environmental impact of flying

Calina

naitkris wrote:

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.

I split it because I felt the discussion on the wider environmental impact of flying was a) off topic and b) merited a thread on its own. Your alternative was for me to lock the thread completely per request of I think two separate posters in the original thread. You'll also find that the other thread meandered between anti/and pro positions specific to the Ryanair business plans. This however covered air travel in general - I don't think it only becomes an issue if Ryanair get a long haul aircraft off the ground on one continent and on the ground in another content. Given your position, I assumed you would have welcomed a wider and more specific debate on environmental issues rather than being a bit part player in a thread about a may or may not happen business.

naitkris wrote:

indeed - but important air travel....

the issue hangs on who decides what is important air travel. Currently, your main criteria seems to be limited to "those who can pay for it". I'd consider going to a family funeral or wedding to be slightly more important than some business meetings that get flown to.

naitkris wrote:

no, just the following comment sounded very naive:

that comment came from a paragraph and was selectively quoted out of context. There is a fundamental difference and if you and half the environmental lobby understood it you know you might get a lot wider support. People are fundamentally selfish. Save Ourselves, as opposed to Save the Earth.

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.

The point as made refuted a specific point which you made against leisure travel. Only out of context is it totally off-topic in my opinion.

naitkris wrote:

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

In general terms, both related to access to transport privileges be they aviation related or surface based, I would suggest that it is as much a remit to promote some sort of equality in society rather than saying "life isn't fair, live with it". We'd all be serfs in a medieval society if we just accepted the status quo. And no one would care anything at all for the environment if we just accepted the status quo. The question arises as to which is more important. I happen to think social justice and equity is highly, highly important because lack of both tends historically to lead to revolutions, social unrest, starvation, and all that is bad for business and the environment.

Calina

naitkris wrote:

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

I've had a look to see if I can find the ads online. I can't. I'm sorry because really, you have to see them to understand the point. I don't know if you know who Diarmuid Gavin is, but she comes across as having a serious crush on him. I find it less than effective as a public service ad but I lived in Germany for a while and am still appalled by how long it took Ireland to get to grips with recycling. However, laudable as recycling is, I'd prefer production of less waste on that front.

naitkris wrote:

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.

Air travel can be described as the process of getting there, a means, not an end in itself. That being said - speaking personally, regardless of the mode of transport, I find the process tedious and hard anyway. I'd say - however, that in the event that you use car/bus/train/boat (although you didn't mention the latter) your net result is to effectively imprison people in this island. We don't get so much annual leave here - in fact I had ten days a year less here than I had in Germany and I still have five days a year less. People tend to want the process to be as short as possible specifically because 1) it is not relaxing and 2) they don't have so much leisure time. This is - of course - no refutation of the key point about air travel in that it pollutes, however, to go down this road is to lock people in to a position between a rock and a hard place because you're suggesting they shouldn't fly which means holiday here - effectively on the time issue - and public transport options here are limited to some extent and while we're at it, there's a major anti-car movement here.

A little understanding for that position is something I'd call for because in general terms, the world, sadly enough, is not black and white and there will always be some sort of a trade off.

naitkris wrote:

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.

With respect to this I understand that the current position is that rising temperatures and CO2 levels are analagous to rising populations and that the jury is still out on exact causes. I'd also add that climate models are notoriously difficult to get right and that my shaky understanding of physics seems to recall that none of them are exactly complete. The climate/environment is a complex system. This is overly simplifying the issue as it stands.

naitkris wrote:

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.

I would contend that the point as raised was actually on topic at the time seeing as it counteracted your position on business versus leisure travel. By the way - fwiw and completely irrelevant - I speak two additional foreign languages and have a smattering of a third and some understanding of three others. I am a native English speaker and would point out that a significant amount of business is carried out through English which would suggest to me that business travel requiring air travel (or any mode of transport) is not any more effective in promoting cross cultural understanding - less so. I only raise this because you specifically wanted to limit leisure travel and not so much business travel on the specific grounds of it benefitting inter cultural communication.

naitkris wrote:

business travel however improves relations

Transport21 Fan

naitkris wrote:

so travelling abroad is now a human right? wow!

I guess you must of missed that whole 'United Nations Convention on Human Rights' thingy and the fact that this is also enshrined within European Law.

I consider myself an 'environmentalist' in terms of I like to live in a clean, unpolluted and non-toxic world. But I also realise that the benefits we enjoy today often involve producing nasty substances. It's important we have safety and public health as a major part of this need to protect the world we live while enjoying our modern lifestyles. But we can deal with nasty substances - we always have, it's part of civilisation.

For example, I like electricity very much, so I support the generation of electricity via nuclear power - because I know there is a difference between nuclear bombs and nuclear power stations. So I am cool with that. Some people do not, mainly the Irish Green Party, but that's OK they are twits. But they also want to protect the environment, and that is a noble thing and I respect that. I just wish they would start with going after the farmers around Lough Corrib pouring their **** and piss into people's drinking water and forget about dressing up as polar bears and standing outside Dail Eireann. To me having drinking water in Galway city which won't kill you is more important than banning air travel based on some unproven dogma surrounding our current phase of climate change being caused by out sinful capitalist ways.

Back to CARBON DIOXIDE *start blessing myself in terror while turning down the ipod volume in order to save Polar Bears and prevent Eskimos for purchasing bermuda shorts.*

CO2 comes from every living thing on this planet and also volcanoes. Even if humans, (and Michael O'Leary) was the cause of the vast bulk of Co2 emissions, it would not matter anyway, since the same evidence from ice core data which proves that the earth is "warming up" relative to some fantasy perfect mean temp invented back in the 1970's also shows that carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of global warming. That hypothesis has been falsified. And this is actually obvious even from the diagram Al Gore presents in the clip from his "An inconvenient truth" hysterical screwball documentary. No one in his audience seemed to notice that important little detail. A blind man leading the blind. MTV science at its worse.

Climate Change is perfectly normal and Ireland and the world has been a hell of a lot colder and warmer in the past and will be so again in the future. Mankind has little or nothing to do with this, and the so-called proof of man-made global warming is still not proven.

I know 3 scientists personally. One a geologist and two astronomers and they have told me they would like to know where is this "overwhelming majority of scientists" who claim that Global Warming is man-made and more importantly that we can somehow reverse it.

Instead they believe that all the money being wasted on trying to find a "cure" for Global Warming should be invested into dealing with it. Flood controls, agricultural methodology and so on.

This whole "carbon footprint" rubbish has about 2 more years left at best and then we'll have moved on to the next doomsday cult.

naitkris

Calina wrote:

the issue hangs on who decides what is important air travel. Currently, your main criteria seems to be limited to "those who can pay for it". I'd consider going to a family funeral or wedding to be slightly more important than some business meetings that get flown to.

i agree here fully. i never said just business travel should be allowed - i mean all forms that aren't so important or that can be done some other way (like teleconferencing etc) would be better for the environment.

Calina wrote:

People are fundamentally selfish. Save Ourselves, as opposed to Save the Earth.

very true, most if not all of us are like this. it is a problem that needs to be solved at the Government and political level as most people aren't going to play ball on their own free will if it is inconvenient, costs more etc.

Calina wrote:

In general terms, both related to access to transport privileges be they aviation related or surface based, I would suggest that it is as much a remit to promote some sort of equality in society rather than saying "life isn't fair, live with it". We'd all be serfs in a medieval society if we just accepted the status quo. And no one would care anything at all for the environment if we just accepted the status quo. The question arises as to which is more important. I happen to think social justice and equity is highly, highly important because lack of both tends historically to lead to revolutions, social unrest, starvation, and all that is bad for business and the environment.

true. but i was speaking in terms of reality, how it is today. capitalism is what runs Ireland and many countries and as such there will always be people richer and more powerful that make the minority of people.

Calina wrote:

I've had a look to see if I can find the ads online. I can't. I'm sorry because really, you have to see them to understand the point. I don't know if you know who Diarmuid Gavin is, but she comes across as having a serious crush on him.

ok, thanks - that explains it.

