Every flight Every Day Destroying The Environment
we as humans really do not have the abiity to influence the environment.
But just in case you are...
Volcanoes put out far more toxic waste into the atmosphere than humans...should we pass legislation banning them?
I was told recently that one minutes worth of eruption on Mt St Helens put more pollution into the air than the past 100 years of human efforts.
I was told recently that one minutes worth of eruption on Mt St Helens put more pollution into the air than the past 100 years of human efforts.
What toxic waste exactly are you talking about anyway? We are mainly concerned here with gasses that reduce the amount of infa-red electro-magnetic energy being radiated from the Earth's surface back into space.
Gases: Man versus the Volcanoes
Do we add more gases to the atmosphere or do volcanoes? It's a simple question with a complicated answer. Reaching a good estimate is important in guiding global policy for standards to reduce emissions from man-made sources of gases.
Carbon Dioxide
Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
If, as we have all been told, the hole in the ozone layer is caused by CFC's being released.
Why then, when the major polluter is the northern hemisphere, is the hole over the southern hemisphere?
Why then, when the major polluter is the northern hemisphere, is the hole over the southern hemisphere?
Well the process involved in the depletion of ozone IS happening over the North Pole! http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/tou...ono2.large.mpg
When you can get two boffins to agree whether there really is global worming or not, then I'll listen to this doomsaying.
Ignorance is not bliss, it just feels like it at the time!
Last edited by Blip; 12th Apr 2005 at 08:09.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
getting back on topic, basically its a fact that the aviation indusrty is adding FCUK ALL to the environment!!
Dont forget, electric cars, use electricity, created in a coal fired Powerplant! to charge them and keep em on the road!
the Only real NON gas relaeasing form of energy is NUCLEAR!
why we dont use it as the most popular source of energy is beyond me, oh, thats why, greenies! rather see tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere instead of clean nuclear energy!
Dont forget, electric cars, use electricity, created in a coal fired Powerplant! to charge them and keep em on the road!
the Only real NON gas relaeasing form of energy is NUCLEAR!
why we dont use it as the most popular source of energy is beyond me, oh, thats why, greenies! rather see tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere instead of clean nuclear energy!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dearest Blip and the rest of the "the end is nigh" treehugging fraternity,
Check out this link, as luck would have it, put out today on the Sydney Morning Herald.
As much as 2 billion tonnes of sulphuric acid into the stratosphere, makes all the CO2 look a bit tiny in comparison.
Read about it here
We as humans have not the power to damage the environment, we could perhaps damage our ability to live in it.
Tectonic shifts, earthquakes, volcanoes, erosion etc have a far greater effect, just over a far longer time frame.
If it makes you feel good to ride your bike, recycle that glass and tin, never fly anywhere again or live in a cave lit by ambient light, covered by the furs of animals that you have hunted down and killed, go and do it!
Check out this link, as luck would have it, put out today on the Sydney Morning Herald.
As much as 2 billion tonnes of sulphuric acid into the stratosphere, makes all the CO2 look a bit tiny in comparison.
Read about it here
We as humans have not the power to damage the environment, we could perhaps damage our ability to live in it.
Tectonic shifts, earthquakes, volcanoes, erosion etc have a far greater effect, just over a far longer time frame.
If it makes you feel good to ride your bike, recycle that glass and tin, never fly anywhere again or live in a cave lit by ambient light, covered by the furs of animals that you have hunted down and killed, go and do it!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I would rather deal with ways of burning the coal cleaner than have this clean nuclear energy in my country.
Read the story right through - it is eery.
Read the story right through - it is eery.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: WA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'n no tree-hugger, but I believe in what Pullock is saying. I think he is saying there should be a better alternative to tanking.
And come on diving duck, "we as humans really do not have the abiity to influence the environment." That's a great attitude to have. You obviously think the air quality today is the same as 100yrs ago?
We may not see our world blown away by a super nova in our day, but how long do ya think the world oil stocks will last at current consumption, 50, 100, 500yrs?
