Airlines Savaged by Environment Minister

[High Wing Drifter]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6233019.stm

Why he should pick on RyanAir of all airlines is beyond comprehension. Regardless of your view on MOL, RyanAir's fleet, like many of the LoCos' is probably as efficient as is practically possible :ugh:

It's an irony that one needs to point people to the IPPC Special Report on Aviation that started this anti-air travel campaign to show that Aviation is the least of our worries...if indeed we need to be worried about anything (see Global Warmng thread in JetBlast).

[CPL_Ace]

If I was an Environment Minister looking to raise my profile to the masses ahead of turbulent times in my government, I would pick on the most obvious source of pollution (that didn't upset the industry chiefs that paid for my campaign trail) - the great big jet engines that throw out all that visible "smoke" directly into our skies. :hmm:

And to highlight the culprits I would use the most prominant brand in the LoCo industry. Then I'd bury anything that relates to the facts in spin. Que "Picture in the Guardian of a pile of 737s on a taxiway waiting to depart" and possibly a Sun Exclusive "Ryan killing our planet shocker"

I'm afraid we'll have to leave it to green peace to attack the real culprits in their newsletters.

[Irishboy]

Would be interesting to see what type of car Environment Minister Ian Pearson drives? Is it an economical 1 litre car or a petrol hungry Merc or BMW or ...

[Flying Lawyer]

Perhaps someone should tell the headline-seeking Minister (and the media) that aviation contributes only 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

They might also point out that, unlike most other energy users, aviation currently has no alternative but to use liquid hydrocarbons.


'leave it to green peace to attack the real culprits in their newsletters.'
Hmm.
I'm not sure the activists in Greenpeace can be relied upon as a balanced source of information. ;)

[IB4138]

It also needs pointing out to this loonatic that Britain's aged train population is blowing a damn site more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the aircraft flying into and out of the UK.

Perhaps he should direct his attentions there.....or is he not wanting to mention rail travel, with the recent hike in fares? :hmm:

[ALTSEL]

I flew accross London last night, yes a few strobe lights could be counted, but nothing like the miles and miles of headlights and taillights streaming along the main trunk routes in and out of the capital. After we landed I drove the short distance home along the M1 sandwiched amongst hundreds of HGV's carrying goods that should be transported on the highly efficient electric railway network that we do not have in place!! Short term goverment policy will never change, the glamour of a Aviation shock horror tail is perfect ammo for these idiot politicians.It will be Aviation that is made the scapgoat, rest assured.

[chrism20]

MOL just been on BBC news24.

Mr Pearson is foolish and ill-informed & Ryanair is the greenest airline in Europe

[EastMids]

Ryanair claims to be one of the fastest growing airlines in Europe, growing in fact somewhat faster than the increase in emissions attributed to the airline industry in general, and faster than the airline industry overall. Irrespective of how efficient its fleet is, it therefore follows that the amount of emissions produced by Ryanair is increasing as a proportion of the total produced by airlines. Seeing as all Ryanair's fleet is the same, 10% more Ryanair aeroplanes and 10% more Ryanair flights broadly speaking means 10% more crap being kicked into the environment by Ryanair. Whilst I fully agree that the airline industry is being unfairly singled out at present (especially in comparison to other polluting industries), given Ryanair's growth the airline seems to be a very legitimate target to be singled out for criticism from within the industry in general.

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

Was talking to a friend from the rail industry last night and it appears that the lastest high speed diesel may be cancelled before it is even bult because of pollution levels so I guess it is back to horse and cart until the EC come in with a new low level of pollution from horse droppings

G-I-B

[CPL_Ace]

I'm not sure the activists in Greenpeace can be relied upon as a balanced source of information
Sure - they can make very little impact on Government Jag drvers' legislation but their cause is a damn site less cynical than our "Environment Minister's"
"Being attacked by this man (Environ Minister) is like being attacked by a dead sheep"
Now this is irresponsible - MOL doesn't do the industry many favours with this does he. This is the perfect high profile case for him to stand up and tell the facts and leave IP wiping egg from his face.