Calina wrote:

Air travel can be described as the process of getting there, a means, not an end in itself. That being said - speaking personally, regardless of the mode of transport, I find the process tedious and hard anyway. I'd say - however, that in the event that you use car/bus/train/boat (although you didn't mention the latter) your net result is to effectively imprison people in this island. We don't get so much annual leave here - in fact I had ten days a year less here than I had in Germany and I still have five days a year less. People tend to want the process to be as short as possible specifically because 1) it is not relaxing and 2) they don't have so much leisure time. This is - of course - no refutation of the key point about air travel in that it pollutes, however, to go down this road is to lock people in to a position between a rock and a hard place because you're suggesting they shouldn't fly which means holiday here - effectively on the time issue - and public transport options here are limited to some extent and while we're at it, there's a major anti-car movement here.

true words. although people need not imprison themselves. if they go on holiday abroad via air travel - make it a longer 2 or 3 week one for the year, not 3 or 4 weekend holidays abroad in the same year. by reducing the air mileage we are reducing the problem. people can say all they want about "new technology" etc but until it is available it isn't solving anything and in the airline business it takes a long time from designing a new airplane until it starts to be used due to the important testing over a long number of years.

Calina wrote:

With respect to this I understand that the current position is that rising temperatures and CO2 levels are analagous to rising populations and that the jury is still out on exact causes. I'd also add that climate models are notoriously difficult to get right and that my shaky understanding of physics seems to recall that none of them are exactly complete. The climate/environment is a complex system. This is overly simplifying the issue as it stands.

air travel is as has been pointed out only a small player in the problem, but it is still a big enough player that builds on the population of the Earth as the underlying factor in the scale of the problem - which most major pollutants do i'd imagine.

Calina wrote:

I would contend that the point as raised was actually on topic at the time seeing as it counteracted your position on business versus leisure travel. By the way - fwiw and completely irrelevant - I speak two additional foreign languages and have a smattering of a third and some understanding of three others. I am a native English speaker and would point out that a significant amount of business is carried out through English which would suggest to me that business travel requiring air travel (or any mode of transport) is not any more effective in promoting cross cultural understanding - less so. I only raise this because you specifically wanted to limit leisure travel and not so much business travel on the specific grounds of it benefitting inter cultural communication.

nope, i never brought up languages or any of that - you did. i merely responded that business (depending on the kind obviously) provides services and products to foreign countries that they may not otherwise have access to in their home market, thereby improving/advancing that country. business relations also help in diplomatic relations sometimes as active trade between two countries usually means there is a less likelyhood of war or other problems.

there is no point in going further off-topic in this area.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

I guess you must of missed that whole 'United Nations Convention on Human Rights' thingy and the fact that this is also enshrined within European Law.

i must have. the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not say anything about the right to entry to a foreign country as being a human right. It does say "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." for the EU this is within EU countries only, while within a specific country, it means within that country - seperate laws and agreements between countries for the free movement of people (like the EU) do not qualify as a human right, a human right is something that applies to all people in the world as in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

the declaration also states "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." however weekend breaks and holidays do not count as seeking asylum from persecution unfortunately.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

CO2 comes from every living thing on this planet and also volcanoes. Even if humans, (and Michael O'Leary) was the cause of the vast bulk of Co2 emissions, it would not matter anyway, since the same evidence from ice core data which proves that the earth is "warming up" relative to some fantasy perfect mean temp invented back in the 1970's also shows that carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of global warming. That hypothesis has been falsified. And this is actually obvious even from the diagram Al Gore presents in the clip from his "An inconvenient truth" hysterical screwball documentary. No one in his audience seemed to notice that important little detail. A blind man leading the blind. MTV science at its worse.

so if Al Gore is so wrong, why is it getting warmer and the air less clean? if it is not Co2 as you say then it must be something else which means there is a still a problem that needs to be addressed, no?

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Climate Change is perfectly normal and Ireland and the world has been a hell of a lot colder and warmer in the past and will be so again in the future. Mankind has little or nothing to do with this, and the so-called proof of man-made global warming is still not proven.

you obviously haven't read the UN report on climate change recently then. According to this BusinessWeek.com article on it, the report, "prepared by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), provides the first confirmation from the entire international scientific community that the burning of fossil fuels by humans is one of the main culprits of global warming".

Transport21 Fan wrote:

I know 3 scientists personally. One a geologist and two astronomers and they have told me they would like to know where is this "overwhelming majority of scientists" who claim that Global Warming is man-made and more importantly that we can somehow reverse it.

Instead they believe that all the money being wasted on trying to find a "cure" for Global Warming should be invested into dealing with it. Flood controls, agricultural methodology and so on.

3 scientists vs 2,500 scientists and the UN, hmmm.

they are right though, everything needs to be addressed. dealing with only the main issues isn't a full solution nor the right attitude to have.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

This whole "carbon footprint" rubbish has about 2 more years left at best and then we'll have moved on to the next doomsday cult.

not if temperatures keep rising, environmental disasters keep happening, and animals and people keep dying.

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

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.

I'd say its more than just my opinion. How can there be a method measuring emotion, memories, etc? Just as a small example - I went to Munich recently for a long weekend. I learnt alot and have memories of times spent with people and the like. This isn't quantifiable. I've also flown to the US on training course which didn't generate business and had little effect on tourism as I had one afternoon off in 5 days. Was this not productive? My managers etc. seem to believe it was.

naitkris wrote:

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

Don't be ridiculous.

naitkris wrote:

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

I'm sorry - it wasn't opinion it was a fact. You stated that air travel "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."

Which I pointed out with factual information that this was complete crap.

naitkris wrote:

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.

When I go to France and have a week to do it I don't have the time to spend 19 hours each way on a ferry. And then whatever time it takes on the train to get to wherever else I'm going. There is no other real alternative to air travel in this situation.

naitkris wrote:

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.

It may well be fast growing but removing it is not the solution to a far bigger problem.

naitkris wrote:

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.

Its common sense.

naitkris wrote:

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.

And why wont it solve anything?? - A 50% percent reduction is better than a 5% one.

naitkris wrote:

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.

Because its crap. It doesn't reward ingenuity. It doesn't reward hard work. And it doesn't work because of human nature.

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

true words. although people need not imprison themselves. if they go on holiday abroad via air travel - make it a longer 2 or 3 week one for the year, not 3 or 4 weekend holidays abroad in the same year. by reducing the air mileage we are reducing the problem. people can say all they want about "new technology" etc but until it is available it isn't solving anything and in the airline business it takes a long time from designing a new airplane until it starts to be used due to the important testing over a long number of years.

I don't know many people who can take off 2 or 3 weeks in succession. I cant? My gf cant? How do we get away?

naitkris

Archytas wrote:

I'd say its more than just my opinion. How can there be a method measuring emotion, memories, etc? Just as a small example - I went to Munich recently for a long weekend. I learnt alot and have memories of times spent with people and the like. This isn't quantifiable. I've also flown to the US on training course which didn't generate business and had little effect on tourism as I had one afternoon off in 5 days. Was this not productive? My managers etc. seem to believe it was.

where are the facts if it is more than just your opinion? you have previously thrown out figures but haven't backed them up with a source.

also with regards to your training i consider that a waste of business time and money if you could be trained over conference call + NetMeeting for example or have the trainer come over for a few weeks and train a group of people instead.

not all business travel is productive, likewise not all leisure travel is.

Archytas wrote:

I'm sorry - it wasn't opinion it was a fact. You stated that air travel "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."

Which I pointed out with factual information that this was complete crap.

which facts did you post to prove that all that was "complete crap"? those statements are my opinion and cover numerous areas, i don't recall you posting any facts and backing them up with a source let alone covering all those areas of business travel. nonetheless, all forms of travel in every area can be reduced.

Archytas wrote:

When I go to France and have a week to do it I don't have the time to spend 19 hours each way on a ferry. And then whatever time it takes on the train to get to wherever else I'm going. There is no other real alternative to air travel in this situation.

that makes sense. if you had time though would you consider the ferry?

Archytas wrote:

It may well be fast growing but removing it is not the solution to a far bigger problem.

i agree, it is not the solution, but it is part of the solution in my opinion as the problem consists of multiple ones.

Archytas wrote:

And why wont it solve anything?? - A 50% percent reduction is better than a 5% one.

where did you get 50% and 5%? if we could reduce our pollution by 50% without touching air travel that'd be great, but i doubt it would easy which is why tackling everything to get a "50% percent reduction" may be an easier goal to achieve.

