garden City, put it on your bucket list.

[Steve Lang]

 The one certain thing is that nobody is volunteering to take a step backwards to help out their fellow man.

No one is forcing me to take fewer long hot showers. Is it my imagination that many members and visitors to the finest clubs in the world brag about the decadent showers?

I've only heard that they figured out how to take the flow restrictors out of the shower heads...  and water is cheapest thing they buy

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Wagner, lift your head from the sand. 


The ski industry has a program called Protect our Winters.....


What is the golf industry doing?


Many wealthy folk have several homes, fly on private jets, and have a very large carbon footprint....The protesters targeted the right group.

What do you want the them to do?

[Rob Marshall]

Mike Wagner, lift your head from the sand. 


The ski industry has a program called Protect our Winters.....


What is the golf industry doing?


Many wealthy folk have several homes, fly on private jets, and have a very large carbon footprint....The protesters targeted the right group.

What do you want the them to do?

I have two homes.  I have flown once on a private jet so maybe I should shower with JK to save water….

[Matt Schoolfield]

The ski industry has a program called Protect our Winters.....

What do you want the them to do?

More than anything, in this situation, I think golf has a branding problem. That branding problem is that golf is associated with exclusion, formerly exclusion based on race and creed, now though, it's exclusion based on economic power and status. I've already written about this, but in short, I believe the branding problem is directly related to the 501(c)(7) tax code. Until the code is changed to allow some access to normal folks that aren't well-connected in the industry, I don't see how golf clubs, as a brand, can stop being a metaphor for folks who would happily ignore the concerns of the general public, simply because they can afford to do so.

Apart from that branding problem, if folks in the golf community wanted to signal environmental concerns, there are a few things that could do. Importantly however, much like the water conservation of taking fewer showers, there's a difference between doing something that's environmentally beneficial, and actual doing something that addresses climate change directly.

Golf courses have the potential to be ecologically valuable for urban environments, but that requires placing native flora and fauna over course conditions. This is most notable when people complain about the course conditions at Sharp Park, and I have to explain to them that it's effectively a habitat for two endangered species, and that we're lucky to even have the course at all. Creating habitats for flora in the sea of urban sprawl can be very valuable, especially when focused on the needs of migratory species and native pollinators.

That is all fine and good, but it won't address climate change directly. The way golf clubs could actually do that (aside from general electrification where possible), is, well, using available space on a course for a small wind farm or solar. As to whether that's even allowable or practical, I have no idea. However, here is a huge turbine just off the property of Walmersley GC, and a small one at Sagamore GC. But, as Tom mentioned earlier, the fact is that most people would scuttle any plans for turbines for look-and-feel reasons alone. Personally, I would love to play a blustery links course that wound it's way through a wind farm.

Again, though, if the reaction is "but why is this about golf?", I generally agree, the branding issue is a deep cultural problem. However if golf culture actually wanted to do something about climate change or the general environment, urban and suburban golf courses (like Sebonack) are well suited to be environmental leaders, if only they choose to make stewardship a priority.

[Daryl David]

Mike Wagner, lift your head from the sand. 


The ski industry has a program called Protect our Winters.....


What is the golf industry doing?


Many wealthy folk have several homes, fly on private jets, and have a very large carbon footprint....The protesters targeted the right group.

What do you want the them to do?

I have two homes.  I have flown once on a private jet so maybe I should shower with JK to save water….

+1. So true.

[Ken Moum]

Matt, re. wind farms, and similarly solar, no reasonable look at them can possibly conclude that they'll work unless half or more of us die.


As has been said, until "they" start supporting solar, I'm not taking them seriously.

[Mike Wagner]

The ski industry has a program called Protect our Winters.....

What do you want the them to do?

More than anything, in this situation, I think golf has a branding problem. That branding problem is that golf is associated with exclusion, formerly exclusion based on race and creed, now though, it's exclusion based on economic power and status. I've already written about this, but in short, I believe the branding problem is directly related to the 501(c)(7) tax code. Until the code is changed to allow some access to normal folks that aren't well-connected in the industry, I don't see how golf clubs, as a brand, can stop being a metaphor for folks who would happily ignore the concerns of the general public, simply because they can afford to do so.




Apart from that branding problem, if folks in the golf community wanted to signal environmental concerns, there are a few things that could do. Importantly however, much like the water conservation of taking fewer showers, there's a difference between doing something that's environmentally beneficial, and actual doing something that addresses climate change directly.

Golf courses have the potential to be ecologically valuable for urban environments, but that requires placing native flora and fauna over course conditions. This is most notable when people complain about the course conditions at Sharp Park, and I have to explain to them that it's effectively a habitat for two endangered species, and that we're lucky to even have the course at all. Creating habitats for flora in the sea of urban sprawl can be very valuable, especially when focused on the needs of migratory species and native pollinators.

That is all fine and good, but it won't address climate change directly. The way golf clubs could actually do that (aside from general electrification where possible), is, well, using available space on a course for a small wind farm or solar. As to whether that's even allowable or practical, I have no idea. However, here is a huge turbine just off the property of Walmersley GC, and a small one at Sagamore GC. But, as Tom mentioned earlier, the fact is that most people would scuttle any plans for turbines for look-and-feel reasons alone. Personally, I would love to play a blustery links course that wound it's way through a wind farm.

Again, though, if the reaction is "but why is this about golf?", I generally agree, the branding issue is a deep cultural problem. However if golf culture actually wanted to do something about climate change or the general environment, urban and suburban golf courses (like Sebonack) are well suited to be environmental leaders, if only they choose to make stewardship a priority.

Matt -


Not everyone can have everything in life. It's unfair. I'd like to be a member at about 15 clubs. I can't afford it, and there's plenty I'm not connected enough for. Such is my lot in life ... but my life doesn't suck. The problem with your theory is you can never define who, what, where, and what's enough to satisfy.


Personally I don't think golf has ever been more inclusive than it is now.  Plenty of places to play for cheap, free clubs, juniors play free, etc. It's all over the place.


Solar and wind on the golf course. Dude, go ahead and get some investors together, take the risk, and build it. They may or may not come.


If there's deep cultural problem associated with golf, it's a generation of people that think everyone else is to blame for their problems.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,


I don’t worry about what you call golf’s branding problem.


Why?


Because most golf courses in the United States are public and anyone can play.


There are lots of public courses that are enjoyable to play.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt, re. wind farms, and similarly solar, no reasonable look at them...

I don't really want to get into the details of climate policy in this forum, because it's both so off topic, but also because much of climate policy is simply different folks' overton windows. Suffice to say, I fully admit that electrification has challenges, but the main duck curve problem with wind/solar can easily be solved with gravity batteries in most of the US, but actually building those is an issue. Obviously any serious environmentalist supports expanding our nuclear power capabilities to fill the gaps. The primary GHG issue we are failing to deal with is the lack of market-pricing of externalities, and the deep lifestyle inefficiencies of suburban transportation. The generational, political fight regarding these issues will be a pretty nasty one going forward as the millennials and gen z wrench political power away from the boomers, and that will accelerate for the foreseeable future. I'm trying to highlight the many win-win outcomes that folks in our community could take advantage of, but if the kids in these protests seem shocking to folks here, buckle up. Our demographic transition is just kicking off.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()