[High Wing Drifter]

I see the news story I linked to has been adorned with some spurious graphs. The data that shows 20% of transport related emissions is for the UK only. Why not the Shetlands, then we can see 90% related to aviation!! It is totally invalid to localize useage as GW effects (if any at all), are global, except for the acclerated decay of the GW gas Methane by Aviation, which is localised (according to the IPPC Special Report on Aviation).

Here's some data from the same source document.

Aviation Petrolum Consumption:
2000 = 49.09 million tonnes.
2004 = 50.99 million tonnes.

Number of PAX transported:
2000 = 180 million.
2004 = 216 million.

So a 20% increase in PAX for a 2% increase in total fuel consumption. Pretty good going I would say. Mainly due, I wager, to the basic need to be more efficient than the competition.

If fuel consumption has risen by 2% since 2000, then is there a graph showing a %140 rise in carbon emissions over 30 years when the last four years indicate the increase would be more like 80%. In other words, how can carbon emission increase more than consumption?

We are being diddled, but why isn't the Aviation Industry fighting this? Why is it only MOL who kicks back at this nonesense?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_609987.pdf

EastMids,
Irrespective of how efficient its fleet is, it therefore follows that the amount of emissions produced by Ryanair is increasing as a proportion of the total produced by airlinesNo it doesn't follow at all I'm afraid. If RyanAir wasn't running those slots, somebody else would be. If RyanAir are effieicent, regardless of how big they are or by how much they are expanding, then there is less wate - the total produced by airlines reduces.

[boogie-nicey]

What on earth (forgive the pun :) ) does a politician know about weather systems. It's more harmful for someone such as him to be 'sounding off' about issues relating to the livelihoods of many, many people. As previously stated he probably does own a fuel thirsty car or perhaps even two in the family and makes numerous unnecessary trips here and there. However there have never been a shortage of hypocrits in the political theatre and thank godness O'Leary will give him a good pasting in return.
No matter how high the bar is raised aviation still busts a gut to achieve the demands placed upon it. It appears that the general public interpret the vast complexities of aviation on a par with their everyday lives and don't realise how difficult it still is to conduct air operations and still meet safety and commercial targets.
The current politcal regime is using environment as a rear guard action to keep everyone engaged in the issue so that they don't notice the despair that besets the rest of the country. These politcians can also throw out loose comments and not be accountable for them but we don't have the same luxury afforded to us. The aviation industry can hit back and discretely ban them from travelling with individual airlines. That way the response is behind closed doors and not in the public domain so they can't cry about it.
:E

The environment debate (I use that term very loosely) is an easy topic for the semi-educated masses to take on. It doesn't require much in terms of knowledge, experience or even presentation just pure fear factor. I doubt the same giddy matrons, eco-idiots and other lifetime 'campaigners' would be able to present an equally alarming view on the state of not just the economy but the strategic position of the UK on the global stage. Could they really argue the sever ramifications of our happy-dappy education when applied to the seriousness of the corporate world. We don't need all this crap in our everyday lives; hugs, icecaps, spin, "lessons learnt", minister of farting, look I'm the victim, Marvel comic's Captain Blair to the rescue and of course unaccountable behaviour = vandalism (I do whatever I want, whenever and I'm not responsible for it).

[barrowboyblue!]

Will be interesting to see where Mr Pearson goes for his Summer Holiday then!:p

[Iolar]

Although aviation may only contribute approx 3% of the global CO2 emissions, it would also seem important to measure the % contribution to C02 in the upper atmosphere since apparently that is where CO2 and other pollutants have a greater warming effect. The overall contribution to global warming from aviation pollution could be significantly higher than 3%. Although there has been great strides made in reductions of CO2 emissions from jet engines, the modern jet engine has signifcantly increased nitrogen oxide emissions. Nitrogen oxide reacts with other gases in the air to form ozone, another heat trapping gas. At the same time Nitrogen oxide removes methane thus probably cooling to some extent. In any case might it not be sensible to limit growth in some way to the rate at which aviation improves its fuel efficiency?