Archytas wrote:

Because its crap. It doesn't reward ingenuity. It doesn't reward hard work. And it doesn't work because of human nature.

indeed but it was brought up by someone that restricting air travel to those who can afford it would not be right, however, that was one idea for a solution to the problem (albeit one that won't be popular by regular travellers) - making air travel a luxury again and thus less people will travel by air except when it is important or for long periods away as opposed to a weekend holiday.

Archytas wrote:

I don't know many people who can take off 2 or 3 weeks in succession. I cant? My gf cant? How do we get away?

sure, but some people can in the last decade in Ireland who couldn't before due to the much higher income and prosperity Ireland has experienced.

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

where are the facts if it is more than just your opinion? you have previously thrown out figures but haven't backed them up with a source.

What I meant by that was it was an opinion shared by more than just me. And What figures have I thrown out that I havn't backed up with a source - Point them out and I'll give you a source for them.

naitkris wrote:

also with regards to your training i consider that a waste of business time and money if you could be trained over conference call + NetMeeting for example or have the trainer come over for a few weeks and train a group of people instead.

But they were only training me? And it isn't practical be on the phone for a week???

naitkris wrote:

which facts did you post to prove that all that was "complete crap"? those statements are my opinion and cover numerous areas

I was talking about your opinion - "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."

Which I retorted with an actual fact - and I believe I gave the source. Read it again. In fact here it is - "The UK economy benefited from tourism to the tune of £81.5bn in 2004, says the British Hospitality Association." That to me looks like a fact backed up with a source.

naitkris wrote:

where did you get 50% and 5%? if we could reduce our pollution by 50% without touching air travel that'd be great, but i doubt it would easy which is why tackling everything to get a "50% percent reduction" may be an easier goal to achieve.

I plucked the numbers from the air - I was merely pointing out that fixing a bigger part of the problem is better than fixing a small part of the problem. Of course tackling everything will be an easier task to achieve - but we should be tackling problems that have less of impact on our recreational time(of which we have very little of already).

naitkris wrote:

(albeit one that won't be popular by regular travellers)

I wouldn't be popular with a huge number of people - not just regular travelers.

naitkris wrote:

sure, but some people can in the last decade in Ireland who couldn't before due to the much higher income and prosperity Ireland has experienced.

Of course some people can - But a lot can't. Thus making your solution unworkable.

naitkris wrote:

Indeed but

Crazy politics will not solve this problem and would not have prevented this.

jrey1981

Interesting debate so I'll see if I can stir up some controversy too.

1. Most users of Easyjet and Ryanair and the likes are not on lower incomes. Much demand comes from middle/higher income weekenders, holidaymakers and people with second homes abroad. Not to mention the stag weekenders, football fans etc.

2. As Naitkris has been saying, low cost air travel unnecessarily stimulates demand. It's artificial demand. When people see they can get somewhere for €9.99, it encourages people to think of a reason to go there, rather than having a reason to go somewhere in the first place.

"If we can we should," isn't really much of a justification in this context.

3. Air travel receives public subsidies, which lower startup and operational costs. This is a key point that needs to be addressed. If Ryanair starts flying to the US, it'll receive at least €10m in subsidies from the DAA and state bodies in the US per route.

Derry City was subsidising Ryanair as well, as was Wallonia at Charleroi. I have no doubt this is happening on other routes and occurs with other airlines.

This is the usual case of economic growth taking precedence over environmental considerations.

There is a debate over VAT on tickets and jet fuel, but afaik bus and train companies don't pay this either, so I presume those who advocate it do so solely on environmental grounds rather than economic ones.

4. As with much consumerism, there is a disconnection with the activity of air travel and its effects. From one perspective, flying is the old case of somebody winning and somebody losing.

It's a fundamental global equality that we continue to struggle to address.

Who wins? Airline shareholders, employees and the person making the journey.

Who loses? All of us lose a little bit from environmental damage, but desertification and flooding in different areas of the developing world means its already disadvantaged population loses disproportionately.

Until we face up to that reality, this disconnection and the harsh fact that somebody wins and somebody loses, we have a long way to go.

naitkris

jrey1981 - interesting post, nice to see someone come with something new as i am almost tired of having to re-post almost the same info every time.

Archytas wrote:

What I meant by that was it was an opinion shared by more than just me.

ok, please list % of people who support your opinion that business and leisure travel are as important as each other.

i know people who share my opinion that they aren't equally important, or in fact easily measurable, but the number that i know isn't huge (although i am sure - my opinion now - that if one did a survey a good % would not think they are equal in importance).

Archytas wrote:

But they were only training me? And it isn't practical be on the phone for a week???

well then if it was very important to your job role and nobody else could train you in Ireland then that is important travel obviously, even if it doesn't have any direct monetary benefit now, it probably will later (otherwise it sounds like a bad business move).

making travel decisions that work for the environment also is a good step.

Archytas wrote:

I was talking about your opinion - "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."

Which I retorted with an actual fact - and I believe I gave the source. Read it again. In fact here it is - "The UK economy benefited from tourism to the tune of £81.5bn in 2004, says the British Hospitality Association." That to me looks like a fact backed up with a source.

no source given - can you provide a link? but also, more importantly, that data does not compare the relative benefits of weekend vacation breaks against business trips to the same destination. you are just throwing out numbers that even if they are true, do not say whether it is better than business travel.

with everything there are pros and cons, saving the environment is going to mean people will have to make sacrificies, no doubt about it, that's life.

while tourism has a monetary benefit to the destination economy, business trips can have a monetary effect to both countries in many cases, as well as tourism money from the business travellers, better business relations, etc. - these are my opinions, but i do not think tourism provides much in the way of better business relations (for example) which can have the effect of improving diplomacy between nations.

Archytas wrote:

I plucked the numbers from the air - I was merely pointing out that fixing a bigger part of the problem is better than fixing a small part of the problem. Of course tackling everything will be an easier task to achieve - but we should be tackling problems that have less of impact on our recreational time(of which we have very little of already).

again, fixing everything is important. we are over 6 billion people on the planet so it is not like we don't have the man power to address all the issues at once should we decide to take the issue seriously.

Archytas wrote:

I wouldn't be popular with a huge number of people - not just regular travelers.

i think you are referring to increasing the cost of air travel - of course it would not be popular with a huge number of people as everyone wants stuff, demand is everywhere for goods and services as we live in a capatilist economy.

the smoking ban is a good example. before it came in it was not so popular by a large number of people at the time - smokers, pub owners, etc. but since the ban going into the pub is a lot nicer, better for ones health, etc. and people aren't complaining as much anymore.

Archytas wrote:

Of course some people can - But a lot can't. Thus making your solution unworkable.

air travel in Ireland has increased a lot from Ireland to abroad the last 5 years regardless, and many airlines advertise weekend breaks away and at really cheap fares making it very tempting for people to take a long weekend (Friday or Monday off work).

Archytas wrote:

Crazy politics will not solve this problem and would not have prevented this.

we won't know until we try. i like to think that employing all methods as being the best way as i don't believe there is a single solution to solving this problem. if you know of a single solution to solving this huge problem please post it here.

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

ok, please list % of people who support your opinion that business and leisure travel are as important as each other.

Of course I cant do that - What a childish response.

naitkris wrote:

no source given

It says it right there?! - The British Hospitality Association. But since you apparently don't want to look it up - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4346532.stm

naitkris wrote:

but also, more importantly, that data does not compare the relative benefits of weekend vacation breaks against business trips to the same destination. you are just throwing out numbers that even if they are true, do not say whether it is better than business travel

FFS but that is not what you said. And I answered what you said with a fact. I'm getting tired of pointing this out.

naitkris wrote:

with everything there are pros and cons, saving the environment is going to mean people will have to make sacrificies, no doubt about it, that's life.

But there are better and more important changes to make first. Changes that will make a larger impact on "global warming".

naitkris wrote:

the smoking ban is a good example. before it came in it was not so popular by a large number of people at the time - smokers, pub owners, etc. but since the ban going into the pub is a lot nicer, better for ones health, etc. and people aren't complaining as much anymore.

Come on - this is nothing like the smoking ban - Which had a huge backing and actually made a difference.

naitkris wrote:

air travel in Ireland has increased a lot from Ireland to abroad the last 5 years regardless, and many airlines advertise weekend breaks away and at really cheap fares making it very tempting for people to take a long weekend (Friday or Monday off work).

I'm going to say it again. Sorry. A reduction in air travel will not solve the bigger problem.

naitkris wrote:

we won't know until we try. i like to think that employing all methods as being the best way as i don't believe there is a single solution to solving this problem. if you know of a single solution to solving this huge problem please post it here.

