Forums > Social Discussion > flying and enviro-hippies
Login/Join to Participategeek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
so, i was just reading the rabbit hole thread, and was feeling very pleased that all my friends were in more or less the same place, having a great time, when suddenly i became despondent, and realised that they had not only flown there, but were flying all over the place to see a different lovely beach, etcetc.
now, my apologies to those involved in that particular thread, I'm only using it as an example because of its currency, not picking on you. i could point the finger at myself for flyng to, and within australia last year. or to hundreds of other examples.
how can we expect people to to be environmentally responsible if we are not? there is only so long that you can say 'well, i don't do it much, so it's ok'.
I feel like a killjoy, telling people what not to do, but can't reconcile my belief that if we don't change our ways we won't have a beautiful earth to continue visiting
for those who agree with me, feel free to join me in pledging to make no flights, or reduced flights at https://www.flightpledge.org.uk/
i will be recommending alternative means of transport to anyone who is coming to uber, too
i would end my rant here, but i'm interested in HOP flying figures.... so please pander to my whim, and fill in this poll:
so, i was just reading the rabbit hole thread, and was feeling very pleased that all my friends were in more or less the same place, having a great time, when suddenly i became despondent, and realised that they had not only flown there, but were flying all over the place to see a different lovely beach, etcetc.
now, my apologies to those involved in that particular thread, I'm only using it as an example because of its currency, not picking on you. i could point the finger at myself for flyng to, and within australia last year. or to hundreds of other examples.
how can we expect people to to be environmentally responsible if we are not? there is only so long that you can say 'well, i don't do it much, so it's ok'.
I feel like a killjoy, telling people what not to do, but can't reconcile my belief that if we don't change our ways we won't have a beautiful earth to continue visiting
for those who agree with me, feel free to join me in pledging to make no flights, or reduced flights at https://www.flightpledge.org.uk/
i will be recommending alternative means of transport to anyone who is coming to uber, too
i would end my rant here, but i'm interested in HOP flying figures.... so please pander to my whim, and fill in this poll:
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I was really surprised to find that Science doesn't seem to support many of the above arguements.
If you look at BTU/passenger of trains, planes, and cars it's all about the same with busses the worst, then cars and planes almost identical, and railways marginally less. It seems that trucks are worse.
Non-Https Image Link
Bah... not an arguement I want to get dragged into. I was just surprised to find those statistics.
I was really surprised to find that Science doesn't seem to support many of the above arguements.
If you look at BTU/passenger of trains, planes, and cars it's all about the same with busses the worst, then cars and planes almost identical, and railways marginally less. It seems that trucks are worse.
Non-Https Image Link
Bah... not an arguement I want to get dragged into. I was just surprised to find those statistics.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
NYC, did the article say anything about whether that was short- or long- (or average distance) flights?
NYC, did the article say anything about whether that was short- or long- (or average distance) flights?
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
so. i feel i've been away long enough and need to catch up slightly on things here...
but haven't even remotely got time to respond in full, sorry;
essentially i agree with a lot of what you're all saying, particularly andrea and sym, but most of what the rest of you are, too. I certainly don't feel that air travel is the one thing thats going to make a difference: how naive do you think i am. but i truly believe as Lewis Duncombe once said: 'The lofty oak from a small acorn grows' - any small step towards greater realisation will eventually bring about enormous change.
incidentally, the day after this thread opened, the guardian ran its front page saying Labour targets airlines so there is hope at least that the government can eventually knee-jerk it's way to some semblance of an environmental plan...
i'm glad at least that this thread has caused some people to think about how they travel
oh, and tom? good luck. i think you'll need it
so. i feel i've been away long enough and need to catch up slightly on things here...
but haven't even remotely got time to respond in full, sorry;
essentially i agree with a lot of what you're all saying, particularly andrea and sym, but most of what the rest of you are, too. I certainly don't feel that air travel is the one thing thats going to make a difference: how naive do you think i am. but i truly believe as Lewis Duncombe once said: 'The lofty oak from a small acorn grows' - any small step towards greater realisation will eventually bring about enormous change.
incidentally, the day after this thread opened, the guardian ran its front page saying Labour targets airlines so there is hope at least that the government can eventually knee-jerk it's way to some semblance of an environmental plan...
i'm glad at least that this thread has caused some people to think about how they travel
oh, and tom? good luck. i think you'll need it
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
oh, and if anyone was in any doubt WHO, exactly, is emitting Carbon: it's us.