[Barnaby the Bear]

The global warming debate is so frustrating. The politicians latch on to the tinyiest piece of gloom and turn it into a vote winning or revenue making exercise. Let the scientist find out the truth before making knee jerk reactions.

I agree we should try to minimise where practicable our emissions a nd recycle if possible. But its pretty naive to think that for the relatively minute time we have graced this earth, we could really have such an effect on the environment.
Some say this pattern is a precursor to another ice age? Some say the sun is at its hottest for nearly 12000 years. That would warm us up! :\
The figures as previously mentioned speak for itself. Per head and distance travelled. Air travel is up there with the cleanest.

:ugh:
Otherwise, dust of the Cutty Sark and HMS Victory and lets all sail everywhere!!!!!

[MarkD]

High Wing

RPKs would be a better measure than passengers though when comparing fuel stats. Those figures at first glance more likely indicate that pax are taking more shorthaul trips which is not necessarily good news especially where an alternative such as electric trains is out there, in theory. However displacing internal British traffic to rail requires both huge investment in high speed rail and more nuclear power and other low GHG sources to ensure that the CO2 does not merely displace from aviation fuel to coal.

For me I would put a fairly flat levy on air travel, since the longer the trip the fewer the (feasible) alternatives.

[boogie-nicey]

Perhaps one of the more effective leads would be to pursue the path of the big Multinationals and perhaps Oil companies. They keep the politicians well and truely off there back, so why can't we?

Food is high in chemicals and other processed 'adaptations' that it certainly has an overbearing affect on health but they get away with it. The oil companies should be the real target of the eco-warriors but even they realise they are too powerful and mighty to take on. The oil industry pays billions to maintain the status-quo so that it doesn't have loose it's grip on not just profits but in some cases literally the economy itself!

Aviation is major and strategic so we can fight back but in a coordinated manner so that it's as effective as possible.

[High Wing Drifter]

Iolar,
Although aviation may only contribute approx 3% of the global CO2 emissions, it would also seem important to measure the % contribution to C02 in the upper atmosphere since apparently that is where CO2 and other pollutants have a greater warming effect. The overall contribution to global warming from aviation pollution could be significantly higher than 3%.Yes, but it seems there is some complexity there too. Apparently NOx emmission decay Methane. It is estimated that there is 2% less Methane due to avaition than there would otherwise be. Trop ozone (the bad kind) is created by aircraft and it is suggested that trop ozone has a greater impact than at ground level. However, sulphur and water emissions from aircraft also break down upper top and lower strat ozone (a good thing). So far no data has been gathered on the effect of this. It is worth mentioning that creation of ozone is a global impact, the effects of decay of methane and upper trop/lower strat ozone are local.

As a caveat, I don't want to give the impression I understand this, it is just what I have read!

MarKD,

Adding revenue to the equation probably doesn't tell us much because it will, theoretically, have been reduced due to the £0.99 flights, etc.

In the UK it seems there was a total of 738K movements in 2000 and 748K movements. This is a 1.4% increase and is less than the increase in PAX so I suspect there has been an increase in medium and long haul? It's an assumption I know. This seems to back up the CAA's report which suggests that LoCos have not really had as big an impact as thought on short haul trips other than to make them cheaper!!

[MarkD]

High Wing - I was thinking more about the K rather than the R
http://www.airfranceklm-finance.com/aeronautical-financial-glossary.html#R

(edit - also given that FR operate nearly full 189 seaters a movement from one of them is pretty much as good as a 80% full 767)

[HS125]

The fact is that weather your talking about Carbon Trading for Airlines, Increasing Rail Faires, Congestion Charging, Pay (lots) as you Drive or whatever, It has bugger all to do with the environment.

Im not able to do less driving whatever they charge, and for other people this will read across to flying, shipping, trains or whaterver. The government will therefore hijack the issue to raise a load of money for its own back pocket. If any of us dare to complain we'll be made to look like murderers trying to distroy the world and everything in it.

There really is no balanced debate on the matter, when was the last time you saw a news item with a scientist who reconed that climate chage would happen anyway? In any case, it's about time all of us, not just MOL made a stand.

