"life in a post-flying Australia and why it might actually be ok"
Thread Starter
"life in a post-flying Australia and why it might actually be ok"
here: Life in a post-flying Australia, and why it might actually be ok some academics discuss life without jet travel. Any thoughts?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As if we needed any more evidence that the only true wilderness is between a greeny's ears.
All these tree hugging lefties have just realised they have wasted the last three years of their lives at uni doing Environmental Science. To make themselves look busy they come up with these nonsense hypotheses.
And it took four of them to write it.
All these tree hugging lefties have just realised they have wasted the last three years of their lives at uni doing Environmental Science. To make themselves look busy they come up with these nonsense hypotheses.
And it took four of them to write it.
why pick on aviation ?
We now use, on average, 2.2 barrels (or 347 litres) of jet fuel per person per year
Aircraft with sensible load-factors have person-fuel-usages similar to that of road transport.
Sure, rail is more fuel-efficient than road/air but the capital cost is very high with long construction times.
And as for sea-transport, I have no intention of spending 3+ weeks to get to Europe and another 3+ weeks to return.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: beautiful one day...............
Posts: 54
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation is contributing to around 4.9% of current global warming and this is forecast to at least triple by 2050.
Well, humans have caused the vast majority of the spike in CO2 and it coincides with a global increase in temperature. I don't think there's much doubt we're to blame for the bulk of global warming.
You won't wean people off of air transport, and my own view is that aviation emissions are going to be far harder to curtail than emissions in other spheres of industry. In terms of reducing global CO2 emissions, it would make sense to concentrate our efforts on other sectors first.
That said, I took the train from Canberra to Sydney recently and it made British trains look modern which is saying something, though it was a lot roomier than British trains and the food was better. There probably is a lot of scope for improving rail links such as this one though I grant you a flight from Sydney to Darwin is always going to beat the train.
You won't wean people off of air transport, and my own view is that aviation emissions are going to be far harder to curtail than emissions in other spheres of industry. In terms of reducing global CO2 emissions, it would make sense to concentrate our efforts on other sectors first.
That said, I took the train from Canberra to Sydney recently and it made British trains look modern which is saying something, though it was a lot roomier than British trains and the food was better. There probably is a lot of scope for improving rail links such as this one though I grant you a flight from Sydney to Darwin is always going to beat the train.
What a misleading piece of writing.
1. They are counting international fuel in their calculations but not counting the number of foreign nationals carried.
2. As mentioned above the elephant in the room is the motor car which is most inefficient form of transport. It burned 460% more fuel than all domestic aircraft. Now think about that figure for a while.
3. There is no consideration of the efficiency of flying. ie you can easily fly SYD-MEL-SYD in one day and have time to conduct business. Every other form of transport requires an overnight.
4. There is no consideration of freight carried including bags and time critical items.
5. They have brought short range public transport into a debate about long range transport. Planes don't compete with people commuting from Bowral or Central Coast to Sydney or from Gold Coast to Brisbane. How efficient is a train on SYD-BNE vs an Aircraft? Or BNE-PER? Don't forget a plane does that on 2 x 2km of runway vs 1000's kms of railway.
6. They expect railways to be subsidised by the government but aviation can pay the entire economic cost of operating.
Here's an idea how about we run railways like aviation and let the end user pay for the entire cost of operating and see how cost effective it is then?
1. They are counting international fuel in their calculations but not counting the number of foreign nationals carried.
2. As mentioned above the elephant in the room is the motor car which is most inefficient form of transport. It burned 460% more fuel than all domestic aircraft. Now think about that figure for a while.
3. There is no consideration of the efficiency of flying. ie you can easily fly SYD-MEL-SYD in one day and have time to conduct business. Every other form of transport requires an overnight.
4. There is no consideration of freight carried including bags and time critical items.
5. They have brought short range public transport into a debate about long range transport. Planes don't compete with people commuting from Bowral or Central Coast to Sydney or from Gold Coast to Brisbane. How efficient is a train on SYD-BNE vs an Aircraft? Or BNE-PER? Don't forget a plane does that on 2 x 2km of runway vs 1000's kms of railway.
6. They expect railways to be subsidised by the government but aviation can pay the entire economic cost of operating.
Here's an idea how about we run railways like aviation and let the end user pay for the entire cost of operating and see how cost effective it is then?
Last edited by neville_nobody; 13th Jan 2017 at 04:45.
Thread Starter
I think 3 of the authors are from business/tourism backgrounds and one is an environmentalist. You wonder if any of them have ever actually run a business.
