Schiphol capacity to be decimated???
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,431
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it is.
To pick up on the trend of the OP, Germany is also pursuing the same general theme with a mad blinkered vision driven by the Greens. It is already clear that the Chinese will capture a lot of the car market traditionally held by German manufacturers, heat-pump manufacturers cannot possibly meet demand, German industry is suffering badly from the highest electricity prices in Europe, inflated by eco-levies. It is amazing how these small groups of near-extremists have been able to capture such key positions in politics and the economy.
A couple of months ago, Habeck - the Green Energy minister - came close to introducing a law enforcing that any heating-system installed from 2024 would have to be powered by at least 65% renewable energy, which meant in nearly all cases a heat-pump, solar or pellet-stoves . The ridiculously short lead-time for planning this measure and lack of capacity ( and finances ) for the heat-pumps meant there was a huge public uproar and the law was shelved ( undoubtedly to be brought out again sometime ).Habeck got a bloody nose and retreated claiming that his intentions had been deliberately twisted by political enemies.
https://www.merkur.de/politik/heizun...-92316606.html
To pick up on the trend of the OP, Germany is also pursuing the same general theme with a mad blinkered vision driven by the Greens. It is already clear that the Chinese will capture a lot of the car market traditionally held by German manufacturers, heat-pump manufacturers cannot possibly meet demand, German industry is suffering badly from the highest electricity prices in Europe, inflated by eco-levies. It is amazing how these small groups of near-extremists have been able to capture such key positions in politics and the economy.
A couple of months ago, Habeck - the Green Energy minister - came close to introducing a law enforcing that any heating-system installed from 2024 would have to be powered by at least 65% renewable energy, which meant in nearly all cases a heat-pump, solar or pellet-stoves . The ridiculously short lead-time for planning this measure and lack of capacity ( and finances ) for the heat-pumps meant there was a huge public uproar and the law was shelved ( undoubtedly to be brought out again sometime ).Habeck got a bloody nose and retreated claiming that his intentions had been deliberately twisted by political enemies.
https://www.merkur.de/politik/heizun...-92316606.html
All Green lefties clientele is not bothered at all, cause they get their heating paid for by the tax paying people.
I´m living in a totalitarian state nowadays.
This is just more environmental theatre. I completely believe that global warming is an existential threat to the planet. However if every airliner was grounded tomorrow the net reduction in world wide emissions would be about 3%. This is not going to move the needle. The biggest irony IMO is an equivalent to 10 % capacity reduction in emissions could be achieved by streamlining the incredibly byzantine and inefficient EU air traffic control system to reduce wasted flight time. Of course that would mean everyone in the EU would have to cooperate and each countries pet ANS might have to give up some control. So much easier to just put that in the "too hard" box and just artificially capacity constrain an airport for a feel good but ultimately pointless exercise in politics 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If flights at AMS were dramatically cut it would also hit UK regionals very hard. Even if LH, AF etc eyed Norwich, Humberside etc as good opportunities, there isn’t the slots at CDG/FRA etc to serve all the smaller markets across Europe that KL would have exited from.
If flights at AMS were dramatically cut it would also hit UK regionals very hard. Even if LH, AF etc eyed Norwich, Humberside etc as good opportunities, there isn’t the slots at CDG/FRA etc to serve all the smaller markets across Europe that KL would have exited from.
" Of course that would mean everyone in the EU would have to cooperate and each countries pet ANS might have to give up some control."
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am divided. While it directly affects my trade, I am sick to the bone of the notion of continuous growth. I am the first to declare war on coal power, fast fashion, upgrading to the latest tech devices every 2 year, huge ship cruises etc. Why should I be any different on "summer holidays".
Just because this would go against current treaties doesn't make it entirely wrong. Slowly dismantle it while the industry becomes genuinely green is a reasonable solution? And yes, I understand every party, every country, has to pull their weight. Still doesn't make it entirely wrong, imo.
Just because this would go against current treaties doesn't make it entirely wrong. Slowly dismantle it while the industry becomes genuinely green is a reasonable solution? And yes, I understand every party, every country, has to pull their weight. Still doesn't make it entirely wrong, imo.
Growth has to be seen as more output from less input, whatever that input is: resources, energy, labor, etc... That is called progress, and should never end.
We already see it, the CO2 footprint per individual is already decreasing in Europe.
Nevertheless I agree we need to get rid of fossile energy. It just doesn't make longterm sense to burn stuff as energy source. It is inefficient, polluting, and finite. But it will take time. At least politics are waking up, and new generation nuclear electricity production is coming back.
Now back to aviation: I consider aviation one of the greatest achievements in human history. It is the foundation of globalisation and therefore one of the pillars of worldwide wealth. Therefore I think we should first get rid of fossile energy wherever we have technical means to do so. Heating and aircons don't need to be fossile based. Same goes with individual traffic. Then the whole worldwide electricity production doesn't need to be fossile based either. If we decarbonize in these 3 areas, we are already a huge step further in the CO2 problem.
Aviation is only responsible for 2% of global CO2. Considering aviations value to a modern society, and the technical difficulties to make it CO2-free, I think we should give aviation some slack and focus on the big emitters, where we actually have the technology to get rid of CO2.
Nevertheless I agree we need to get rid of fossile energy. It just doesn't make longterm sense to burn stuff as energy source. It is inefficient, polluting, and finite. But it will take time. At least politics are waking up, and new generation nuclear electricity production is coming back.
That's how dumb German politicians are, to accept such madness instead of building their own nuclear power plants....
Not in Germany, it isn't - nor will it ever, unless the Greens get ejected out of parliament. What I find bemusing is the reports that the French are planning a new generation of Nuclear Power Stations specifically to be able to generate and sell electricity to Germany, generating massive returns - whilst locating them all along the Rhine river, thus in case of an accident, the contamination will typically be blown into Germany...
That's how dumb German politicians are, to accept such madness instead of building their own nuclear power plants....
That's how dumb German politicians are, to accept such madness instead of building their own nuclear power plants....
