environmental impact of flying

naitkris

EDIT: This was a response to the Ryanair to start Transatlantic Flights in 3-4 Years thread but was split to this new thread by a moderator.

If we are going to start taking the major environmental problem we Earthlings face seriously, then we need to reduce our air travel to essential travel etc and one easy way to do that is for the cost of air travel to get much more expensive and not cheaper and thus be treated as a luxury, not a right as it seems to be becoming.

Of course this won't happen, capitalism is bigger than everything, who cares about what it is like on earth in 100 years (our grandchildren can sort that out then) etc etc, isn't that right Mr. O'Leary? :rolleyes:

jesus_thats_gre

naitkris wrote:

If we are going to start taking the major environmental problem we Earthlings face seriously, then we need to reduce our air travel to essential travel etc and one easy way to do that is for the cost of air travel to get much more expensive and not cheaper and thus be treated as a luxury, not a right as it seems to be becoming.

Of course this won't happen, capitalism is bigger than everything, who cares about what it is like on earth in 100 years (our grandchildren can sort that out then) etc etc, isn't that right Mr. O'Leary?

Yeah won't be agreeing with anything like this until there is near conclusive proof that we are responsible for it..

Stark

naitkris wrote:

if Ryanair and airlines won't increase their airfares, then Governments should increase their taxes on air travel to stop people travelling by air as much and start to take the train or other forms of transport which does less damage to the environment.

Why punish everyone for inefficiencies in train travel? If it's possible to provide cheap flights with all the overheads associated with air travel, surely it's possible to provide cheap train travel?

Archytas

Franz Ferdinand wrote:

You're contradicting yourself. In one breath you say you've never had a bad experience with Ryanair (as if that MEANS anything) then in the next breath you admit OTHER people DO have complaints about Ryanair! Are you really THAT self centred?

How do you defend them screwing money from invalids, and stranding people abroad? You're a cold hard hearted monster. Just like your boss.
Shame on you!

Eh... Get a hold of yourself will ya? Your ranting has ruined any argument you had...

naitkris wrote:

then Governments should increase their taxes on air travel to stop people travelling by air as much and start to take the train or other forms of transport which does less damage to the environment.

I would be totally anti this proposal - you are essentially banning less well off people from travelling abroad? And you'll make it uneconomic for airlines thus putting people out of jobs. We need to start cleaning up about a hundred other polluters first.

Lets not forget that we are an Island and thus have no real alternative method of transporting people to other countries.

But back to Ryanair - no they aren't a great company, but you don't expect any better. I pay a little more for piece of mind - BA put me up in a hotel when my flight was cancelled - When my brother was flying back from france with ryanair - his flight was cancelled and he had to at his own expense travel to another airport and buy another two tickets home. He was angry and everything but it was to be expected and he knew it.

naitkris

Stark wrote:

Why punish everyone for inefficiencies in train travel? If it's possible to provide cheap flights with all the overheads associated with air travel, surely it's possible to provide cheap train travel?

same question can be asked about littering which pollutes the environment. if it is easier (=> cheaper) to dump rubbish out of the car into a ditch then why should we bother stopping the car, walking a few hundred metres to a bin and putting the rubbish in the bin?

if it costs more or is not easy than it is not worthwhile - that is the current attitude.

(convenience + low cost + worse for environment) > (inconvenience + higher cost + better for environment)

i agree though that train travel and other forms really need to get cheaper compared to air travel - only the Government seems to be able to have the power to enforce this. whether they do so by increasing air travel taxes, or removing taxes on train travel etc i don't which is the best solution.

Archytas wrote:

I would be totally anti this proposal - you are essentially banning less well off people from travelling abroad? And you'll make it uneconomic for airlines thus putting people out of jobs. We need to start cleaning up about a hundred other polluters first.

so travelling abroad is now a human right? wow!

jobs, jobs, jobs - if the environment keeps getting much worse whatever about jobs, keeping people alive will be more important. already in numerous major cities has pollution got so bad that people have become seriously ill.

also, which other "hundred other polluters" should we tackle first before getting around to air travel? please name at least 20 of these out of the 100 which are worse than air travel, i am very interested to see the answers.

Archytas wrote:

Lets not forget that we are an Island and thus have no real alternative method of transporting people to other countries.

have the boats and the wind gone on strike?

Stark

naitkris wrote:

same question can be asked about littering which pollutes the environment. if it is easier (=> cheaper) to dump rubbish out of the car into a ditch then why should we bother stopping the car, walking a few hundred metres to a bin and putting the rubbish in the bin?

Because we're not scumbags?

naitkris

Stark wrote:

Because we're not scumbags?

so how is air travel any different? it carries the same 3 values as dumping rubbish - (convenience + low cost + worse for environment) - compared to alternative forms of travel.

just because air travel isn't frowned upon - yet - doesn't mean that it is all fine and acceptable. once upon a time dumping rubbish on the road was acceptable but this was a long time ago and the packaging for most items wasn't plastic etc much like how the travel done was by sail or by horse as opposed to using oil.

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

so travelling abroad is now a human right? wow!

OF COURSE IT IS!!!

The European Parliament wrote:

Within the European Union, residents are guaranteed the right to freely move within the EU's internal borders by the European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004

naitkris wrote:

jobs, jobs, jobs - if the environment keeps getting much worse whatever about jobs, keeping people alive will be more important.

also, which other "hundred other polluters" should we tackle first before getting around to air travel? please name at least 20 of these out of the 100 which are worse than air travel, i am very interested to see the answers.

Come on - We're talking about air travel which causes a small part of the problem(in global terms). I agree it causes a problem but with newer technology this will be bettered.



Here's some more facts - c02 emissions per mile travelled...

have the boats and the wind gone on strike?

