Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Remind me of the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Remind me of the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

Old 15th Oct 2019, 22:08
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 288
Remind me of the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

Lewis Hamilton has made obscene millions from indulging in what must be far and away the most polluting sport ever invented. It is likely he will continue to rake it in for some years to come. I cannot even begin to calculate how many thousand gallons of fuel he must get through every year with the races themselves, let alone the practices, qualifying and development/testing. Multiply that by twenty to take in the fuel used by the other drivers and teams, and then start calculating the quantity of diesel and jet fuel required to transport the entire F1 circus on its annual perambulation around the globe! Lewis is a willing participant in this gratuitous petrolfest, and profits handsomely from it.
However, I now see that he has gone green and vegan, and is beseeching all of us to adopt veganism as the only way to save the planet. I don't know how to post a link to the particular news article, but here's a brief cut and paste excerpt:-

Adopting a vegan diet is the "only way to truly save our planet", Lewis Hamilton has said.
In a thoughtful post on Instagram, the F1 star described the world as a "messed up place" with leaders who are "either uneducated or don't care about the environment at all". Going vegan "can be done so quickly", he said, adding: "All you have to do is put your mind to it."

Come off it Lewis old son. If you really want people to believe your new-found commitment to planet-salvation, here's a suggestion. Retire from motor racing. Use some of your fortune to buy a few thousand acres of farmland in East Anglia and move into the local village. Invest in some stout wellies, a pair of gardening gloves, a plough and a couple of Shire horses. Now you can get your expensively manicured hands dirty and start growing some nutritious veggies so we can at least eat beanburgers to make up for the protein lost by going vegan. And while you're at it, stop this jetting round the world poncing around at fashion shows with your Hollywood and showbiz mates. If you want to socialise, try spending an evening at the pub with one or two of your new farm workers instead, Give up the glitzy Mayfair high life and put in a few hours helping to organise the village fete.Then I might start to believe your holier-than-thou preaching Until then you can kiss my ass.
radarman is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 22:20
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,684

TURIN is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 22:35
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50
this is one for the jokes thread...
rifruffian is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 23:00
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by radarman View Post
I cannot even begin to calculate how many thousand gallons of fuel he must get through every year with the races themselves, let alone the practices, qualifying and development/testing.

Probably less than that used on a single long haul widebody flight, actually. The maximum permitted capacity is around 40gals (110kg, so it depends on the ambient temp) and this lasts a minimum of about 90 minutes. Qualifying probably only consumes 20kg at most, and each practice session will use no more that one full tank (FP3 can't use a full tank - it's only an hour). So that's probably 350kg per race weekend. Call it 7 tons for a 20-race season. No other practice is permitted, and the only testing allowed is at the two 4 day test sessions plus a mid season session. A massive overestimate for these would be another three tons. So his annual fuel consumption is around 10 tons. IIRC all the A330/340/380/B747/777/787 versions will take less than 2 hours to burn 10 tons of fuel in the cruise.

If Lewis wants to turn vegan that's his privilege - I won't, and I think it's a silly thing to do. But it won't stop me admiring his awesome feats in the car. I don'tr care what he eats, and I doubt he cares what I eat...

PDR
PDR1 is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 00:02
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 65
Posts: 59
I don't understand how everyone going vegan will save the planet and am not bothered to wade through the research.
I know about cattle flatulence. I also know about human flatulence, LA traffic and Indian coal fired plants.
A lot of grazing land is not the best for growing crops and thus cattle make use of it nicely, etc, etc.
I see no validity in universal plant only, no matter how much they push pea burgers.
meadowrun is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 02:33
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 902
I've seen it quoted on numerous occasions that 15 of the world's largest ocean going vessels produce more emissions than the planet's population of motor vehicles.

Now that is something worth concentrating on if you really want to vent your anger.
LGW Vulture is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 05:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 67
Posts: 528
Originally Posted by LGW Vulture View Post
I've seen it quoted on numerous occasions that 15 of the world's largest ocean going vessels produce more emissions than the planet's population of motor vehicles.

Now that is something worth concentrating on if you really want to vent your anger.
I won't say that you're wrong because I do not know.
But I do find it a bit hard to believe.

Do you have any sort of source for that claim?

