EU Tax on Jet A1
Originally Posted by Dave Martin
brakedwell,
And just how long will it take the build the tens, possibly hundreds, of reactors required to do this and where? Then what? Leave aviation to itself, steadily expanding faster than it reduces its emissions?
And just how long will it take the build the tens, possibly hundreds, of reactors required to do this and where? Then what? Leave aviation to itself, steadily expanding faster than it reduces its emissions?
Hundreds of reactors???? 13 Nuclear reactors produce 20% of UK electricity. Enlightened France already produces 75% of it's electricity with 59 reactors. http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm
A new generation of reactors will be safer and much more efficient than the old gas-cooled versions, reducing the number required - and they should last until nuclear fusion is mastered.
Even if it took twenty years or more to build enough nuclear reactors/hydro electric schemes and wave power generators to replace the fossil fuel powered generator, that time span is miniscule in nature's scheme of things. By then the green merchants of doom will have other targets in their beady sights.
And let's keep wind farms to a bare minimum. Apart from being noisy blots on the landscape their ugly propellor blades will require too much deicing fluid when the ice age returns!
If the nuclear option is not taken up you can look forward to a cold bleak future when Russia turns off the taps and the Middle East implodes. I won't be around to see it, but i'll be watching with interest from my hangar in the sky.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Atyourcervix73
Speaking from the airlines' standpoint, I don't find much (if anything) in what Dave Martin says to argue against. It doesn't sound to me as if he's one of Caroline Lucas' visceral anti-aviationists. (If he is, then I take all that back).
Aviation's contribution to global CO2 is small but not negligible. Moreover as long as traffic grows faster than emissions are reduced, that contribution will grow. The industry cannot afford to be perceived as being in denial. This perception, which is not true by the way, is constantly being fuelled by Ms Lucas.
The sector is working with its regulators. Within the European Commission, it has allies in the Transport Directorate and among the champions of trade and European competitiveness (the currently fashionable 'Lisbon Strategy'). Less supportive is DG Environment. For reasons best known to themselves, the Parliament have chosen to be led by the nose gown the Green path.
Aviation's contribution to global CO2 is small but not negligible. Moreover as long as traffic grows faster than emissions are reduced, that contribution will grow. The industry cannot afford to be perceived as being in denial. This perception, which is not true by the way, is constantly being fuelled by Ms Lucas.
The sector is working with its regulators. Within the European Commission, it has allies in the Transport Directorate and among the champions of trade and European competitiveness (the currently fashionable 'Lisbon Strategy'). Less supportive is DG Environment. For reasons best known to themselves, the Parliament have chosen to be led by the nose gown the Green path.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
atyourcervix73,
Aviation might only be a bit player, but per passenger it is a heavy producer and frequently it seems so needlessly. This is especially true when the vast majority of the global population receive no benefit from the service.
The industry will increasingly fall into disrepute if it becomes known for ever increasing emissions, while the general public are stung and pressured to reduce their own environmental footprint. Already in the space of a few years people have become conscious of the impact of their airtravel. The effect hasn't been huge, but it can only increase.
You mention "mitigation". We are beyond the point of mitigation. The apparent effects of global warming lag by a century or two. What we need is a massive reduction. Sustainable energy sources, hybrid engines and micro local energy production achieve this, as do cultural changes in consumption.
Unfortunately the airline industry is moving in completely the other direction: encouraging cut price flights, increasing frequencies, connecting destinations that can otherwise be served by neautral emission sources.
What would you say if in 30 years time it is airlines that are the single major contributor to greenhouse gasses? What will occur then? As I said, the industry as a whole could be headed the direction of the fisheries - refusing to limit consumption ultimately cutting itself off at the ankles and heading for a much greater period of hardship in the future.
If sustainability is what's required, then isn't it time that airlines started working towards a sustainable model?
Thank-you SSK, I'm definately not an "anti-aviationist", but as development is my field the direction that aviation is heading looks painfully dire.
Aviation might only be a bit player, but per passenger it is a heavy producer and frequently it seems so needlessly. This is especially true when the vast majority of the global population receive no benefit from the service.
The industry will increasingly fall into disrepute if it becomes known for ever increasing emissions, while the general public are stung and pressured to reduce their own environmental footprint. Already in the space of a few years people have become conscious of the impact of their airtravel. The effect hasn't been huge, but it can only increase.
