PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   BA Whistleblower Reveals Tankering of Fuel - BBC (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/627119-ba-whistleblower-reveals-tankering-fuel-bbc.html)

marchino61 19th Nov 2019 02:39


Originally Posted by pilotmike (Post 10621035)
Or 3.67...

That is correct.

cessnaxpilot 20th Nov 2019 13:02


Australopithecus 20th Nov 2019 20:45

That article was written by a guy who founded a travel company. Its central premise is illogical. The comments section is worth reading however, as they are with many NYT articles.

cessnaxpilot 21st Nov 2019 00:37


Originally Posted by Australopithecus (Post 10622858)
That article was written by a guy who founded a travel company. Its central premise is illogical. The comments section is worth reading however, as they are with many NYT articles.

Yes. But tourism is a big driver for a lot of economies. “flight shaming” is just ridiculous. Stop the economic machine and see how it impacts people far and wide.

Australopithecus 21st Nov 2019 01:33

I agree that the economic machine looms large in any argument, especially the part of the economy inhabited by whomever is arguing against change.

The world's carbon output is actually the chemical signature of the economic churn of 7.5 billion people. What to do? Can we wait until new technologies replace fossil fuels? Can we afford to subscribe to the fiction of “clean coal”? Can we avoid fixing population growth until its too late?

My family and I are trying to offset all of our personal carbon footprint, but it takes a lot of effort and some money.

Biological systems fail the same way that most other things do: slowly for a long time, then all at once.

Ex Cargo Clown 21st Nov 2019 01:46


Originally Posted by marchino61 (Post 10620844)
I am a scientist, and fail to see what volume has to do with the mass of a gas. I stand by my calculation that 1 tonne carbon equals 4.4 tonnes CO2 until someone proves me wrong.

Trust me it does. The atomic weight of an element doesn't make it "heavier". Otherwise we'd have lithium floating all about us. NO2 if you use atomic weights is a lot "heavier" than NaF for instance. I know which is the solid though.

Comparing masses of gasses and liquids/solids really is an "apples and pears" situation.

Unless you compress the gas.

Old King Coal 21st Nov 2019 04:33


Originally Posted by TURIN (Post 10620529)
Why? Adding 5p to the supermarket bill has got bugger all to do with offsetting CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is an attempt to reduce plastic pollution. It has been remarkably successful. We are a stingy bunch over here.

According to Gov UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...heres-a-charge
  • carbon savings of £13 million.

tdracer 21st Nov 2019 04:56

Old King Coal, according to several studies on this side of the pond, a reusable shopping bag has to be used somewhere between 150 and 1000 times before it becomes a net environmental benefit compared to the typical disposable plastic bag. Something those government studies tend to leave out. Furthermore, many people don't just toss that 'disposable' shopping bag after they get home, they repurpose it to carry their lunch, line a garbage can, or pick up pet waste. Instead, they now purchase dedicated plastic bags for that purpose - which are typically heavier gage plastic and so use more net plastic (carbon) than the disposable ones. I used to use the paper shopping bags to line my trash cans - but now they cost 10 cents each - roughly 3 times more than it costs to just buy the plastic bag trash can liners.
I take a two week ski trip to Breckenridge, Colorado ever year. Breck implemented those mandatory fees on shopping bags years ago, so those thousands of skiers sitting in the 40 deg. C outdoor hot tubs (most heated with natural gas) - in sub freezing temperatures (often way below freezing - as in sub zero F) - can feel good about their carbon footprint. :ugh:
I'm all for protecting the environment, but today far too much of what passes for environmentalism is really just virtue signaling hypocrisy.

marchino61 21st Nov 2019 06:00


Originally Posted by Ex Cargo Clown (Post 10623023)
Trust me it does. The atomic weight of an element doesn't make it "heavier". Otherwise we'd have lithium floating all about us. NO2 if you use atomic weights is a lot "heavier" than NaF for instance. I know which is the solid though.

Comparing masses of gasses and liquids/solids really is an "apples and pears" situation.

Unless you compress the gas.

Your argument lacks coherence. You are conflating mass, density and volume.

Mk 1 21st Nov 2019 20:32


Originally Posted by tdracer (Post 10623069)
Old King Coal, according to several studies on this side of the pond, a reusable shopping bag has to be used somewhere between 150 and 1000 times before it becomes a net environmental benefit compared to the typical disposable plastic bag. Something those government studies tend to leave out. Furthermore, many people don't just toss that 'disposable' shopping bag after they get home, they repurpose it to carry their lunch, line a garbage can, or pick up pet waste. Instead, they now purchase dedicated plastic bags for that purpose - which are typically heavier gage plastic and so use more net plastic (carbon) than the disposable ones. I used to use the paper shopping bags to line my trash cans - but now they cost 10 cents each - roughly 3 times more than it costs to just buy the plastic bag trash can liners.
I take a two week ski trip to Breckenridge, Colorado ever year. Breck implemented those mandatory fees on shopping bags years ago, so those thousands of skiers sitting in the 40 deg. C outdoor hot tubs (most heated with natural gas) - in sub freezing temperatures (often way below freezing - as in sub zero F) - can feel good about their carbon footprint. :ugh:
I'm all for protecting the environment, but today far too much of what passes for environmentalism is really just virtue signaling hypocrisy.

The ban on single use plastics isn't about carbon footprint. Its an effort to try and keep the hundreds of millions of pieces of single use plastic produced every day from ending in landfill or worse, ending up in the environment killing animals.

tdracer 22nd Nov 2019 03:38


Originally Posted by Mk 1 (Post 10623593)
The ban on single use plastics isn't about carbon footprint. Its an effort to try and keep the hundreds of millions of pieces of single use plastic produced every day from ending in landfill or worse, ending up in the environment killing animals.

Yet, something like 90% of the 'free' plastic floating around in the environment (i.e. not properly disposed of, and hence a potential danger) originate in Asia in 8 specific areas. None of which are making any meaningful effort to reduce their use or impact.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of use are actually using more plastic due to the ban on single use plastics. I find it rather amusing that if I buy somethings at a grocery store, I either have to provide my own bag or pay a fee - but if I buy the exact same things at a fast food restaurant, they are more than happy to put it into multiple single use bag - no charge - and no one seems to care.

bringbackthe80s 24th Nov 2019 04:54

Forget about tankering. This whole minimum fuel thing is CRAZY!

cavok? Great, 45 min extra fuel please
(did you say drone? No problem l, you’ll thank me later).


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:34.


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