Of course there isn't a single solution but I do believe I've posted some other changes that can be made already. Have you read my posts?

SeanW

I didn't read the last 2 pages of this debate but I did see the pie chart on page 1 that showed Coal-fired power generation as being the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions at 33%. Followed not far behind by other power generation mechanisms (like natural gas, oil, peat and whatnot) and that in transportation, there are many other problems.

But by far the vast bulk of CO2 emissions, comes from electricity and heat generation.

So it seems like this is where we need to be looking for solutions, not pissing against the wind with symbolic taxes and penalties on air travellers. I have also noticed some degree of snobbery on this thread (I fly for business because I need to - but leisure travellers should be treated differently).

My main question to those advocating taxes/restrictions on cheap air travel is this, given that the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions is coal-fired power and heat, what's your position on (almost CO2 free) nuclear power?

naitkris

Archytas wrote:

Of course I cant do that - What a childish response.

well you said:

Archytas wrote:

What I meant by that was it was an opinion shared by more than just me. And What figures have I thrown out that I havn't backed up with a source - Point them out and I'll give you a source for them.

i therefore thought if you say it is shared by more than just you and the way you seem to imply that you are in the majority of people who think this way then i expected you'd have some sort of proof to back this up?

Archytas wrote:

It says it right there?! - The British Hospitality Association. But since you apparently don't want to look it up - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4346532.stm

do you expect people reading this thread to have to verify the facts you post by themselves? if you post a fact, it is usually best to link to the source of it, if that's not possible then don't expect someone to believe the fact 100% and have to go check for themselves.

secondly, i keep saying this, of course tourism with regards to weekend breaks and other short vacation trips generate money and so on, but isn't the sacrifice on a a capitalist scale worth it if we reduce our pollution of the environment a fair bit. we can still fly abroad but just more responsibly.

as jrey1981 posted, "low cost air travel unnecessarily stimulates demand. It's artificial demand. When people see they can get somewhere for €9.99, it encourages people to think of a reason to go there, rather than having a reason to go somewhere in the first place" - i think is quite a valid opinion and i know of many people who simply travel abroad for 2 or 3 days as opposed to a week or more as it is just so cheap, and they say "why not?"

Archytas wrote:

FFS but that is not what you said. And I answered what you said with a fact. I'm getting tired of pointing this out.

you partially answered what i said. answering something partially is not the same as answering something fully which you did not do.

i said:

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.

you replied:

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.

thus you only brought up the monetary aspect of tourism, while very valid, it does not compare the monetary aspect to that of business travel, improving relations between nations, bringing new products/services to countries due to trade etc.

Archytas wrote:

But there are better and more important changes to make first. Changes that will make a larger impact on "global warming".

that is your opinion that they should be made first before we get to air travel. do you think, realistically now, that these "better and more important changes" will be done in the next few decades? if not, do you think it is fine that we ignore the problem air travel causes with regards to pollution until we sort the other problems, and by waiting so long, air travel increases further, doing much greater damage to the environment in the future than it is today?

Archytas wrote:

Come on - this is nothing like the smoking ban - Which had a huge backing and actually made a difference.

actually when the idea was first thought of it did not have huge backing, only once it was about to be brought in did many people really back it, if i remember correctly.

how will reducing pollution by air travel not make a difference? other than saying "it is only 4%" etc, which i will again reply is huge on a global scale, as well as this, the pollution from air travel is worse as it is dumped high in the sky destroying our atmosphere and stopping heat from leaving the Earth and thus increasing global warming on a far greater scale compared to pollution created on the ground.

Archytas wrote:

I'm going to say it again. Sorry. A reduction in air travel will not solve the bigger problem.

I'm going to say it again, the resolving of no single problem will. It is the collective resolving of many issues that will help.

Archytas wrote:

Of course there isn't a single solution but I do believe I've posted some other changes that can be made already. Have you read my posts?

i have read your posts but your solutions with regards to coal mines etc affects mostly developing nations and not Ireland, so by saying it is better we fix those kind of things (while i agree with you of course), then Ireland has little to play in the area of climate change, and as we know Irish people are one of the biggest polluters next to Americans when it comes to the environment.

everyone should have a role to play, we are over 6 billion people on this planet and focusing on only a few main problems isn't going to make the problem go away since the world population will increase to 9 billion people anyway and the extra demand for resources will mean the per-head reduction will mean little in terms of total reduction.

SeanW wrote:

I fly for business because I need to - but leisure travellers should be treated differently

indeed, this is a point i am trying to make. although unneccessary business air travel (there is a fair bit of it) should also be looked at and reduced where possible.

it is reduction of the total problem until some "new technology" comes along that will help things rather than ignoring it and encouraging even cheaper air travel.

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

i therefore thought if you say it is shared by more than just you and the way you seem to imply that you are in the majority of people who think this way then i expected you'd have some sort of proof to back this up?

I'm sorry but where did I say this? Where did I imply that I was in the majority? I said that other people felt the same way And I got this from talking to friends etc. To ask me to prove that other people feel the same is childish and stupid as its impossible.

naitkris wrote:

do you expect people reading this thread to have to verify the facts you post by themselves? if you post a fact, it is usually best to link to the source of it, if that's not possible then don't expect someone to believe the fact 100% and have to go check for themselves.

I don't care whether someone believes the fact or not. I posted it in good faith. If you want to counter it thats up to you. And FFS I gave the source. The British Hospitality Association. One quick look at google would have confirmed it for you.

naitkris wrote:

but isn't the sacrifice on a a capitalist scale worth it if we reduce our pollution of the environment a fair bit.

But it wont reduce it at a fair bit - Lets say we reduce 4% emissions to 2%. This isn't going to change anything?? Saying that every bit counts is true in its own way but there are far better changes to make that will not affect people. So we should be looking at those first. And I've pointed out these changes above already.

naitkris wrote:

i think is quite a valid opinion and i know of many people who simply travel abroad for 2 or 3 days as opposed to a week or more as it is just so cheap, and they say "why not?"

And why shouldn't they? If someone wants to go on holiday abroad and by plane they can and should be able to.

naitkris wrote:

you partially answered what i said. answering something partially is not the same as answering something fully which you did not do.

What are you talking about? I agree that business does generate income and is good but to say that leisure holiday does not is ridiculous and ignorant of the facts. I pointed out that this portion of your statement was wrong - I left the other portion of your statement alone. I do not have to find an argument to compare them because that is not what I was disputing. Why is that so hard to understand?

naitkris wrote:

thus you only brought up the monetary aspect of tourism, while very valid, it does not compare the monetary aspect to that of business travel, improving relations between nations, bringing new products/services to countries due to trade etc.

I am not going to continue arguing this point because you have shown a complete lack of ability to read what I have said. I did not compare because that is not what I was arguing.

naitkris wrote:

that is your opinion that they should be made first before we get to air travel. do you think, realistically now, that these "better and more important changes" will be done in the next few decades? if not, do you think it is fine that we ignore the problem air travel causes with regards to pollution until we sort the other problems, and by waiting so long, air travel increases further, doing much greater damage to the environment in the future than it is today?

Of course they will be made in the next few decades. Changes to how standby technology acts on appliances is already being changed. That will make a huge difference. Changing the law on how sockets are installed is another step in the right direction and will make more of an impact. These things will alter c02 emissions by cutting down on electricity generation and thus make a bigger impact on the environment without affecting our quality of life.

naitkris wrote:

actually when the idea was first thought of it did not have huge backing, only once it was about to be brought in did many people really back it, if i remember correctly.

It had an enormous backing from unions, politicians, etc. The only people who didn't want it were old men and publicans, who were worried that people might give up drink if they couldn't smoke at the same time.

naitkris wrote:

the pollution from air travel is worse as it is dumped high in the sky destroying our atmosphere and stopping heat from leaving the Earth and thus increasing global warming on a far greater scale compared to pollution created on the ground.

This is almost true - but it isn't far greater. There is no doubt that it is greater but not far greater. There was recently talk off how this removes methane from this altitude. Which is a good thing. Not a huge benefit and in reality doesn't change the c02 emissions one bit. "USA Today" ran an article in the newspaper on this which I read recently.

naitkris wrote:

i have read your posts but your solutions with regards to coal mines etc affects mostly developing nations and not Ireland, so by saying it is better we fix those kind of things (while i agree with you of course), then Ireland has little to play in the area of climate change, and as we know Irish people are one of the biggest polluters next to Americans when it comes to the environment.

