What is interesting is that Climate Change seems to only affect first world democratic countries. China is completely immune to any affect of climate change. That in itself is suspicious. If climate change is a big of a deal as everyone makes out then China needs to get in line today. The reality is in the big picture Aviation and Australia are totally irrelevant. The idea of per capita consumption is pointless. It is only virtue signalling. If you want to really fix climate change as it is being currently described then China needs to change today. And everyone needs to stop driving cars. Until then this whole thing is just a way of destroying countries.
There is the hypocrisy nicely summarised. China and India have been given a free pass on emissions because they are considered to be developing countries! I'm not sure that a lot of developing countries in Africa have space programs and massive military budgets. If a climate emergency actually exists then every country regardless of development should be included in any emissions reductions. As NN stated it is only western democratic countries have the responsibility so even though China and India are the burners of the coal Australia is considered to be responsible and the emissions are attributed to it because they are buying the stuff from us.
New jet airliners have greatly improved fuel efficiency over time.
That statement doesn't even make sense. Its the engines that need to have the improved fuel efficiency., What is actually happening is that in order to reduce emissions the technology of the engines can't keep up and are failing more often than jet engines should. So indirectly the climate change hysteria could be said to be leading to reductions in safety margins. The only airliners currently in development are those that are variations of those already existing.so the efficiencies are a long way off.
I haven't noticed an increase of pilots resigning in protest at the lack of action on climate change. When will the followers of st Greta take up her example and eschew aviation all together? Let us know when you do so that we can see the seriousness in which you take the climate change emergency as opposed to the hysterical rhetoric that has been dished up so far.
Interesting, I don't recall any climate scientist stating that the world would "end" in 2030. I believe the official message is that warming should be limited to 1.5 degrees by 2050 to avoid a hostile climate in the future. Anything above this value would have undesirable consequences.
Why do you think its called a climate emergency? This from the Guardian:
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN Urgent changes needed to cut risk of extreme heat, drought, floods and poverty, says IPCC
So who is resigning from the evil emissions entity that is aviation? Ask yourself What would Greta Do?
Did someone mention hyprocisy:
While it could be argued that the threat of climate change is imminent, and an actual state of emergency is warranted, that hasn't been done in the case of these climate-emergency declarations.
"Unless there's actually a written declaration that refers to an Act, and I haven't seen one, then that's all it is — symbolism," Dr Eburn said.
"Maybe they're [making] a statement so that one jurisdiction can say to the Commonwealth 'look, this really is important'.
"That might be used to bring more pressure to bear, but as far as I can tell, [it doesn't] have any legal meaning at all."
Canada is a case in point.
On June 18, Canada became the second country to make the declaration.
The following day, the same Canadian government approved the massive expansion of an oil pipeline that will be capable of moving up to 600,000 barrels of oil every day out of Alberta to port in British Columbia.
This is not what we might expect from a country that has just declared an emergency largely caused by fossil fuels.
Courtesy of the ABC