Clipping The Airlines' Wings Would Do Us All A Favour: John Humphrys
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just the volcanic eruption of Mount ST. Helen's alone, 20 years ago, had blown more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all of the World's automobile emissions have in the past 100 years.
The entire human population, with all of its gadgets and sewers, biochemical and nuclear included, is nothing but a pimple on mother nature.
The entire human population, with all of its gadgets and sewers, biochemical and nuclear included, is nothing but a pimple on mother nature.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball.
I hate to turn this in to an environmental discussion, but what you said is a load of crap!
That is the quintessential right wing bible banging republican view that is in all the right of center publications so thay can justify environmental destruction on a huge scale.
If anyone thinks that we can continue to burn fossil fuels, burn C02 absorbing rainforests, overfish our oceans, destroy ozone, pollute every inch of realestate that we don't develope in to condo's without putting every speceis on this planet in great perril, including our own, than they are smoking crack. In a benign environment this planit is in stasis, and volcanic eruptions is part of that stasis. We are no longer in stasis.
In my previous post I simply meant to say that, in the grand scheme of things, aviation will have very little to do with it. In the mean time, we are now in the largest extinction cycle this planet has seen since the destruction of the dinosaurs.
Have a nice day.
I hate to turn this in to an environmental discussion, but what you said is a load of crap!
That is the quintessential right wing bible banging republican view that is in all the right of center publications so thay can justify environmental destruction on a huge scale.
If anyone thinks that we can continue to burn fossil fuels, burn C02 absorbing rainforests, overfish our oceans, destroy ozone, pollute every inch of realestate that we don't develope in to condo's without putting every speceis on this planet in great perril, including our own, than they are smoking crack. In a benign environment this planit is in stasis, and volcanic eruptions is part of that stasis. We are no longer in stasis.
In my previous post I simply meant to say that, in the grand scheme of things, aviation will have very little to do with it. In the mean time, we are now in the largest extinction cycle this planet has seen since the destruction of the dinosaurs.
Have a nice day.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All you green credentials type folks should have a look at these:
CO2 from lakes 1
CO2 from lakes 2
CO2 from lakes 3
well who'd have believed it, to kill that many people from such a distance it must be a HUGE amount of CO2, and without doubt (though speculation on my part) must be many many times more than all the worlds airliners have ever produced ?!
Nb. It's been reported (and I'm trying to find it - it was posted on PPRuNe some time ago) that all the worlds lakes / dams exude HUGE amounts of CO2, and other gases - which kind of puts paid to the idea that hydro power is green.
Found it - hence the edit:
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: Devils Advocate ]
CO2 from lakes 1
CO2 from lakes 2
CO2 from lakes 3
well who'd have believed it, to kill that many people from such a distance it must be a HUGE amount of CO2, and without doubt (though speculation on my part) must be many many times more than all the worlds airliners have ever produced ?!
Nb. It's been reported (and I'm trying to find it - it was posted on PPRuNe some time ago) that all the worlds lakes / dams exude HUGE amounts of CO2, and other gases - which kind of puts paid to the idea that hydro power is green.
Found it - hence the edit:
Hydroelectric dams are no solution to climate change
The international and national dam lobbyists have been fast to adapt their discourse to the changing world situation. Given the widespread concern over climate change related to greenhouse gas emissions, dam promoters are now stressing that hydroelectricity is a clean source of energy, thus being the best candidate to substitute fossil fuel-based energy sources. But: is it really clean?
The existing research shows that hydropower is not only socially and environmentally destructive, but that it can also make a significant contribution to global warming, particularly in the tropics.
Through the processes of growth and decay, soils, forests and wetlands continuously consume and emit large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, the two most important greenhouse gases. When those ecosystems are flooded by the dams' reservoirs, the pattern of fluxes of CO2 and methane with the atmosphere is totally altered. Plants and soils decompose when flooded and will eventually release almost all their stored carbon. Permanently flooding tropical wetlands will tend to increase their methane emissions as well as making them a net source of CO2.