I never said Ireland didn't have changes to make. It has changes to make of course of which I have named a few. I never mentioned coal mines but I'll carry on anyway - how we power our countries is the biggest polluter on the planet. Coming in at a whopping 51% of all carbon emissions. The move to nuclear and other types of energy generation will have a greater affect on the environment than any other group of changes we can make and yet I don't see you calling for this change??

naitkris wrote:

everyone should have a role to play, we are over 6 billion people on this planet and focusing on only a few main problems isn't going to make the problem go away since the world population will increase to 9 billion people anyway and the extra demand for resources will mean the per-head reduction will mean little in terms of total reduction.

Please explain this further? How will the changes that I have mentioned not help simply because the population is getting bigger? How will denying people air travel achieve any greater success either?

And since you gone all source crazy - In your future posts try and back up your own facts? I don't need a link - just the name of an organization that has said it etc. I can look it up myself.

naitkris

Archytas wrote:

I'm sorry but where did I say this? Where did I imply that I was in the majority? I said that other people felt the same way And I got this from talking to friends etc. To ask me to prove that other people feel the same is childish and stupid as its impossible.

well by saying that other people suport your view on this and that your solutions are correct, you appeared to be implying (in my view anyways) that this is how the majority would be on this topic. this was just my opinion, reading into how you said it, my misinterpretation, apologies.

Archytas wrote:

I don't care whether someone believes the fact or not. I posted it in good faith. If you want to counter it thats up to you. And FFS I gave the source. The British Hospitality Association. One quick look at google would have confirmed it for you.

fair enough. the fact which you posted though only says the obvious - that tourism generates money, which is not what this topic is about.

it doesn't say whether tourism is good or bad for the environment in terms of air travel nor the penalty in tourism money if we were to reduce air travel for short weekend breaks, or comparing it to business revenues generated from business travel done by air.

Archytas wrote:

But it wont reduce it at a fair bit - Lets say we reduce 4% emissions to 2%. This isn't going to change anything?? Saying that every bit counts is true in its own way but there are far better changes to make that will not affect people. So we should be looking at those first. And I've pointed out these changes above already.

how do you know reducing emissions in half at the very top of our atmosphere (where it has a larger impact) won't change anything? i am guessing you are just guessing this.

and again, improving everything is the solution. neglecting a few problems (like air travel) and concentrating on the bigger ones just creates a double-standard - essentially telling people that it is ok to pollute the environment in certain ways but not others.

Archytas wrote:

And why shouldn't they? If someone wants to go on holiday abroad and by plane they can and should be able to.

of course they should be allowed. if they take a sailing boat, train, car, etc. that has less effect on the environment, all the better. should they need to travel by air then they can do so, but it hoped that they would take a longer holiday then just a weekend break seeing as air travel pollutes the environment worse than most other forms of travel.

Archytas wrote:

What are you talking about? I agree that business does generate income and is good but to say that leisure holiday does not is ridiculous and ignorant of the facts. I pointed out that this portion of your statement was wrong - I left the other portion of your statement alone. I do not have to find an argument to compare them because that is not what I was disputing. Why is that so hard to understand?

LOL. i never said leisure travel does not generate income. everyone knows it does that to say it doesn't would be silly. please quote me where i said it didn't. i said though that business travel, in my opinion, can in general result in generating more money through trade, better business relations between countries, improved diplomatic relations between countries, as well as the tourism money that business travellers can also contribute through hotels, food, travel within the country, etc.

Archytas wrote:

I am not going to continue arguing this point because you have shown a complete lack of ability to read what I have said. I did not compare because that is not what I was arguing.

what were you arguing then?

Archytas wrote:

Of course they will be made in the next few decades. Changes to how standby technology acts on appliances is already being changed. That will make a huge difference. Changing the law on how sockets are installed is another step in the right direction and will make more of an impact. These things will alter c02 emissions by cutting down on electricity generation and thus make a bigger impact on the environment without affecting our quality of life.

indeed, every little bit counts - as i keep saying. i am glad we agree that there are many solutions to this huge problem.

Archytas wrote:

It had an enormous backing from unions, politicians, etc. The only people who didn't want it were old men and publicans, who were worried that people might give up drink if they couldn't smoke at the same time.

i think most people will back anything that prevents killing them or seriously damaging their health, unless if it affects them in big way such as some smokers or publicans who were worried of being affected more so.

the same can be said about reducing unnecessary air travel - as it with everything - sacrifices need to be made - and instead of the smokers and publicans being affected most this time, it will be the regular short-term leisure travellers who fly by air that will be most against this, which is not surprising.

Archytas wrote:

This is almost true - but it isn't far greater. There is no doubt that it is greater but not far greater. There was recently talk off how this removes methane from this altitude. Which is a good thing. Not a huge benefit and in reality doesn't change the c02 emissions one bit. "USA Today" ran an article in the newspaper on this which I read recently.

it is true, and therefore it contributes more than most forms which means we should take it very seriously.

Archytas wrote:

I never mentioned coal mines

well you did (unless you consider coal mining and coal burning two seperate things, and if so fine, but in order to burn coal you need to mine it so they are essentially the same thing), see here:

Archytas wrote:

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

Archytas wrote:

but I'll carry on anyway - how we power our countries is the biggest polluter on the planet. Coming in at a whopping 51% of all carbon emissions. The move to nuclear and other types of energy generation will have a greater affect on the environment than any other group of changes we can make and yet I don't see you calling for this change??

nuclear energy generation is very dangerous however, see Chernobyl disaster. cleaner and safer forms of energy are more natural energy sources - wind (wind turbines for example), water (water power stations), and the sun (solar panels).

we need to look at all the problems as well as all the solutions. numerous clean solutions are better than any single main solution.

accepting that there are many problems and that all problems need addressing is the first step on the road.

Archytas wrote:

Please explain this further? How will the changes that I have mentioned not help simply because the population is getting bigger? How will denying people air travel achieve any greater success either?

every solution will help. asking people to reduce their unneccessary air travel is what is important, people can still travel, just more responsibly, taking the environment into account.

Archytas wrote:

And since you gone all source
crazy - In your future posts try and back up your own facts? I don't need a link - just the name of an organization that has said it etc. I can look it up myself.

well i admit most of my answers are opinions, i have however included facts where needed in previous posts to other replies. anywhere i have given a fact i think i have linked to the source, if not apologies.

i will give some scary info and also some facts regarding air travel and pollution:

"Its [aircraft travel] projected growth means that by 2050 it is set to become one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions with around 10 per cent of climate change directly attributable to aircraft." - Transport 2000 - Aviation and the Environment

"While motorists could argue that through various taxes they pay something towards the environmental and social problems they cause, air travellers and airlines most certainly do not. Airlines pay no duty or VAT on aviation fuel and there is no VAT on either air tickets or new aircraft." (UK article - would be different for Ireland, but total taxes for air travel in Ireland are very low compared to motorists also) - also from Transport 2000 - Aviation and the Environment

"With the runway speeding past and four huge jet engines howling at take-off thrust, a 747 gulps a gallon of fuel every second. Just five minutes into an eight-hour flight, each jumbo jetliner will have burned the day’s oxygen production of a 44,000 acre rainforest. [Ecodecision 1995]" - Convergence Weekly

"Creatures of another realm, jets prefer to cruise in the cold, airless reaches of the stratosphere, more than two miles above the Earth. Pollutants linger here. By the time a New York-departed 747 descends into Ireland, some 239,000 pounds of “Jet A” will have left a trail of kerosene soot, other heat-trapping gases and ozone-destroying chemicals in its wake. Though soot accounts for only 1% of jet emissions, more than a million metric tons are released into Earth’s recirculating stratosphere every month. The moisture that condenses around these and other nuclei from millions of jet exhausts forms clouds that is heating the Earth. And stealing our skies." - also from Convergence Weekly

This Transport 2000 - Aviation and the Environment page quoted, and the Convergence Weekly page on aircraft pollution also quoted above as well as this shorter article on the same topic make scary reading.

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

fair enough. the fact which you posted though only says the obvious - that tourism generates money, which is not what this topic is about.