Well, a bunch of pilots chucking rock at what is essentially a though experiment regarding a world that has finally taken a strong stance against climate change, who would have thought.
I'm a pilot and I've derived my income from this caper for the last 18 years, I love it but I am deeply concerned about the consequences of climate change too.
There is little point in debating it on prune though because the collective total of us pilots that accept that not only is climate change real, I could count on my left hand. Let alone those that recognise its effects here and now.
The cognitive dissonance is insurmountable for most pilots to accept.
The implications of climate change, if we collectively chose to accept them are so significant that indeed, these sort of changes would be required. But these changes will of course not happen and therefore, crack on as you were and we can all go back to sticking our heads up our collective arses and let's just see what happens hey.
I'm a pilot and I've derived my income from this caper for the last 18 years, I love it but I am deeply concerned about the consequences of climate change too.
There is little point in debating it on prune though because the collective total of us pilots that accept that not only is climate change real, I could count on my left hand. Let alone those that recognise its effects here and now.
The cognitive dissonance is insurmountable for most pilots to accept.
The implications of climate change, if we collectively chose to accept them are so significant that indeed, these sort of changes would be required. But these changes will of course not happen and therefore, crack on as you were and we can all go back to sticking our heads up our collective arses and let's just see what happens hey.
Well take a stand and give up flying if you think that doing so is destroying the earth. Then you can take the moral high ground. Obviously you're not that worried. There's a lot that talk the talk, but not many that walk the walk.
That tripe was written by three professors and a doctoral candidate?? It reads like a year 10 homework assignment.
That tripe was written by three professors and a doctoral candidate?? It reads like a year 10 homework assignment.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the most useless persons I have ever worked with was an academic who never ever held a real job. He really was as thick as sh!t.
His life of stress free work seems to have provided him with an expensive house inside an exclusive suburb, and privileged positions for his just-as-thick kids.
From this picture draw your own conclusions on how money gets exchanged for favourable opinions disguised as research.
His life of stress free work seems to have provided him with an expensive house inside an exclusive suburb, and privileged positions for his just-as-thick kids.
From this picture draw your own conclusions on how money gets exchanged for favourable opinions disguised as research.
Hi Allan,
Thanks for giving me the view of Senator Malcolm Roberts, wouldn't it be wonderful if indeed it were that simple, I so wish it were so.
Anyhoo, here's what NASA has to say on the matter:
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
The National Oceanic and Atmoshpheric Administration (US):
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...al-temperature
While, we're at it here's what the Royal Society has to say:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-poli...idence-causes/
And here's what out own Bureau of Metorology has to say on the matter despite the coalition governments best efforts:
Climate change and variability
Oh but wait everyone, they're just a bunch of wealthy scientists trying to feather their own nests with endless research grants about fake science so I wouldn't pay too much attention to them. Silly me.
Thanks for giving me the view of Senator Malcolm Roberts, wouldn't it be wonderful if indeed it were that simple, I so wish it were so.
Anyhoo, here's what NASA has to say on the matter:
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
The National Oceanic and Atmoshpheric Administration (US):
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...al-temperature
While, we're at it here's what the Royal Society has to say:
https://royalsociety.org/topics-poli...idence-causes/
And here's what out own Bureau of Metorology has to say on the matter despite the coalition governments best efforts:
Climate change and variability
Oh but wait everyone, they're just a bunch of wealthy scientists trying to feather their own nests with endless research grants about fake science so I wouldn't pay too much attention to them. Silly me.
If we can call the food we are eating natural, then perhaps everything we do here on earth is natural and evolutionary.
Nothing we can make or not make will even come close to what nature will serve us.
Control freaks, that describes those who think we can beat nature.
Earth is a mere lifeboat for the human race. Where we go
From here will define our future.
Nothing we can make or not make will even come close to what nature will serve us.
Control freaks, that describes those who think we can beat nature.
Earth is a mere lifeboat for the human race. Where we go
From here will define our future.
By far the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. I sincerely hope this was not written as part of a thesis or even high school assignment. God help us all, if there even is a god and if she allows us to continue to populate............
Thread Starter
One of the most useless persons I have ever worked with was an academic who never ever held a real job. He really was as thick as sh!t.
His life of stress free work seems to have provided him with an expensive house inside an exclusive suburb, and privileged positions for his just-as-thick kids.
From this picture draw your own conclusions on how money gets exchanged for favourable opinions disguised as research.
His life of stress free work seems to have provided him with an expensive house inside an exclusive suburb, and privileged positions for his just-as-thick kids.
From this picture draw your own conclusions on how money gets exchanged for favourable opinions disguised as research.
