waav8r me a tree hugger, nah! doesn't mean I am not sensitive to the environment nor a champion of progress. And I have an uneasy relationship with Greenpeace, but you cant deny they certainly get out the message.
Ozjet certainly wasn't started to provide jobs for the boys but listening to what's going on here you would think so.
It was started to find work for aircraft that are no longer welcome in the more sophisticated parts of the world.
And to capitalise on the "Aussie battler syndrome", sorry but we have grown past that and are way more sophisticated than they imagine.
Oz has a nonpareil reputation for technology take up and leadership in all manner of world issues including Kyoto.
I agree with you on Kyoto and so does my environmental scientist and policy advisor elder daughter.
I also believe that the carbon tax concept is a good start to focussing the world on who is profligate or not and a means of fixing it.
But that doesn't mean we should tolerate a giant leap backwards in the use of aircraft that we have spent several decades growing away from in the hell bent pursuit of "business".
All Australian businesses who consume resources and produce emissions are now required to comply with all manner of codes and regulation, why not this one.
As I write this I am looking out my home office window over the valley, at a sparkling, gin clear day and I can smell the jasmine and rose bushes flowering outside.
and I live inner city.
Notwithstanding enormous growth it is "cleaner" than it was decades ago....hang on there goes one of the new H2 fuel cell powered buses.....
OK so how many of those do we need to "pay back" the extra over emissions of a B737-200 against a B737-NG, or why should we not bank the difference.
Where do you draw the line? easy peasy, where it is NOW and keep the pressure on to raise it as fast as is practicable . We should not tolerate any degradation of it.
That sorta handles you point about business class and not leaving the gate unless you are as full as a goog.
Business class is market driven and an additional source of revenue to mitigate the high cost of the modern technology.
Overall it is the benchmark fuel burn per pax using modern technology that is the point. Significantly higher fuel burn with an artificially reduced load is what is unfriendly.
Cheers in heated agreement