I think i'll go and live here:
Non-Https Image Link
oh, and if anyone was in any doubt WHO, exactly, is emitting Carbon: it's us.
I think i'll go and live here:
Non-Https Image Link
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
NYC: have a look at https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/
Along with loads of other information, it finds that emissions are 3 times more damaging in the air than on the ground.
NYC: have a look at https://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/
Along with loads of other information, it finds that emissions are 3 times more damaging in the air than on the ground.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
and also, most of the posts above were for carbon emissions, not energy use. not that that table isn't good, and interesting reading, but it does mean the posts don't have any science just cause they aren't relating to that table.
i'm surprised to find buses have a high BTU per passenger mile. is that just for the US? i'll have to go hunting for UK figures...
and also, most of the posts above were for carbon emissions, not energy use. not that that table isn't good, and interesting reading, but it does mean the posts don't have any science just cause they aren't relating to that table.
i'm surprised to find buses have a high BTU per passenger mile. is that just for the US? i'll have to go hunting for UK figures...
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
according to the UK department for Transport in 2005
UK Public transport Transport mode / Fuel consumption (Miles per gallon per passenger)
Buses (national) / 98
Passenger rail (diesel) / 182
Air short haul / 40
Air long haul / 66
then divide the planes by about 3 so as to take into account the additional greenhouse effect they cause
Air Short Haul / 13
Air Long Haul / 22
Rob
good thread
according to the UK department for Transport in 2005
UK Public transport Transport mode / Fuel consumption (Miles per gallon per passenger)
Buses (national) / 98
Passenger rail (diesel) / 182
Air short haul / 40
Air long haul / 66
then divide the planes by about 3 so as to take into account the additional greenhouse effect they cause
Air Short Haul / 13
Air Long Haul / 22
Rob
good thread
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
does it have cars?
i read today about a new overland service from london to Sydney: £3750 for a 12 week trip, all accommodation and meals included...... clearly i've got some saving up to do...
does it have cars?
i read today about a new overland service from london to Sydney: £3750 for a 12 week trip, all accommodation and meals included...... clearly i've got some saving up to do...
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I'm fully relaxed, guys just if some are running around one-eyed, or hold these blankets of false innocence as to cover behind it - I feel compelled to speak up.
Mate, got it that cars are still the largest polluters (after heavy industry) on the planet?
The fuel-reduction priority as in the industry already guys, as forced by rising fuel prices.
But AIR-SHIPS! This is one means of transport I certainly support! As for the rest we should breed Roos bout the size of campers...
I'm fully relaxed, guys
just if some are running around one-eyed, or hold these blankets of false innocence as to cover behind it - I feel compelled to speak up.Mate, got it that cars are still the largest polluters (after heavy industry) on the planet?
The fuel-reduction priority as in the industry already guys, as forced by rising fuel prices.
But AIR-SHIPS! This is one means of transport I certainly support! As for the rest we should breed Roos bout the size of campers...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
er, yes, i got it. i just didn't expect a full on 'nothing you do can change anything' post, when i simply posted about a sadness of mine: nothing to do with false innocence, or lack of awareness of other issues. i don't even think anyone else implied anywhere that this was the only/biggest single environmental threat, which is how you appear to have taken it.
if i'm wrong, apologies.
(at textbased discussion limitations)
if you mean that in taking an overland service is more polluting than flying, you're plain wrong. sorry. it contributes to a sector that is more polluting, yes, but as a single trip, it is not(see figures above).
er, yes, i got it. i just didn't expect a full on 'nothing you do can change anything' post, when i simply posted about a sadness of mine: nothing to do with false innocence, or lack of awareness of other issues. i don't even think anyone else implied anywhere that this was the only/biggest single environmental threat, which is how you appear to have taken it.
if i'm wrong, apologies.
(at textbased discussion limitations)if you mean that in taking an overland service is more polluting than flying, you're plain wrong. sorry. it contributes to a sector that is more polluting, yes, but as a single trip, it is not(see figures above).
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
i have to agree with that one. go airships! why let the hindenburgh disaster stop you! worse happens on flights every month it seems....
i have to agree with that one. go airships! why let the hindenburgh disaster stop you! worse happens on flights every month it seems.... Holistic Spinner (I hope)
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Rob...
