Air Travel and CO2
24 January 2007, 09:12 AM
#1
Air Travel and CO2
Some propaganda coming from the BBC tonight - but just look at the ridiculous case of the woman who went by land to Australia and the comments from some of the people below.
BBC NEWS | Magazine | Gone to ground
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Should I Really Give Up Flying? | Up and away?
BBC NEWS | Magazine | Gone to ground
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Should I Really Give Up Flying? | Up and away?
bet her carbon footprint was more than if she had took the plane .
24 January 2007, 12:33 PM
#6
Lloyd of London it is your choice to have a mortgage, debts and a job to pay for it all. Granted most of us (including me) make similar choices because it's hard not to but it's not the only way. Barbara from Machynlleth has made different choices (working part-time and living in a caravan) that's all. That's how she can take six months to travel. Good on her.
Ieuan Phillips, Derry, NI
Ieuan Phillips, Derry, NI
I think the point "Do I need to go to Australia in the first place?" is the most important, although I'm not convinced going to a wedding is really a necessity. When people look back at our age of (comparatively) cheap fossil fuels and international transport they'll wonder how we could have been so short-sighted and selfish. The technology is already here to make business travel a thing of the past, but people want the prestige of flying around as it makes them feel big and powerful. We are still living in the shadow of Thatcher's "me, me, me" vision unfortunately.
Tidy, Brighton
Tidy, Brighton
Last edited by KiwiGTI; 24 January 2007 at 12:36 PM.
Trending Topics
24 January 2007, 12:42 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: still behind twin turbos
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There aren't many jobs that will allow six months off work. Part time is a few hours a day rather than eight, not six months on and six months off.
If the government was really serious about environmental impact there are far more effective ways to make a difference instead of hitting someone that wants a holiday. Offer tax incentives for companies that have home-workers for a start, that would also take some of the burden off of our crap transport network at the same time.
If the government was really serious about environmental impact there are far more effective ways to make a difference instead of hitting someone that wants a holiday. Offer tax incentives for companies that have home-workers for a start, that would also take some of the burden off of our crap transport network at the same time.
24 January 2007, 01:53 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the government was really serious about environmental impact there are far more effective ways to make a difference instead of hitting someone that wants a holiday. Offer tax incentives for companies that have home-workers for a start, that would also take some of the burden off of our crap transport network at the same time.
E.g. power efficient bulbs for all houses (read that if every house had 2 then there would be no need for the extra power going to be produced by that huge windfarm off the kent coast - haven't bothered to do the maths myself), turning off 1 in 2 streetlamps from, say midnight to 5am, forcing businesses to have time set/motion sensing lights, etc etc. The list is endless ....
But then the gov. isn't in power for us electorate - just to keep themselves in gold plated pensions and POWER!
Dave
24 January 2007, 02:11 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand why you're complaining when aviation contributes less than 3% of total CO2 emissions and yet the majority of Scoobynet is dumb enough not to realise whilst continually pointing the finger at this sector and doing nothing about their own impact.
And whilst we're at it don't forget that it was the Tories who commited us to Kyoto and who also kick started this current 'green agenda'. OK, not what the politically bigoted wanted to hear but it needs to be said. The Government will continue to levy 'green taxes' because vast sections of the electorate are too stupid to educate themselves.
Global dimming anyone?
And whilst we're at it don't forget that it was the Tories who commited us to Kyoto and who also kick started this current 'green agenda'. OK, not what the politically bigoted wanted to hear but it needs to be said. The Government will continue to levy 'green taxes' because vast sections of the electorate are too stupid to educate themselves.
Global dimming anyone?
24 January 2007, 02:24 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't understand why you're complaining when aviation contributes less than 3% of total CO2 emissions and yet the majority of Scoobynet is dumb enough not to realise whilst continually pointing the finger at this sector and doing nothing about their own impact.
And whilst we're at it don't forget that it was the Tories who commited us to Kyoto and who also kick started this current 'green agenda'. OK, not what the politically bigoted wanted to hear but it needs to be said. The Government will continue to levy 'green taxes' because vast sections of the electorate are too stupid to educate themselves.
