I watched Newsnight tonight on BBC. On it, were two men from differing sides of the environmental debacle. One was arguing that people should have the freedom to fly anywhere as often as they like. The other was arguing that we should all live ethically and try and limit our air travel. This is very relevant in the light of the recent Heathrow protest.
The environmental campaigner argued that it is a matter of personal responsibility to be ethical. The other man's argument couldn't even be called an argument. He simply denied that each person has responsibility and blamed the government for not doing enough. He vaguely talked about looking for alternative energy sources. This debate made me angry. Why do people feel the right to behave so selfishly? There is no point in making excuses. Each one of us has a part to play in trying to limit global warming. In a broader sense, this man is symbolic of how we came to be in this mess in the first place. Selfish individuals with no sense of community or caring who stand up for 'individual rights'. In my mind, that is the same as someone saying they have the right to carry a gun. The rights of the individual do not override the rights of the community.
I foresee a day when airtravel will have to be rationed. Personally, I think that day should be now. I fail to see why business women and men who fly weekly to London or New York or elsewhere can't work somewhere closer or else work in a way which leaves a smaller carbon footprint. Most families can't afford to go away that much anyway but people who fly somewhere on a weekly basis have to ask themselves what this may be doing to the atmosphere.
We need rules and regulations relating to the environment. Otherwise, our future will be hijacked by ignorant, selfish fatcats.
Aims
42 Comments
i would prefer not to travel at all - especially flying because of how crappy it is going in and out of airports etc. (it really is a fookin hassle)
i think as far as carbon footprints are concerned - you are right that theres a lot of wasteful, unnecessary travel done by companies etc. and the wastefulness of private jet travel
but don't you agree that mass traveling is actually better? and should the protests focus on the examples i have mentioned?
i completely agree that people should try and cut down on wastefulness. that if at all possible to use mass transit, carpool, or fookin walk.
by the way - i flew out of heathrow sunday, and i wanted to see the protesters but they were far far away. even though i do not completely agree with them (as i have to fly at least a few times a year) i believe their intentions are great, and i admire them.
As for ethics, I think people do things because they derive some benefit. Insofar as ethical behavior works better than does unethical behavior, it will be followed. Otherwise, it won't, and no appeals will work _ unless benefit is inherent in them. So, drop the negative protests and the effort to curtail; increase action that will increase behavioral benefit and that will make the benefit visible, will make the benefit overt.
I get your point Earsz that peoplw will only do something if there is a perceived benefit :something in it for them. Surely the continuing future of earth is of benefit to us all. It makes me cross to think that there are people out there who are only interested in their own lives.
There are laws governing other lifestyle choices, why not this?
Aims -- if frequent business travelers cut back their air travel to 4 times a year, and we eliminated private jet travel, what would be the percentage reduction in global carbon emissions?
That would be brilliant if it ever happened. It won't though because one of the main reasons people do business travel is to enjoy perks like hotels, dinners etc... I think virtual meetings would be great. I read about actors saying things like : ' I had to fly to New York on Tuesday and then be back for a meeting in LA on Thursday'. Did they really have to be there? Was there no alternative?
Private jets should be banned.
http://www.cbsnews.com/st.../travel/main3178477.shtml
According to this article, air travel world wide is responsible for 3 percent of all carbon emissions. The main concern was not the magnitude, but the expected growth in air travel, which was projected to be 5 to 6 percent a year -- which, according to the article, would triple air travel emissions by 2030.
While this sounds bad -- it could be much worse overall, if all other carbon emission sources also increase annually by the same percentage. If that were the case, the total from air travel would still be 3 percent in 2030.
While air travel is certainly some place we can personally focus, eliminating it completely would still leave us with 97 percent of the problem. Are there other areas that are bigger contributers to the problem where we should be focusing our efforts?
As a business traveler- who at one time commuted 10 weeks straight between Philly and Denver and KC- there are things that just cannot be done via teleconference or virtually- yes - there are many meetings and activities that can be accomplished that way- but sitting down and helping someone - or working in break out sessions- etc.. work better face to face.
