PDA

View Full Version : misguided tree hugger - help required


teifiboy
13th Dec 2006, 23:43
A "right-on" tree hugging aquaintance of mine who happened to be in the same class as me in school had a letter published in my local paper in deepest darkest rural part of country. He was complaining about carbon trading blah blah blah.... "why should I wear extra jumpers so that those selfish idiots can spend their lives flying around the globe". Fair enough I thought until I read the last line of the letter which said "LETS BE BOLD - LETS BAN ALL FLYING ALTOGETHER!!!!"

Now I don't have the wit and sharpness to reply to this letter and humiliate this little :mad: . Any suggestions?

con-pilot
13th Dec 2006, 23:54
Hmm, that makes as much sense as saying, "Ban all medicines."

Whirlygig
13th Dec 2006, 23:58
Er... how about... why should I give up flying because he can't be bothered to put on an extra jumper?" :O :p

Cheers

Whirls

allan907
14th Dec 2006, 00:37
How about something along the lines of all the workers at the shell suit and pink trainers factories being thrown out of work if flying is banned??

John Prescott
14th Dec 2006, 01:04
You could also ask him how he would feel if all the disaster relief teams and famine relief supplies took weeks to months to reach their destination.

Im sure the infrastructure that supports the likes of the Guardian and suchlike is also heavily reliant on aviation.

If he is attacking the aviation industry for even existing he should use a medium of getting his message across that is 100% separated and in no way whatsoever reliant on air travel.Its a bit like the bearded anti-western ideals crowd who preach via their own websites:}

Howard Hughes
14th Dec 2006, 06:31
He does have a point, but what about all the cars, stuck in traffic jams in major cities all over the world WITH ONLY ONE PERSON IN THEM!!

I would take a guess and say this contributes more than all the aircraft put together, ban all cars I say....;)

Loose rivets
14th Dec 2006, 06:40
Why? when the real culprit is cows!

I don't really like to dwell on the mechanics of that BTW:bored:

Solid Rust Twotter
14th Dec 2006, 06:41
Ban volcanoes.

arcniz
14th Dec 2006, 07:00
misguided tree hugger - help required
A "right-on" tree hugging aquaintance of mine who happened to be in the same class as me in school had a letter published in my local paper in deepest darkest rural part of country. He was complaining about carbon trading blah blah blah.... "why should I wear extra jumpers so that those selfish idiots can spend their lives flying around the globe". Fair enough I thought until I read the last line of the letter which said "LETS BE BOLD - LETS BAN ALL FLYING ALTOGETHER!!!!"

teifi: Your descriptive names need work.

To my understanding, 'tree-hugger' is really only applicable to urban-suburban eco-zealots who transfer their guilt over being useless debris in nature's grand scheme into an exaggerated show of concern over preserving 'natural' things which they neither understand nor often visit.

At the other pole, we have the really rustic country folk who would just as soon chop a tree down as spit...... if the tree is in the way or cold weather can be seen coming some months forward...... but they will also take pains to re-aim the descending foot in motion when spotting a friendly bug in-path. These folks are properly known as 'hick'.

Tree-huggers seldom dislike airplanes, because they are the only way to Hawaii and the Seychelles, which are pretty much a must-do. Hicks do not inherently dislike airplanes either, but their only familiarity is from seeing lines in the clear blue skies above.

The way one justifies airplanes to hicks is by putting across the idea that they keep the tree-huggers from coming out into the real countryside.

Captain Smithy
14th Dec 2006, 07:09
What annoys me is that these people will be the first to moan about us not giving aid to, say, a hurricane-stricken nation or island, yet the Eco-Fascists want to ban flying. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Flying is the only way of transporting goods or people (or both) at high speed over long distances. These idiots really annoy me.:mad:

If the Eco-Fascists want to ban flying, then why don't they come up with a suitable method of transport to replace it, if they think it's that easy.:rolleyes:

Saintsman
14th Dec 2006, 07:49
I wonder if the facts about carbon dioxide that are spouted out are real. Whilst there is no doubt that it is created by jet engines, 21% of the air they suck in contains CO2 anyway and is obviously spat out again.