There isn't a flat figure emission for cars... They vary from model to model...
A Land Rover 4.6 litre Range Rover does about 12mpg in urban driving conditions and 16mpg on motorways - hence SUV's being hated by environmentalists (and most other people)
A Bugatti Veyron 16.4 litre (Uber Sports Car) does 4.8 mpg in urban conditions and 10 mpg on motorways. At Full throttle, which is a whopping 234mph ! the Veyron does a stunning 2.1mpg. This is why environmentalists also hate yuppies with sports cars.
A medium sized car like a 1998 1.6l Ford Escort will do 28mpg in urban conditions or 38mpg on motorways
A Garthmobile (VW transporter TD) does 30mpg in urban conditions, 42 on motorways
A small car, a Nissan Micra 1.2 does 38.2mpg in urban conditions and 55mpg on motorways
A Hybrid car like the Toyota Prius does an average of about 55mpg - though hybrid enthusiasts have squeezed 100mpg out of one!
A small diesel car, like the Citroen C1 1.4 TD does about 83mpg on motorways. The C1 diesel is the only car in the UK which claims to do over 80mpg when driven regularly.
The mpg per passenger depends on the number of people in the vehicle (obviously).
Which suggests that 5 people in a Prius means a per passenger mpg of 220! Which suggests its greener than a train!!!?? Wow
4 people in a Garthmobile (standard for conventions/festivals) still does a respectable 150-odd mpg per passenger
2 people in a Veyron (its a two seater) does about 15mpg... Making it comparable to a short haul flight for fuel economy.
If most people drove with their cars full, our carbon emissions would be drastically reduced. However, according to the UK National Environmental Transport Campaign, in 2002 the average number of occupants per automobile journey was a paltry 1.59
Right... I've wasted enough time... Off to be more productive... Hope thats of some use or interest to someone
Rob...
There isn't a flat figure emission for cars... They vary from model to model...
A Land Rover 4.6 litre Range Rover does about 12mpg in urban driving conditions and 16mpg on motorways - hence SUV's being hated by environmentalists (and most other people)
A Bugatti Veyron 16.4 litre (Uber Sports Car) does 4.8 mpg in urban conditions and 10 mpg on motorways. At Full throttle, which is a whopping 234mph ! the Veyron does a stunning 2.1mpg. This is why environmentalists also hate yuppies with sports cars.
A medium sized car like a 1998 1.6l Ford Escort will do 28mpg in urban conditions or 38mpg on motorways
A Garthmobile (VW transporter TD) does 30mpg in urban conditions, 42 on motorways
A small car, a Nissan Micra 1.2 does 38.2mpg in urban conditions and 55mpg on motorways
A Hybrid car like the Toyota Prius does an average of about 55mpg - though hybrid enthusiasts have squeezed 100mpg out of one!
A small diesel car, like the Citroen C1 1.4 TD does about 83mpg on motorways. The C1 diesel is the only car in the UK which claims to do over 80mpg when driven regularly.
The mpg per passenger depends on the number of people in the vehicle (obviously).
Which suggests that 5 people in a Prius means a per passenger mpg of 220! Which suggests its greener than a train!!!?? Wow
4 people in a Garthmobile (standard for conventions/festivals) still does a respectable 150-odd mpg per passenger
2 people in a Veyron (its a two seater) does about 15mpg... Making it comparable to a short haul flight for fuel economy.
If most people drove with their cars full, our carbon emissions would be drastically reduced. However, according to the UK National Environmental Transport Campaign, in 2002 the average number of occupants per automobile journey was a paltry 1.59
Right... I've wasted enough time... Off to be more productive... Hope thats of some use or interest to someone
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
its wonderful. just one last thing to ask: can i have a link to where i can get that?
Ta
its wonderful. just one last thing to ask: can i have a link to where i can get that?
Ta
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6242927.stm
Where do you begin?!
Although this ties in with a document I am writing and will post soon...
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6242927.stm
Where do you begin?!
Although this ties in with a document I am writing and will post soon...
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
sorry, I ported that more in anger, having not read the additions to the thread.
I've just heard a few people talk about it on the world at 1 on radio 4. I spotted factual errors with at least 1 thing that everyone said, and more or less all of it was misleading in some way.
The biggest 1 was to do with the 2% of emissions the UK produces. The is just wrong, as it doesn't include 'international activities' so we can ship our rubbish to China because it's cheaper than paying the tax here, or fly as much as we want, and it will not change the 2% figure.