But you said it didn't??? Will you please go back and read what you posted.

it doesn't say whether tourism is good or bad for the environment in terms of air travel nor the penalty in tourism money if we were to reduce air travel for short weekend breaks, or comparing it to business revenues generated from business travel done by air.

Because this is not what I was arguing. I'm sorry - GO BACK AND READ THE POST AGAIN. I merely countered one of YOUR points on leisure travel.

and again, improving everything is the solution. neglecting a few problems (like air travel) and concentrating on the bigger ones just creates a double-standard - essentially telling people that it is ok to pollute the environment in certain ways but not others.

But so are you? And almost everything we do pollutes. Do you live in a perfectly environmentally safe house, that uses no power that isn't from clean energy? Do you drive a car? You've already admitted that you're going to be flying on business? That is essentially the double standard that you're talking about. It is how the world works.

LOL. i never said leisure travel does not generate income. everyone knows it does that to say it doesn't would be silly. please quote me where i said it didn't. i said though that business travel, in my opinion, can in general result in generating more money through trade, better business relations between countries, improved diplomatic relations between countries, as well as the tourism money that business travellers can also contribute through hotels, food, travel within the country, etc.

Again - go back and read your post.

In fact here it is for you

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.

I even highlighted the important bit. I'm sorry if you having trouble being clear on this point, because that isn't much of a comparison. In essence you said business travel generates lots but leisure travel doesn't. FFS Of course leisure travel brings in new things and improvements in life. Maybe of course you didn't understand the figure that I responded to this with - £84.5 billion. In the UK alone. That is an enormous amount of money and I'm sure it was taxed etc. All leading to improvements in life etc.

indeed, every little bit counts - as i keep saying. i am glad we agree that there are many solutions to this huge problem.

But tripling the price of air travel is not one of them.

i think most people will back anything that prevents killing them or seriously damaging their health, unless if it affects them in big way such as some smokers or publicans who were worried of being affected more so.

FFS but thats not what you said - You said it had very little backing at the start.

the same can be said about reducing unnecessary air travel - as it with everything - sacrifices need to be made - and instead of the smokers and publicans being affected most this time, it will be the regular short-term leisure travellers who fly by air that will be most against this, which is not surprising.

But making air travel hugely more expensive will not JUST affect regular short term leisure travelers - IT WILL BE EVERYONE who travels by air.

well you did (unless you consider coal mining and coal burning two seperate things, and if so fine, but in order to burn coal you need to mine it so they are essentially the same thing), see here:

I DID NOT MENTION coal mining. And it is a separate thing. Coal is running out. Some estimates put it at 20 years left. And even then we're going to see huge reductions in the amount of coal mined. Getting rid of Older forms of electricity generation should be at the very top of the list.

nuclear energy generation is very dangerous however, see Chernobyl disaster. cleaner and safer forms of energy are more natural energy sources - wind (wind turbines for example), water (water power stations), and the sun (solar panels).

But all those forms of energy affect hugely the environment. To use them we would need to cover huge swathes of land with turbines, Every river will need to be dammed and everything covered in Solar panels. All of it relies on something that isn't always there depending on seasons etc.

i will give some scary info and also some facts regarding air travel and pollution:

"Its [aircraft travel] projected growth means that by 2050 it is set to become one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions with around 10 per cent of climate change directly attributable to aircraft." - Transport 2000 - Aviation and the Environment

"While motorists could argue that through various taxes they pay something towards the environmental and social problems they cause, air travellers and airlines most certainly do not. Airlines pay no duty or VAT on aviation fuel and there is no VAT on either air tickets or new aircraft." (UK article - would be different for Ireland, but total taxes for air travel in Ireland are very low compared to motorists also) - also from Transport 2000 - Aviation and the Environment

"With the runway speeding past and four huge jet engines howling at take-off thrust, a 747 gulps a gallon of fuel every second. Just five minutes into an eight-hour flight, each jumbo jetliner will have burned the day’s oxygen production of a 44,000 acre rainforest. [Ecodecision 1995]" - Convergence Weekly

"Creatures of another realm, jets prefer to cruise in the cold, airless reaches of the stratosphere, more than two miles above the Earth. Pollutants linger here. By the time a New York-departed 747 descends into Ireland, some 239,000 pounds of “Jet A” will have left a trail of kerosene soot, other heat-trapping gases and ozone-destroying chemicals in its wake. Though soot accounts for only 1% of jet emissions, more than a million metric tons are released into Earth’s recirculating stratosphere every month. The moisture that condenses around these and other nuclei from millions of jet exhausts forms clouds that is heating the Earth. And stealing our skies." - also from Convergence Weekly

This Transport 2000 - Aviation and the Environment page quoted, and the Convergence Weekly page on aircraft pollution also quoted above as well as this shorter article on the same topic make scary reading.

We have all read this kind of thing before. And no it isn't scary. Its something that will be changed in the future - better technology, fuel efficiency, etc. will all change this.

Chris_533976

naitkris

Archytas wrote:

But you said it didn't??? Will you please go back and read what you posted.

i only remember posting:

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.

this is my opinion as i keep saying over and over to you. you came back with a fact that doesn't compare it to anything, only says the obvious that tourism generates money, as does business travel, however i am of the opinion that a 2 day business trip is more productive than a 2 day weekend away for leisure. both are bad for the environment, but one appears more productive in more areas than the other.

unless you can prove with a fact that leisure air travel is more important than business air travel, or that leisure air travel and business air travel are of equal importance as you claimed earlier:

Archytas wrote:

Why are they less productive - ... 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.

Archytas wrote:

But so are you?

yes i do pollute, everyone does, some far more than other though, i try to reduce my own pollution though as much as possible. it is easier done in ones personal life than it is for business though.

Archytas wrote:

And almost everything we do pollutes. Do you live in a perfectly environmentally safe house, that uses no power that isn't from clean energy?

no, very few people do but it is trying to reduce the problem that gets us somewhere. i think my home is quite environmentally friendly compared to the average home in Ireland. it is completely timber built and uses heat recovery, proper insulation, low energy lighting. adding solar panels going forward is something being discussed.

i don't see what these things have to do with air travel pollution though - one can always compare apples to pears, that is easy.

Archytas wrote:

Do you drive a car?

why do you ask? how does this matter to the topic of air travel pollution?

i'll answer it anyways - no, i walk, take the bus or train. sometimes get a lift from a friend or family in the car.

Archytas wrote:

You've already admitted that you're going to be flying on business? That is essentially the double standard that you're talking about. It is how the world works.

indeed, but i consider business air travel harder to prevent as the company would send someone else otherwise as they have the money to do so. however my own personal travel is where i make the decisions on and if i reduce that to 1 or max 2 leisure trips abroad in a year then i am helping to reduce the problem.

Archytas wrote:

Again - go back and read your post.

In fact here it is for you

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.

i see - same quote as i mentioned above. i stand by it too, except for the "if at all" - i went a bit overboard with that wording but as English isn't the language i use all the time that can happen, apologies. i think rephrasing it to "not as much" is better.

Archytas wrote:

I even highlighted the important bit. I'm sorry if you having trouble being clear on this point, because that isn't much of a comparison. In essence you said business travel generates lots but leisure travel doesn't. FFS Of course leisure travel brings in new things and improvements in life. Maybe of course you didn't understand the figure that I responded to this with - £84.5 billion. In the UK alone. That is an enormous amount of money and I'm sure it was taxed etc. All leading to improvements in life etc.

again, it need not be reduced drastically, but it is obvious that should we tackle the ever-growing problem of air travel pollution (or any problem for that matter), sacrifices (monetary etc) will need to be made.

Archytas wrote:

But tripling the price of air travel is not one of them.

why not? how else would you consider reducing air travel as it is an ever increasing polluter as you have read. if you have a better solution please post it rather than talking about reducing other pollutants, this discussion is on air travel pollution primarily.

Archytas wrote:

FFS but thats not what you said - You said it had very little backing at the start.

it still did in my opinion. can you prove me wrong with a fact?

Archytas wrote:

But making air travel hugely more expensive will not JUST affect regular short term leisure travelers - IT WILL BE EVERYONE who travels by air.

depends how it is tackled. there are many ways of solving a problem.

Archytas wrote:

I DID NOT MENTION coal mining. And it is a separate thing. Coal is running out. Some estimates put it at 20 years left. And even then we're going to see huge reductions in the amount of coal mined. Getting rid of Older forms of electricity generation should be at the very top of the list.

i agree - it is good we are starting to agree that there are many problems besides air travel pollution. should we start new topics on these different areas?