You mention "mitigation". We are beyond the point of mitigation. The apparent effects of global warming lag by a century or two. What we need is a massive reduction. Sustainable energy sources, hybrid engines and micro local energy production achieve this, as do cultural changes in consumption.
Unfortunately the airline industry is moving in completely the other direction: encouraging cut price flights, increasing frequencies, connecting destinations that can otherwise be served by neautral emission sources.
What would you say if in 30 years time it is airlines that are the single major contributor to greenhouse gasses? What will occur then? As I said, the industry as a whole could be headed the direction of the fisheries - refusing to limit consumption ultimately cutting itself off at the ankles and heading for a much greater period of hardship in the future.
If sustainability is what's required, then isn't it time that airlines started working towards a sustainable model?
Thank-you SSK, I'm definately not an "anti-aviationist", but as development is my field the direction that aviation is heading looks painfully dire.
Proposed taxes are just a government revenue raising matter. Any connection between them and the environment is purely coincidental, except that it forms a convenient justification for them that the more gullible voters will believe.
The money is not to be spent on anything environmentally meaningful but on whatever politically-correct issue or politicians' pet projects that can get to the front of the queue.
So-called "environmentalists" are now an industry of their own, protecting their own income by generating unceasing stories about all sorts of things, different each time and many contradictory.
Both too much rain and too little rain is blamed on environmental matters, which will be miraculously cured by giving the government more money.
"Needless" journeys are always somebody else's, never our own. Do you ever wonder how the environmentalists travel worldwide to their never-ending conferences .......
The money is not to be spent on anything environmentally meaningful but on whatever politically-correct issue or politicians' pet projects that can get to the front of the queue.
So-called "environmentalists" are now an industry of their own, protecting their own income by generating unceasing stories about all sorts of things, different each time and many contradictory.
Both too much rain and too little rain is blamed on environmental matters, which will be miraculously cured by giving the government more money.
"Needless" journeys are always somebody else's, never our own. Do you ever wonder how the environmentalists travel worldwide to their never-ending conferences .......
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brakedwell,
Yes hundreds of reactors across Europe alone in order to provide enough energy, at a massive expense, not to mention decomissioning costs. As I said, I'm all for nuclear as an alternative to gas and coal, but the potential of nuclear power is not as rosey as it might seem. There are even questions over the economic viability of further uranium deposits.
That is a most disturbing attitude. The positives of car travel also supposedly outway the negatives?
The only way global warming theory will be proven is when it is too late. Until that point we are already seeing massive unparalleled ecological changes and while we most likely won't be affected by them the natural world we live in certainly will.
Will there be much demand for air travel when the tropical coral reefs have been bleached? When weather patterns are so unpredictable that holidays can't be guaranteed? Or perhaps droughts, food shortages and civil unrest at some of the most popular destinations? This is already happening. It is in the industries interests to change. That is sustainability.
As for dismissing global warming as it is only a "theory". At the moment the theory is extremely strong, and unless you may have missed it, much of the science that we take as gospel and live with every day is based on simple unproven theory. It seems to be those refuting global warming are often funded by less than impartial interests and are vocal in proclaiming their counter-theory as fact.
Yes hundreds of reactors across Europe alone in order to provide enough energy, at a massive expense, not to mention decomissioning costs. As I said, I'm all for nuclear as an alternative to gas and coal, but the potential of nuclear power is not as rosey as it might seem. There are even questions over the economic viability of further uranium deposits.
YES - Leave aviation to itself, steadily expanding faster than it reduces its emissions. The positives outway the negatives and your theories have yet to be proven.
The only way global warming theory will be proven is when it is too late. Until that point we are already seeing massive unparalleled ecological changes and while we most likely won't be affected by them the natural world we live in certainly will.
Will there be much demand for air travel when the tropical coral reefs have been bleached? When weather patterns are so unpredictable that holidays can't be guaranteed? Or perhaps droughts, food shortages and civil unrest at some of the most popular destinations? This is already happening. It is in the industries interests to change. That is sustainability.
