environmental impact of flying

Transport21 Fan

John R wrote:

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.

Which not one iota of evidence proves it is man-made.

What humans can do is cope with the current warming period by installing the technology to supply the people in Galway, Bangladesh, where ever with safe drinking water rather than indulging on some mystical quest to 'save the planet' and wasting time and money trying to reverse something which cannot be reversed by man because he did not create it in the first place.

The Green Party standing under Spanish Arch going on about Polar Bears while people are trying to get drinking water around them was classic Oirish politics at it's most obnoxious and offensive.

Lough Corrib was polluted by famers and their slurry - NOT BY GLOBAL WARMING. There seems to be a major effort on behalf of all the parties to avoid dealing with this.

Did I mention that there is not one iota of proof humans are responsible for Global Warming?

Some of the shrill armchair-socialist bandwagon jumping on this thread certainly gives a lot of credence that the so called Green movement is one big "Watermellon" - Green on the outside, RED in the middle.

I guess some people long for the day when ordinary people were kept at home by the more traditional Iron Curtains and Machine Gun Towers rather than taking their access to cheap air travel away from them...

Can't wait for when Snoop Dog and his posse arrive at Al Gore's Climate Awareness gig in their convoy of Hummers and he is on stage going "this is for all the Carbon Neutral Hos and Bitches out there...respect!" and we get all emotional an teary-eyed that Snoop is saving the planet from evil capitalists.

Like we are all living in a Monty Python sketch this whole Carbon Footprint rubbish and the whole circus surrounding it.

jrey1981

Humans may not be entirely responsible for global warming, that's true. But the overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that we are at least partly responsible. Certainly more than "one iota."

To say there's some socialist bandwagon jumping going on is ironic to say the least. I'd actually prefer to see a true free market: one where the current boom in low cost air travel is not partly financed by huge public subsidies.

Low cost airlines receive startup subsidies.
Plane manufacturers Boeing and Airbus receive grants and subsidies.
Aer Lingus has been bailed out in the past.
US airlines have been bailed out with millions in public money.
Alitalia ditto.
Lufthansa ditto.
Air France ditto.
BA before it was privatised.


This smacks more of socialism than truly free market principles.

The harsh truth is that while we're being told to reduce, reuse, recycle, to turn off the lights and turn down the heating, we're not only taking more flights than ever, but our own money is subsidising climate change.

I haven't even mentioned the public subsidies that go to major oil companies whose oil powers the planes.

Make the airlines pay their own way.

Transport21 Fan

Oh I agree with you there alright about airlines being unfairly subsidised (and regional airports). But that's a whole other issue and nothing to do with the environmental impacts of air travel, except for increased noise pollution near airports. It has nothing to do with man made Global Warming and yes, a lot of neo-Marxists are using the Man Made Global Warming to serve themselves and their agenda. The founder of Greenpeace has been saying this for years.

As for Mankind causing global warming - the proof is not there. Scary Hollywood CGI graphics of flooded cities is not a scientific case to prove global warming is caused by humans. Thus far this is all that has been offered up along with the flawed and highly polemic UN report which had almost no scientists involved. And some have even jumped ship and asked their names and contributions to be removed from the report.

At the same time I wouldn't attempt to persuade the handful of remaining IPCC scientists to 'water-down' their prophesies for the planet - the more hysterical and shrill their pronouncements grow, the more ridiculous they reveal themselves to be. They need to be exposed for what they are.

The media hype is also unreal! Visiting the Guardian's online 'Environment' section is increasingly becoming like watching Monty Python. The BBC is particularly obsessed at linking any 'environment' story to man made global warming They had a story a few weeks ago linking coastal erosion in Norfolk to sea level rise and warming. The presentation of the story was nonsense, because the influence of rising sea levels is less than that due to isostatic rebound and is totally dwarfed by tidal ranges; coastal erosion is a geological process, and the English East Coast has always been susceptible because of the present of relatively soft rocks along that coast. A quick phone call to any geologist would have confirmed this, but no - they went straight for the "Man Made Global Warming is the cause" magic bullet.

The ardent 'true believers' of man made global warming are nearly never real scientists and they almost never research the subject.

This article written by the Professor of Climatology at MIT (if anybody knows about this stuff he does) and is well worth reading for a more prosaic commentary on the overall Global Warming issue and the alarmist rubbish surrounding it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate.

naitkris

Archytas wrote:

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

that was never my aim, sorry for any confusion. what i am trying to say is that some forms of air travel are more easily avoided than others in my opinion. companies with deep pockets fund their business air travel and very rarely do individuals at companies (except at the high level - the minority in large companies) get to decide how much or little the company does in terms of air travel.

on the other hand however, each and every one of us who travels abroad by airoplane for leisure purposes (while of course it has its many benefits as you have outlined) decides to do so him/herself and can more easily reduce his/her air travel on his/her own will than a business employee can. taking the train for a leisure holiday is sometimes easier to do when on a leisure holiday then when it involves a business trip.

this debate though on business and leisure travel and which is better or worse is not something that is important, the important issue is the effect of all forms of air travel has on the environment and steps we can take to reduce our ever-increasing use of it.

i only brought up leisure travel by airoplane vs business travel by airoplane as in my own opinion i think it is more easily reduced than business travel would be as most businesses have larger pockets than most individuals.