Are the figures that we are given taking that into account?

Blacksheep
14th Dec 2006, 07:53
Dodos and Moas gave up flying and look what its done for them.

allan907
14th Dec 2006, 08:03
I think it was the maories what did fer the moa - not the lack of working wings. Moral - never trust a Kiwi (particularly one with a big stick and a hungry look)

arcniz
14th Dec 2006, 08:22
Dodos and Moas gave up flying and look what its done for them.

Perpetual fame, tha's wot. Summat thinks at's the bes'.

Llademos
14th Dec 2006, 08:40
teifiboy,
It's a bit like an anti-fur person wearing leather. He has no moral right to complain unless he:
1 - doesn't wear clothes made in China or the far East - most are flown in.
2 - doesn't buy toys for christmas - most are flown in
3 - doesn't drive - in percentage terms, cars are much more damaging to the environment due to the sheer numbers of them
4 - doesn't eat meat, especially beef. Cow farts are up there with cars in emissions
5 - doesn't shop for food at the major supermarkets - a good percentage of the fruit and veg is flown in
Anyway, surely global warming means that he doesn't have to wear the extra jumper, as temperatures will rise.
Ll

Choxolate
14th Dec 2006, 08:49
I wonder if the facts about carbon dioxide that are spouted out are real. Whilst there is no doubt that it is created by jet engines, 21% of the air they suck in contains CO2 anyway and is obviously spat out again.

Are the figures that we are given taking that into account?
Sorry but 21% of the air they suck in is OXYGEN, what comes out the back is hot air, with less oxygen and more CO2 and water vapour than went in the front. Let's at least get the basic science correct.

What is FAR more important is that flying acounts for only 2% of man made C02 emissions but it is ruthlessly attacked because it is an easily visible target.

BBC this morning question about the Stansted expansion - (not an exact quote but pretty close from memory) "So you are happy that hundreds of homes will have to be bulldozed to make way for a runway that will just create extra global warming?"

Don't you just love the nice balanced question - note the use of "homes" not houses and the "just" with its implication that the evil airline industry is actually there for the purpose of creating pollution. [email protected]@rds

Devlin Carnet
14th Dec 2006, 09:01
Some people will believe anything they are told, without question.
Politicians must be laughing their nuts off.

Windy Militant
14th Dec 2006, 09:43
teifiboy
If it's the Tivyside or Cambrian news the twelve or so nutters that actually read the letters page on a regular basis won't make much of a dent in the scheme of things. Strange it's usually the incomers that moan about things., The roads, the windmills, that the locals siarad Cymraeg and that they're woken up at four in the morning by next doors cockerel oh yeah and Cardigan Castles still falling down. :rolleyes:

Standard Noise
14th Dec 2006, 10:44
Give us the name, address/email/website of said publication and I'm sure we can all do our bit with the 'wit and humiliation'.
Nowt like winding up a tree hugger.

GANNET FAN
14th Dec 2006, 10:45
Now I don't have the wit and sharpness to reply to this challenge and humiliate this little :mad: . Any suggestions?

Teifiboy, I admire your honesty. I hope this sets a trend!

Captain Smithy
14th Dec 2006, 11:19
Nowt like winding up a tree hugger.

Yes, can get quite fun at times.:E

teifiboy
14th Dec 2006, 13:33
teifiboy
If it's the Tivyside or Cambrian news the twelve or so nutters that actually read the letters page on a regular basis won't make much of a dent in the scheme of things. Strange it's usually the incomers that moan about things., The roads, the windmills, that the locals siarad Cymraeg and that they're woken up at four in the morning by next doors cockerel oh yeah and Cardigan Castles still falling down. :rolleyes:

Actually it is the tivyside. Don't know if they would be able to cope with an avalanche of letters fromm Ppruners. Would be quite amusing though.
And as we speak West Wales is revolting... another letter has appeared in defence of the planet

Sunrise. A glorious, beautiful, calm early November day. One of those good to be alive' days. The fields covered in a white mantle of hoary frost and hardly a sound to be heard at such an early hour.