What??? How long do you think it takes to get to America by ship? Or Australia? And how are you going to get me to lets say - Nairobi? And how is the wind going to get me anywhere? By Glider? A sail boat? How will a sail boat allow for mass transport?

naitkris

Archytas wrote:

OF COURSE IT IS!!!

wrong - moving freely does not mean it is a right to travel into another country. that country decides if it is right or not for you to enter as a foreign citizen. within the EU fellow EU citizens can move freely from EU country to country which is effectively making the EU a country in itself.

this Ryanair plan is cross-Atlantic. try telling US or Canada customs is is your human right to enter their borders, i'd love to hear their reply.

Archytas wrote:

Come on - We're talking about air travel which causes a small part of the problem(in global terms). I agree it causes a problem but with newer technology this will be bettered.

26% for transport is not small. anything above 1% is huge on a global scale and i think air travel comes in at 4%. per person air travel is far worse than train travel, bus travel and even car travel (when all forms are filled with max person capacity). if anyone ever decides to tackle that 26% i really would hope they start at the worst and fastest growing polluter in that area which is air travel.

Archytas wrote:

Here's some more facts - c02 emissions per mile travelled...

that goes against what i posted earlier which you didn't reply to (posted again further below). that is the first graph or piece of information i have seen that goes completely against all the information out there showing how air travel is the worst common travel method for pollution compared to other forms. thanks for chosing this misleading information as it definitely isn't telling the full picture.

Archytas wrote:

Come on - We're talking about air travel which causes a small part of the problem(in global terms).

read this, i posted it earlier:

naitkris wrote:

Air Travel and Climate Change: Take the Train - "One transatlantic flight for a family of four creates more CO2 than that family generates domestically in an entire year.(source) Because of this many travellers are turning their backs on flying and going overland. While this is easier in Europe with shorter distances and better train networks, it is still an option- even driving 12,000 miles creates less CO2. Dan Kieran notes in the Guardian that he has not flown in 17 years, and extolls the virtues of taking the train."

Archytas wrote:

What??? How long do you think it takes to get to America by ship? Or Australia? And how are you going to get me to lets say - Nairobi? And how is the wind going to get me anywhere? By Glider? A sail boat? How will a sail boat allow for mass transport?

i am not saying to stop air travel, we just need to radically reduce unnecessary travel which people are doing more and more just because it is cheaper and now viable to fly abroad just as cheap as it is to take a taxi to a town 20km away.

i haven't travelled by air in a good while but my next job means i will be travelling perhaps weekly by air but this is for business and not weekend breaks every so often.

as has been said:
reduce - reuse - recycle

if we can reduce our need for air travel that is the first step in the right direction, Mr. O'Leary's idea of 10 Euro flights across the Atlantic will mean things will only get worse pollution wise.

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

wrong - moving freely does not mean it is a right to travel into another country. that country decides if it is right or not for you to enter as a foreign citizen. within the EU fellow EU citizens can move freely from EU country to country which is effectively making the EU a country in itself.

What are you talking about - The EU is not a country!!!! - "The European Union (EU) is a long-standing political and economic federation of autonomous European nations." - See that - autonomous!

And again here's some more - "It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present, generally has the right to leave that state, travel wherever the citizen is welcome."

Thus if I was welcome in America - I have the right to travel there.

naitkris wrote:

26% for transport is not small.

Thats transport as a whole. And I never said it was small.

naitkris wrote:

anything above 1% is huge on a global scale and i think air travel comes in at 4%.

So if it comes in at 4% that means that other things were worse than it. I never once said that the pollution from air travel was non-existent, I said that there were a lot to clean up before we came to them. In fact the world's biggest polluter is the power industry and specifically the coal burning plants.
See my references here - http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/problems/cause/index.cfm

naitkris wrote:

per person air travel is far worse than train travel, bus travel and even car travel (when all forms are filled with max person capacity)

How many car journey's are made filled to capacity. Very few. The graph I gave which is from a respected institute (The sightline institute) shows average capacity. Of course if every trip made by car was full it would come out lower than air travel but I never said that it didn't or wouldn't

naitkris wrote:

i haven't travelled by air in a good while but my next job means i will be travelling perhaps weekly by air but this is for business and not weekend breaks every so often.

Oh and business trips don't produce c02? Business passengers make up (from various sources) anywhere between 40-50% of all airline travel and in the US that's much higher. While Business class takes up around 30% of flights, around 50% of companies don't fly their staff using business class.

So business people can fly anywhere they want but leisure travelers can't? Thats a ridiculous suggestion. Cutting out air travel will not save the world - changing how we power our countries will.

So Mr. O'Leary can offer all the €10 flights he wants - I won't be using them out of personal preference...

naitkris

Archytas wrote:

What are you talking about - The EU is not a country!!!! - "The European Union (EU) is a long-standing political and economic federation of autonomous European nations." - See that - autonomous!

it is not a country of course, i never said it was - i said "effectively making the EU a country in itself". the EU has it's own currency (Euro) and monetary system, own laws, own parliament, etc etc which shares many of the characteristics of a country, it doesn't make it a country but makes it quite similar to one and become more similar all the time as laws are changed in each member state to be the same throughout the EU.

Archytas wrote:

And again here's some more - "It asserts that a citizen of a state, in which that citizen is present, generally has the right to leave that state, travel wherever the citizen is welcome."

of course, you are repeating yourself, i wasn't focusing on the EU, this Ryanair service plans to fly cross-Atlantic which means the average flight will be more pollutant than before when it was just within the EU.

Archytas wrote:

Thus if I was welcome in America - I have the right to travel there.

that is a big question mark. if is a big word, do you think that automatically qualifies everyone in the world to enter the USA as it is their "human right" to do so? of course you can enter the USA from Ireland (unless you have a criminal record etc), try doing so from a number of other countries and you'll find your "human right" won't be as kindly looked upon.

a human right is something that applies to EVERYONE in the world (food, water, shelter) and not just a select number. if the United Nations tomorrow says that everyone anywhere can walk into any foreign country anytime and live there as long as he/she wants then that would make it a human right most likely, but very unlikely to happen.

