The mid-day news is full of tree hugging rubbish about carbon emissions. Air fares must rise to reduce emissions! People will still travel, the jets will emit gasses whenever they fly, full or 1/2 empty, how will the money raised be spent to benefit the environment? They can't modify the aircraft engines to produce less noxious gases. At a slight tangent please help me answer this. I usually travel by myself (lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view!) - if I travel from Birmingham Airport to Malaga which way produces more emissions?
1. Taxi to airport, low cost flight B to M, taxi to my hotel.
or
2. Drive B to Channel, ferry across either to France or North Spain, drive from Calais or Bilbao to M. Apart from the 4 days travel involved in the drive my guess is that flying is way better for the b***** environment than driving my car!
|
This is a bit of a straw man argument. It's not about whether or not air travel is better or worse than driving - the facts are clear, a full aircraft is far more efficient for long distances than a full car. The argument is whether or not people should be making such journeys, and if not what the deterrent needs to be.
If you don't agree with Climate Change theory then fine, it's madness. If you do, then it makes a lot of sense - as long as the tax is high enough to act an effective deterrent.
|
I'm not getting started on this because it just makes me angry, but suffice to say I tend to agree with your sentiments AS.
Cheers
DP
|
|
|
jets will emit gasses whenever they fly, full or 1/2 empty
But try and carry out a jet service where the plane is only ever half full and you will lose money hand over fist. The service is scrapped so that's one less plane in the air. Increase charges so fewer peple can afford to fly then you get a reduction in services.
The low cost airlines have made flying cheaper than it's ever been so we all take advantage of it. My only comment is India and China have yet to experience low cost air travel (India is just getting services), but when they do the growth in air travel experienced in Europe over the last decade will be a drop in the ocean.
|
.. If you don't agree with Climate Change theory then fine, it's madness. If you do, then it makes a lot of sense - as long as the tax is high enough to act an effective deterrent. ..
the oilburner - as i said in another thread, assume britain cuts all emissions to zero. how will that stop china, india, usa, and australia from continuing to pour zillions of tons of gases in to the atmosphere? ( not mentioning the massive destruction of the carbon absorbing rainforests in borneo, congo, and amazon which are being burned and adding to the carbon overload )
it is a global problem requiring drastic global solutions, not tinkering round the edges by ill-informed piddling little british politicians.
|
We can't stop anyone else from doing anything. That doesn't mean we can be fatalistic about it though. If all we can do is cut a small amount from the total then that is better than nothing. Otherwise we're just part of the problem.
Don't you think that China and India are using the example of the west (mostly the USA) to justify their behaviours?
|
|
|
>>it is a global problem requiring drastic global solutions, not tinkering round the edges by ill-informed piddling little british politicians.
Here, here Armitage Shanks.
You forgot to mention the buring coal fields in China and Indonesia, and volcanoes, which I doubt can ever be tamed.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