Then I looked skywards. The pure cobalt blue, cloudless sky was corrupted, even defiled, by the white tracery of aircraft vapour-trails. I could count at least eight trails, two were headed by tiny pin-points of light where the rising sun was reflected off the fuselage of the aircraft. And yet I could see another approaching from the west.

This, I thought, at this hour of the day - how many more are there in the rest of the day? Or when they are obscured by cloud and I can't count them. I was beginning to feel annoyed - this was spoiling my joy in the dawning of the day. I was thinking that each one of these flying machines was belching out their exhaust fumes over me, over us, over our town as we are unlucky enough to be directly under the main flight path for east/west (to/from North America). Before taking off every one of these aircraft fills up with enough fuel to last an average family car over 100 years

The fill-up is measured in TONS, not gallons. And the sad fact is that most of this fossil fuel is burnt up on every crossing of the Atlantic. Just think of it, thousands and thousands of tons of fossil fuel burned EVERY day, not by us ground-hogs pottering up to Tescos once or twice a week.

With Tony Blair and cronies banging on about global warming, paying lip service to the problem while sending people like John Prescott off on a jolly to China, by plane of course, first class. Gordon Brown tightening his stranglehold on motorists by adding annually to the tax on motorists, making that class of people some of the highest taxed in the world. I see that Richmond Council are going to charge hundreds of pounds extra on 4-wheel drive vehicles parking in their borough.

Unbelieveable! Are all these people blind, or deaf - they are all within a 20-mile radius of Heathrow Airport - one of the busiest in the world and they can't see or hear, all these fuel burning aircraft taking off and landing, day after day?

I am not strongly pro' or anti' anything, but I am beginning to resent being harangued almost daily to save fuel here, switch off electricity there, whilst almost nothing is done to curb the activity of the highest fuel-consuming machines of all time. (I haven't heard of anything anyway). If the government spent half the time on this problem that they spend on trying to foist wind generators on us, we possibly wouldn't need wind generators.

Name and address withheld to avoid ridicule

nosefirsteverytime
14th Dec 2006, 13:43
For inspiration for a reply to this, I point you to:

1. Ask someone who works in the arrivals hall of any large airport, how many countless tearful hellos they have witnessed from those who have flown in from far away, especially at this time of year. Think if this was to be shut down.

2. Point out how deisel fuel can be run on a jet engine, and vice versa. With so much work being done on bio-deisel, bio jet-fuel can't be far behind. Technology will catch up.

ORAC
14th Dec 2006, 14:33
Tell him to go by sea....... :hmm:

whilst almost nothing is done to curb the activity of the highest fuel-consuming machines of all time. (I haven't heard of anything anyway). The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke ship diesel engine is the most powerful prime-mover in the world today. Even at its most efficient power setting it consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.

According to an up-to-date study from the University of Delaware (USA), the world trade fleet consumes approx. 280 million tons of oil or 2 times more than Germany. Since cargo ships run on extremely sulphurous fuel oil, their emissions damage our environment considerably. Experts from Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance estimate that shipping traffic generates 7% of the total worldwide output of sulphur dioxide (SOx), and is thus one of the main causes of climate-damaging gases.

The biggest environmental problem is that 90% of ship diesels (the standard propulsion for medium to large tankers, bulk barrier and container ships are slowly-operating two-stroke diesel engines) run on a comparatively cheap, but highly contaminated fuel oil. The low-grade fuel oil is a viscous substance, which is a by-product residual at the end of crude oil production. It consists of all the components of crude oil unusable for the production of petrol or diesel fuel.....

During the combustion of fuel oil large quantities of toxic substances pass into the air. In comparison to other substances fuel oil has characteristics causing considerable environmental pollution. The combustion of fuel oil mainly produces nitric oxides (NOx). Nitric oxides (NOx) react with hydrocarbons (HC) under the influence of sunlight, generating ozone and leading to smog.