Global dimming anyone?
And whilst we're at it don't forget that it was the Tories who commited us to Kyoto and who also kick started this current 'green agenda'. OK, not what the politically bigoted wanted to hear but it needs to be said. The Government will continue to levy 'green taxes' because vast sections of the electorate are too stupid to educate themselves.
Global dimming anyone?
Ummm. That's not really a lot ........ but all the politicians play up the 3% number or '25% comes from homes' etc etc. What they don't say is that these percentages are '25% of 3%! Bog all ....
Dave
Dave
24 January 2007, 02:24 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: still behind twin turbos
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree. Every bulb in my flat is an energy saver, I've always turned off appliances I'm not using, and I generate about 7 tonnes of CO2 a year (according to an online footprint calculator - the majority of which comes from my 16000 miles a year train commute), 3 tonnes under the UK average per household. The US average is literally double.
24 January 2007, 04:26 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFS. UK aviation produces 1.6% of greenhouse gases. With the current forecast in aviation growth, expected to go up 10%, thats till only 1.76% of the total. This isnt about greenhouse gases. Its about lentil eating, sandal wearing hippies, who want to take us back to the dark ages, where everyone walked and cycled and the land was filled with fluffy bunnies and daffodils, wafting gently in the breeze.
Oooo, it makes me so angry. ( Steve Wright, circa 1988 )
Oooo, it makes me so angry. ( Steve Wright, circa 1988 )
24 January 2007, 05:23 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFS. UK aviation produces 1.6% of greenhouse gases. With the current forecast in aviation growth, expected to go up 10%, thats till only 1.76% of the total. This isnt about greenhouse gases. Its about lentil eating, sandal wearing hippies, who want to take us back to the dark ages, where everyone walked and cycled and the land was filled with fluffy bunnies and daffodils, wafting gently in the breeze.
Oooo, it makes me so angry. ( Steve Wright, circa 1988 )
Oooo, it makes me so angry. ( Steve Wright, circa 1988 )
24 January 2007, 05:40 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we keep cutting down CO2 emissions, what are all the trees going to eat FFS! I am a tree hugger and as such I blat about the country on planes, trains and automobiles creating as much CO2 as I possibly can ensure in that trees, plants and such like everywhere can breathe easily
24 January 2007, 09:05 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another dose of lies from New Labour via their 'biatch' the BBC.
Sickening and disgusting hypocracy.
I would urge people not to watch this rubbish, it's far far worse than Celebrity Big Brother - look at the c*nts taking part.
Sickening and disgusting hypocracy.
I would urge people not to watch this rubbish, it's far far worse than Celebrity Big Brother - look at the c*nts taking part.
24 January 2007, 09:07 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't flying public transport ? I thought we were supposed to be using that instead of driving...
Isn't flying better than driving ?
<snip>
Paul Upham, a research fellow at the Tyndall Centre, which researches sustainable ways of tackling climate change, believes it is. He has used the European Environment Agency's preferred measure of fuel consumption, Corinair, to compare the journey from Manchester to Guernsey. A fully-loaded Saab 200 turbo-prop on this route produces 103kg of CO2 per passenger, while a Nissan Micra carrying one emits 226kg. Obviously, that figure is cut dramatically if two or more people are sharing the car. But Upham admits he was "very surprised" at the finding.
"Planes aren't the evil things relative to cars that people imagine," he says. Trains are still the least polluting form of transport for longer journeys. But even trains have their own carbon load, and not all trains are equal: diesels are more polluting than electric trains, for example. "This is what people need to accept. We need to travel less by plane. But we need to travel less per se."
<snip>
They didn't say how the Nissan actually gets to Guernsey though...
Isn't flying better than driving ?