Archytas wrote:

But all those forms of energy affect hugely the environment. To use them we would need to cover huge swathes of land with turbines, Every river will need to be dammed and everything covered in Solar panels. All of it relies on something that isn't always there depending on seasons etc.

or we can reduce or energy needs that way we won't have to build as many turbines etc - what do you say?

reduce - reuse - recycle!

Archytas wrote:

We have all read this kind of thing before. And no it isn't scary.

i am surprised you have read it before and still don't mind ignoring the huge growing problem of air travel pollution. today it is around 4% of the problem but in 2050 it will be 10% of the problem - that is a massive jump and we need to stop that from happening now not then as it may be too late.

Archytas wrote:

Its something that will be changed in the future - better technology, fuel efficiency, etc. will all change this.

examples of better airplane technology, fuel efficiency for airoplanes? and by how much will they reduce the pollution problem? it takes a long time from when something is developed until it comes into production in the airline business and on top of this there are so many airplanes already that they will continue to be used even when this "better technology" is brought in, particularly by developing countries who may not be able to afford the "better technology".

bryanw

Funnily enough I started the original Ryanair topic... :rolleyes: sorry!

But I've been dying to reply to this topic and I've read as much as i could. There were next to no posts without a quote. I'm gonna try not to quote in my first reply. I'm just gonna give my opinion.

Firstly, Transatlantic travel can be quite uncomfortable anyway, so out of preference I might not choose Ryanair, but thats no reason to stop them flying as many flights as they are allowed to. There should be no restriction on air travel. It is a huge world industry and also affects many other sectors indirectly. There are enough things that the rich and elite have for themselves and air-travel should not be one of them, because most of the rich are totally undeserving.

This rubbish by the environmental lobby will ruin world travel if anyone powerful enough decides to jump on the band wagon. Like was said previously, there are far bigger polluters than aviation. I don't think its going to happen though, because governments are greatly influenced by big business... so nothing to worry about!

I notice that "An Inconvenient Truth" was mentioned too many times! Poor Al Gore. He's really trying to grab on since he lost out on the Presidency. Well let him do so I say. Most people are easily led. As for the documentary itself. It's proved controversial enough as it is. There have been several fundamental parts of the programme that have been doubted. Please, I'd prefer not to see it mentioned again.

To be honest, I am a skeptic on all of this global warming malarky. There are a few questions that need to be asked and then answered.

1) Is there such a thing as global warming? YES.
2) Is it caused by humans? Unproven, most likely NO.
3) Has there been global warming before? YES, many times.
4) Was it caused by humans? NO.
5) Is there a "scientific consensus" on global warming? NO. There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus". Something is proved or its not.
6) Is the climate changing? YES. The climate changes ALL THE TIME!
7) Well then, why is the earth warming up? Lots of reasons. The sun, nature, volcanoes, release of methane gas from arctic tundra and wetlands etc... It could be us but humans are most likely just scapegoats.

Of course there is no reason not to be environmentally friendly and aviation can cause pollution that more directly affects humans. Such as toxins, air pollution, noise pollution. But people should try to be environmentally friendly in a way that helps them to see noticable differences and be more efficient. Not to try to stop ice in Antartica melting because they saw it on the news. It melts EVERY YEAR. And it always has.

This notion of a carbon footprint is also rubbish. Every living thing on earth is carbon-based. We all exhale CO2. And incase someone ever missed the fact that carbon dioxide only makes up a tiny, tiny part of the atmosphere. Now you know. CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million. Concentration of carbon dioxide is currently 383 ppmv.

Fortunately, to the pleasant surprise of the Green lobby, all of their dreams will come true when the fossil fuel consumers (which is pretty much every country on the planet) realise that the oil is about to run out. So no cheap transatlantic travel! Yey! Or will there be? Hmmm... I have a feeling that the industry will evolve if they need to.

And what exactly are the Green's alternatives to fossil fuels. Ones that actually work, please!

I just hope that when every single government in the world jump on this global warming band wagon, that the Green lobby (when all of their demands are met), are quite red in the face when they realise that the planet is still warming regardless!

naitkris

bryanw wrote:

To be honest, I am a skeptic on all of this global warming malarky. There are a few questions that need to be asked and then answered.

1) Is there such a thing as global warming? YES.
2) Is it caused by humans? Unproven, most likely NO.
3) Has there been global warming before? YES, many times.
4) Was it caused by humans? NO.
5) Is there a "scientific consensus" on global warming? NO. There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus". Something is proved or its not.
6) Is the climate changing? YES. The climate changes ALL THE TIME!
7) Well then, why is the earth warming up? Lots of reasons. The sun, nature, volcanoes, release of methane gas from arctic tundra and wetlands etc... It could be us but humans are most likely just scapegoats.

quote from an earlier reply to someone who posted similar to what you said:

naitkris wrote:

you obviously haven't read the UN report on climate change recently then. According to this BusinessWeek.com article on it, the report, "prepared by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), provides the first confirmation from the entire international scientific community that the burning of fossil fuels by humans is one of the main culprits of global warming".

so it's bryanw vs 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

who to believe these days? :rolleyes:

Stark

bryanw wrote:

This notion of a carbon footprint is also rubbish. Every living thing on earth is carbon-based. We all exhale CO2. And incase someone ever missed the fact that carbon dioxide only makes up a tiny, tiny part of the atmosphere. Now you know. CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million. Concentration of carbon dioxide is currently 383 ppmv.

There is such a thing as a "carbon cycle". The carbon that we exhale has at some point come from plants who have taken it from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. When we burn fossil fuels though, the carbon that's emitted has come from sources that have been buried underground for millions of years so there's a net increase in atmospheric carbon. Hence the push towards biofuels where the carbon comes from the air rather than deep underground.

CFCs also make up a tiny tiny proportion of the atmosphere but their effects are still significant.

bryanw wrote:

I just hope that when every single government in the world jump on this global warming band wagon, that the Green lobby (when all of their demands are met), are quite red in the face when they realise that the planet is still warming regardless!

Yes the planet will continue warming for many years even after we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Just like CFCs which we put into the atmosphere before the ban will continue to do damage to the ozone layer for years to come.

bryanw wrote:

2) Is it caused by humans? Unproven, most likely NO.

most likely in whose opinion? Most scientific opinion points to the likelihood that humans have caused the current trend in global warming and in fact that the planet would be in a cooling phase if it wasn't for human activity.

bryanw

naitkris wrote:

so it's bryanw vs 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

There have been a number of scientists who have criticised the IPCC and even some sitting on it have left. It does seem a little strange that there is no disagreement amongst these scientists from what we hear. Because scientists are usually ones not to accept the status quo.

Dr. John Christy was one of the main authors in the 2001 IPCC report. Although he has said that he is convinced that the global warming which has been measured is caused by humans, he did say...

Dr. John Christy: "I've often heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true."

Dr. John Christy: "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."

Christopher Landsea resigned from the IPCC in 2005 because he said the IPCC is "being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Paul Reiter asked for his name to be removed from an IPCC report and it was only done after he threatened legal action. Quote Here

Phillip Stott is a professor at the University of London.

"Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma."

And that's enough quoting for now...!

Stark wrote:

most likely in whose opinion? Most scientific opinion points to the likelihood that humans have caused the current trend in global warming and in fact that the planet would be in a cooling phase if it wasn't for human activity.

Opinion is no use when we are talking in the context of world economies, huge industries such as aviation which many, many depend on and the entire planet that we live together on. We need evidence and so far nothing has been proven so there is no need to impose restrictions on air travellers. There's no need for knee-jerk reactions.

There is nothing to back up the notion that there would be a cooling phase/trend now if it weren't for human activity. That was only a dip that lasted around 10 - 20 years... hardly any kind of evidence for that.

naitkris

bryanw wrote:

There have been a number of scientists who have criticised the IPCC and even some sitting on it have left.

...

Dr. John Christy

...

Christopher Landsea

...

Paul Reiter

...

Phillip Stott

4 scientists vs 2,500 scientists

you are just 2,496 scientists short. as this is a massive global problem with billions of people having an interest in the matter there will always be people who disagree so it is not surprising you gave a handful of examples there.

also when were these words spoken or actions taken by these scientists? the UN IPCC report was only published a few weeks ago, perhaps the scientists you mentioned got the chance to read it since it was published?