If it's correct then you'd also have to be looking at locomotives and large diesel powered mining equipment.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 06:39
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not where I want to be
Age: 66
Posts: 236
Originally Posted by LGW Vulture View Post
I've seen it quoted on numerous occasions that 15 of the world's largest ocean going vessels produce more emissions than the planet's population of motor vehicles.

Now that is something worth concentrating on if you really want to vent your anger.
Those engines are the most fuel efficient in the world. Say those 15 have 100.000 hp each.
The world estimate on cars is around one billion, a conservative figure? 80 hp?
Somebody do the math, please. Too early in the morning here.
Per
Ancient Mariner is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 07:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: back out to Grasse
Posts: 150
Plane or Ship

When you do need to travel, considering just efficiency and cost alone, the plane is your best option between the two. The Queen Mary 2, for example, gets about 20.5 miles per gallon per passenger when traveling at its full speed (though at lower speeds it is considerably more efficient, getting around 45 passenger miles per gallon per passenger). An Airbus A380, in comparison, gets 74 miles per gallon per passenger; the Boeing 737 Max8 gets 110 miles per gallon per passenger. The cost of traveling by ship is considerably higher than by plane as well, though you can save some with a repositioning ticket. In general, air efficiency can depend on many variables, including different routes.

There are other factors to keep in mind when deciding whether to sail on a cruise ship, such as sewage treatment, air pollution, and food waste. Seek out cruise lines that demonstrate transparency and initiative in cleaning up their act. Friends of the Earth released a report card grading cruise lines in 2016
IG

Last edited by Imagegear; 20th Oct 2019 at 07:24.
Imagegear is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 07:39
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 685
Come off it Lewis old son.
Radarman

Youíll struggle to get many agreeing with you here, but Hamiltonís statement is surely
Stan Woolley is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 07:40
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: There and here
Posts: 1,721
Hamilton, like many others, has had his lightbulb moment as to how to change the world for the better, at least hypothetically. He, unlike them, because of a prodigious talent at one thing, has the fanbase to spread his musings widely. He lives in a rarified bubble for various reasons and like all those who do, are somewhat cut-off from the realities of the majority on this planet. He has always come across as emotionally immature in comparison to his racing compatriots, perhaps due to the upbringing he had in pursuit of car racing excellence. That he cannot, or will not see that to be taken seriously (which I assume he does) he will need to change his lifestyle dramatically by reducing his usage of fossil fuels, luxury items, constant travelling, mindless consumption etc etc. Social media has given the world a view into the daily thoughts of a myriad of well-known personalities, and I for one am not sure that that is such a good thing. Have your thoughts and opinions, but they aren't any more valid than the man in the street.

There seems to be a disproportionate level of delusion amongst those that are currently promoting mindful living for the benefit of the planet, whilst doing the opposite when not virtue signalling in the medias. There is no doubt that the citizens of planet Earth need to alter their living habits if a reduction in life quality is to be avoided in the future, but small gestures on a daily basis will help to realise this, rather than short term large gestures.
SpringHeeledJack is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 07:56
  #12 (permalink)  
Paid...Persona Grata
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Between BHX and EMA
Age: 74
Posts: 236
what must be far and away the most polluting sport ever invented
Back in the 1970s there was a fuel crisis and motor sport was banned for a period. It was pointed out at the time that football used considerably more fuel as the teeming millions travelled to the games every Saturday. Football was not banned however.
UniFoxOs is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 08:48
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 738
I wonder if he ever considered how many cabbages per sq Km/gallons per week or whatever this used?
http://www.kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=22899
KelvinD is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 08:55
  #14 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 70
Posts: 3,392
Football was not banned however.
More votes in "kickball" than in Motor Sport mon brave.

