V-Flyer

Programme on BBC2 next Wednesday 24th January looking at the impact of air travel on the environment. There is a piece by SRB on what his plans are to reduce greenhouse gasses.

Might be interesting and is sure to feature some VS metal!

Thanks for that, Mark[y] Having read the title, I was all prepared to persuade you otherwise[:I]

Our O so wise leader Mr.Blair told the press that he wasn't going to give up air travel which the media thought was an outrage. However, I think it's perfectly justifiabl. We don't need to go mad on trying to be green, but can do a lot by, for example, not leaving all the lights on in the house while you're out etc.

VS.

If I give up air travel it means no tourist $ for South Africa and Botswana, and given that all I do is photographic safari, it will only hasten habitat loss and therefore species extinction.
Anyone have the answer?

Originally posted by napamatt

Anyone have the answer?

Nope [:I]

I note that the media especially I.T.V at present suggest that giving up air travel is a positive thing to do to reduce the effect of greenhouse gasses. This leaves me somewhat puzzled, as their personal approach to reducing their carbon footprint is the opposite of the criticisms laid towards Tony Blair and us the common travellers and globe trekkers.

I.T.N are always jetting off their reporters at the drop of a hat to report on world events on what appears to be a daily basis. There are often suitable local reporters available to cover such events. Lorene Kelly is frequently flown down from Scotland to London then limo biked to G.M.T.V to front programs that often could be recorded in Scotland and sat linked in to the main network. Channel 4 even flew Leo Sayer all the way from Australia just to be on Big Brother Now that is a waste of carbon expenditure in my mind[:o)].

New papers and the such encourage the papz to fly around the world following Celebes and wannabe Celebes just to get a photo to sell sell sell. But no one goes on about their carbon footprint .

We can all be sensible and we are all equipped to make our choices be it favourable to the environment or not.

The U.K choose to use Asia to outsource the dirty work of heavy industry and then complain about their growing carbon footprint whilst we in the U.K are reducing ours. How moronic an accusation of Asia being uncooperative in environmental pollution is this?


We should all stop telling each other what not to do and maybe start saying what we may do on a more constructive level to safeguard our planet.

I am not a green environmentalist however I am green faced similarly to our dear little green emotocom [:$][:$] with the press targeting our right to roam and our ability to give financial support and structure to countries which rely on our hard earned cash to provide their main industry of tourism. World travel has far more positive thins going for it than it does negative's.

Lets concentrate on true energy waste [i] and lay of the back of business and pleasure flyers.

There thatÕs me getting things off my chest.

Happy Flying all you Frequent Virgins

Just bumping this up to let those of you in the UK know that this is on tonight.

Might watch this actually, as i'm being hit big time by my colleagues over my carbon footprint. Air travel only attributes to 4% of the emissions, surely tackling the remaining 96% would be easier and have a greater impact? Thats my view anyway, so i'd love to see which side of the fence the BBC are on.

Thanks,
Sarah

As I've said before, I wish people would get it onto their heads that aviation isn't really the cause of all the emissions[xx(] Clearly, it is a contributor, but there are certainly much easier ways to cut down on carbon emissions.

VS.

Originally posted by VS045
As I've said before, I wish people would get it onto their heads that aviation isn't really the cause of all the emissions[xx(] Clearly, it is a contributor, but there are certainly much easier ways to cut down on carbon emissions.

VS.

Not sure anybody said that aviation was the cause of all emissions..... but it is a rapidly growing contributor.

On the whole the program last night was quite balanced. Yes 25% of all flights are business related, with the massive leap forward in technology over the last few years, I wonder how many of these meetings could be completed via conference calls.

In this country Governments (both Tories & Labour) must take some of the blame. While it is cheaper to fly than to take the train then quite naturally people will do so.

Perhaps airlines should look into limiting further the baggage allowance..... less weight onboard = greater fuel efficiency.

I've said it before but the much discussed 'amenity packs' should be stopped (by all airlines) not just VS. They cause carbon emissions in manufacture, contribute further as they are transported to each airline, add weight (albeit not too much) then are mostly discarded and contribute further as they are carted off to be dumped in landfills..... If PAX must have them then why not charge for them, say £5 a throw, money could go towards offsetting

No one realistically says that we should all stop flying, just that we should think about the impact each trip has and be accountable for it as individuals

Jon B

Every time I mention to some particular friends that I'm taking another flight they end up bleating on about my cabon footprint.

I think air travellers are the new chelsea tractor drivers; I just wish people would acknowledge that air travel is just a small part of a very big picture.
Lets not forget coal fired power stations, americas relianced on the car, lack of off buttons etc..

Dean

I travel every two months with work, and most of it is long haul. Whilst I do have a fair amount of guilt about the flying I do, my carbon foot print is smaller than most. I don't drive, use public transport, and everything bar the central heating is turned off at the plug at night. If everyone unplugged stuff, I'd love to know what the impact would be.

The biggest issue, however, is not home use of electric. The newer generation of power stations are relatively clean. Furthermore, the UK will, in 3 years, be the 7th largest renewable energy supplier in the world. Can you imagine where the US would be if each state (the UK would fit into texas, after all) achieved similiar goals?

Car use does need to decrease. Gordon and his cronies have done nothing to stem this. An extra £40 a year because you drive a chelsea tractor? Pitiful. The tax should be on petrol at source, with much bigger penalties for polluting / lower MPG cars. Perhaps if car manufacturers saw huge losses of buyers for polluting vehicles, they'd start in earnest on more efficient, lighter vehicles.

So, with home energy use and cars sorted, back on topic for planes. There is no easy answer other than huge tax increases to prohibit casual air use. yes, we have the freedom to travel wherever we want, but do we need to? Furthermore, as another poster mentioned, do the goods we use need to come from all over the world. I'm typing this on a laptop that was contructed from parts made all over asia, assembled in other parts of asia, flown to the USA, then flown / shipped to the UK. Is this necessary? But, closer to home, it's worse. Was in tescos t'other day.... Some Tescos finest rubbish. Beef from Scotland, cream from jersey, and god knows where it was made... What's wrong with beef and cream from around the corner?

We all need to make choices. Things might be more expensive, but how much cheaper would they be if we walked a bit more, and didn't have to pay for our weekend in NYC?

Paul

You make some good points, woggledog, but I don't think that simply telling or forcing people to use public transport through taxation is the answer. The govt needs to use a carrot and stick approach with maybe a higher tax on cars combined with an improvement in the transport provided.

VS.

Heresy I know but I fully expect science to find a solution and think the $25,000,000 prize SRB is offering, whilst a cynical piece of marketing, is also a good carrot. Symptomatic relief whilst looking for alternative energy sources to remove the causal elements.

An interesting website
Artificial PhotoSynthesis is what we really need to develop on a large scale... Or indeed plant more trees!