 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
It sounds like a no-brainer to me. Far more sensible to insist that airlines use the most efficient aircraft practicable - if they want to fly into our airspace / land at our airports - than to just keep on taxing people in the hope they might change their ways. If the improvements in design reap such massive rewards why are politicians so loath to take a stand. They seem happy enough to add a bit here and there to inflate taxes on 4x4s - regardless of emissions. Do they know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
it's just that every small iteration/version of their engines is very quickly available to the general public
|
Available but not neccessary applied.
I don't know the average time people keep their cars. I see lot of quite old cars with poor efficiency on the road...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
abc,
| Quote: |
I don't know the average time people keep their cars. I see lot of quite old cars with poor efficiency on the road...
|
No doubt, but my professional experience suggests that those small iteration are available to the public if they wished to make use of them..
Airlines do not have that luxury and have to wait a bit longer in between each iteration, with the "advantage" that each step is usually a significant one and bring marked benefits..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
That all makes sense to me. I accept that it's unrealistic to expect airlines to make massive investment in new aircraft every 5 or even every 10 years. But surely the airlines flying the oldest, most polluting planes should face the highest burden of taxation, rather than tax every airline on the same scale.
I can't see how blanket taxation makes any real difference to useage. It doesn't seem to price people out of the travelling market .. just makes them more careful about their choices. And another thing ... while I am talking about taxation (again) perhaps another factor is ... should people who take just one or two flights a year for their annual holidays pay the same 'flying taxes' as say a businessman who flies 50 times a year. If it's all really about reducing emissions, shouldn't there be a bit more thought about how to actually make an impact rather than raising revenue?
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
The ASA and easyJet.
| Quote: |
| easyJet said the average age of their aircraft was 2.2 years |
Presumably they flog off - or relinquish the lease of - old aircraft for the use of other other airlines so the problem is transferred onwards - ie the old aircraft still fly, but with another airline. So the pollution of old aircraft is still around.
| Quote: |
| However, we noted easyJet had based their calculations for the "30% fewer emissions" claim primarily on the number of passengers they could carry in their planes; because they could carry more passengers than most other airlines the CO2 emissions per passenger were 30% less. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| SNOWCOW wrote: |
| ... should people who take just one or two flights a year for their annual holidays pay the same 'flying taxes' as say a businessman who flies 50 times a year. If it's all really about reducing emissions, shouldn't there be a bit more thought about how to actually make an impact rather than raising revenue? |
You've reminded me of a short course I did at college in formal symbolic logic. One of the standard operations of propositional calculus is called 'Modo Tolendo Tolens', and it addresses this situation:
____If A then B
____Not B
____Therefore, Not A
Example:
____If it rains my cat comes in from the garden
____My cat has not come in from the garden
____Therefore, it is not raining
I think this logical operation can be applied nicely to your last sentence. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skimottaret, the article you referenced said that there was a greater than average diurnal variation in the period, not that there had been a "measurable temperature drop". Do you know if the measurements that were referred to were averaged across the whole of the United States? If so, that would be powerful evidence that the theoretical effect is measurable, because one would expect a range of weather conditions across the country. If it were just one area, it would be more likely that it had unusually clear weather purely by chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say that as a bit of a plane geek, Snowheads 's just great at the mo...Snow and aviation!! Loving it! 
Keep the good stuff coming guys!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
laundryman,
| Quote: |
| Do you know if the measurements that were referred to were averaged across the whole of the United States? |
-Initially data from over 5,000 weather stations across the 48 united states etc...
The program transcript of the BBC Horizon documentary on Global Dimming can be found here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml - the section on 9/11 & contrails etc follows
NARRATOR: It was David Travis who first caught a glimpse of what the world could be like without Global Dimming. It happened in those chaotic days following the tragedy of 9/11. For fifteen years, Travis had been studying the vapour trails, or contrails, left behind by high-flying aircraft. Though each individual contrail seems small, when they all spread out, they can blanket the sky.
DR DAVID TRAVIS: Here are some examples of what we call outbreaks of contrails. These are large clusters of contrails. And here's a particularly er good one from Southern California. Here's the west coast of the United States. And you can see here this lacing network of contrails er covering at least fifty per cent, if not seventy five per cent or more of the sky in that area. It doesn't take an expert to er realise that if, if you look at the satellite picture and see this kind of contrail coverage that they've got to be having an effect on temperature at the surface.
NARRATOR: But the problem Travis faced was to establish exactly how big an effect the contrails were actually having. The only way to do that was to find a period of time when, although conditions were right for contrails to form, there were no flights. And, of course, that never happened. Until September 2001. Then, for three days after the 11th virtually all commercial aircraft in the US were grounded. It was an opportunity Travis could not afford to miss. He set about gathering temperature records from all over the USA.
DR DAVID TRAVIS: Initially data from over 5,000 weather stations across the 48 united states, the areas that was most dominantly affected by the grounding.
