The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Quote from this story: Aviation accounts for about 7% of the UK's emissions, and research suggests Britain will not meet its climate targets without curbing the industry. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I admit I can't find any previous BBC stories by Googling) but I'm convinced that the figure previously quoted by the BBC and pretty much everyone else was between 1.6% and 2%. Even eco-Nazis like George Monbiot were forced to qualify the figure with "but it's rapidly increasing" or words to that effect, because the statistic on its own didn't sound very impressive. What's going on here? Are they suddenly including military and cargo flights in the percentage (note the absence of any adjective such as 'civil' or 'passenger' in the above sentence) for propaganda purposes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesium Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Quote from this story:Correct me if I'm wrong (and I admit I can't find any previous BBC stories by Googling) but I'm convinced that the figure previously quoted by the BBC and pretty much everyone else was between 1.6% and 2%. Even eco-Nazis like George Monbiot were forced to qualify the figure with "but it's rapidly increasing" or words to that effect, because the statistic on its own didn't sound very impressive. What's going on here? Are they suddenly including military and cargo flights in the percentage (note the absence of any adjective such as 'civil' or 'passenger' in the above sentence) for propaganda purposes? "between 3% and 5%" in 1999: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/348546.stm 3% of EU in 2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4287048.stm 5.5% of UK in 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6056620.stm 6% of UK in June: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6716933.stm Maybe you mean domestic only? That's quoted as "less than 1%" here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6945300.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted August 31, 2007 Author Share Posted August 31, 2007 Many thanks. If it was 6% in June and 7 now, that would imply that the UK's aviation industry has grown by about 15% in the last two months. I'm convinced that they're fiddling the definition of this figure to make it sound as doom-laden and pro-green mafia as possible. Another factor may be that as other Co2-generating activity decreases (smaller car engines, more efficient power stations etc.), the proportion of it caused by aviation increases - not that there are more flights in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AteMoose Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 would part of the c02 output from flights be apportioned to the 'other' country your traveling to and from? either on a % passengers and there country of origin or a 50% 50%share between the two countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 wonder what the C02 output of a plane full of people driving to tunisia would be...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Who cares! CO2 is a red herring. The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are miniscule compared to water vapour and both have about the same effect on global warming (see wikipedia for effect). Al Gore's BS graph shows warming and CO2 rising together. But on closer inspection, the CO2 TRAILS the warming. Even worse, a cow emits more methane than a car in a year and methane is far worse than CO2 for the effect of warming. Now the Ministry of Truth is referring to "climate change" rather than global warming. Years ago it was "global cooling" they were worried about. Nu Labour are funded by the bone idle scum in the transport unions, daft enough to cough up an extra tax to their unions. A train, however, is less efficient than a diesel even when the train has all its seats full. Yet Herr Braun., our unelected dictator, charges car tax on CO2 emissions. The whole CO2 thing is BS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solvent Celt Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Didn't reasearch show that airplane vapour trails reflect a significant amount of solar radiation back out into space? I suspect methane digestors in agriculture would have a greater impact on CO2 than aircraft. If you take into account the total outputs of CO2 during manufacturing standard engine vehicles produce less CO2 over and average life than "ECO" cars like the Prius. We could USE atmospheric CO2 to increase crop yields. Iceland uses CO2 enriched atmospheres to increase crop yields in Polytunnels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonewer Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 A train, however, is less efficient than a diesel even when the train has all its seats full. Evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Evidence? Not again! I had another Labour voter question this on these fora and I provided a series of links. Google it yourself; I presume you have access to the internet and the www which is the world's biggest encyclopedia. The train is less efficient than the car PERIOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonewer Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Not again!I had another Labour voter question this on these fora and I provided a series of links. Google it yourself; I presume you have access to the internet and the www which is the world's biggest encyclopedia. The train is less efficient than the car PERIOD. Yes again! If you make a claim then the onus is on you to back it up. And stop with the calling me a labour voter thing. Sticks and stone and so-on but dammit theres a limit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravity always wins Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Now the Ministry of Truth is referring to "climate change" rather than global warming. Years ago it was "global cooling" they were worried about.The whole CO2 thing is BS! The world is warming up the reason people use CC instead of