As for dismissing global warming as it is only a "theory". At the moment the theory is extremely strong, and unless you may have missed it, much of the science that we take as gospel and live with every day is based on simple unproven theory. It seems to be those refuting global warming are often funded by less than impartial interests and are vocal in proclaiming their counter-theory as fact.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSK
I find myself in agreement with what you've stated, you will note that I made it clear in my comments that the "perception" is different to reality in regards to emissions. I am aware from first hand experience that there are a large number of organizations actively seeking an alternative and/or a reduction in the emissions of turbine powered aircraft.
Thats a rather inflammatory, and narrow view-point, the vast majority of the worlds population don't benefit from eco-friendly trains either, does that have any bearing upon the argument? I wouldn't think so
Mitigation takes all forms, you are untitled your view point as I am to mine, my suggestion however relates to all forms of mitigation, whether they be monetary, ideas based or otherwise, to suggest in one sweeping statement that a balanced approach is unwise..sounds like you are trying to impose rather than educate.
Unfortunately Dave, that particular comment has lost any credibility you had with me, up until I read that I was wholly prepared to engage in debate with you, enjoy preaching to the unconverted
I find myself in agreement with what you've stated, you will note that I made it clear in my comments that the "perception" is different to reality in regards to emissions. I am aware from first hand experience that there are a large number of organizations actively seeking an alternative and/or a reduction in the emissions of turbine powered aircraft.
Aviation might only be a bit player, but per passenger it is a heavy producer and frequently it seems so needlessly. This is especially true when the vast majority of the global population receive no benefit from the service
You mention "mitigation". We are beyond the point of mitigation. The apparent effects of global warming lag by a century or two
The only way global warming theory will be proven is when it is too late. Until that point we are already seeing massive unparalleled ecological changes and while we most likely won't be affected by them the natural world we live in certainly will.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And thankfully eco-friendly trains don't have an adverse affect on the worlds population - aviation produced pollutants do. If you fail to see that point you are failing to see that a very small proportion of the population are contributing to the detriment of the vast majority.
I certainly haven't dimissed a balanced approach, that being reductions in consumption must also accompany reductions in emissions, carrot must go with stick.
Out of interest, at what point would you decide to take global warming seriously? What would you propose takes place at that time? The unfortunate reality of global warming is that it is just that - global. Nations far removed from the typical passenger suffer and nations that can afford to continue to consume will continue to buy their way out while the less able will suffer. None of which brings us any closer to reducing emissions.
I certainly haven't dimissed a balanced approach, that being reductions in consumption must also accompany reductions in emissions, carrot must go with stick.
Out of interest, at what point would you decide to take global warming seriously? What would you propose takes place at that time? The unfortunate reality of global warming is that it is just that - global. Nations far removed from the typical passenger suffer and nations that can afford to continue to consume will continue to buy their way out while the less able will suffer. None of which brings us any closer to reducing emissions.
Dave Martin
You make too many assumptions. I never said there is no global warming. What I did suggest was the warming could also be due to natural causes, ie increasing solar activity. Climatic cycles have been occuring since the earth was formed.
Quote:
That is a most disturbing attitude. The positives of car travel also supposedly outway the negatives?
Again I say yes. I you live in a rural area you need a car if you don't want to starve, fall sick and be unable to see a doctor or drive to the station to catch a train. Cars are needed to transport tradesmen, children and goods. We live in the twentyfirst century for christ's sake, not the middle ages.
Quote:
Will there be much demand for air travel when the tropical coral reefs have been bleached? When weather patterns are so unpredictable that holidays can't be guaranteed? Or perhaps droughts, food shortages and civil unrest at some of the most popular destinations? This is already happening. It is in the industries interests to change. That is sustainability.
You really have shown your true colours with that statement.
Quote:
As for dismissing global warming as it is only a "theory". At the moment the theory is extremely strong, and unless you may have missed it, much of the science that we take as gospel and live with every day is based on simple unproven theory. It seems to be those refuting global warming are often funded by less than impartial interests and are vocal in proclaiming their counter-theory as fact.
I say again. I am not refuting global warming - I just don't accept it is solely caused by mans' activities. The powers of nature are far greater.
If you and your green friends get your way, politicians will have carte blanche to tax transport out of sight, nobody would travel, trade would collapse and we could all spend our time hugging trees.