Researcher Philip Fearnside carried out studies in 1995 on two dams in Brazil: Balbina and Tucurui. He calculated their impact on global warming by assessing the amount of forest they flooded and the rate at which vegetation would decay at different depths of their reservoirs. His findings were that in 1990 (6 years after Tucurui started to fill and 3 years after the gates were closed at Balbina), the Tucurui reservoir had emitted 9,450,000 tonnes of CO2 and 90,000 tons of methane, while Balbina had emitted 23,750,000 tonnes of CO2 and 140,000 tons of methane. His conclusion was that Tucurui had 60 per cent as much impact on global warming as a coal-fired plant generating the same amount of electricity, while Balbina had 26 times more impact on global warming than the emissions from an equivalent coal-fired power station.
The above should suffice to show that hydropower is not clean regarding climate change. But there's even more. A comprehensive accounting of a dam's contribution to global warming should also include the emissions from the fossil fuels used during dam construction, those from the production of the cement, steel and other materials used in the dam, as well as the changes in greenhouse gas fluxes due to the land use and other changes which the dam encourages, such as deforestation, the conversion of floodplain wetlands to intensive agriculture, the adoption of irrigation on once rainfed lands, and the increased use of fossil-fuel-based artificial fertilizers.
In sum, large hydroelectric dams are not only no solution to climate change but, on the contrary, are part of the problem.
Article based on information from: Patrick McCully, "Silenced Rivers. The Ecology and Politics of large Dams", Zed Books 1996
The international and national dam lobbyists have been fast to adapt their discourse to the changing world situation. Given the widespread concern over climate change related to greenhouse gas emissions, dam promoters are now stressing that hydroelectricity is a clean source of energy, thus being the best candidate to substitute fossil fuel-based energy sources. But: is it really clean?
The existing research shows that hydropower is not only socially and environmentally destructive, but that it can also make a significant contribution to global warming, particularly in the tropics.
Through the processes of growth and decay, soils, forests and wetlands continuously consume and emit large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, the two most important greenhouse gases. When those ecosystems are flooded by the dams' reservoirs, the pattern of fluxes of CO2 and methane with the atmosphere is totally altered. Plants and soils decompose when flooded and will eventually release almost all their stored carbon. Permanently flooding tropical wetlands will tend to increase their methane emissions as well as making them a net source of CO2.
Researcher Philip Fearnside carried out studies in 1995 on two dams in Brazil: Balbina and Tucurui. He calculated their impact on global warming by assessing the amount of forest they flooded and the rate at which vegetation would decay at different depths of their reservoirs. His findings were that in 1990 (6 years after Tucurui started to fill and 3 years after the gates were closed at Balbina), the Tucurui reservoir had emitted 9,450,000 tonnes of CO2 and 90,000 tons of methane, while Balbina had emitted 23,750,000 tonnes of CO2 and 140,000 tons of methane. His conclusion was that Tucurui had 60 per cent as much impact on global warming as a coal-fired plant generating the same amount of electricity, while Balbina had 26 times more impact on global warming than the emissions from an equivalent coal-fired power station.
The above should suffice to show that hydropower is not clean regarding climate change. But there's even more. A comprehensive accounting of a dam's contribution to global warming should also include the emissions from the fossil fuels used during dam construction, those from the production of the cement, steel and other materials used in the dam, as well as the changes in greenhouse gas fluxes due to the land use and other changes which the dam encourages, such as deforestation, the conversion of floodplain wetlands to intensive agriculture, the adoption of irrigation on once rainfed lands, and the increased use of fossil-fuel-based artificial fertilizers.
In sum, large hydroelectric dams are not only no solution to climate change but, on the contrary, are part of the problem.
Article based on information from: Patrick McCully, "Silenced Rivers. The Ecology and Politics of large Dams", Zed Books 1996
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: England
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humphreys is one of those Guardian-reading bleeding-hearts of the Left-leaning liberal intelligentsia.
They spend their lives hand-wringing over the choices the rest of us make. They sneeringly pontificate in their condascending fashion and moralise vacuously over the new imperealism they feel we project.
Yet the whole time they are so blissfully ignorant of their own crass hypocrisy. Humphreys waxes lyrical about the special protectionism of the airline industry seemingly oblivious to the fact that he is paid out of a poll tax levied on virtually the entire adult population of this country irrespective of the ability to pay.
His employer churns out the most unpatriotic, utterly repulsive drivel in the name of investigative journalism. They will trash anyone, crawl under any stone and destroy anyones life just to get a few seconds of bile on the evening news. Humphreys interviews are a mixture of pompous interruptions and snivelling deferrance. The former employed in the interview of anyone outside the new Labour elites, the latter reserved in plentiful measure for cabinet ministers.