Grr!
sorry, I ported that more in anger, having not read the additions to the thread.I've just heard a few people talk about it on the world at 1 on radio 4. I spotted factual errors with at least 1 thing that everyone said, and more or less all of it was misleading in some way.
The biggest 1 was to do with the 2% of emissions the UK produces. The is just wrong, as it doesn't include 'international activities' so we can ship our rubbish to China because it's cheaper than paying the tax here, or fly as much as we want, and it will not change the 2% figure.
Grr!
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Dream, thanks for the table, the first one I mean, the only problem is, I don't understand the divide by three factor, but I'll take it at face value.
Screwing around with numbers..... My minivan gets 11.6 l/100km ( I measured it ) and I drive an average of 4000 km/ year sooooo, if I convert to mpg using the English gallon ( as opposed to the American gallon ) the handy online converter tells me that I'm getting 24.4 mpg. Roughly the same mileage as a long haul flight.
I drive an average of 4000km/year, which works out to about 2500 miles per year.
Say I want to fly to Bangkok, a distance of about 7500 miles. does this mean my one way flight is the equivalent of three years of driving ( for me, that is ) ? Then I have to come back, 6 years for a round trip flight ?
Yowza!!!!
Dream, thanks for the table, the first one I mean, the only problem is, I don't understand the divide by three factor, but I'll take it at face value.
Screwing around with numbers..... My minivan gets 11.6 l/100km ( I measured it ) and I drive an average of 4000 km/ year sooooo, if I convert to mpg using the English gallon ( as opposed to the American gallon ) the handy online converter tells me that I'm getting 24.4 mpg. Roughly the same mileage as a long haul flight.
I drive an average of 4000km/year, which works out to about 2500 miles per year.
Say I want to fly to Bangkok, a distance of about 7500 miles. does this mean my one way flight is the equivalent of three years of driving ( for me, that is ) ? Then I have to come back, 6 years for a round trip flight ?
Yowza!!!!
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Stout... Yes... but only if all your driving is done without passengers. If you have tend to take a couple of people with you on most of your road mileage then your miles per passenger effectively triples - in which case your round trip to Bangkok works out as your road miles for a staggering 18 years.
The factor of three (2.7 for the less mathematically inept) is the multiplier recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change to calculate the total greenhouse effect caused by flying rather than purely the C02 emissions.
There have already been a couple of links from this thread to papers explaining why this is necessary... here's another
IPCC 2001 report - aviation and the global atmosphere
Its a common chimera presented by the aviation industry that planes are relatively green - they present the carbon emissions and conveniently forget to mention the other environmental degradation they cause.
Stout... Yes... but only if all your driving is done without passengers. If you have tend to take a couple of people with you on most of your road mileage then your miles per passenger effectively triples - in which case your round trip to Bangkok works out as your road miles for a staggering 18 years.
The factor of three (2.7 for the less mathematically inept) is the multiplier recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change to calculate the total greenhouse effect caused by flying rather than purely the C02 emissions.
There have already been a couple of links from this thread to papers explaining why this is necessary... here's another
IPCC 2001 report - aviation and the global atmosphere
Its a common chimera presented by the aviation industry that planes are relatively green - they present the carbon emissions and conveniently forget to mention the other environmental degradation they cause.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Bluecat: I don't say that there is nothing you can do about it. Certainly not.
Yet I would like you to take into account that there is much more to air pollution than airplanes. IMHO cars are the worlds largest polluter, next to heavy industries. Educate me if I interprete the statistics wrong...
Next is the fact, that a vast number of every-days-products has an incredible ammount of CO2 on top of the price (the fleet of diesel fuelled container fleet buildup got subsidised for years).
If looking at those facts one could burst out in tears and drop back, thinking I can't change anything... but this ain't true. I don't imply anything by my words, just I gained the impression you condemned all who are using the plane (more than twice a year)...
To some extent I certainly close shoulders with you and say that high speed magnetic trains like the Transrapid should at least be connecting the european metros by end of this century latest.
IMHO it's just necessary to accept that some have to cut down on flying, whilst others need to cut down on local transportation and again some others have to cease eating tropical fruits in wintertime... etc.
Or we all need to go to the monastry tomorrow and become monks - how's that for a solution? 
Written by: bluecat
er, yes, i got it. i just didn't expect a full on 'nothing you do can change anything' post, when i simply posted about a sadness of mine: nothing to do with false innocence, or lack of awareness of other issues. i don't even think anyone else implied anywhere that this was the only/biggest single environmental threat, which is how you appear to have taken it.
if i'm wrong, apologies.
if you mean that in taking an overland service is more polluting than flying, you're plain wrong. sorry. it contributes to a sector that is more polluting, yes, but as a single trip, it is not(see figures above).
Bluecat: I don't say that there is nothing you can do about it. Certainly not.
Yet I would like you to take into account that there is much more to air pollution than airplanes. IMHO cars are the worlds largest polluter, next to heavy industries. Educate me if I interprete the statistics wrong...
Next is the fact, that a vast number of every-days-products has an incredible ammount of CO2 on top of the price (the fleet of diesel fuelled container fleet buildup got subsidised for years).
If looking at those facts one could burst out in tears and drop back, thinking I can't change anything... but this ain't true. I don't imply anything by my words, just I gained the impression you condemned all who are using the plane (more than twice a year)...
To some extent I certainly close shoulders with you and say that high speed magnetic trains like the Transrapid should at least be connecting the european metros by end of this century latest.
IMHO it's just necessary to accept that some have to cut down on flying, whilst others need to cut down on local transportation and again some others have to cease eating tropical fruits in wintertime... etc.
Or we all need to go to the monastry tomorrow and become monks - how's that for a solution?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
geek, level 1
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
5,300 posts
Location: everywhere
Posted:
much more like what i was hoping you'd say
(the monks, that is )
i agree that overall cars pollute more than planes, but individual plane journeys pollute more than individual car journeys(in general)... so i guess it's how you interpret (as always).
anyway. i'm currently in an extremely interesting environmental change discussion with my dad. will let you know how it goes (original 60s hippy intel )
R
much more like what i was hoping you'd say (the monks, that is
)i agree that overall cars pollute more than planes, but individual plane journeys pollute more than individual car journeys(in general)... so i guess it's how you interpret (as always).
anyway. i'm currently in an extremely interesting environmental change discussion with my dad. will let you know how it goes (original 60s hippy intel
)R
Holistic Spinner (I hope)
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Planes are looking more and more like the SUVs of the sky every day.
FireTom, did you guys discuss this thread at the rainbow gathering ? It would be interesting to calculate how much CO2 was produced by attendees feeding the corporate agenda ( flying ) just to make that happen.
Sort of like they're trying to do with burning man, which is another event that's interesting to try and reconcile with the idea of sustainability.
Planes are looking more and more like the SUVs of the sky every day.
FireTom, did you guys discuss this thread at the rainbow gathering ? It would be interesting to calculate how much CO2 was produced by attendees feeding the corporate agenda ( flying ) just to make that happen.
Sort of like they're trying to do with burning man, which is another event that's interesting to try and reconcile with the idea of sustainability.
BRONZE Member
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
Posted:
Let's be pragmatic here. Aeroplanes are very much here to stay and no amount of whining is going to change that.
Instead, why don't we all go onto one of those sites that tells you the CO2 load created by any particular flight, which then lets you donate the appropriate amount of money to schemes that clean it up through conservation, tree planting etc.
We get carbon neutral convenience. What's not to like?
Let's be pragmatic here. Aeroplanes are very much here to stay and no amount of whining is going to change that.
Instead, why don't we all go onto one of those sites that tells you the CO2 load created by any particular flight, which then lets you donate the appropriate amount of money to schemes that clean it up through conservation, tree planting etc.
We get carbon neutral convenience. What's not to like?
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Eera, we are not 'whining', thank you.
Offsetting does some good, but to think that you are fixing the problems caused by flying in doing it then you are wrong. Off setting does some good with planting trees etc but the main good that it does is funds research in to other energy.
This does not mean that you are removing all the impact of flying at all.
I'm not sure that flying is here to stay, at least not for every day people in the way it is today. I don't know enough about the sunject, but I doubt there is an oil replacment that is good enough to use. Anyone else know?
Eera, we are not 'whining', thank you.
Offsetting does some good, but to think that you are fixing the problems caused by flying in doing it then you are wrong. Off setting does some good with planting trees etc but the main good that it does is funds research in to other energy.
This does not mean that you are removing all the impact of flying at all.
I'm not sure that flying is here to stay, at least not for every day people in the way it is today. I don't know enough about the sunject, but I doubt there is an oil replacment that is good enough to use. Anyone else know?
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
The short answer is no.
according to the IPCC in 2001
Hydrogen has been touted as a potential alternative, but burning hydrogen produces 2.6 times as much water vapour as a kerosene fuelled plane. As water vapour from planes creates conetrails which trap in heat this merely replaces one greenhouse effect causing substance (CO2) with another (water vapour).
Hydrogen planes have also been touted as the new uber luxurious uber fast form of air travel - not long ago tests on an unmanned supersonic hydrogen powered drone which flies through the stratosphere - which they believe in the future could see commercial aircraft of this ilk travel from London to Sydney in two hours.
according to the Royal commission on environmental pollution
someone mentioned airships earlier... these could be useful for crossing the atlantic - but are far slower than high speed trains, a trip from london to new york would take some 43 hours. And that's if the wind isn't against them - which has a far greater effect on airships than it does on planes. Additionally they are unsafe to take off and land in high winds (I write this on the day that my garden fence got blown down) so are far less reliable than aircraft.
Despite these drawbacks, George Monbiot has recently suggested
while I take issue with the comment about carbon emissions, for example stratospheric hydrogen aircraft produce none - thus instead, reducing climactic impact should be the name of the game - his general logic appears to be sound.
Written by: Sym
but I doubt there is an oil replacement that is good enough to use. Anyone else know?
The short answer is no.
according to the IPCC in 2001
Written by: IPCC
there would not appear to be any practical alternatives to kerosene based fuels for the next several decades
Hydrogen has been touted as a potential alternative, but burning hydrogen produces 2.6 times as much water vapour as a kerosene fuelled plane. As water vapour from planes creates conetrails which trap in heat this merely replaces one greenhouse effect causing substance (CO2) with another (water vapour).
Hydrogen planes have also been touted as the new uber luxurious uber fast form of air travel - not long ago tests on an unmanned supersonic hydrogen powered drone which flies through the stratosphere - which they believe in the future could see commercial aircraft of this ilk travel from London to Sydney in two hours.
according to the Royal commission on environmental pollution
Written by:
a hydrogen fuelled supersonic aircraft flying at stratospheric levels would be expected to have a radiative forcing (which means a climate changing effect) some 13 times larger than for a standard kerosene fuelled subsonic aircraft.
someone mentioned airships earlier... these could be useful for crossing the atlantic - but are far slower than high speed trains, a trip from london to new york would take some 43 hours. And that's if the wind isn't against them - which has a far greater effect on airships than it does on planes. Additionally they are unsafe to take off and land in high winds (I write this on the day that my garden fence got blown down) so are far less reliable than aircraft.
Despite these drawbacks, George Monbiot has recently suggested
Written by: Monbiot in Heat:how to stop the planet burning
If we really have to cross the Atlantic, and we are to prioritize the reduction of carbon emissions, airships, surprisingly, might be the best kind of transport
while I take issue with the comment about carbon emissions, for example stratospheric hydrogen aircraft produce none - thus instead, reducing climactic impact should be the name of the game - his general logic appears to be sound.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Lost in the world but loving it :)
119 posts
Location: Maybe Oxford, maybe Brighton ;)
119 posts
Location: Maybe Oxford, maybe Brighton ;)
Posted:
Personally I think air travel should be cheaper, we are never going to evolve socially and develop any sense of cohesion across the planet as a species if we continue to isolate ourselves, and thats all making air travel more expensive will do. And as a species we will never be able to fix and use our planet productivly until we all work together, people have to take the long view and realise that the benefits of air travel outweigh the negatives for the moment.
Just my two pence.
Personally I think air travel should be cheaper, we are never going to evolve socially and develop any sense of cohesion across the planet as a species if we continue to isolate ourselves, and thats all making air travel more expensive will do. And as a species we will never be able to fix and use our planet productivly until we all work together, people have to take the long view and realise that the benefits of air travel outweigh the negatives for the moment.
Just my two pence.
If fishes were wishes we'd all cast nets
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
I agree that working together is a very good way to go forward, but, with the internet we don't have to actually go anywhere to do it.
I do not agree that the benefits outweigh the negatives at all.
I agree that working together is a very good way to go forward, but, with the internet we don't have to actually go anywhere to do it.
I do not agree that the benefits outweigh the negatives at all.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Oh, and Dream, thanks a lot for that - I've been meaning to buy 'heat' for a while - is it worth it?
Oh, and Dream, thanks a lot for that - I've been meaning to buy 'heat' for a while - is it worth it?
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Lost in the world but loving it :)
119 posts
Location: Maybe Oxford, maybe Brighton ;)
119 posts
Location: Maybe Oxford, maybe Brighton ;)
Posted:
Humans are tactile creatures, I don't believe that a couple of hundred years of very fast social evolution has counterected millions of years of biological evolution and won't for a long time.
I would much rather go and actually see someone, touch them, hear their voice and be with them than "see" them over the internet.
People seem to have embraced this technological marvel (and it is a marvel) a bit too quickly for my liking.
Humans are tactile creatures, I don't believe that a couple of hundred years of very fast social evolution has counterected millions of years of biological evolution and won't for a long time.
I would much rather go and actually see someone, touch them, hear their voice and be with them than "see" them over the internet.
People seem to have embraced this technological marvel (and it is a marvel) a bit too quickly for my liking.
If fishes were wishes we'd all cast nets
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Well flying is part of the 'technological marvel'!
If going places and meeting people is so important then isn't it worth paying the actual cost for it? Or spending time over it? As I said before in this thread: it's only in the last 50 years (100 top) that travel has been so easily accessible to every day people. If you are talking in evolutionary terms, then travelling hardly comes in to it - if anything, we've adapted to staying in one place with the use of farming.
We are, at some point, going to have to stop flying as much as we do now. Why not do it now in an attempt to stop damaging the environment?
Well flying is part of the 'technological marvel'!
If going places and meeting people is so important then isn't it worth paying the actual cost for it? Or spending time over it? As I said before in this thread: it's only in the last 50 years (100 top) that travel has been so easily accessible to every day people. If you are talking in evolutionary terms, then travelling hardly comes in to it - if anything, we've adapted to staying in one place with the use of farming.
We are, at some point, going to have to stop flying as much as we do now. Why not do it now in an attempt to stop damaging the environment?
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
enthusiast
394 posts
Location: in the clouds..., United Kingdom
enthusiast
394 posts
Location: in the clouds..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Thing is, offsetting sometimes does more harm than good - Not to be a party pooper, but when offsetting carbon emissions through planting new trees whole ecosystems can be severely damaged, as the trees planed are often not the same species of tree that naturally grow in that area - The new trees are often fast growing soft wood trees.
Also, in a "natural" (whatever that means now) environment, many species of plant life coexist, however, in places where "offsetting" is practiced, often only one species of tree is planted.
These factors may change the soil (pH, nutrient ratios, etc), the plants, the insects, the animals - the whole ecosystem that existed in that area Of course there may be some offsetting organisations that are very careful with what they plant and where they plant it, but many are not.
It makes me sad, but that's the way things are My personal opinion is that there are no easy ways to slow down/ stop climate change, and selling one's guilt away by buying a few misplaced trees can do more harm than good
Written by: Eera
Instead, why don't we all go onto one of those sites that tells you the CO2 load created by any particular flight, which then lets you donate the appropriate amount of money to schemes that clean it up through conservation, tree planting etc.
We get carbon neutral convenience. What's not to like?
Thing is, offsetting sometimes does more harm than good - Not to be a party pooper, but when offsetting carbon emissions through planting new trees whole ecosystems can be severely damaged, as the trees planed are often not the same species of tree that naturally grow in that area - The new trees are often fast growing soft wood trees.
Also, in a "natural" (whatever that means now) environment, many species of plant life coexist, however, in places where "offsetting" is practiced, often only one species of tree is planted.
These factors may change the soil (pH, nutrient ratios, etc), the plants, the insects, the animals - the whole ecosystem that existed in that area
Of course there may be some offsetting organisations that are very careful with what they plant and where they plant it, but many are not.It makes me sad, but that's the way things are
My personal opinion is that there are no easy ways to slow down/ stop climate change, and selling one's guilt away by buying a few misplaced trees can do more harm than good Lost in the world but loving it :)
119 posts
Location: Maybe Oxford, maybe Brighton ;)
119 posts
Location: Maybe Oxford, maybe Brighton ;)
Posted:
What Tinypixie said, clever lady indeed.
What Tinypixie said, clever lady indeed.
If fishes were wishes we'd all cast nets
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com