Archytas wrote:

Thats transport as a whole. And I never said it was small.

again i know that but you posted that chart refering to air travel. i said "26% for transport is not small. anything above 1% is huge on a global scale and i think air travel comes in at 4%."

Archytas wrote:

So if it comes in at 4% that means that other things were worse than it. I never once said that the pollution from air travel was non-existent, I said that there were a lot to clean up before we came to them. In fact the world's biggest polluter is the power industry and specifically the coal burning plants.
See my references here - http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/problems/cause/index.cfm

so you are saying that we should ignore air travel as the single biggest transport polluter per person until we sort out all the other bigger problems first? that's a great idea! no wonder we are doomed as there is no way China with their massive coal mines and huge energy demands (that are increasing all the time) are going to stop burning coal any decade soon.

Archytas wrote:

How many car journey's are made filled to capacity. Very few. The graph I gave which is from a respected institute (The sightline institute) shows average capacity. Of course if every trip made by car was full it would come out lower than air travel but I never said that it didn't or wouldn't

true, it is a big problem. lets stop all the problems, good suggestion, i think we are finally agreeing with one another - every bit counts.

Archytas wrote:

Oh and business trips don't produce c02? Business passengers make up (from various sources) anywhere between 40-50% of all airline travel and in the US that's much higher. While Business class takes up around 30% of flights, around 50% of companies don't fly their staff using business class.

So business people can fly anywhere they want but leisure travelers can't? Thats a ridiculous suggestion. Cutting out air travel will not save the world - changing how we power our countries will.

of course business trips produce c02, the difference is a 1 week business trip abroad in my view is more productive than a 2 day weekend break abroad. also the latter trip is more easily avoided if prices are higher for air travel. nothing is perfect and companies aren't suddenly going to stop travelling abroad if the price of air travel doubles, triples, or quadruples, whereas a lot of travellers who regularly fly abroad on breaks will have to reduce their travel and thus reducing the environmental hazard should air travel prices triple.

Stark

What's wrong with using teleconferencing and the like to do business? And is it somehow kinder to the environment if seats are left empty on flights with business customers rather than sold off to holidayers?

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

so you are saying that we should ignore air travel as the single biggest transport polluter per person until we sort out all the other bigger problems first? that's a great idea! no wonder we are doomed as there is no way China with their massive coal mines and huge energy demands (that are increasing all the time) are going to stop burning coal any decade soon.

I never said we should ignore it - I said better technology will make it better. And what your saying here is that we should be punished because of a power station policy on the other side of the world? We need to change how the countries are powered!! Thus cleaning up a huge percentage in c02 emissions.

naitkris wrote:

of course business trips produce c02, the difference is a 1 week business trip abroad in my view is more productive than a 2 day weekend break abroad.

Thats your interpretation of more productive. I would gladly give up all those journeys I've had to make to NY on business for more weekend trips to somewhere like Munich with my girlfriend. Personal life should not lose out to business.

naitkris wrote:

companies aren't suddenly going to stop travelling abroad if the price of air travel doubles, triples, or quadruples, whereas a lot of travellers who regularly fly abroad on breaks will have to reduce their travel and thus reducing the environmental hazard should air travel prices triple.

But it would only reduce emissions by 2% !!!!!!!! This is ridiculously small compared to the emissions we would remove by making cars more energy efficient, changing our own power station policy(as well as other countries), and better technology to reduce "standby" technology being used. All of which will not reduce our quality of life.

Archytas

Stark wrote:

What's wrong with using teleconferencing and the like to do business?

I have to agree with this. In the company I work for we use our teleconference equipment to contact our offices all over the world. Were we used to send people out to Boston every month for meetings we now have weekly teleconference meetings. Or online meetings.

This is perfect though - What happens if your a tractor parts manufacturer and you have to get out to a farm in wisconsin? You have to fly. But better technology will make it more energy efficient.

Stopping people from flying, as I've said before, will not save the world.

Transport21 Fan

You mean Al Gore's magical thinking, wildly subjective "science" and upper middle-class suburban folk running around claiming that if you turn down the volume on your i-pod you are automatically part of some mystical quest to "save the planet" is NOT conclusive proof that evil humans destroying the Earth Goddess!

The best one I heard recently was that the recent Global Warming on Mars is caused by Martain Sandstorms (even though these have been happening on Mars for about 2 billion years). The lenghts Al Gore's followers are going to in order to not accept that the Sun in the sky has any bearing on climate change has passed surreal a long time ago.

Meanwhile people in Galway can't drink their water because we have farmers pouring their raw slurry into Lough Corrib - but nevermind, we have to save the Polar Bears you know!

How about some real enviormental responsibility and action for a change - the irish countryside is filled with bags of rubbish dumped in scenic areas. Any chance of a nuclear reaction so I do not have to depend on people in middle east being slaughtered to light my house?

Thanks for reminding me why I won't be voting for the Greens in this election.

Calina

The problem I have with this whole debate is that actually, Ireland is an island. There are no trains to anywhere from the place. This thread came out of a thread on transatlantic flights and you can't get the train to north America either.

I have some issues with the whole idea. No one can deny that there is an environmental impact from flying. But at the same time, there is an environmental impact from the mere fact of being alive, end of story. Ultimately I find something very elitist about ideas involving taxing people/making flying more expensive. It then becomes - like it used to be - the preserve of the rich and very rich. If you want to control flying, assign flight credits/distance credits and make them non transferable.

I honestly believe that debates on this - however well meaning - forget the key result of this sort of policy - the hoi polloi get shut out and the rich and glamourous get to take their rightful place in the world.

However, I think that travel does broaden the mind and from that point of view is important.

I also add - and environmentalists don't appear to understand this at all - is that what is at play here is not the planet. The planet has survived much, much worse than we can throw at it, are throwing at it. The question is whether the place remains habitable for us in the long term. I mean, it didn't for the dinosaurs and then a few million years later, we came along.

Few things last forever and it is arrogance of the absolute highest order to assume that we can.

naitkris

Archytas wrote:

I never said we should ignore it - I said better technology will make it better.

examples? and by how much better?

Archytas wrote:

And what your saying here is that we should be punished because of a power station policy on the other side of the world? We need to change how the countries are powered!! Thus cleaning up a huge percentage in c02 emissions.

no, what i am saying is "every bit counts". just because something somewhere else causes more pollution doesn't mean it is ok to pollute in another way that pollutes less so.

Archytas wrote:

Thats your interpretation of more productive. I would gladly give up all those journeys I've had to make to NY on business for more weekend trips to somewhere like Munich with my girlfriend. Personal life should not lose out to business.

of course. everyone is different. business travel however improves relations, increases productivity, keeps economies going, brings new things and improvements in life to foreign countries etc. leisure travel doesn't do this very much, if at all. and again, the emphasis is on reduction in air travel, not removal of it altogether. businesses have bigger pockets than individuals and essential business travel will keep going when the price of air travel increases, leisure travel will see a drop as it isn't as affordable to take 5 holidays abroad every year and people will have to make do with 1 or 2. basic economics.

Archytas wrote:

But it would only reduce emissions by 2% !!!!!!!! This is ridiculously small compared to the emissions we would remove by making cars more energy efficient, changing our own power station policy(as well as other countries), and better technology to reduce "standby" technology being used. All of which will not reduce our quality of life.

where did you get the figure of 2%? secondly you aren't saying anything new except that other forms of transport etc pollute more which you keep saying, i will keep saying that everything above 1% needs to be addressed and we can't expect to sort them in order of worst polluter but rather tackle them all head on.

Archytas wrote:

I have to agree with this. In the company I work for we use our teleconference equipment to contact our offices all over the world. Were we used to send people out to Boston every month for meetings we now have weekly teleconference meetings. Or online meetings.

i agree, all non essentail business travel should be stopped also. every bit plays its part. some business travel though is essential and cannot be done by teleconferencing unfortunately (such as installation of and teaching how to operate of new equipment).

Archytas wrote:

Stopping people from flying, as I've said before, will not save the world.

not 1 single thing will save the world, it is the collective reduction of the problem that will give us hope.

Calina wrote:

The problem I have with this whole debate is that actually, Ireland is an island. There are no trains to anywhere from the place. This thread came out of a thread on transatlantic flights and you can't get the train to north America either.

naitkris wrote:

have the boats and the wind gone on strike?

also to a more fundamental question, why is it so essential (not desireable - essential) to travel to America? it wasn't a number of centuries ago.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

You mean Al Gore's magical thinking, wildly subjective "science" and upper middle-class suburban folk running around claiming that if you turn down the volume on your i-pod you are automatically part of some mystical quest to "save the planet" is NOT conclusive proof that evil humans destroying the Earth Goddess!

have you seen the documentary An Inconvenient Truth?

Calina wrote:

I have some issues with the whole idea. No one can deny that there is an environmental impact from flying. But at the same time, there is an environmental impact from the mere fact of being alive, end of story.

of course, the world population has exploded in the space of 70 or so years from 2 billion people to over 6 billion people today and is going to keep growing to 9 billion or more in the next number of decades. this is also a problem (but a different one to this topic) that needs urgent addressing particularly in developing nations were large families is more the norm.

Calina wrote:

Ultimately I find something very elitist about ideas involving taxing people/making flying more expensive. It then becomes - like it used to be - the preserve of the rich and very rich.

i agree, however back then air travel caused less pollution (on a global scale) then it does today. it didn't stop people taking the boat, train, etc. yes in far fewer numbers than today (populations were smaller also), but life was less hectic, safer, etc.

Calina wrote:

If you want to control flying, assign flight credits/distance credits and make them non transferable.

very good idea. this would stop people taking half a dozen foreign holidays every year and limit it to 2 or max 3 then that would be good. businesses should also have a quota and disperse this amongst employees depending on how essential the travel was.

Calina wrote:

I also add - and environmentalists don't appear to understand this at all - is that what is at play here is not the planet. The planet has survived much, much worse than we can throw at it, are throwing at it. The question is whether the place remains habitable for us in the long term. I mean, it didn't for the dinosaurs and then a few million years later, we came along.

Few things last forever and it is arrogance of the absolute highest order to assume that we can.

so we should not try to protect it as we are doomed anyway?

Archytas

Calina wrote:

Ultimately I find something very elitist about ideas involving taxing people/making flying more expensive. It then becomes - like it used to be - the preserve of the rich and very rich.

Well said. I've been to some really amazing places that I never could have if flying was much more expensive. And there really is no other way to get to parts of Africa that I've been, with such a small time frame. And if groups of people want to fly to places like Alicante to get drunk (In doing so pays alot of local people...), I'm not going to look down on them and tell them that there flight isn't necessary. Because their personal time is just as important as mine.

naitkris

Archytas wrote:

Calina wrote:

Ultimately I find something very elitist about ideas involving taxing people/making flying more expensive. It then becomes - like it used to be - the preserve of the rich and very rich.

Well said. I've been to some really amazing places that I never could have if flying was much more expensive. And there really is no other way to get to parts of Africa that I've been, with such a small time frame. And if groups of people want to fly to places like Alicante to get drunk (In doing so pays alot of local people...), I'm not going to look down on them and tell them that there flight isn't necessary. Because their personal time is just as important as mine.

documentaries etc obviously aren't as fun - clearly, but imagine all 6 billion people in the world flying around the world tomorrow? you say it isn't elitist etc but it is in fact as the majority of people in the world have never flown before.

while more people travelling can be a good thing no doubt, that is a different topic. the pollution caused from air travel will increase a lot more going forward should the numbers increase thanks to low fares from the likes of Ryanair to particularly long-haul destinations - this is what the topic of the thread is about.

Calina

No, we should stop pretending we're trying to save the planet because the planet is fundamentally okay. Identify more selfish motives behind environmental protection. The planet saves itself - it'll just get rid of the parasites you suggest we have become. Stop talking about saving the planet in other words because that is not what you're trying to do. The planet survives. Humans don't. There's a critical difference.

i agree, however back then air travel caused less pollution (on a global scale) then it does today. it didn't stop people taking the boat, train, etc. yes in far fewer numbers than today (populations were smaller also), but life was less hectic, safer, etc.

What this says is that you are happy for flying to be an elitist activity. I don't agree. I don't want to live in a society where the plebs are kept in their place. Ultimately it is up to us as human beings to capitalise on our expertise and do something about alternative - and equally rapid - modes of transport. Unfortunately, the people you need to level this at are not the people living on an outcrop of rock unconnected to any other bit of land, but the people who take unnecessary flights such as most of middle America. Build trains there. At least where train connections are possible, we're doing it in Europe. I think they're about to open TGV Est in France which will probably cut out a few more domestic flights in France.

With respect to the quotas - I have only this to say - it creates a prescriptive and dogmatic society. Ultimately, humanity has always had the freedom to move about. Only the modalities have changed. I have an objection against bringing in a measure that has an elitist result. Environmentalists have no problem with this. I have highlighted that there is an alternative if you really want to be taken seriously. You think it'll work, fine. However, my opinion is that people's lifestyles come and go and change. Flying is not evil. It has opened the world in a way that you cannot possibly imagine perhaps because you are too young to remember it. What you consider to be unnecessary leisure travel is perhaps seen as unnecessary in a narrow light. For many other people it fulfills a basic but unquantifiable need - the need to escape.

Ultimately, the view that we should somehow limit people's ability to travel - which is what you are suggesting - is regressive in terms of social development. It's fine to say that people should use the train - but it's not always an option. And I get seasick very easily which makes the boat less than desirable. Not mode of transport is as efficient over long distances as air transport is. If you were to get your way, you are making a prison of this place for me.

My opinion is simple - there are many things that we can collectively do which does not involve the wholesale degradation of freedoms which were hard won and bought over years, and which does not imply major control of people's movements and aspirations.

I'd also add, as a general rule that I get decidedly nervous when I see someone talking about "XYZ will give us hope". I don't have to be given hope. I have plenty of it. If you live in a hopeless world, then I'm sorry for you.

naitkris

Calina wrote:

No, we should stop pretending we're trying to save the planet because the planet is fundamentally okay.

:rolleyes:

i don't think i need to respond to any more of your post.

Calina

naitkris wrote:

documentaries etc obviously aren't as fun - clearly, but imagine all 6 billion people in the world flying around the world tomorrow? you say it isn't elitist etc but it is in fact as the majority of people in the world have never flown before.

while more people travelling can be a good thing no doubt, that is a different topic. the pollution caused from air travel will increase a lot more going forward should the numbers increase thanks to low fares from the likes of Ryanair to particularly long-haul destinations - this is what the topic of the thread is about.

I actually split off this thread - I don't recall that we were concentrating specifically on long or short haul flights in general terms.

Documentaries are fascinating. I recall seeing one about the supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park which has a fairly detrimental impact on the world when it blows, usually at 600,000 year cycles. Did you know it was 40,000 years late, apparently? Horizon about four years ago.

You cannot separate the good points about travel from the negative points about travel at this present point. You can only make a trade off between them. The planes fly anyway. I'd prefer they flew full rather than empty. I think Ryanair in particular are quite good at that.

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

no, what i am saying is "every bit counts".

But the pay-off here is too small. The benefit or air travel more than out-weight the enviromental damage.

naitkris wrote:

of course. everyone is different. business travel however improves relations, increases productivity, keeps economies going, brings new things and improvements in life to foreign countries etc. leisure travel doesn't do this very much, if at all.

What are you talking about????? Just the top google search for tourism benefits:The UK economy benefited from tourism to the tune of £81.5bn in 2004, says the British Hospitality Association.
To say that it doesn't bring anything in is - I'm sorry to say - ignorant and stupid.

naitkris wrote:

leisure travel will see a drop as it isn't as affordable to take 5 holidays abroad every year and people will have to make do with 1 or 2. basic economics.

Who has time to take 5 holidays a year??? And if they do so what? What gives you the right to stop what is socially accepted to be a good way to spend your personal time. Are you really trying to deny people the right to go on whatever holiday they want?

naitkris wrote:

where did you get the figure of 2%?

Its arguably what a reduction in non essential air travel will do.

naitkris wrote:

i will keep saying that everything above 1% needs to be addressed and we can't expect to sort them in order of worst polluter but rather tackle them all head on.

Why can't we sort them? Why degrade peoples quality of life unnecessarily? There are plenty of changes we can make before we start stopping people from going on holiday.

naitkris wrote:

also to a more fundamental question, why is it so essential (not desireable - essential) to travel to America? it wasn't a number of centuries ago.

What are you saying? Who said it was essential? If people want to go there then that all the justification that you need.

naitkris wrote:

i agree, however back then air travel caused less pollution (on a global scale) then it does today. it didn't stop people taking the boat, train, etc. yes in far fewer numbers than today (populations were smaller also), but life was less hectic, safer, etc.

Only the rich or desperate travelled in the past. The rich didn't care how long it took and the poor had no other choice. And what does it matter that "life was less hectic, safer, etc"? And what exactly do you mean by this??

Calina

naitkris wrote:

:rolleyes:

i don't think i need to respond to any more of your post.

You clearly haven't understood the point I am making if that's all you can say. The planet survives. Humans don't. Environmentalists are lying when they say they are trying to save the planet. They mean they are trying to save human existence. There is a difference.

Calina

naitkris wrote:

of course. everyone is different. business travel however improves relations, increases productivity, keeps economies going, brings new things and improvements in life to foreign countries etc. leisure travel doesn't do this very much, if at all. and again, the emphasis is on reduction in air travel, not removal of it altogether. businesses have bigger pockets than individuals and essential business travel will keep going when the price of air travel increases, leisure travel will see a drop as it isn't as affordable to take 5 holidays abroad every year and people will have to make do with 1 or 2. basic economics.

I missed this sorry. This is a highly elitist comment and it is why I am very loathe to throw my hat in the ring of many environmentalists. Effectively, it means that environmentalists will be able to fly for business environmental reasons because it's like not leisure.

The key most important way of getting people to understand other cultures is to get them into those other cultures, oh and get them to learn languages but that's slightly off topic. Business travel doesn't do this at all. Leisure travel is far more effective in this respect. People will have to deal with basic economics in this country long before it becomes more expensive to fly btw. We have other more pressing issues economically.

naitkris wrote:

where did you get the figure of 2%? secondly you aren't saying anything new except that other forms of transport etc pollute more which you keep saying, i will keep saying that everything above 1% needs to be addressed and we can't expect to sort them in order of worst polluter but rather tackle them all head on.

In other words, go for the low hanging fruit. The sensible thing would be to clean up the biggest problems first, which is, I think industry.

naitkris wrote:

also to a more fundamental question, why is it so essential (not desireable - essential) to travel to America? it wasn't a number of centuries ago.

Pretty much nobody knew it was there.

Archytas

Calina wrote:

Pretty much nobody knew it was there.

Ha ha ha ha ha Brilliant.

Schuhart

Calina wrote:

Environmentalists are lying when they say they are trying to save the planet. They mean they are trying to save human existence. There is a difference.

Is that difference significant in this context? I'm sure it actually, pragmatically, takes us in a different direction.

In truth, I don't think this is an issue that Ireland as a country will control. There is concern about air travel. As I understand it (and clearly I'm only reading the same newspaper articles as the rest of you) the damage from air transport has to do with the fuel being burnt at high altitude and emissions of other substances in addition to CO2.

On the face of it, there seems to be a problem. On the face of it, there's at least some appetite to deal with it. As is pointed out, we're an island so air access presents us with special problems. We likely do need to start thinking about what happens if the rest of the world simply decides the current level of traffic is unsustainable and we find that nobody is particularly interested in listening to a shower of Paddies wanting to fly to Hahn for €10.

On the general issue, though, I think we do need to be lifting our heads a bit higher than 'what, you mean only rich people will be able to afford planes. That can't be right'. So far as I know, climate change models don't have a variable that takes account of social equity. Its simply an irrelevance.

naitkris

Calina wrote:

I actually split off this thread - I don't recall that we were concentrating specifically on long or short haul flights in general terms.

well as my post is the first in this new thread i think i can state as the thread OP what the topic is about. the fact that the original thread was on long haul flights at very cheap prices means that this is what this thread is concentrating on, although not limited to.

Calina wrote:

Documentaries are fascinating. I recall seeing one about the supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park which has a fairly detrimental impact on the world when it blows, usually at 600,000 year cycles. Did you know it was 40,000 years late, apparently? Horizon about four years ago.

indeed. interesting. i also recommend An Inconvenient Truth.

Calina wrote:

You cannot separate the good points about travel from the negative points about travel at this present point. You can only make a trade off between them. The planes fly anyway. I'd prefer they flew full rather than empty. I think Ryanair in particular are quite good at that.

why not - you just did yourself by splitting this (negative point to Ryanair's plans) from the original thread which is otherwise quite positive - cheaper travel for all. i did not request for the topic to be split into it's own thread - you did this.

Archytas wrote:

But the pay-off here is too small. The benefit or air travel more than out-weight the enviromental damage.

indeed - but important air travel. again, certain forms of air travel - weekend breaks (being the example i have used) is far less productive than a 1 week business trip (or a 1 week holiday break) in the vast majority of cases. and again, i am not saying to stop air travel, just to reduce it.

have you heard of the term - "reduce, reuse, recycle"?

Archytas wrote:

What are you talking about????? Just the top google search for tourism benefits:The UK economy benefited from tourism to the tune of £81.5bn in 2004, says the British Hospitality Association.
To say that it doesn't bring anything in is - I'm sorry to say - ignorant and stupid.

thank you for insulting me. you are right but you are also wrong, of course weekend breaks etc increase tourism income for a country, the whole air travel industry is capitalist that everyone involved is making huge money. the difference is that business travel and long holidays generate more money than weekend breaks and therefore would be more "efficient" or "worthwhile" or whatever than regular weekend breaks away when you add up the environmental impact of flying against the amount of money generated compared to short weekend breaks.

and again, i am not saying to stop air travel, just to reduce it if possible.

Archytas wrote:

Who has time to take 5 holidays a year??? And if they do so what? What gives you the right to stop what is socially accepted to be a good way to spend your personal time. Are you really trying to deny people the right to go on whatever holiday they want?

if it kills people due to the pollution then i think we should all have some sort of voice in the matter.

Archytas wrote:

Its arguably what a reduction in non essential air travel will do.

reduction in everything. every bit counts to the overall reduction.

Archytas wrote:

Why can't we sort them? Why degrade peoples quality of life unnecessarily? There are plenty of changes we can make before we start stopping people from going on holiday.

the attitude of leaving it to someone to sort out the bigger problems first isn't going to help. tackling everything at once makes an impact, taking one thing at a time before going onto the next problem (especially when this problem is so massive) will mean it will take a lot longer in my opinion.

Archytas wrote:

What are you saying? Who said it was essential? If people want to go there then that all the justification that you need.

even if it kills humans, animals, changes the face of the Earth un-naturally in the process?

Archytas wrote:

Only the rich or desperate travelled in the past. The rich didn't care how long it took and the poor had no other choice. And what does it matter that "life was less hectic, safer, etc"? And what exactly do you mean by this??

i mean that people are so insistant today on getting from A to B as fast and cheap as possible (at the expense of the environment, animals, etc), everyone seems to be in more of a hurry nowadays than 100 years ago (from what i have read).

Calina wrote:

You clearly haven't understood the point I am making if that's all you can say.

no, just the following comment sounded very naive:

Calina wrote:

No, we should stop pretending we're trying to save the planet because the planet is fundamentally okay.

Calina wrote:

The planet survives. Humans don't. Environmentalists are lying when they say they are trying to save the planet. They mean they are trying to save human existence. There is a difference.

animals won't survive either thanks to our pollution (all forms). you just happened to split it into Earth on one side and Humans on another.

i guess animals aren't so important? :rolleyes:

Calina wrote:

I missed this sorry. This is a highly elitist comment and it is why I am very loathe to throw my hat in the ring of many environmentalists. Effectively, it means that environmentalists will be able to fly for business environmental reasons because it's like not leisure.

so you mean that Al Gore and people who spread the word about this issue of the environmental problem should not be allowed to travel by air if people aren't allowed to have their weekend breaks abroad? while in theory you are right and i agree, i think the work they do in combating climate change is far far greater than getting a tan over the weekend in the south of Spain for example. both travel pollutes but one is doing much better good with his/her time for the environment than the other.

Calina wrote:

I missed this sorry. This is a highly elitist comment and it is why I am very loathe to throw my hat in the ring of many environmentalists. Effectively, it means that environmentalists will be able to fly for business environmental reasons because it's like not leisure.

Calina wrote:

oh and get them to learn languages but that's slightly off topic. Business travel doesn't do this at all. Leisure travel is far more effective in this respect.

you are totally off-topic but on this point i find native English speaking people terrible when it comes to learning foreign languages in their leisure travel.

maybe you can split this area into a new thread if you want?

Calina wrote:

In other words, go for the low hanging fruit. The sensible thing would be to clean up the biggest problems first, which is, I think industry.

rich people are terrible polluters, no doubt about it. however they are the minority in population terms and get their way no matter what (back to capitalism!) so having a small % of the world population polluting is in fact better for the environment than the majority all polluting.

while i agree with you it is not fair, life isn't fair to begin with.

Calina wrote:

Pretty much nobody knew it was there.

lol

Archytas

Schuhart wrote:

On the face of it, there seems to be a problem. On the face of it, there's at least some appetite to deal with it.

We all agree that there is a problem but banning air travel or hiking up the prices will not deal with it. As I've said reducing the 4% percent any lower will not make a huge difference and surely there are bigger problems to deal with.

Schuhart wrote:

On the general issue, though, I think we do need to be lifting our heads a bit higher than 'what, you mean only rich people will be able to afford planes. That can't be right'. So far as I know, climate change models don't have a variable that takes account of social equity. Its simply an irrelevance.

But not irrelevant in the context of this thread. As we're talking about air travel. And one of the suggestions was to make it incredibly expensive, to stop people from going on holiday abroad.

I'm sorry to have to say this again but the solution to climate change will never be "to reduce air travel". We need to make it cleaner certainly, but only after the big things are dealt with. Industry, Power generation, etc.

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

well as my post is the first in this new thread i think i can state as the thread OP what the topic is about. the fact that the original thread was on long haul flights at very cheap prices means that this is what this thread is concentrating on.

No you don't get to decide what the topic is about. You have used both long and short flights in your examples.

naitkris wrote:

indeed - but important air travel. again, certain forms of air travel - weekend breaks (being the example i have used) is far less productive than a 1 week business trip (or a 1 week holiday break) in the vast majority of cases. and again, i am not saying to stop air travel, just to reduce it.

Why are they less productive - You argue against capitalism further on in your post but use it as your stance here? It depends and what productivity your going for here - If someone wants to relax on the beach then the productivity is greater on the beach then in some office building. People travel to enjoy themselves and some travel to work. They are just as important as each other.

And of course I've heard of the slogan - that silly woman on the ad with diarmuid gavin says it all the time.

naitkris wrote:

thank you for insulting me.

I didn't insult you. I stated that your facts were stupid and ignorant on that point.

naitkris wrote:

you are right but you are also wrong, of course weekend breaks etc increase tourism income for a country, the whole air travel industry is capitalist that everyone involved is making huge money. the difference is that business travel and long holidays generate more money than weekend breaks and therefore would be more "efficient" or "worthwhile" or whatever than regular weekend breaks away when you add up the environmental impact of flying against the amount of money generated compared to short weekend breaks.

But what about the "human factor" here? I've come back from my holiday relaxed etc. And who are you to tell people whether their time has been worthwhile? People enjoy travel and learn from it and again that's all the justification you need.

naitkris wrote:

if it kills people due to the pollution then i think we should all have some sort of voice in the matter.

But it doesn't - It merely adds to the problem that was already there!! Pollution did not come about with foreign travel. And other solutions will have a greater effect and not prevent people spending time they way they want to.

naitkris wrote:

reduction in everything. every bit counts to the overall reduction.

Whether you agree or not the benefits out weight the danger - We would all be better off if we tackled other bigger problems first.

naitkris wrote:

the attitude of leaving it to someone to sort out the bigger problems first isn't going to help. tackling everything at once makes an impact, taking one thing at a time before going onto the next problem (especially when this problem is so massive) will mean it will take a lot longer in my opinion.

And how are we here going to change air travel - we would have to leave that to other people too!! You're realing missing the point here - A reduction in air travel will not do anything. It wont save whatever it is you want to save. And this problem isn't massive compared to other problems!! There are bigger problems, problems that wont affect our quality of life at all, that could be fixed first.

naitkris wrote:

i mean that people are so insistant today on getting from A to B as fast and cheap as possible (at the expense of the environment, animals, etc), everyone seems to be in more of a hurry nowadays than 100 years ago (from what i have read).

People couldn't travel any faster - If they could have they would have.

naitkris wrote:

so you mean that Al Gore and people who spread the word about this issue of the environmental problem should not be allowed to travel by air if people aren't allowed to have their weekend breaks abroad?

Do some reading on Mr. Gore's house.

naitkris wrote:

you are totally off-topic but on this point i find native English speaking people terrible when it comes to learning foreign languages in their leisure travel.

What a randomly sweeping generalization. And not at all what the poster was talking about.

naitkris wrote:

rich people are terrible polluters, no doubt about it. however they are the minority in population terms and get their way no matter what (back to capitalism!) so having a small % of the world population polluting is in fact better for the environment than the majority all polluting.

What are you talking about - Now you're condoning social injustice? Stopping less well off people from flying will not save the planet!!

naitkris

Archytas wrote:

No you don't get to decide what the topic is about. You have used both long and short flights in your examples.

i have indeed because both pollute obviously. i did say "the fact that the original thread was on long haul flights at very cheap prices means that this is what this thread is concentrating on, although not limited to".

Archytas wrote:

Why are they less productive - You argue against capitalism further on in your post but use it as your stance here? It depends and what productivity your going for here - If someone wants to relax on the beach then the productivity is greater on the beach then in some office building. People travel to enjoy themselves and some travel to work. They are just as important as each other.

that is your opinion that they are both as important as each other, however can you give an example of measuring this importance? i worked this out by days spent abroad having travelled there by airoplane (on average more days = more productivity and thus better use of the air travel) as well as that business travel generates business (business sales / contracts) as well as money in terms of tourism for the destination country. a 1 week holiday is far better than a weekend break going to the same foreign destination in my opinion.

Archytas wrote:

And of course I've heard of the slogan - that silly woman on the ad with diarmuid gavin says it all the time.

haven't seen the ad, but that you consider her silly is perhaps maybe your attitude on the topic?

Archytas wrote:

I didn't insult you. I stated that your facts were stupid and ignorant on that point.

that is your opinion of which more more and more holds little arguement.

Archytas wrote:

But what about the "human factor" here? I've come back from my holiday relaxed etc. And who are you to tell people whether their time has been worthwhile? People enjoy travel and learn from it and again that's all the justification you need.

air travel is the keyword. travel is another topic, you don't need to relax by flying, you can take the car, bus, train, etc all of which are better for the environment if used properly.

please don't mix air travel with traveling. please start a new topic to discuss the pros and cons of travelling. i am not against travelling, only in the reduction of unneeded air travel as it is a heavy polluter.

Archytas wrote:

But it doesn't - It merely adds to the problem that was already there!! Pollution did not come about with foreign travel. And other solutions will have a greater effect and not prevent people spending time they way they want to.

pollution has been around for a long time indeed. air travel though is one of the fastest growing contributors to this ever increasing problem that will affect us for generations to come. to ignore it just because it will affect ones weekend vacation plans more than sorting out a coal mine is a bit selfish especially when the minority of people in the world have the luxury of air travel.

Archytas wrote:

Whether you agree or not the benefits out weight the danger - We would all be better off if we tackled other bigger problems first.

again your attitude is not surprising. tackling things that have less effect on our daily lives first just because they affect us less is a bit selfish.

Archytas wrote:

And how are we here going to change air travel - we would have to leave that to other people too!! You're realing missing the point here - A reduction in air travel will not do anything. It wont save whatever it is you want to save. And this problem isn't massive compared to other problems!! There are bigger problems, problems that wont affect our quality of life at all, that could be fixed first.

there is always something bigger, sure we may find a bigger planet in the Universe to live on before this one is totally ruined, but having the attitude that it is only the bigger problems that need to be tackled isn't going to help solve anything.

Archytas wrote:

People couldn't travel any faster - If they could have they would have.

it is not essential to get from A to B as fast as possible in many cases. for certain things - emergencies, urgent business, etc yes, but for a relaxing holiday abroad?

Archytas wrote:

Do some reading on Mr. Gore's house.

did i say he was perfect or something? we all pollute, it is reducing this going forward and being responsible, learning from our mistakes - that is what will shape our future and that of future generations. Mr. Gore is doing a lot by addressing the issue.

Archytas wrote:

What a randomly sweeping generalization. And not at all what the poster was talking about.

indeed, but as a foreigner i can tell you it is quite true that native English speakers are not as good, in general, as non-native English speakers when it comes to adapting to other countries languages and having a 2nd or 3rd foreign language. of course there are those who are good, but not as many as people with other mother tongues.

this was not brought up by me though and is completely off-topic.

Archytas wrote:

What are you talking about - Now you're condoning social injustice? Stopping less well off people from flying will not save the planet!!

according to your many responses it seems nothing will. injustice is another topic, i do not believe rich people should be able to do as they wish but so long as "money makes the world go round" they will be able to - this is just how it is currently. if everyone had exactly equal pay etc then this would never be an issue but i don't think this economic model would be something many Western countries would adopt.