I am heartily sick of Humphreys and his kind. Al they know how to do is to kick people when they are down. He is no great journalist. He is no incisive interviewer.
He is a parasite on the collective back of society.
He can take his utterly banal piece on the aviation industry and cram it where the sun doesn't shine.
Perhpas then he'll stop talking out of it.
They spend their lives hand-wringing over the choices the rest of us make. They sneeringly pontificate in their condascending fashion and moralise vacuously over the new imperealism they feel we project.
Yet the whole time they are so blissfully ignorant of their own crass hypocrisy. Humphreys waxes lyrical about the special protectionism of the airline industry seemingly oblivious to the fact that he is paid out of a poll tax levied on virtually the entire adult population of this country irrespective of the ability to pay.
His employer churns out the most unpatriotic, utterly repulsive drivel in the name of investigative journalism. They will trash anyone, crawl under any stone and destroy anyones life just to get a few seconds of bile on the evening news. Humphreys interviews are a mixture of pompous interruptions and snivelling deferrance. The former employed in the interview of anyone outside the new Labour elites, the latter reserved in plentiful measure for cabinet ministers.
I am heartily sick of Humphreys and his kind. Al they know how to do is to kick people when they are down. He is no great journalist. He is no incisive interviewer.
He is a parasite on the collective back of society.
He can take his utterly banal piece on the aviation industry and cram it where the sun doesn't shine.
Perhpas then he'll stop talking out of it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next large (.5 x .5 Km) incoming asteroid will wipe us out and regenerate what's left of our planet. It won't matter how big of an ozone hole there is or how much CO2 and methane is blown into the atmosphere. 
The BBC makes me sick - from the pro-taliban filth it has been pumping out on the 6 o'clock news to the one-sided ultra-biased debacle called Question Time it is a disgrace.
We all pay the licence fee so it should be representative of the population - not of the ultra-liberal minority who seem to be dictating to all of us how we should live our lives.
We all pay the licence fee so it should be representative of the population - not of the ultra-liberal minority who seem to be dictating to all of us how we should live our lives.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without entertaining journalists as John Humphry there would be little imagination to stir readers' brain cells. Let us not be overcome by a pervasive lack of humor. Besides, today's paper will be in tomorrow's trash can. 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought - but for the benefit of JH just how much CO2 does a 747 pump out crossing the altlantic? Then, if you take kg of CO2 per passenger kilometre, how does it compare with your 10yr old Nissan Sunny?
I took the time to work it out once - and if I remember correctly the fully laden jet used LESS fuel per mile than a car. I may just be suffering from a faulty memory - anyone care to help out?
Edited because I'm a sad git who's just worked it out. Figures for a VC10 - so significantly WORSE than a modern jet.
London to Washington = 3672 miles
Fuel burn= 63 tonnes. 142 POB = 448kg per head. 448kg @ specific gravity 0.8 = 560 litres fuel per head. Divided by 4.54 l per gallon = 123 gal per head.
3672 miles divide by 123 gallons = 29.75 mpg per passenger.
Now, when Mr Humphries drives his Merc/Lexus/BMW to the BBC with only himself on board, through a London rush hour, he will be lucky to get 20mpg. Who is the polluter.
OK so the figures are simplistic - but would you operators of more efficient jets like to crunch the numbers for your steeds?
[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: moggie ]
I took the time to work it out once - and if I remember correctly the fully laden jet used LESS fuel per mile than a car. I may just be suffering from a faulty memory - anyone care to help out?
Edited because I'm a sad git who's just worked it out. Figures for a VC10 - so significantly WORSE than a modern jet.
London to Washington = 3672 miles
Fuel burn= 63 tonnes. 142 POB = 448kg per head. 448kg @ specific gravity 0.8 = 560 litres fuel per head. Divided by 4.54 l per gallon = 123 gal per head.
3672 miles divide by 123 gallons = 29.75 mpg per passenger.
Now, when Mr Humphries drives his Merc/Lexus/BMW to the BBC with only himself on board, through a London rush hour, he will be lucky to get 20mpg. Who is the polluter.
OK so the figures are simplistic - but would you operators of more efficient jets like to crunch the numbers for your steeds?
[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: moggie ]