Archytas

naitkris wrote:

this is my opinion as i keep saying over and over to you. you came back with a fact that doesn't compare it to anything

Read the following words carefully and understand them - I am sick of writing them. I did not compare them because that is not what I was refuting . I was refuting part of your earlier claim - one which you've argued here and then later on in your this post claimed that you went a bit overboard?? It wasn't overboard - it was wrong. And that isn't just my opinion - it has facts to back it up.

unless you can prove with a fact that leisure air travel is more important than business air travel, or that leisure air travel and business air travel are of equal importance as you claimed earlier:

I'm really sorry if you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying. I really am. BUT I ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS WHEN YOU ASKED EARLIER. But because this thread is big and you obviously haven't been reading my posts I'll quote it again.

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.

Archytas wrote:

Why are they less productive - ... 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.

You cannot quantify emotions, memories and everything else that comes from holidaying.

yes i do pollute, everyone does, some far more than other though, i try to reduce my own pollution though as much as possible. it is easier done in ones personal life than it is for business though.
no, very few people do but it is trying to reduce the problem that gets us somewhere. i think my home is quite environmentally friendly compared to the average home in Ireland. it is completely timber built and uses heat recovery, proper insulation, low energy lighting. adding solar panels going forward is something being discussed.
i don't see what these things have to do with air travel pollution though - one can always compare apples to pears, that is easy.

You brought up following:

neglecting a few problems (like air travel) and concentrating on the bigger ones just creates a double-standard - essentially telling people that it is ok to pollute the environment in certain ways but not others.

And I answered that we already do - And you do too. Buses pollute - EVERYTHING pollutes. So by asking you those questions I was proving that you were in fact wrong in saying what you were saying. And again - I WASN"T COMPARING ANYTHING!! I was refuting what you were saying with examples.

i see - same quote as i mentioned above. i stand by it too, except for the "if at all" - i went a bit overboard with that wording but as English isn't the language i use all the time that can happen, apologies. i think rephrasing it to "not as much" is better.

As I said earlier - this wasn't bit overboard it was plain wrong.

why not? how else would you consider reducing air travel as it is an ever increasing polluter as you have read. if you have a better solution please post it rather than talking about reducing other pollutants, this discussion is on air travel pollution primarily.

Why is it that you get to decide what I can and can't talk about - you were the one who wants to hugely increase air travel prices. I then said we don't and would be better off tackling other problems. Why can't I talk about reducing other pollutants? - Its relevant to my argument. REDUCING OTHER POLLUTANTS IS A BETTER SOLUTION.

it still did in my opinion. can you prove me wrong with a fact?

I really can't understand you here - You said it had no backing and then when I pointed out what backing it did have you changed your stance to the following:

i think most people will back anything that prevents killing them or seriously damaging their health, unless if it affects them in big way such as some smokers or publicans who were worried of being affected more so.

Twice saying that it had no backing and then stating that most people will back it!! This is ridiculous.

i agree - it is good we are starting to agree that there are many problems besides air travel pollution. should we start new topics on these different areas?

I was arguing a case against huge increases in air travel prices. And I used these things as my argument. We always agreed that there was other pollution - You're belief that air travel is the one that should be dealt with above the others with ridiculous price increases is what I was arguing against.

or we can reduce or energy needs that way we won't have to build as many turbines etc - what do you say?

Listen - I've said this from the start - That advances in technology will deal with these problems without affecting us hugely.

i am surprised you have read it before and still don't mind ignoring the huge growing problem of air travel pollution. today it is around 4% of the problem but in 2050 it will be 10% of the problem - that is a massive jump and we need to stop that from happening now not then as it may be too late.

By 2050 there will be little in the way of fossil fuels left if scientists are correct. Thus the problem wont be so large.

examples of better airplane technology, fuel efficiency for airoplanes? and by how much will they reduce the pollution problem? it takes a long time from when something is developed until it comes into production in the airline business and on top of this there are so many airplanes already that they will continue to be used even when this "better technology" is brought in, particularly by developing countries who may not be able to afford the "better technology".

Do some research???? The A380 will be a very fuel efficient aircraft. The new 747-8 will be even more. I suggest you take a look at some of the newer aircraft that are close to roll out - And also the newer fuels that aircraft are starting to use.

If you don't know any of these then you arguing against something without actually doing any research on them? That's a ridiculous method to take.

bryanw

naitkris wrote:

4 scientists vs 2,500 scientists

you are just 2,496 scientists short. as this is a massive global problem with billions of people having an interest in the matter there will always be people who disagree so it is not surprising you gave a handful of examples there.

also when were these words spoken or actions taken by these scientists? the UN IPCC report was only published a few weeks ago, perhaps the scientists you mentioned got the chance to read it since it was published?

I don't see why this magical 2,500 keeps being mentioned. The IPCC is a group of people (some not scientists) who are assembled to achieve a politically motivated consensus view on climate change to influence governments and to prevent the media from criticising findings by giving the panel an expert look that can't be agued with.

I can't imagine the IPCC selects many scientists from industry to challenge any of these views. It is biased as the people are "selected".

There seems to also be the buzz word of CO2 amongst the IPCC and the green lobby. What makes people think that carbon emissions can change the climate? What makes people think that cutting carbon emissions will stop the climate from changing? Its as if people think they can control the climate. And if thats the case... and emissions are cut and an ideal climate situation is achieved, won't it change again anyway? CO2 is just a tiny factor of all climate change. One that we may have a bit of influence over. But what about all the other factors? Can we control the sun? Can we control cosmic rays? Can we control ocean currents? Can we control volcanic eruptions?

SeanW

naitkris wrote:

wrote:

SeanW

indeed, this is a point i am trying to make. although unneccessary business air travel (there is a fair bit of it) should also be looked at and reduced where possible.

Perhaps I should clarify - I don't fly much at all, I just wrote that to explain the kind of attitude I saw the OP using.

It just smacks of snobbish elitism.

Naitkris, could I ask you again - given that the dramatically vast bulk, over half, of our CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel fired heat and power stations, what's your position on the use of Nuclear as a replacement?

Transport21 Fan

In Galway City the other day the citizens were lining up to get their hands on safe drinking water which would not kill them.

At the same time the Green Party Mayor of Galway city Niall O'Brolchain and Trevor Sargent were standing under Spanish Arch warning of the dangers of "man-made climate change" to the Polar Bears in the North Pole.

John R

Transport21 Fan wrote:

In Galway City the other day the citizens were lining up to get their hands on safe drinking water which would not kill them.

At the same time the Green Party Mayor of Galway city Niall O'Brolchain and Trevor Sargent were standing under Spanish Arch warning of the dangers of "man-made climate change" to the Polar Bears in the North Pole.

And BILLIONS of people across the planet have no proper access to safe drinking water, a high percentage of which are in regions that are being heavily effected by severe weather that IS being made worse by global warming.

It can be argued as much as anyone likes that man is not solely responsible and there may very well be a natural element causing the planet to heat up.

What is no longer acceptable IMO is the pretense that global warming is not happening at all and that it is not a serious threat to the well being of a large proportion of the world's population.

My view is that until it can be proven that CO2 emissions are NOT the prime cause or at least a major contributor then we ALL have a responsibility to reign in the overly wasteful lifestyles that people in the developed world now see as their right to have.

The degree to which people now abuse the availability of cheap air travel is ridiculous. How anyone can say with a straight face that most flights taken are anything more than a frivolous luxury is beyond me.

It is exactly the same as the way the US population has abused the availability of cheap fuel to buy astoundingly inefficient vehicles to cart their fat arses from suburban home to office to fast food joint and back again.

jrey1981

Well said John R.

I accept that there may be a natural element to climate change, but it is highly likely that human activity generating vast amounts of CO2 is adding to this.

Every gram of CO2 will be in the atmosphere for 150 years, so it is a cumulative effect, the tipping point of which is unknown.

Here's another point that some might like to react to. Some people justify air travel by saying they learn about other cultures and experience different countries and their flora and fauna.

But this is worthless and irrelevant if your flight is adding to an effect which causes drought and desertification in the developing world, not to mention changing the natural cycles of various flora and fauna. The very people and countries you might be visiting might be underwater one day because you took a plane to visit them.

jrey1981

that last sentence should say "...partly becayse you took a plane to visit them."

Can't edit it for some reason.