<snip>
Paul Upham, a research fellow at the Tyndall Centre, which researches sustainable ways of tackling climate change, believes it is. He has used the European Environment Agency's preferred measure of fuel consumption, Corinair, to compare the journey from Manchester to Guernsey. A fully-loaded Saab 200 turbo-prop on this route produces 103kg of CO2 per passenger, while a Nissan Micra carrying one emits 226kg. Obviously, that figure is cut dramatically if two or more people are sharing the car. But Upham admits he was "very surprised" at the finding.
"Planes aren't the evil things relative to cars that people imagine," he says. Trains are still the least polluting form of transport for longer journeys. But even trains have their own carbon load, and not all trains are equal: diesels are more polluting than electric trains, for example. "This is what people need to accept. We need to travel less by plane. But we need to travel less per se."
<snip>
They didn't say how the Nissan actually gets to Guernsey though...
24 January 2007, 09:09 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't flying public transport ? I thought we were supposed to be using that instead of driving...
Isn't flying better than driving ?
<snip>
Paul Upham, a research fellow at the Tyndall Centre, which researches sustainable ways of tackling climate change, believes it is. He has used the European Environment Agency's preferred measure of fuel consumption, Corinair, to compare the journey from Manchester to Guernsey. A fully-loaded Saab 200 turbo-prop on this route produces 103kg of CO2 per passenger, while a Nissan Micra carrying one emits 226kg. Obviously, that figure is cut dramatically if two or more people are sharing the car. But Upham admits he was "very surprised" at the finding.
"Planes aren't the evil things relative to cars that people imagine," he says. Trains are still the least polluting form of transport for longer journeys. But even trains have their own carbon load, and not all trains are equal: diesels are more polluting than electric trains, for example. "This is what people need to accept. We need to travel less by plane. But we need to travel less per se."
<snip>
They didn't say how the Nissan actually gets to Guernsey though...
Isn't flying better than driving ?
<snip>
Paul Upham, a research fellow at the Tyndall Centre, which researches sustainable ways of tackling climate change, believes it is. He has used the European Environment Agency's preferred measure of fuel consumption, Corinair, to compare the journey from Manchester to Guernsey. A fully-loaded Saab 200 turbo-prop on this route produces 103kg of CO2 per passenger, while a Nissan Micra carrying one emits 226kg. Obviously, that figure is cut dramatically if two or more people are sharing the car. But Upham admits he was "very surprised" at the finding.
"Planes aren't the evil things relative to cars that people imagine," he says. Trains are still the least polluting form of transport for longer journeys. But even trains have their own carbon load, and not all trains are equal: diesels are more polluting than electric trains, for example. "This is what people need to accept. We need to travel less by plane. But we need to travel less per se."
<snip>
They didn't say how the Nissan actually gets to Guernsey though...
24 January 2007, 09:12 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality is that the New Labour socialists hate low cost airlines with a passion. They hate the thought that people can move freely without state control. They want their destruction and this is all part of laying the groundwork to turn public opinion against them, so dimwits will support the anti cheap transport legislation to come. It'll work too. We know how stupid the population is - they've already been manipulated into supporting road charging for example.
24 January 2007, 09:17 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how the enormous BBC film crew travelled to Venice to film their propaganda piece? Low cost airline perhaps?
F*ck off, they go business class and the tart fanny fart presenter do doubt travelled first class.
F*ck off, they go business class and the tart fanny fart presenter do doubt travelled first class.
24 January 2007, 09:37 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One fact worth mentioning though is where the CO2 ends up. Research shows that CO2 emitted at the altitudes that planes fly at has a greater effect than CO2 emitted at ground level. Rain washes some of the CO2 from low levels into the oceans, but it doesn't rain much at 40,000ft! So the CO2 emitted by planes has a disproportionate effect.
tut tut, haven't you been here long enough?
24 January 2007, 10:42 PM
#28
As part of my carbon offsetting I've decided to buy a gun and start hunting. Reducing the amount of animals will reduce CO2 as I believe flatulence is a major problem.
See how the sandal wearing hippies like that.
See how the sandal wearing hippies like that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM
shorty87
Wheels And Tyres For Sale
0
29 September 2015 02:18 PM