I heard someone say that in the days following 9/11 they took samples of air for quality testing when there were zero planes airborne. 'Parantly a lot less pollution. (Just backed up by another person here in the office!)
Bring on the hydrogen celled transonic passanger plane!!
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0210/p14s02-sten.html supports both sides of the argument
And come on diving duck, "we as humans really do not have the abiity to influence the environment." That's a great attitude to have. You obviously think the air quality today is the same as 100yrs ago?
We may not see our world blown away by a super nova in our day, but how long do ya think the world oil stocks will last at current consumption, 50, 100, 500yrs?
I heard someone say that in the days following 9/11 they took samples of air for quality testing when there were zero planes airborne. 'Parantly a lot less pollution. (Just backed up by another person here in the office!)
Bring on the hydrogen celled transonic passanger plane!!
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0210/p14s02-sten.html supports both sides of the argument
Last edited by Soopster; 12th Apr 2005 at 16:31.
Uncommon Sense
I think that is the understatement of the century. Power plants account for nearly 54% of all CO² emissions into the atmosphere. If we are all really serious about cleaning up the atmosphere, there is the first place to start. Unfortunately the down side to coal is it is a very dirty burning fuel. Trying to make the coal burn cleaner will mostly reduce the visible pollution that is produced but not the CO². We could try to make the power plants more efficient like we have with cars, trucks and aircraft but at the end of the day there is only so much that can be done to improve the efficiency of coal fired power plants. We are going to have to bight the bullet. Nuclear power and hydro are the obvious first steps. Other power sources are going to have to be developed. Maybe hydrogen is a possibility in the future. The only pollution produced will be H²O.
While aircraft do contribute to total CO² emissions, at 1.6%, I think our priorities need to be directed at the biggest contributors to global CO² emissions. If we don’t do this then we will never stop the damage that has already been done. Our efforts will be like trying to put out a high rise inferno by trying to piss on it when we should be trying to put it out with a fire hose.
Soopster
To give you an idea what sought of percentages we are talking about here. A flight from Hong Kong to Taipei in an A330 or A340 burns about 8000 kg of fuel each way. To carry return fuel over this distance costs us about 180 kg. This equates to about 1.1% of total fuel burn. In our total operation tankering would cost the airline less than 0.01% of total fuel burn. F**k all in the whole scheme of things.
The study you are quoting actually found that the average temperature went up 3°C. It made no mention of the total pollution level. Pollution may have gone down significantly around airports but in the whole scheme of things it wouldn’t have made a dent on total pollution. Infact it probably went up because people had to find alternative ways of getting home and road transport would have been the most likely alternative.
I think that is the understatement of the century. Power plants account for nearly 54% of all CO² emissions into the atmosphere. If we are all really serious about cleaning up the atmosphere, there is the first place to start. Unfortunately the down side to coal is it is a very dirty burning fuel. Trying to make the coal burn cleaner will mostly reduce the visible pollution that is produced but not the CO². We could try to make the power plants more efficient like we have with cars, trucks and aircraft but at the end of the day there is only so much that can be done to improve the efficiency of coal fired power plants. We are going to have to bight the bullet. Nuclear power and hydro are the obvious first steps. Other power sources are going to have to be developed. Maybe hydrogen is a possibility in the future. The only pollution produced will be H²O.
While aircraft do contribute to total CO² emissions, at 1.6%, I think our priorities need to be directed at the biggest contributors to global CO² emissions. If we don’t do this then we will never stop the damage that has already been done. Our efforts will be like trying to put out a high rise inferno by trying to piss on it when we should be trying to put it out with a fire hose.
Soopster
I think he is saying there should be a better alternative to tanking.
I heard someone say that in the days following 9/11 they took samples of air for quality testing when there were zero planes airborne. 'Parantly a lot less pollution. (Just backed up by another person here in the office!)
Last edited by 404 Titan; 12th Apr 2005 at 19:39.