Stop sitting on the fence DM. You give the impression you are for nuclear power and yet against it. For the development of air travel and against it. You are preaching on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network. I suggest you go back to your Friends of the Earth, Transport 2000, Caroline Lucas or wherever you came from.
You make too many assumptions. I never said there is no global warming. What I did suggest was the warming could also be due to natural causes, ie increasing solar activity. Climatic cycles have been occuring since the earth was formed.
Quote:
That is a most disturbing attitude. The positives of car travel also supposedly outway the negatives?
Again I say yes. I you live in a rural area you need a car if you don't want to starve, fall sick and be unable to see a doctor or drive to the station to catch a train. Cars are needed to transport tradesmen, children and goods. We live in the twentyfirst century for christ's sake, not the middle ages.
Quote:
Will there be much demand for air travel when the tropical coral reefs have been bleached? When weather patterns are so unpredictable that holidays can't be guaranteed? Or perhaps droughts, food shortages and civil unrest at some of the most popular destinations? This is already happening. It is in the industries interests to change. That is sustainability.
You really have shown your true colours with that statement.
Quote:
As for dismissing global warming as it is only a "theory". At the moment the theory is extremely strong, and unless you may have missed it, much of the science that we take as gospel and live with every day is based on simple unproven theory. It seems to be those refuting global warming are often funded by less than impartial interests and are vocal in proclaiming their counter-theory as fact.
I say again. I am not refuting global warming - I just don't accept it is solely caused by mans' activities. The powers of nature are far greater.
If you and your green friends get your way, politicians will have carte blanche to tax transport out of sight, nobody would travel, trade would collapse and we could all spend our time hugging trees.
Stop sitting on the fence DM. You give the impression you are for nuclear power and yet against it. For the development of air travel and against it. You are preaching on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network. I suggest you go back to your Friends of the Earth, Transport 2000, Caroline Lucas or wherever you came from.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So against the available evidence you are unwilling to accept the high probability that our own CO2 emissions are the defining factor of global warming? That does sound very much like head in the sand to me, preferring to believe in solar activity. Everything I have read can attribute no more than a quarter of the temperature increases to this phenomenon, while the current warming cycle doesn't exactly follow previous cycles and coincides nicely with industrialisation.
Again, I don't dismiss the use of cars, or transportation in general. However, our use of automobiles must be altered and with the coming of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles we are making a massive step forward. There would be no need for drastic reductions of automobile use if these technologies are adopted...
Aviation on the other hand is moving in the opposite direction. Far from providing countryside folk with a survival means, lo-co operators are pandering to unecessary travel and providing it at a price to promote. At the moment we are talking a £40 surcharge. I'm not lauding this approach, but the industry itself itsn't coming up with alternatives so this result is hardly unexpected.
I don't see how I could be any clearer in my general approval of nuclear power, but it doesn't come without a cost, so simply building a multitude of new reactors isn't a universal panacea - it brings about a host of new problems. If you are worried about the economics of airlines maybe you'd do well to consider the economics of this approach to nuclear energy. Costly and you probably wouldn't want one in your backyard.
Just what do you perceive my true-colours to be, out of interest? If you don't like the message, simply saying you don't want to hear it isn't helping you or the industry.
Again, I don't dismiss the use of cars, or transportation in general. However, our use of automobiles must be altered and with the coming of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles we are making a massive step forward. There would be no need for drastic reductions of automobile use if these technologies are adopted...
Aviation on the other hand is moving in the opposite direction. Far from providing countryside folk with a survival means, lo-co operators are pandering to unecessary travel and providing it at a price to promote. At the moment we are talking a £40 surcharge. I'm not lauding this approach, but the industry itself itsn't coming up with alternatives so this result is hardly unexpected.
I don't see how I could be any clearer in my general approval of nuclear power, but it doesn't come without a cost, so simply building a multitude of new reactors isn't a universal panacea - it brings about a host of new problems. If you are worried about the economics of airlines maybe you'd do well to consider the economics of this approach to nuclear energy. Costly and you probably wouldn't want one in your backyard.
Just what do you perceive my true-colours to be, out of interest? If you don't like the message, simply saying you don't want to hear it isn't helping you or the industry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just for info, and to shift the discussion away from unnecessary personal insults, the image below shows the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. These data were analysed from the Vostok ice core, drilled by the Russians. Atmospheric CO2 is the top graph, this is as measured from the chemistry of bubbles of air caught in the ice. Temperature is the lower graph.
