Controversial new anti-aviation advert
Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 13:15http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opk1bmjT ... r_embedded
I am not sure if this is getting their message across...
I am not sure if this is getting their message across...
Page 1 of 2
Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 13:15Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 13:30Is it wrong to laugh at that?
Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 13:48In principle it's quite clever, they'll get themselves noticed but I'm not sure that setting it in a city that looks a lot like NYC is going to win them any admirers.
Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 14:28How many polar bears were harmed during the making of that ad?
Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 15:37Irresponsible advertising, if you ask me. Apart from the view that Plane Stupid are putting way too much focus on aviation (I understand subsonic aviation in total accounts for 2-3 percent of global emissions), they imply every passenger on that jet is killing a polar bear - and that simply isn't the case. Their over-simplified message that an adult polar bear weighs the same as the amount of CO2 generated by a passenger is an unrelated number, but designed to make those without the attention span to realise it's a flawed message to light their torches and arm the pitch forks - because us air passengers are killing the cute polar bears. Grrrr...
Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 15:54The effects are good ... but the message just doesn't make sense to me. Mind you, neither does the Plane Stupid campaign.
Mat
Mat
Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 20:59Can you imagine the reaction to this in NY?
The parallels with 9/11 are clear.
Plane Stupid have just declared themselves as terrorist sympathisers. (might not be too far from the truth!)
The parallels with 9/11 are clear.
Plane Stupid have just declared themselves as terrorist sympathisers. (might not be too far from the truth!)
Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 23:48That advert is terrible. Direct action groups such as that annoy me by using emotionally charged imagery to attempt to overcome the premises in debate, reasoned analysis and solution.
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 06:33quote:Originally posted by Bill S
Can you imagine the reaction to this in NY?
The parallels with 9/11 are clear.
Plane Stupid have just declared themselves as terrorist sympathisers. (might not be too far from the truth!)
Bill
S**t ad but don't see your point? Polar bears falling from the skies is not the same as planes flying into buildings? To me it was wooly, poorly conceived and a waste of time. And I still don't understand why polar bear skin rugs are so expensive.
Can you imagine the reaction to this in NY?
The parallels with 9/11 are clear.
Plane Stupid have just declared themselves as terrorist sympathisers. (might not be too far from the truth!)
Bill
S**t ad but don't see your point? Polar bears falling from the skies is not the same as planes flying into buildings? To me it was wooly, poorly conceived and a waste of time. And I still don't understand why polar bear skin rugs are so expensive.
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 09:06quote:Originally posted by Decker
quote:Originally posted by Bill S
Can you imagine the reaction to this in NY?
The parallels with 9/11 are clear.
Plane Stupid have just declared themselves as terrorist sympathisers. (might not be too far from the truth!)
Bill
S**t ad but don't see your point? Polar bears falling from the skies is not the same as planes flying into buildings?
But it is very, very close to the images of people falling to their deaths from the Towers on 9/11.
Paul
quote:Originally posted by Bill S
Can you imagine the reaction to this in NY?
The parallels with 9/11 are clear.
Plane Stupid have just declared themselves as terrorist sympathisers. (might not be too far from the truth!)
Bill
S**t ad but don't see your point? Polar bears falling from the skies is not the same as planes flying into buildings?
But it is very, very close to the images of people falling to their deaths from the Towers on 9/11.
Paul
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 10:43Way too close [n]
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 12:06What gets me is that all these protesters/action groups keep popping up all over the world. Last time I checked, there are no Atlantic tunnels and overland to Asia is a bit of a jaunt. Wouldn't have flow by any chance????
Also, why don't they ever go to China and protest about their CO2 output?
Also, why don't they ever go to China and protest about their CO2 output?
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 13:27quote:Originally posted by pjh
quote:Originally posted by Decker
quote:Originally posted by Bill S
Can you imagine the reaction to this in NY?
The parallels with 9/11 are clear.
Plane Stupid have just declared themselves as terrorist sympathisers. (might not be too far from the truth!)
Bill
S**t ad but don't see your point? Polar bears falling from the skies is not the same as planes flying into buildings?
But it is very, very close to the images of people falling to their deaths from the Towers on 9/11.
Paul
OK - I can see that someone might be capable of making that logical leap. I' a simple soul and can't deconstruct to save my life. That would never have occurred to me. So basically any living thing falling from a height in a city which looks a bit like New York would make people think of 9/11. You don't need volition, collapsing buildings, terrorism or crashed airplanes?
quote:Originally posted by Decker
quote:Originally posted by Bill S
Can you imagine the reaction to this in NY?