I've just read a release from AOPA which recons that the new tax rates that will be charged on AVGAS will spell the end of the economic viability of reasearch into lower emission fuels. Maybe it is the Government and the Irresponsible face of Polotics that are destroying the planet after all?

HS125

[befree]

It seems airlines are going to be given for free CO2 quotas that they can sell.
That means the airlines that are shrinking can make a fortune selling the right to emit CO2 so the Old airlines will not be too upset. In fact it could be a good windfall for the likes of BMI. Buy some less old planes and sell some quotas. I assmue ryanair will get less quotas as they already have newer planes! You can see them getting upset.

Ryanair needs to grow to use up the vast number of aircraft it has on order. The EU CO2 trading system may be why they wanted aer lingus. MOL could take the quotas, cut Aer Lingus down to the bone and use the quota to expand ryanair. He then also has somewhere to use all his new planes that he stole from Boeing. love him or hate him he is very good at getting a deal.

[akerosid]

I think what is worse about the minister's statement is the sheer hypocrisy of it, given the recent tax on aviation; he accuses the industry of not taking global warming seriously, yet just how much of this will actually go towards doing anything meaningful or effective about global warming?

Given the importance of aviation to Britain's - and indeed the world's - economy, wouldn't it be a good idea for them to incentivise the design and development of more environmentally friendly engines, rather than (as they seem to be doing now), knocking the aviation industry. It's all stick and very little carrot and that has to change. The govt needs to understand that there are neo-luddites who would like nothing better than to stop aviation altogether; let's not hand the platform over to them. Part of achieving that is setting targets which can be met. There is a balance which can be achieved, but penalising aviation (particularly when it's done cynicially, as with the new tax) is not the way to do it. A flat tax on all flying, "full stop", achieves nothing; it doesn't reduce flying (possibly not the intention anyway, despite pretence to the contrary) and it doesn't offer any incentive to airlines or manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient aircraft/engines, which really should be the aim.

Why is it such a big step to say to airlines: "if you introduce and aircraft which reduces emissions to x/pax/mile, no tax is payable". But do they want to reach that position; that's the question...

[RealFish]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6233019.stm
Why he should pick on RyanAir of all airlines is beyond comprehension. Regardless of your view on MOL, RyanAir's fleet, like many of the LoCos' is probably as efficient as is practically possible :ugh:
It's an irony that one needs to point people to the IPPC Special Report on Aviation that started this anti-air travel campaign to show that Aviation is the least of our worries...if indeed we need to be worried about anything (see Global Warmng thread in JetBlast).
Why should he pick on Ryanair ???....
Perhaps it something to do with this from Leo a week or so back
“Gordon Brown’s Christmas present to the travelling public is to double the taxes on low fare flights from £5 to £10 per ticket. This decision will hit the poor much harder than the fat cats in business class, and these taxes, while generating over £1bn. for “Scrooge” Brown, wont make any difference to the environment whatsoever.
“Ordinary people should not suffer high taxes. British tourism will be damaged by these taxes which deter visitors coming to London and the UK at Christmas and the New Year.
“Ryanair is today inviting all passengers booking tickets over the Christmas period to write to Gordon “Scrooge” Brown “the ghost of Christmas present” asking him to reverse this unfair and regressive tax on travel, a taxation which will do nothing at all for the environment when aviation only accounts for 1.6% of global greenhouse gases.
Gordon Brown’s New Year resolution should be tax the rich, not the poor. Tax the fat cats in business class, not the ordinary families on average wages who can only afford fly thanks to Ryanair’s low fare flights.
If “Scrooge” Brown wont listen to Ryanair, then perhaps he will listen to the pleas of ordinary passengers many of whom –next year – will have to pay more in taxes to Gordon Brown than they pay to Ryanair for their tickets next year”.
It could just be that this astonishing and intemperate attack has more to do with Pearson toadying up to 'Prime Minister Brown' (earning 'Brownie Points' and the chance of a nice cabinet job come the succession), than any real concern for the enviroment.