Similarly, consider "outrage" about the wages and bonuses of financiers and bankers, compared to the deafening silence over footie players emoluments:

The 5 highest-paid soccer players in the Premier League
  1. Alexis Sanchez. Pay: £315,000 weekly ($21.5 million annually)
  2. Mesut ÷zil. Pay: £306,250 weekly ($20.9 million annually) ...
  3. Paul Pogba. Pay: £290,000 weekly ($19.8 million annually) ...
  4. Kevin De Bruyne. Pay: £280,000 weekly ($19.1 million annually) ...
  5. Romelu Lukaku. Pay: £250,000 weekly ($17.1 million annually)
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 09:00
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England - Now
Posts: 49
Can't remember the exact details but there were demonstrations by farmers in Holland a few days back where the government is seeking to introduce legislation on the numbers and types of animals, especially dairy, farmers could breed/rear plus restrictions on farm vehicles to improve the air quality and the health of the planet. It was then pointed out that the Government was actively pursuing reintroducing the Dutch GP. As the OP said - rank hypocrisy. What is more important - food production or watching a procession round and round a racing track?
By the way can't understand what football players wages, nor indeed any non government employee salary, have to do with this. None of it comes out of my taxes although of course I may unwittingly pay extra on products I buy on company sponsorship
Headstone is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 09:13
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not where I want to be
Age: 66
Posts: 236
[QUOTE=Imagegear;10595432]Plane or Ship

When you do need to travel, considering just efficiency and cost alone, the plane is your best option between the two. The Queen Mary 2, for example, gets about 20.5 miles per gallon per passenger when traveling at its full speed (though at lower speeds it is considerably more efficient, getting around 45 passenger miles per gallon per passenger). An Airbus A380, in comparison, gets 74 miles per gallon per passenger; the Boeing 737 Max8 gets 110 miles per gallon per passenger. The cost of traveling by ship is considerably higher than by plane as well, though you can save some with a repositioning ticket. In general, air efficiency can depend on many variables, including different routes.

There are other factors to keep in mind when deciding whether to sail on a cruise ship, such as sewage treatment, air pollution, and food waste. Seek out cruise lines that demonstrate transparency and initiative in cleaning up their act. Friends of the Earth released a report card grading cruise lines in 2016[/QUOTE

IG
Not a relevant comparison, the QM2 is not a passenger ship, it's a cruise liner with maybe a crew of one thousand in addition to the paying pax. If it was stuffed like a aircraft, you could probable fit in ten thousands of passengers. An A380 would have had 50 pax and a crew of 10 if you wanted equal conspicuous consumption.
Per
Ancient Mariner is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 13:59
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Madrid FIR
Posts: 288
KelvinD
The news article I quoted from said he had sold his Challenger. 'What a sacrifice' you're expected to think. But he still jets around the world to see his rapper and catwalk chums, and I bet he doesn't go with the likes of easyjet or Ryanair. (Sorry mods - are we allowed to mention R.....r by name?).
He may not have his own plane any more, so he'll charter one instead. And a chartered Challenger puts out the same amount of CO2 as his private one. Virtue signalling again!
radarman is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 14:55
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 738
radarman: I read somewhere that he had sold the Challenger but had bought another jet. (At the time of the photo, it was still his). At the time, the operator was listed as Gama Aviation so who knows, maybe he has a new one managed by that same company? Isn't owning a "company plane" a common wheeze to offset taxes?
KelvinD is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 15:27
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,979
Originally Posted by WingNut60 View Post
I won't say that you're wrong because I do not know.
But I do find it a bit hard to believe.

Do you have any sort of source for that claim?

If it's correct then you'd also have to be looking at locomotives and large diesel powered mining equipment.
The statistic has been fairly widely reported, so I'd be surprised if it's fake. Shipping is apparently the last bastion of dangerous low-grade, high-sulphur fuels.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-sh...-idUKKCN12S0LO
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 16:02
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by LGW Vulture View Post
I've seen it quoted on numerous occasions that 15 of the world's largest ocean going vessels produce more emissions than the planet's population of motor vehicles.

Now that is something worth concentrating on if you really want to vent your anger.
It is astounding how much fuel container ships use, A medium size ship (8,000 or so containers) burns 250 tons/day of bunker fuel, or approximately 250,000L/day. Assuming 300 days/year at sea that's about 75,000,000L/year. One concerning factor is that bunker oil has a VERY high sulfur content. I did the calculation some time ago, but it turns out that the 15 largest container ships produce more sulfur and nitrous oxide emissions in a year than the entire world's passenger car fleet, but the dirty secret is out of sight on the high seas. Some regulation is being introduced to reduce the sulfur output, but bunker fuel has always been the end of the distillation chain (well, except for tar) and that is where a lot of the sulfur extracted from gasoline (petrol) et al has ended up. Used motor oil returned to an auto shop after an oil change also ends up as bunker fuel.
Winemaker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.