The parallels with 9/11 are clear.
Plane Stupid have just declared themselves as terrorist sympathisers. (might not be too far from the truth!)
Bill
S**t ad but don't see your point? Polar bears falling from the skies is not the same as planes flying into buildings?
But it is very, very close to the images of people falling to their deaths from the Towers on 9/11.
Paul
OK - I can see that someone might be capable of making that logical leap. I' a simple soul and can't deconstruct to save my life. That would never have occurred to me. So basically any living thing falling from a height in a city which looks a bit like New York would make people think of 9/11. You don't need volition, collapsing buildings, terrorism or crashed airplanes?
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 15:05Well the very second I saw the first reflection in the window, of what turned out to be a bear falling, I drew a parallel to those images from 9/11 [:(]
A parallel I could not shake as I continued to watch the video, with the sounds & sights of the bears thumping to the ground combined with the sounds of the aircraft.
All in very poor taste IMHO [V]
A parallel I could not shake as I continued to watch the video, with the sounds & sights of the bears thumping to the ground combined with the sounds of the aircraft.
All in very poor taste IMHO [V]
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 18:49I also made no link to 11th September 2001 until someone pointed it out, and even then, I still can't really see it.
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 18:58They have Polar Bears on sale in one of my locals shops:
http://www.thegetstuffed.co.uk/
see here:
http://www.thegetstuffed.co.uk/docs/page2.htm
And these ones no longer f@rt so no nasty emmitents that harm the environoment .....
http://www.thegetstuffed.co.uk/
see here:
http://www.thegetstuffed.co.uk/docs/page2.htm
And these ones no longer f@rt so no nasty emmitents that harm the environoment .....
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 20:08Yes but polar bear rugs are about 6 times more expensive that black bear rugs... quite a premium. Can you check the price tag next time you're wandering past?
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 20:13quote:Originally posted by Decker
Yes but polar bear rugs are about 6 times more expensive that black bear rugs... quite a premium. Can you check the price tag next time you're wandering past?
Ofcourse !
But you may like to know that there ia a hairdressers next door that may be able to peroxide the black one for you at a fraction of the cost of a polar bear [:w]
Yes but polar bear rugs are about 6 times more expensive that black bear rugs... quite a premium. Can you check the price tag next time you're wandering past?
Ofcourse !
But you may like to know that there ia a hairdressers next door that may be able to peroxide the black one for you at a fraction of the cost of a polar bear [:w]
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 22:08Interesting arithmetic, foiled only by schoolboy error on their dimensions.
I don't see how a 400kg polar bear = 400kg CO2?
Anyway, rather than using patronising illustrations like this, they would be better placed by giving cold hard facts, and put them into perspective, like:
A single passenger taking a return transatlantic flight produces about 1/3 of the average person's entire annual CO2 emissions. [Source http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_16.shtml]
Cheers, Howard
I don't see how a 400kg polar bear = 400kg CO2?
Anyway, rather than using patronising illustrations like this, they would be better placed by giving cold hard facts, and put them into perspective, like:
A single passenger taking a return transatlantic flight produces about 1/3 of the average person's entire annual CO2 emissions. [Source http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_16.shtml]
Cheers, Howard
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 22:23quote:Originally posted by Howard Long
A single passenger taking a return transatlantic flight produces about 1/3 of the average person's entire annual CO2 emissions.
Cyclic redundancy check... doesn't the average person take one transatlantic flight a year? [:w] [;)]
A single passenger taking a return transatlantic flight produces about 1/3 of the average person's entire annual CO2 emissions.
Cyclic redundancy check... doesn't the average person take one transatlantic flight a year? [:w] [;)]
Posted: 01 Dec 2009, 22:35quote:Originally posted by Decker
quote:Originally posted by Howard Long
A single passenger taking a return transatlantic flight produces about 1/3 of the average person's entire annual CO2 emissions.
Cyclic redundancy check... doesn't the average person take one transatlantic flight a year? [:w] [;)]
On this forum, certainly... although I don't think that we are necessarily representative of the 5-6 billion other people on the planet.
Cheers, H
quote:Originally posted by Howard Long
A single passenger taking a return transatlantic flight produces about 1/3 of the average person's entire annual CO2 emissions.