[Doctor Cruces]

:) Don't be silly RealFish! Brown and Bliar and his mates don't listen to the electorate and you only know that they are lying to you because they are speaking! Writing to them will do no good.
Doc C
:) :)

ps, yes, I know you were quoting, but still.....

[rubik101]

It is a sobering thought, well I think it is, that China and India combined will open a coal fired power station every five days for the next seven years to satisfy their energy demands.
If UK PLC were to shut down for the next 30 years, India and China would input the saved emmisions from such a silly excercise in 93 days.
These figures are gross approximations, as are all the arguments about global warming, simply because the whole model is so very variable.
Can someone please tell me how Carbon Trading reduces CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell us where the revenue (stealing) from Mr. Gordon, Chance it, Brown's 'Green Tax' will go and how it will help to reduce CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell me if Global warming is really caused by man's efforts to warm himself, transport himself and watch DVDs or is it simply, 'the weather'?
The whole subject is simply so much hot air, and we waste a lot of time and money trying to alter what is inevitable.
Fly On!

[chevvron]

I just see it as another way for the government to get money out of everybody's pockets and in to their coffers; look at the way they tax deisel fuel when overall it's environmentally friendlier than petrol.

[High Wing Drifter]

Rubik,

Can someone please tell me how Carbon Trading reduces CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell us where the revenue (stealing) from Mr. Gordon, Chance it, Brown's 'Green Tax' will go and how it will help to reduce CO2 emissions?
Can someone tell me if Global warming is really caused by man's efforts to warm himself, transport himself and watch DVDs or is it simply, 'the weather'?
Sadly, I think only the last question stands any chance of obtaining an accurate answer, now or in the future :*

[Dr Eckener]

They government won't touch road haulage because they would have a fight on their hands and road chaos would ensue.
The main problem is that we face an issue that noone wants to confront, so everyone looks for someone else to blame, and for someone else who should be targeted first. Many just refuse to accept it exists. This leaves any government in a tight spot. They are after all shallow vote seekers wishing to save their lying hides. They will therefore not be able to tackle any sector that is 'essential' to day to day running of the country, as the chaos from any disruption would be unbearable. They therefore target a sector that offers cheap hits without major disruption.
They also cannot target road users too much as the rail network would be shown to be the total disaster zone that it is. Extra pressure on road users is also a vote loser. They want to go green in the long run, but not at the expense of vote losses in the short term.
But MOL is also wrong to be smug about FR's green credentials. If the industry is seen as arrogant and unwilling to play it's part it will be a further target. This despite the governments unwillingness to show what it will be spending these 'green' taxes on.
All need to grow up on this issue. Industries need to wake up and smell the carbon. Cross industry bodies need to come up with real solutions to reduce carbon in a fair manner, at reasonable levels. If they don't (and they have not so far), the the government will tax through frustration.
The government need to realise we are not all pillocks. We want to know what they are going to do with green taxes to reduce carbon. They need to face down the real CO2 producers and get action plans in place, and quick, rather than go for easy targets. If they cannot be honest then they will lose any public support on these issues and we will all be screwed.
We need to grow up and take our heads out the sand. We need to accept that all industries are affected by this. It is no use trying to be NIMBY's about change. We all have to change our habits. We cannot all 'offset' our CO2 production. Someone must reduce output somewhere. The changes we need to make are perfectly plausible, but no one seems to give two hoots quite frankly. We all want to consume everything now.

[CAP493]

It also needs pointing out to this loonatic that Britain's aged train population is blowing a damn site more CO2 into the atmosphere
Quite so.

I recently had to take a train from London's Paddington Station and at 8am on a weekday, the diesel fumes pouring out of the IC 125s were frankly appalling. This is a scene probably repeated at Kings Cross, St Pancras, and to a lesser extent at Birmingham's New Street, Manchester's Piccadilly, Newcastle's Central and other UK major railway stations. Even the all-electric powered trains require a power source that's generated by the burning of fossil fuel.

The real moral issue concerning the low-cost airline sector is (assuming that you subscribe to the environmentalist persuasion) that it encourges many folk to travel just for the sake of it i.e. not because it's absolutely necessary.
Agreed, you could also argue that the same logic applies equally to the charter market.