Note that the relationship between the two is extremely strong. Note also though that, as indicated at tyhe top of the graph, atmospheric CO2 is now 375 ppmv, i.e. off the scale of the top graph, and rising (and indeed accelerating).
The data are from a peer reviewed paper published in Nature. If you wish you can download the data from the web so that you can make your own interpretations.
Food for thought, right?
Dr Dave
Note that the relationship between the two is extremely strong. Note also though that, as indicated at tyhe top of the graph, atmospheric CO2 is now 375 ppmv, i.e. off the scale of the top graph, and rising (and indeed accelerating).
The data are from a peer reviewed paper published in Nature. If you wish you can download the data from the web so that you can make your own interpretations.
Food for thought, right?
Dr Dave
Dr Dave.
Very interesting. Those temperature rises and Co2 levels show a remarkably consistent pattern of peaks and troughs. The last high was 130000 years ago wheras the previous two had gaps of 105000 and 95000. Apart from the odd bonfire I don't think man could have had any influence on those figures - so what caused the level of Co2 to reach 290 & 300ppmv in the last two peaks? May I also suggest the present high level of Co2 has been influenced by high levels of industrial and domestic coal usage over the last two centuries. To blame aviation is premature.
Very interesting. Those temperature rises and Co2 levels show a remarkably consistent pattern of peaks and troughs. The last high was 130000 years ago wheras the previous two had gaps of 105000 and 95000. Apart from the odd bonfire I don't think man could have had any influence on those figures - so what caused the level of Co2 to reach 290 & 300ppmv in the last two peaks? May I also suggest the present high level of Co2 has been influenced by high levels of industrial and domestic coal usage over the last two centuries. To blame aviation is premature.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brakedwell
The peaks and troughs are the long term glacial - interglacial pattern, which is caused by the natural variations in the orbit of the Earth. These change the distribution of energy reaching the surface, and ultimately drive the long term climate. Note however that the pattern is a little more complex than this, especially as the Earth tends to cool comparatively slowly but warm again rather quickly (hence the asymmetric pattern of cooling and warming).
Interestingly, more detailed analyses of these data show that during cooling CO2 seems to lag behind temperature (i.e. CO2 is not driving climate but responding to it), but during warming the two are almost perfectly in phase. A paper published in 2000 by the late, great Nick Shackleton strongly indicated that during the warming phase the orbital variations drive these changes in atmospheric CO2, which then drives climate change.
For many scientists it is these datasets that represent a key smoking gun for the global warming hypothesis, and which show that this is more thana climate scare story (as some have implied in this thread).
There is a nice review of Shackleton's work here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../289/5486/1868
The current very high level of CO2 is indeed because of multiple anthropogenic sources, including electricity generation, transportation, deforestation, concrete manufacture, etc. Coal is part of the problem, but not the sole source. At present, aviation contributes about 4% of the total, but this is rising quite quickly at present.
There is little doubt that aviation is going to have to play its part in reducing these impacts, but with care this can be done in a manner that will not wreck the industry.
The peaks and troughs are the long term glacial - interglacial pattern, which is caused by the natural variations in the orbit of the Earth. These change the distribution of energy reaching the surface, and ultimately drive the long term climate. Note however that the pattern is a little more complex than this, especially as the Earth tends to cool comparatively slowly but warm again rather quickly (hence the asymmetric pattern of cooling and warming).
Interestingly, more detailed analyses of these data show that during cooling CO2 seems to lag behind temperature (i.e. CO2 is not driving climate but responding to it), but during warming the two are almost perfectly in phase. A paper published in 2000 by the late, great Nick Shackleton strongly indicated that during the warming phase the orbital variations drive these changes in atmospheric CO2, which then drives climate change.
For many scientists it is these datasets that represent a key smoking gun for the global warming hypothesis, and which show that this is more thana climate scare story (as some have implied in this thread).
There is a nice review of Shackleton's work here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../289/5486/1868
The current very high level of CO2 is indeed because of multiple anthropogenic sources, including electricity generation, transportation, deforestation, concrete manufacture, etc. Coal is part of the problem, but not the sole source. At present, aviation contributes about 4% of the total, but this is rising quite quickly at present.