NARRATOR: Travis was not looking just at temperature - that varies a lot from day to day anyway. Instead he focused on something that normally only changes quite slowly: the temperature range. The difference between the highest temperature during the day and the lowest at night. Had this changed at all during the three days of the grounding?
DR DAVID TRAVIS: As we began to look at the climate data and the evidence began to grow I got more and more excited. The actual results were much larger than I expected. So here we see for the 3 days preceding September 11th a slightly negative value of temperature range with lots of contrails as normal. Then we have this sudden spike right here of the 3 day period. This reflects lack of clouds, lack of contrails, warmer days cooler nights, exactly what we expected but even larger than what we expected. So what this indicates is that during this 3 day period we had a sudden drop in Global Dimming contributed from airplanes.
NARRATOR: During the grounding the temperature range jumped by over a degree Celsius. Travis had never seen anything like it before.
DR DAVID TRAVIS: This was the largest temperature swing of this magnitude in the last thirty years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geoffers, thanks for that. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
WOW!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
SNOWCOW, who are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geoffers, Just spent some time on the link you provided. I can't understand how I have not seen this before, it's fascinating. I have shared it with friends etc. Very grateful. Global warming and snow in Europe do not seem compatible .. hence big interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
red 27, There's a special place on another thread just for this question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Hmmm, great thread. So basicly if my big 4x4 could fly, we'd all be screwed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| PaulClark wrote: |
Wear The Fox Hat, the comparison between flying to the Alps and driving is the one the aviation industry wants you to make.
Yes, if you start from the premise that a journey is essential / inevitable, flying on a fairly modern, fairly full jet compares OK to driving. The issue with air travel - and particularly low-cost air travel - is that journeys that previously would have been impossible / impracticable become commonplace, and strongly contribute to total emissions. (I include in that the journey that the strawberries I ate this morning made from Kenya.)
I'm not really taking a stance here on whether this is good or bad. I recognise the environmental downsides, and also the economic / quality of life benefits that the majority - not just the rich - can now afford to travel widely and eat strawberries for breakfast in the winter. I do think we have to be realistic and honest in presenting and evaluating data, however, and the data is unquestionable that aviation contributes strongly to the emission of gasses that (are claimed to) contribute to global warming. In this context, the aviation industry's focus on emissions per mile travelled is a diversionary tactic. |
Agree with much of what you have to say, but who do you mean by the "majority"? Everyone in the world? Developed countries? UK citizens? or some other group? In 2006, I saw a stat that said there were 2.1 billion total airline passengers...I think this means 2.1 one way trips (probably counting connecting flights as multiple trips)...
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 18-02-08 19:24; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| PaulClark wrote: |
alex_heney, achilles - ...
So, I agree that next time you (or I) travel to the Alps, if we start from the position that we are definitely going - by whatever means - then flying looks a perfectly acceptable option environmentally on an emissions per mile analysis. But going back to RichA's original question, "Is flying as bad for the enviroment as you think ??", the answer has to be "Absolutely, and probably worse." |
PaulClark- I think that the majority of your posts on this subject are really well thought out, but it seems like you are implying that flying is no worse for the environment than taking the train. I realize that it isn't always as economically friendly, but I was under the impression that trains put out less emmissions than cars or planes...am I mistaken, our are you just comparing plane to car for getting to the Alps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
MEfree30, I think the comparison has been with cars. In France, I would say that the trains are effectively powered by nuclear energy, and in Switzerland I think by hydro-electric power - both low on carbon emissions. Looking at this page I think even high-speed trains powered by diesel engines, or powered by conventional power stations compare with air travel favourably.
| Quote: |
| A well-utilised rail service has relatively low carbon emissions per passenger/km. But if services are running at low occupancies, the energy consumption and carbon emissions per person could be high — potentially higher than those of alternative modes for the same journey. |
But also note:
| Quote: |
| Rail's comparable energy efficiency and carbon advantage over air travel decreases as the speed of the train increases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| SNOWCOW wrote: |
should people who take just one or two flights a year for their annual holidays pay the same 'flying taxes' as say a businessman who flies 50 times a year. If it's all really about reducing emissions, shouldn't there be a bit more thought about how to actually make an impact rather than raising revenue?
|
Good idea!
A businessman flying on business is doing so to earn money (which he will pay tax on). Someone who is using flying purely for a leisure pursuit should therefore be paying more tax, as their flight is not about increasing income in the country they originate from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
| where new capacity would be provided in the hope of stimulating demand rather than relieving existing capacity constraints |
I think THAT is the problem, vague "hopes".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, more than that - a businessman is providing the life-blood of the country - business. In contrast to holiday makers from the UK who are draining money from it - since much of their cash is spent overseas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat, more than that - a businessman is providing the life-blood of the country - business. In contrast to holiday makers from the UK who are draining money from it - since much of their cash is spent overseas. |
Except, without flying, no visitors from outside of UK can come visit. Not exactly "life-blood" of the economy, of course... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| Wear The Fox Hat, more than that - a businessman is providing the life-blood of the country - business. In contrast to holiday makers from the UK who are draining money from it - since much of their cash is spent overseas. |
Except, without flying, no visitors from outside of UK can come visit. Not exactly "life-blood" of the economy, of course... |
Ah yes, but if you discourage people from going abroad on vacation, then they will spend their money in the UK.