Years ago (before fuel became expensive through hikes in duty and the roads became appallingly congested) people often 'went out for a drive' at a weekend, as a form of relaxation and pastime.

This 'following the bonnet' habit was a culture adopted by hundreds of people all over the country and from most socio-economic backgrounds.

Nowadays, who the hell would from choice, undertake ANY car journey that wasn't essential and for which the driver had a destination in mind.

Ultimately, it may be that the low-cost airline sector (particularly the likes of Ryanair which unlike easyJet doesn't operate solely into the major European airports) will eventually go the same way and for the same reasons.

As far as utterences by politicians such as our illustrious Environment Minister, nobody east of Dover gives a damn about what's said by transient UK politicians.

In 25 years time long after they've gone, the major global polluters will be China and India (and much of Africa if the majority of its countries are ever enabled to defeat debt, poverty, disease and corruption) whilst the UK will have become a minor global player with - relatively speaking - an insignificant environmental footprint.

And the green lobby many of whom have - now that the Cold War has ended and nuclear disarmament is less of a issue - adopted the environmental cause as a secular religion will have moved on to another hair-shirt and sackcloth issue.

Oh, and BTW, with the undoubted climatic change that's so far meant I've not run my central heating at all so far this winter, if this pattern is repeated across Western Europe during the Northern Hemisphere's winter, perhaps the Environment Minister could tell me the net benefit in CO2 emissions given that we're not burning as much fossil fuel during the winter months...?

:uhoh: :hmm:

[boogie-nicey]

Did this idiot politician actually turn up on TV at all, I think at one point the BBC reporter claimed he was no where to be found! What cowardice even for a politician ... hit and run.

Well why don't users on pprune email a quick message to the Conseravtive party and let them know that their anti-aviation and pro-fuddy-duddy stance is no good neither. The email doesn't cost anything so why not let them have it !

[boogie-nicey]

Maybe this sh1t head minister can take a look at this a weep:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm

[chrism20]

Maybe this sh1t head minister can take a look at this a weep:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6247371.stm


Ryanair have done a press release today announcing that they are the cleanest greenest airline around and to celebrate they are doing a BOGOF deal.

[Rainboe]

Rubik
Can someone tell me if Global warming is really caused by man's efforts to warm himself, transport himself and watch DVDs or is it simply, 'the weather'?
I was once daft enough to join FOE, and even looked into Greenpeace before I realised they were political organisations purely against any form of progress. To answer your question, if you look back over Earth's climate history, it is constantly going through variable cycles of warming up and cooling down. So it's on a warm up cycle now- it happens. Bit better than falling into another ice-age, but the polar bears and penguins won't like it. I'm afraid it's nature, and there's nothing we can do that will affect the cycle. One damn good volcano vomits more CO2 into the atmosphere than we care to know about. Making us pay more air travel tax or petrol duty to 'spend crazy Robber Brown' will make not one iota of difference to climate. The climate has been far warmer than now, and far, far cooler than now. Man's influence is probably less than we give ourselves credit for. The world will not runaway into a Venusian greenhouse effect- it does have a natural restoring effect as the heating effects go as the Earth's rotating axis spins slowly and other astronomical effects occur. Yes, one day Birmingham will once again be covered with glaciers one or two miles thick, and Liverpool will either be underwater or covered in thick ice (and is that so bad?). Ice ages come and go constantly, it's 'go' at the moment, and the world will warm up. Just hope the volcanos don't break out, but apart from that there is nothing we can do that will have any significant effect. If it salves your conscience to pay extra tax, well good luck, but cutting your energy consumption by 20% is laudable, but insignificant. What is true is that mankind must keep progressing in space so its future does not depend on just this planet. Stop listening to these absurd doom-mongers and their absurd science and predictions (and finger of blame!). They know nothing.
The new whipping boy is aviation- root of all evil! Is it 2% of all CO2 emissions? What about dirty trains and empty buses? 'Energy efficient cars'? Their batteries cause incredible pollution at production (and disposal), and.... er..... those batteries need energy for charging! They're virtually no more efficient- but they make Leonardo di Caprio and Cameron Diaz feel 'cool' and conscience free. They're nonsense! Just enjoy life without a conscience- take your longhaul holidays and enjoy them and ignore these Luddites!