Cyclic redundancy check... doesn't the average person take one transatlantic flight a year? [:w] [;)]
On this forum, certainly... although I don't think that we are necessarily representative of the 5-6 billion other people on the planet.
Cheers, H
Posted: 02 Dec 2009, 00:13What about all the extra CO2 it took to create the visual effects? All adds up you know.
Posted: 02 Dec 2009, 00:21quote:Originally posted by Howard Long
On this forum, certainly... although I don't think that we are necessarily representative of the 5-6 billion other people on the planet.
A fact which the world would no doubt cheer [:w]
GJ
On this forum, certainly... although I don't think that we are necessarily representative of the 5-6 billion other people on the planet.
A fact which the world would no doubt cheer [:w]
GJ
Posted: 02 Dec 2009, 01:46quote:Originally posted by Howard Long
Interesting arithmetic, foiled only by schoolboy error on their dimensions.
I don't see how a 400kg polar bear = 400kg CO2?
Anyway, rather than using patronising illustrations like this, they would be better placed by giving cold hard facts, and put them into perspective, like:
A single passenger taking a return transatlantic flight produces about 1/3 of the average person's entire annual CO2 emissions. [Source http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_16.shtml]
Cheers, Howard
CO2 emission calculations for air travel can be quite interesting.
One on the most complex models, trx, is described here.
It allows calculation based on figures for specific airlines including VS.
For example LHR-JFK-LHR by VS in Y produces 1494lbs (calculate here)
For the same flight by BA you produce 1996lbs!
Both are very different from the figures suggested in Howard's reference above of 2 tonnes - 4480lbs!!!
In addition, the Trx calculation above includes radiative forcing, a controversial issue, which has multiplied the emissions by a factor of 2.7
Trx allow this to be switched off bringing the VS return transatlantic emission down to only 554lbs, less than 1/4 tonne.
Now lets consider Polar Bears!
Say their breath contains around 4.5% CO2 - same as us......
a few more calculations ....(which I won't bore you with unless someone wishes to PM me!)
A Polar Bear emits up to 2000lb CO2 per year.
So Plane Stupid is probably right in suggesting we should kill off numerous Polar Bears!
Interesting arithmetic, foiled only by schoolboy error on their dimensions.
I don't see how a 400kg polar bear = 400kg CO2?
Anyway, rather than using patronising illustrations like this, they would be better placed by giving cold hard facts, and put them into perspective, like:
A single passenger taking a return transatlantic flight produces about 1/3 of the average person's entire annual CO2 emissions. [Source http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_16.shtml]
Cheers, Howard
CO2 emission calculations for air travel can be quite interesting.
One on the most complex models, trx, is described here.
It allows calculation based on figures for specific airlines including VS.
For example LHR-JFK-LHR by VS in Y produces 1494lbs (calculate here)
For the same flight by BA you produce 1996lbs!
Both are very different from the figures suggested in Howard's reference above of 2 tonnes - 4480lbs!!!
In addition, the Trx calculation above includes radiative forcing, a controversial issue, which has multiplied the emissions by a factor of 2.7
Trx allow this to be switched off bringing the VS return transatlantic emission down to only 554lbs, less than 1/4 tonne.
Now lets consider Polar Bears!
Say their breath contains around 4.5% CO2 - same as us......
a few more calculations ....(which I won't bore you with unless someone wishes to PM me!)
A Polar Bear emits up to 2000lb CO2 per year.
So Plane Stupid is probably right in suggesting we should kill off numerous Polar Bears!
Posted: 02 Dec 2009, 10:33quote:Originally posted by Bill S
One on the most complex models, trx, is described
Ohh, geeky and interesting. I see they allocate the CO2 effect of freight to passengers too, at 20% of the passenger value! And they're using 2006 load factors whereas there's lots of evidence that in 2009 they are higher, and they use linear calculations of fuel burn per flight length when we know that take-off is the highest use of fuel and a longer flight will not have a linearly related fuel burn, we could go on (oh and really you should subtract the CO2 emissions created just by 'being') ... in reality it's even less than you described?
One on the most complex models, trx, is described
Ohh, geeky and interesting. I see they allocate the CO2 effect of freight to passengers too, at 20% of the passenger value! And they're using 2006 load factors whereas there's lots of evidence that in 2009 they are higher, and they use linear calculations of fuel burn per flight length when we know that take-off is the highest use of fuel and a longer flight will not have a linearly related fuel burn, we could go on (oh and really you should subtract the CO2 emissions created just by 'being') ... in reality it's even less than you described?