Archytas wrote:

You brought up following:

naitkris wrote:

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.

good point, i agree you are 100% right there. we all pollute and nobody can deny it. again though some people (regular travellers by airoplane) pollute more than others (regular travellers by bus). while you are completely right and i misworded myself (again - English is not my best), reducing our total pollution amount we each create is very important and trying to find alternative transport that is better for the environment (bus, train, etc) is something that should be encouraged.

for example, if you can fly from A to B but you can also take the train from A to B then some form of encouragement to take the train instead of flying (say cheaper fares etc) would be one idea of doing so - in my opinion, of course.

Archytas wrote:

Why is it that you get to decide what I can and can't talk about

talk about whatever you want, but it usually is nice to keep things on topic, that topic being "environmental impact of flying".

if you wish to talk about "reducing other pollutants besides airoplanes" feel free to start such a topic. if you want to say how great it would be reduce this that and the other here then do so (free country and Internet free speech) but i just find it takes away from the topic subject which isn't about reducing this that and the other.

Archytas wrote:

REDUCING OTHER POLLUTANTS IS A BETTER SOLUTION.

REDUCING ALL POLLUTANTS IS A BETTER SOLUTION.

Archytas wrote:

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

were did i say it had no backing? please don't twist my words.

Archytas wrote:

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.

again, were did i say that air travel is the one that should be dealt with above the others? i said everything that is polluting our environment should be dealt with in some way or form - but this topic isn't about every pollutant of our environment - just one of them.

if you start a topic on A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H (other pollutants) i may give my views on how to deal with those.

Archytas wrote:

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

will the new technology solve the problem completely? if not, by how much will it reduce the problem? will the reduction we see still be offset by the massive increase in air travel in the next number of decades, due in part, to the increase in world population?

Archytas wrote:

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

so relying on consumption of all our fossil fuels is part of the solution to the problem that we are expected to face? that sounds like a very laid back approach to solving something.

Archytas wrote:

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

when filled to max capacity they are better for the environment and it is great that they are becoming more efficient, but the problem still exists and they will continue to leave behind contrails which heat up our environment in a way that is not natural. while the improved technologies are great, the problem still exists and will only grow if air travel triples by 2050.

this SAX-40 design for example claims to be "35% more fuel-efficient than any airliner currently flying" which will be great, but as with the A380, such new aircraft take a very, very long time to develop, test and finally go into production and even then they do not solve the problem, reduce it yes, but not if air travel passengers increase at a greater rate.

Archytas wrote:

And also the newer fuels that aircraft are starting to use.

which new fuels? i am guessing they aren't fossil fuels as you have said these will run out by 2050 thus reducing the problem? are the new fuels harmful to the environment?

SeanW wrote:

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.

snobbish elitism - what do you mean by this? how am i coming across this way?

this is not my intention to sound snobbish - i just saw the whole Ryanair flights for 10 Euro to the USA and thought it was ridiculous as it will, in my opinion now, give people a reason to travel to the USA far more regularly on weekend breaks just because they can as it costs so little - thereby increasing pollution from air travel.

SeanW wrote:

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?

i don't really have a clear position on it but the cleaner the power source the better. having said this, renewable energy sources such as from the ground do work quite well, as do solar panels and in Sweden where i am from there is plan to phase out nuclear power in the future (in 1999, nuclear energy use for Sweden was 47% - source).

in short, if we can improve things we should, trying our best to reduce the problem as much as possible so that it doesn't get much worse is what future generations will expect of us.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Thus far this is all that has been offered up along with the flawed and highly polemic UN report which had almost no scientists involved.

no scientists involved? where is the proof of that? i find that very discrediting to the UN if they say 2,500 scientists were involved in it but there was actually 0 or close to 0.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

And some have even jumped ship and asked their names and contributions to be removed from the report.

would these scientists be the same ones being offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine the climate change report that was published?

companies will always get a few scientists to "jump ship" or whatever if it is in their interests to do so. companies have a lot at stake financially and some will go to great lengths to protect their interests at whatever cost.

Transport21 Fan wrote:

At the same time I wouldn't attempt to persuade the handful of remaining IPCC scientists to 'water-down' their prophesies for the planet

how many scientists "jumped shipped" out of 2,500?

Transport21 Fan wrote:

This article written by the Professor of Climatology at MIT (if anybody knows about this stuff he does) and is well worth reading for a more prosaic commentary on the overall Global Warming issue and the alarmist rubbish surrounding it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

again, emphaiss should be on "commentary" - it is not a report and is one mans opinion.

also, take note of the following:

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government.

Is that the same U.S. government that did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol? As well as this, taken from an earlier article quoted above:

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).