[boogie-nicey]

Bravo, let's give these eco-loonies a kicking

[GOLF-INDIA BRAVO]

Perhaps these people should have a look at the railways, they leave a train in the siding near me with its two engines running for at least 4/5 hours chugging clouds of fumes out

G-I-B

[Red Four]

Rainboe... excellent post, summarises well how I think a large proportion of the population feels. Agree totally about space exploration, the world is getting far too fond of studying it's own navel and turning in on itself with unconstructive/undeserved blame and ill thought sticking plaster remedies from governments scared to show leadership except when it comes to extracting more in taxes.
Bring back James T Kirk and nuclear power!

[jabird]

"It also needs pointing out to this loonatic that Britain's aged train population is blowing a damn site more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the aircraft flying into and out of the UK."
Not entirely fair, many rail companies have new fleets, or have them on order. If both are full, a train will cause far less emmissions per mile than flying. But that is quite a substantial caveat!
I'd love to see us being able to get whisked around the country on high speed, contact friction free, maglevs. But I rarely see any politicians or campaigners speak rationally when it comes to weighing up the economics with the environmental costs.
Having recently sat for 3 hours in the BHX lounge waiting for a delayed flight to GLA, I am more than happy to accept that the trains can often be more convenient than flying anyway. But we just get lectured about the "carbon" emmissions. The fact is that had I taken a Virgin Train from Coventry to BHX, I would have ran up more in subsidies at 20p/mile than the allegedly unpaid carbon cost for my whole flight (about 50p according to climate care). Even these calculations don't consider the fact that when the Q400 finally turned up, it was almost full - save 2 pax who'd walked off in digust!
Virgin's subsidy has to increase for longer journeys so they can compete more with the airlines, so the environmental costs are really quite insignificant, compared to the huge amount the rail companies soak up.
"Although aviation may only contribute approx 3% of the global CO2 emissions, it would also seem important to measure the % contribution to C02 in the upper atmosphere since apparently that is where CO2 and other pollutants have a greater warming effect."
This argument can easily be countered by the fact that emmissions from aircraft are generally well away from humans, except for take-off and landing, and that even during this phase, most of the affected people have chosen to live near airports long after they opened. The human costs of road traffic accidents, and illnesses due to pollution are significant. The dangers posed by aircraft are minimal, whereas afaik no peer reviewed study has ever proven a link between local pollution caused by airports (as opposed to the roads which surround them), and any respiratory illness.

[CAP493]

If both are full, a train will cause far less emmissions per mile than flying.No doubt (IC125s excepted...), but if Brown, Labour's lefties and the Greens have their way, presumably nobody would fly anywhere on holiday or for leisure (= "non-essential travel"). Since railway travel costs a small fortune unless you're a singleton purchasing well in advance, most families would presumably take to their cars and again holiday in for example, Bournemouth, Blackpool, Broadstairs and Bridlington, or take the car ferry and drive to the Continent. Road traffic, congestion and vehicle-related pollution would shoot up and soon no doubt these same soothsayers would be lobbying for everyone to stay at home and holiday in their back gardens.

Aviation is simply the currently fashionable populist target for the hairshirt brigade who it seems, have a great need to feel guilty about themselves, their circumstances, their upbringing and their social/cultural/national/ethnic heritage, and most of the politicians dabbling in the pastime of 'aviation bashing' are only really interested in securing these voter's votes. The World today is in a far more tolerant and culturally aware sitiation than it would be if it wasn't for aviation and international travel.

The great irony of all this is that if it wasn't for air travel, 90% of the hairshirt brigade wouldn't even know about glacial melting or drought in Africa because even if they themselves haven't been to such locations, the reporters and TV crews who bring the pictures to our screens and to our newspapers have - and they didn't do it by overland travel. :hmm: