UKC

It occured to me the other day to wonder what the impact of UKC was on the environment,like if the t-shirts which are sold or won in competitions every so often are organic cotton/hemp/bamboo and have ink from natural sources,and whether the electricty which keeps the computers running which UKC is run and mantained on is from a renewable source or not?

I'm posting this because every little helps,and it's probably a good thing to be thinking about,rather than to point out something UKC isn't doing.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd: I see you deleted your original post which I was going to reply to, however, I may be wrong but as far as I know, Patagonia Fleece was made of re-cycled plastic! And bloody warm and comfortable too!

In reply to Al Evans:I thought it was a bit waffly and had too many ways it could go off topic,and i thought it read a bit too much like i liked the sound of my own voice.

It's just the UKC angle i want to focus on,rather than what the shop of one of the moderators is selling,which could be more about market and demand for the shop rather than how UKC could be greener.

It's just something that occured to me the other day really ,so i thought i'd post.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd: well i look at it this way, thoes cheap tea shirt mean cheaper operating costs and cheaper entry fees, and thats how i want it.

cos what you sugest, could theorticly make the difference as to whether my son enters the YCS next year.

the environmentaly friendly option allways seems to cost more, is it realy a wise idea to be promoting it, as we head into increasingly harder financial times? where more and more people, day by day, need to be looking for more and more valaue for money?

In reply to Callums dad:

To be honest i havn't paid much attention to the t-shirts,i just wondered if they were organic or covered in chemicals,because a quarter of a non organic cotton t-shirt is made up of chemicals like pesticides or chemicals to stop the t-shirt creasing.

Maybe it's not as simple as either cheap or green(er) though. UKC could maybe get somebody like Howies or Patagonia or somebody else to make the t-shirts and have thier logo on the t-shirt as advertising for thier company in return for UKC paying lower costs than normal for the t-shirts?

It's just an idea anyway.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to Timmd:

Most of my clothes come from a car boot - No! I don't pay anything for them as they have been left behind for the Council to collect and put into a landfill.

I collect the ones that fit me, wear them for a week or two, then pass them onto to OXfam.

Everyone's a winner - less for the council to collect, less landfill, I don't have to buy clothes or waste energy/money doing the washing, and Oxfam get's a freebie.

In reply to Callums dad:

Im afraid to say that is exactly this sort of arguement that has got us in the mess we are in now.

In reply to Timmd: how about a donation form to offset the carbon on trips to crags?

In reply to Timmd: i apreciate your sentiment Tim, in an idea world its how it should be, infact its probably how it should have always been done. i just used my post to show how its just not nessasarily that simple, it never is.

personaly im neither for or against anything you said, im only interested in taking a step back and thinking, hold on a minuite whats the bigger picture. the wider implication.

In reply to Timmd:

The Environmental Impact/Carbon footprint of UKClimbing?

It would almost entirely be at the end users end not the UKC end, enough that the T shirts make no noticeable difference at all.

I'm more cpncerned about the two Moroccan 8 year old boys that were employed to mine the code, often working in shockingly poor conditions and paid less than a Filipino char.

In reply to winhill:I didn't think it would go down very well if i mentioned the end users,because they're who indirectly pay for UKC (in part) through companies wanting thier adverts to be seen and paying for the banner space.

At least if UKC did do what they could do to be greener,it'd be a tangible change,where telling people to post less to be more green mightn't make any difference at all,or if they switched over to greener energy there'd be no way of knowing unless they posted to say they had done.

Also,Alan James and Charles Arthur and Andy Hyslop have all posted or written in the papers about environmental things,so it seems like they're bothered about these things already,and might be more likely to do something to make UKC a bit greener.

Cheers
Tim

In reply to winhill:And every little bit of going greener helps everybody in the end,with global warming and chemicals in the environment being problems and bad for people's health.

Cheers
Tim