(also, from a practical point of view, a US tourist will spend less money in the UK than a local one - imagine going on vacation and finding everything twice the price it is at home.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
abc, sure. Actually tourism is a significant income earner. Certainly want those bodies coming in .... Point is, though, that business people should not be singled out for higher taxation just because they fly more air miles than holidaymakers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| (also, from a practical point of view, a US tourist will spend less money in the UK than a local one - imagine going on vacation and finding everything twice the price it is at home.) |
WTFH, not sure I understand your point... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
abc, ok, say you fly over here on vacation, and you think about renting a car, then you see that gas is more than $7 a gallon, you maybe think about driving less, not travelling as much. To a Brit, that's what we pay.
Say you walk into a McDonalds for a burger. The 99c burger is a $2 one in the UK. You end up getting a lot less for your money. Put it another way - a US visitor would have to spend twice as much as a UK person to get the same thing in the UK - in terms of what each is used to.
Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
In danger of going off-topic but
achilles,
| Quote: |
Wear The Fox Hat, more than that - a businessman is providing the life-blood of the country - business. In contrast to holiday makers from the UK who are draining money from it - since much of their cash is spent overseas
|
May be yes for the independent travellers but for those (and I suspect the majority) of holiday makers who book through TO's then the majority of their money will be spent in the UK to a company paying UK taxes. If I use a TO then I certainly spend more money in the UK arranging and paying for my holiday, than I do whilst in the resort. So your statement "holiday makers from the UK who are draining money from it" is, surely, not wholly true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
halfhand, I don't mean that all holiday money goes overseas - just that, inevitably, quite a lot does; whereas if we all stayed at home, 100% of our money would be spent here. However, I am not knocking holidaymakers who fly out of the country (otherwise I would not ski in the Alps myself) - just pointing out that holiday travel really should not have priority over business travel - even though a business flier may travel far more than a tourist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
achilles, Ok I get your point. But the business man pays the same tax as the tourist its just that if he/she flies more often they pay the tax on each flight. So the tax is on the travel whether on holiday or business is not and should not be part of the equation IMV. Of course paying less tax the more often you fly would be a great idea - I could take more holidays 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
halfhand, I was picking up on
| SNOWCOW wrote: |
| should people who take just one or two flights a year for their annual holidays pay the same 'flying taxes' as say a businessman who flies 50 times a year. |
I think the tax (if any) should be the same for all - for both business and holiday travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
abc, ok, say you fly over here on vacation, and you think about renting a car, then you see that gas is more than $7 a gallon, you maybe think about driving less, not travelling as much. To a Brit, that's what we pay.
Say you walk into a McDonalds for a burger. The 99c burger is a $2 one in the UK. You end up getting a lot less for your money. Put it another way - a US visitor would have to spend twice as much as a UK person to get the same thing in the UK - in terms of what each is used to.
Does that make sense? |
Yes. But you also miss an important psychological issue.
A "pound" (my new laptop keyboard don't have the pound key, only has euro  ) is worth 2 dollar. So, the burger only cost one pound. Instead of thinking in terms of $7 a gallon in gas, it's "only" 3.5 (pound!). Yes, sometimes they do the conversion and realize it's costly and refrain. But quite often, they don't, and just spend because the "unit" is larger, and the "number" is smaller.
Been there, done that. I had a hard time spending money in Japan (and Hong Kong) because everything "cost so much" even though in reality it doesn't. I suspect the reverse also works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Er boys and girls .....
Dr. J. Craig Venter of Celera Genomics is currently working on genetically altered bacteria that can be airborne and absorb excess carbon from the atmosphere. My point is that there are many people that share the belief that science is accelerating at such a rapid rate we stand a very good chance of fixing our many flaws, faults and problems. Alot of this progress stems from our rapid global industrialisation which is being replaced in the West by a current technological push.
I'd also like to point out that from a geological perspective, the temperature changes alongside the various current atmospheric conditions are nothing new. There is also much recorded evidence of extremely rapid global temperature changes in the absence of humans. What w are currently experienced can not categorically be seen as a long term problem becuase we don't truly understand what causes rapid global temperature changes.
There are various terrrestrial factors such as fixed carbon vs free carbon but this is these are normally part of a closely regulated system. It is thought that extraterrestrial factors play a vital part in significant global temperature changes and examples of these are solar activity, flares sunspots etc but also I feel that activities of the earth's core, changes in the dynamo effect and the related force of the protective magnetosphere can be important.
Coming back down to Earth, there was a documentary on ch4 that showed how research grants are often based on popular science, i.e. scientists give their financial supporters what they want so that they have funding cover other projects that they actually want to study. So this is part of why over the last 10 years all we have heard is global warming this global warming that.
Anyway I'll do my part by as soon as it is viably possible leaving London and living in a quiet village in the mountains 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