The private jet is going to become more affordable and more readily used as they are even looking at commuter models that hold 2-4 people - which would act more like a flying car service than large private jets- so as we continue to advance in air travel methods- we will be spending less time in the air-
Its still the fastest way to get around the globe- and anymore- time means money-
If you want the reduction on the environment- push to have bio-diesel or other eco fuels in the planes- If someone has to get from point A to point B- they are still going to use some method of transportation- train, car, etc- so they are still making a "footprint".
You might also advocate for retiring of the older model's of planes- the dinosaurs they still send up there- and the creation of new enviro friendly planes-
For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6282820.stm
"US plane manufacturer Boeing has unveiled its 787 Dreamliner - the firm's first all-new jet since 1995.
It is the only big commercial aircraft made mostly of carbon fibre rather than aluminium and is billed as the most environmentally friendly ever built. "
"Scientists are skeptical, though, of the potential for running jets on biofuels. Then there is the area of land required to produce fuel in sufficient volume. Already, environmentalists are concerned at the way rainforest is being destroyed to make way for palm oil, a biofuel crop.
Lockley says that one study concluded that supplying the US commercial fleet with a 15-percent mix of biofuel would require planting an area the size of Florida with soya beans. "
I'm definitely for use of biofuels. I don't know if the above statistics are accurate -- but if so we will probably need to find other ways to tackle the issue. More efficient planes definitely help.
The Earth's temperature goes through cycles. It always has, always will. Curiously, Mars's surface temperature has increased in almost the same increment as Earth's temperature has. Must be all the planes and similar up there.
There's loads of science which proclaims that global warming is our fault. Loads more that states it isn't! Our planet is evolving. There have been ice ages, and they've come and gone. Naturally. Its warmed up, and cooled down again.
Frankly, if governments wanted us to be more planet friendly, they could replace everyone's old cars with eco fuelled cars, and just ban the making of new petrol based cars altogether, but that of course would mean they lose billions on tax from oil based fuels.
So, what's it to be? 1 : Scaremongery and instil fear into people to attempt to get a result, (or at least attempt to give an impression of trying while at the same time knowing it'll never actually stop people), or 2 : Lose a great source of income from petrol taxes, expend money on exchanging old cars for new Eco friendly transport and actually make a difference because they believe this expenditure is actually a long term investment that will reap rewards in our future?
Deforestation still continues at an alarming rate. This IS the planets way of recycling our air, yet we still destroy it. Oddly, and humourously too, it was just discovered that Cows are the highest cause of supposed Green house Gases!
"The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."
Another curiousity.... "Through the 1990s, the average weight of Americans increased by 10 pounds, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The extra weight caused airlines to spend $275 million to burn 350 million more gallons of fuel in 2000 just to carry the additional weight of Americans, the federal agency estimated in a recent issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine".
The above isn't a dig at Americans, it's just a working example. Somehow i doubt any rules will be imposed on bigger people paying more for their seat.
I personally don't believe for a second that air travel makes a difference to our environment. I do however, believe that, if governments did believe it, and wanted to make a difference, they could.
The business of world governments is to secure economic stability and growth for their countries. Anyone knowing about business knows that this means initial expenditure. However, they also know that its unwise to cut off something which is vastly profitable, which is why until the situation is finally proven to be critical, or oil suddenly becomes devalued, the usage of flights, cars, and indeed cows, (which are turned into beef, which is turned into burgers (beef in burger?? Ok so I'm being overly optimistic) which help turn Americans into bigger Americans), will continue to be on the increase. And because of the money makers knowledge of people themselves, no amount of attempted emotional blackmail about what we're doing to the environment, will alter that!
interesting perspective ya got there alistair -
some of which i believe is spot on
First, create the problem, (tell us that global warming exists and is affecting our planet), second, the reaction, (research says that global warming is caused by X, Y and Z, all of which we as a population are contributing to, nay.. even responsible for), and then finally the solution, stop being selfish and flying to places and everything will be ok.
This instigates a pscyological state where people can be controlled. Its easy. Infact, its a standard sales technique, create the desire, match the desire, and then get you to give up something to have that which you now desire and have been shown is available to you, albeit at a price!
We as people are psychologically manipulated on a daily basis into thought patterns set out by others, be it by target sales in supermarkets with brand names at eye level, to news reporters prefixing the words "terrorist" and "extremist" with words like muslim/islamic. This sort of programming is all around us, but operates at an almost subliminal level, so that it is accepted/believed/acted upon without question. And there's the kicker! "Without question".
Me.... I grew up asking questions. I think perhaps I'm still doing both! lol
you are definetly on to something when it comes to the fear factor though - that i can agree with!
In real terms, a fraction of the tax paid by smokers is used to cover the cost of smokers to society, the rest of that tax goes into slush funds, same with petrol tax, alcohol tax, they're all slush funds for Govts, why on earth would they sacrifice that revenue for the greater good?
Read Gridlock some time, an amusing comedy in more ways than one . . . .
have you seen that?
Maybe its me... but the maths in there suggests that its far fetched to suggest the impact of air travel is anything other than negligible.
Requote : "Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together".
That means that, assuming air transport consitutes say a maximum of half of the now maximum 17.9% available to us... that equates to 9%. Then assume that probably a good 50% of those flights would be done irrespective of cheep flight deals, (in actuality probably closer to 75% would, but I'm being gentle with the figures), that brings us to a max of 4.5%
Then redo those figures to the minimum, eg a max of 17.9% available, say that aeroplane causes constitute perhaps 20% of all transport orientated problems... rather than 50%, which then leaves us with 3.6%, then knock out the 75% of the 3.6% which would fly anyway, nothing to do with people flying "cos they can", that then leaves 0.9% of the overall effect is to blame by air travel.
Then.. pick the average of the two figures, roughly 1.85%.... and cull the equivalent in cattle! Then the numbers balance, and we eat healthier (personally I'd recommend Horse instead of beef..!).
But hey.. don't apologise for disagreeing. If we all thought the same, communism would work!
A side note... perhaps if all the nations who are at peace and who fly military craft halved their daily flights...just a thought! :)
an article about flights getting cancelled because of half booked flights
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Story?id=3331022&page=2
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin...007/05/13/MNGMSPNROG1.DTL
:)
i wonder how many more times the airlines industry in the usa has raised the price of flying!???!!!
http://www.usatoday.com/t...3-airfare-increases_x.htm
As for the air price tickets... lol.... it depends how and where you look for them. People bitch about flights something chronic. Only this week someone I know was complaining about the cost to get belgium to norway. I said i could get them there for 3/5th of the price they were talking about having to pay, but they were not prepared to listen and in fact laughed at me. Curiously the price they quoted was the same as a price I found for return flights from the uk to Oz, probably a 20,000mile difference.
And obviously, you can find articles about flights being cancelled due to lack of people. There will be loads of stuff like that. Not entirely sure how putting prices up will help that.... However, thats not what commonly happens. One of the best examples of this occurs in all of the planes involved in the 9/11 attacks which shows 92, 64, 56 and 33 people on the four planes, all supposedly commercial jets... a 767 can carry between 181 and 245 people... and the 757-200 can carry 228 people.so at least 3/4s of these planes were not even a 1/4 full.
Flights in the uk to many european citys cost less than it does to catch the train to other cities IN the uk! Only last week in an attempt to see if the Limerick meet was viable I found we could get there and back via the uk from Holland for 270euros..thats 135 each... or 68 euros one way.. which equates to 42 pounds! It costs more than that in petrol to drive from birmingham to london and back, thats 170 miles, and probably takes longer too!
and raising prices is easy to do if you have fewer flights available!
also - things have really changed with the airlines industry here since 9-11. its a mess.
This is supposed to be about the ethics of air travel relating to its effects on the environment. Surely, less flights and higher prices will reduce a : the amounts of aircraft flying anyway, (which if you support the idea that planes do damage has to be a good thing) and b : reduce the amounts of people able to fly because of budget reasons? The reasons for the lack of aircraft in the sky's are irrelevant as long as the cause is forwarded! So where's your problem there?
The last chunk of the original post is what's really important here... it states "I foresee a day when air travel will have to be rationed. Personally, I think that day should be now. I fail to see why business women and men who fly weekly to London or New York or elsewhere can't work somewhere closer or else work in a way which leaves a smaller carbon footprint. Most families can't afford to go away that much anyway but people who fly somewhere on a weekly basis have to ask themselves what this may be doing to the atmosphere
I think that's wrong. The science also says its wrong if you dig a little deeper. Oddly again you don't see people camped outside farms saying Cows are Killing the Earth... The figures show that compared to frequent fliers, cows give out 967 times more "distructive" emissions than the flights do!
As for things changing in the usa... so what? I'm talking on a world wide basis The usa isn't the whole world, however again i point to the reference about how much extra it costs to transport americans than equivalent in europe because of their weight. 350 million more gallons of fuel in 2000 just to carry the additional weight of Americans The stat used was pre 9/11... and no doubt due to oil price raises, will probably be far higher! If the Usa wants to make a difference...why not charge extra to cover this excess on things like internal flights? That's simple physics and economics again. So maybe that's why your prices are higher and your flights becoming more economically orientated? Again this is not a dig at the usa... its a suggestion. A means to an end.
Did YOU even check out the video i linked to? About how this whole global warming thing means that...instead of the really poor places like african countries getting electricity, they are being forced to use things like solar energy, and wind simply because they are NOT ALLOWED to have electric because of these global warming "issues"? So.. force the poorest countries to use the most costly way to generate power. Yeah, i can see how that makes sense. There is an agenda behind the whole "Global warming is Our fault" issue, and in my eyes, that agenda has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with controlling and manipulating people and creating a subversive psychological control via instigated guilt!
You know... there's a common perception that people used to think the world was flat. They didn't! That idea never existed. Yet we've been told it and told it and now it's become real to people. There's a lesson in there for us all.
and in some ways it is bad
i tend to agree with aimee on the original topic of wasteful travel not families who take a vacation once or twice year!!!
i also agree and disagree with you about global warming - i believe we certainly contribute to the warming of the environment - but i do agree that there are cycles the earth goes through
and yeah i get that you are looking at the airtravel issue from a perspective of being from somewhere other than the usa, but i look at it through the eyes of someone who just flew from the usa!!!
sure - it is ridiculous to force extremely poor countries to not use electric while we waste vast amounts of power and resources here.
id be interested in having a look at that, reading that particular source
Thanks :)
This is one of many articles just google cow emissons...
Here is another This one is about moose... and actually gives you a direct comparison .. and i quote "A grown moose belches out methane gas equivalent to 2,100 kilograms (4,630 pounds) of carbon dioxide a year, contributing to global warming, Norwegian researchers said Wednesday. That is more than twice the amount of CO2 emitted on a round-trip flight across the Atlantic Ocean from Oslo to the Chilean capital Santiago
These are wild moose... not livestock by the way.... so with the 140,000 moose roaming Norway's forests (so not including any other places where moose live) imagine the amount of "damage" that does.
I say again... any contribution we make re : travel, is really not worth measuring in comparesson with the natural world around us. Global warming is a natural occurence. I've not even bothered to go into the fact that the sea is by far the biggest giver out of co2, and its logical that that will increase because of the temperature fluctuations creating more water. I mentioned that other planets are also heating up at the same ratio... which may suggest that the Sun has rather more to do with this than people flying from Birmingham to London to work everyday. Look at our planets history. We were once covered by far more ice than we are now. No.. not once... several times. There has been more than one ice age, and more than one thaw.
One more thing.... ask yourself why the whole "Livestock causes X amount of pollution" hasn't been on the front page of every paper and why its not common knowledge.
I wish my flights to and from Prague had been empty!!! more sleeping room for me then! But i did get the trip at a very low price- considering-
I remember when my parents used to fly- back in the early 80s - talk about steep airfares!! But at least you got a full meal in coach even!!
I think they still do bake warm chocolate chip cookies for you on midwest express though!
*L*
though i can agree with some of what you are suggesting, i think (again) humans could definetly cut down on waste, conserve more, and try to not contribute so much to polluting and warming the earth
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)