There is little doubt that aviation is going to have to play its part in reducing these impacts, but with care this can be done in a manner that will not wreck the industry.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brakedwell,
I think you might be missing the very far right section in the top graph....and its position on the y-axis, 375 ppmv.
No one denies that all types of industry are the probable cause of this. As a result all industry must change to correct this increasing trend, and it seems many are - or at least making movements in that direction. Simple carbon trading is not enough; until such time as carbon sequestion (sp?) is adopted (expensive) and we can "dispose" of CO2, every time we burn oil we are releaseing carbon that was previously safely stored in the earth's crust.
Every solution will be costly and will require a fundamental shift in the way we behave and think. I can see no reason why airlines should be exempt from this, especially when consumption and emissions are growing. It is in the airlines interests to do so.
I think you might be missing the very far right section in the top graph....and its position on the y-axis, 375 ppmv.
No one denies that all types of industry are the probable cause of this. As a result all industry must change to correct this increasing trend, and it seems many are - or at least making movements in that direction. Simple carbon trading is not enough; until such time as carbon sequestion (sp?) is adopted (expensive) and we can "dispose" of CO2, every time we burn oil we are releaseing carbon that was previously safely stored in the earth's crust.
Every solution will be costly and will require a fundamental shift in the way we behave and think. I can see no reason why airlines should be exempt from this, especially when consumption and emissions are growing. It is in the airlines interests to do so.
No I didn't miss it. I also said it has been 130000 years since the last high, rather longer than the 95 and 105 thousand year intervals between the previous peaks. Note - the present high might possibly have something to do with the industrial revolution over the last 250 years.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most certainly it had something to do with the industrial revolution. However my understanding is the industrial revolution, while important in industrial cities in Europe, most certainly didn't encompass the entire planet.
Hence, while it was filthy the by by-products were of sufficiently small scale and remained localised.
On the other hand, automobile use, gas and coal power stations and aviation are now prevalent throughout North America, Europe and East Asia....increasingly so elsewhere. I don't have figures at hand but I suspect our CO2 emissions are far higher than they were during the industrial revolution and most importantly, growing. This might be supported by the fact that CO2 levels are seen not as peaking, but accelerating.
Hence, while it was filthy the by by-products were of sufficiently small scale and remained localised.
On the other hand, automobile use, gas and coal power stations and aviation are now prevalent throughout North America, Europe and East Asia....increasingly so elsewhere. I don't have figures at hand but I suspect our CO2 emissions are far higher than they were during the industrial revolution and most importantly, growing. This might be supported by the fact that CO2 levels are seen not as peaking, but accelerating.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave Martin
Indeed. Graph below of annual global emissions of carbon. Note that there are now more emssions from oil based products than from coal. The industrial revoilution doesn't really figure in comparison with today, but note that as the lag time is 200 years our climate is still responding to those emissions. Bearing in mind the lag time, the likely impact of these emissions on our climate in 50 years time does make on pause for thought.
Dr Dave
Indeed. Graph below of annual global emissions of carbon. Note that there are now more emssions from oil based products than from coal. The industrial revoilution doesn't really figure in comparison with today, but note that as the lag time is 200 years our climate is still responding to those emissions. Bearing in mind the lag time, the likely impact of these emissions on our climate in 50 years time does make on pause for thought.
Dr Dave
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggestion for MEP's and the like
Before they stop the rest of the world "wasting" energy, perhaps they might look a little closer to home and stop waste like moving the entire European parliament junket from Brussels to Strasbourg on a regular basis.
That pointless exercise must use considerable energy by the time that all the factors of moving paper, people, operating 2 buildings, commuting expenses and all the other implications are taken into consideration.
OK, yes, aviation has to play it's part, but not as a soft target, which is the way it's looking right now.
That pointless exercise must use considerable energy by the time that all the factors of moving paper, people, operating 2 buildings, commuting expenses and all the other implications are taken into consideration.
OK, yes, aviation has to play it's part, but not as a soft target, which is the way it's looking right now.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right on Irish Steve - environmental responsibility begins "at home".
Although... they could start a "manure power plant" at both places...
http://www.cvps.com/cowpower/index.shtml
Although... they could start a "manure power plant" at both places...
http://www.cvps.com/cowpower/index.shtml