According to a study from the University of Delaware cargo shipping emits the same amount of nitric oxides as the entire USA. Additionally, according to investigations by the German journal “Bild der Wissenschaft 1/2006”, commercial shipping is the 3rd largest source of climate-effecting toxic substances after industry and road traffic.....

boogie-nicey
14th Dec 2006, 14:55
Ban all flying and he'll slowly start to find his job (if he has one) wing it's way out of the country. He'd eventually find that he can't afford the rent, the people at the local office of the handout government aren't upto the job and couldn't advise him on any options nor how to process his claims. What money the fool does get will not stretch far enough and his stomach will start to grumble. That's the reality of this true stupidity.

During WWII the whole aim of the u-boats were to starve Britain into submission and it came quite close to succeeding. If today's 21st century conveys which equate to aviation stops who on earth is going to do business here in the UK when you can go elsewhere?

This chap who wrote this letter has no understanding of reality just some cookoo land story book he picked up in the children's section of the library.

Lance Murdoch
14th Dec 2006, 18:12
Im not completely without sympathy for the environmental movement as they do often draw attention to genuine problems, ozone layer depletion being the most notable. I do not feel that they are very good at finding solutions. The luddite approach of banning aviation won't happen and neither should it.

A point you could mention in the pro aviation argument is that civil aviation can contribute significantly to the environmentalists cause. How else can average people hope to afford to visit some of the natural wounders of the world other than by modern jet travel. Speaking from my own personal experience I became alot more environmentally conscious after visiting these places, without the turbojet engine it wouldnt have happened.

Aircraft manufacturers and governments invest vast sums of money into
R & D to save fuel and lower noise emissions.

I feel that where the government, aerospace industry and environmentalists should be focusing their effort is in finding ways of making civil aviation sustainable, primarily by finding a renewable fuel that can be used in place of oil based fuels.

Blacksheep
15th Dec 2006, 04:57
without the turbojet engine it wouldnt have happened.
Without the turbojet engine, I'd have been apprenticed as a plumber.

Looking at how much they make, maybe I'd have been better off, but I wouldn't have met Mrs BS or had such an interesting (and often bizarre) life. Its aviation that powers the global village and allows us to experience things that earlier generations only read about in books.

boogie-nicey
15th Dec 2006, 10:08
What we need is an organisation that 'attempts' to balance the argument ... somewhat. I'm not advocating some kind of pro-aviation group but a counterweight to stem the rappant adavnce of the eco lobby.

max_cont
15th Dec 2006, 15:05
FWIW I have always tried to use cold hard facts in any argument or debate. It usually works fairly well.

A 737-300 carries 148 passengers. To fly to a destination 1000nm away it will burn around 5500kg still air. That’s 1530 imp gals divided by 148 passengers = 10.33 gallons for every individual passenger plus his/her bags to move them 1150 statute miles which is 111.3mpg.

A smart cars combined fuel economy claim is 58.8mpg. (Yeah right) So to move one person and his/her suitcase for 1150 statute miles it will burn 19.55 gallons. I say one person because you still have to move your suitcase which has to sit in the only space available and that would be the one remaining seat.

Who’s wasting fuel?

Crepello
15th Dec 2006, 15:41
Well, I spend most of my life flying around the globe, mostly to decidedly unglamorous locations, and my platinum FF card attests to numerous failed relationships. Nice to know this makes me a selfish idiot. :rolleyes: :ugh:

I doubt a flying ban would be effective. They banned soft drugs, yet our correspondent clearly has access to them...

teifiboy
16th Dec 2006, 00:13
well the guy who wrote the original letter, steve, (I have withheld Dave's real name to protect his identity) moved to deepest darkest rural welsh speaking west wales with his parents from a very urban part of England to live a new age lifestyle in a big (very big) house with only a fire for heating. It's the type of hypocracy that is becoming very common in these rural areas and annoys me no end since i spent in excess of £40k to qualify as a pilot