GW is to simplify it for those like you who are a bit simplistic. Climate change may well result in some temperature fluctuations but sceptics tend to ignore the warmer periods but as soon as you need to put a jumper on your cynicism is back. Years ago they were not worried about global cooling so much as regional cooling and it is all to do with the Atlantic Conveyor Gulf stream call it what u like this is still a distinct possibility that our temperature could plunge to where it should be for our latitude. If this whole CO2 thing is ******** then why don't you prove it and write an article for science or nature like all your other sceptic friends? The science is against you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyjazz Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Quote from this story:Correct me if I'm wrong (and I admit I can't find any previous BBC stories by Googling) but I'm convinced that the figure previously quoted by the BBC and pretty much everyone else was between 1.6% and 2%. Even eco-Nazis like George Monbiot were forced to qualify the figure with "but it's rapidly increasing" or words to that effect, because the statistic on its own didn't sound very impressive. What's going on here? Are they suddenly including military and cargo flights in the percentage (note the absence of any adjective such as 'civil' or 'passenger' in the above sentence) for propaganda purposes? perhaps they are including military flights which must be huge given UKs involvement in 2 wars. air flight is public transport unlike car travel which is 22 % of emissions and even worse burning fossill fuels for electricty generation is 40 %. there are many other issues which need tackling imo before aviation, it is being singled out because its an easy target, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravity always wins Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 perhaps they are including military flights which must be huge given UKs involvement in 2 wars.air flight is public transport unlike car travel which is 22 % of emissions and even worse burning fossill fuels for electricty generation is 40 %. there are many other issues which need tackling imo before aviation, it is being singled out because its an easy target, Aviation is being singled out because so much of it for PERSONAL GRATIFICATION it is not a necessity. If you strip out ESSENTIAL pollution heating homes hospitals that kind of thing lighting some transportation say to and from work you know the stuff that pays the bills then the rest should be reduced. Aviation could actually account for as much as 30% of all non essential pollution According to your logic you are going to give up your car and walk to the airport and walk to your job? Or are you going to forego your central heating lighting and telly for your annual two week binge n the Costas? The argumant is about ESSENTIAL and NON ESSENTIAL if we used aviation for something important like aid for Peru Darfur etc. etc. then I would recategorise its importance but if it just so you can go on a jolly then no cance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted September 8, 2007 Author Share Posted September 8, 2007 The argumant is about ESSENTIAL and NON ESSENTIAL if we used aviation for something important like aid for Peru Darfur etc. etc. then I would recategorise its importance but if it just so you can go on a jolly then no cance. But how do you distinguish between the two? I know - have some New Labour politician describe what is and isn't important. For example, under your definition, the consultancy work I do for archives and museums around the world and which takes me on 10-15 return long-haul flights a year would probably be classed as non-essential. No-one is going to die if I stop doing it. But the organisation I work for (and thus the British economy) would lose £30k ish a year in fees income, and collections around the world would be at greater risk of deterioration and not being preserved properly. Likewise, very rich parents of a teenage daughter jetting off on a gap year would argue that what she's doing is culturally valuable, helping impoverished communities etc. (despite a growing body of evidence which suggests that gap year volunteers actually do more harm than good). But the Ryanair 737-load of chavs heading for a week of liver poisoning in Faliraki are, of course, eco-vandals who should be told to go to Blackpool (by National Express coach) and like it. 'Recategorising' the importance of individual air journeys sounds to me like some NuLab George Monbiot type being given the power to determine what's important and what ain't. No thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyjazz Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Aviation is being singled out because so much of it for PERSONAL GRATIFICATION it is not a necessity.If you strip out ESSENTIAL pollution heating homes hospitals that kind of thing lighting some transportation say to and from work you know the stuff that pays the bills then the rest should be reduced. Aviation could actually account for as much as 30% of all non essential pollution According to your logic you are going to give up your car and walk to the airport and walk to your job? Or are you going to forego your central heating lighting and telly for your annual two week binge n the Costas? The argumant is about ESSENTIAL and NON ESSENTIAL if we used aviation for something important like aid for Peru Darfur etc. etc. then I would recategorise its importance but if it just so you can go on a jolly then no cance. I dont have a car. I use public transport or a bike. I can cycle 3 miles easily. I dont need a car for that. I cannot cycle to India. For that I need a plane. I am sure we can reduce many car journeys as well as un-necessary plane journeys. How many car miles are really essential and couldnt be done on foot or bike ? Stop stupid , lazy parents driving kids to school and you have probably cut as much emissions as you would by banning all flights, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.