The Environment

There is a great deal of discussion these days about the environment and in particular about air travel and its effect.


Virgin Atlantic has put forth some ideas to promote environmentally friendly travel.

Does this make you any more or less keen on air travel??

There are straw polls at airports every now and again where people tend to say "yes Im aware I should be doing more but I'm still going to Tenerife for my holiday!!"

What do we a V-flyer think?

ps If anyone has any extra questions that could be added to the poll then please shout out!!

How about a split in the first question/answer

I will continue to fly whatever the environmental effect as long as it doesn't cost me any more

I will continue to fly whatever the environmental effect even if it costs me more

Paul

I will continue to fly, because I do not consider GW to be manmade, even if I come to believe it to be prooved I still will not believe that flying is the major contributing factor.

[honey lamb]

Originally posted by easygoingeezer
I will continue to fly, because I do not consider GW to be manmade, even if I come to believe it to be prooved I still will not believe that flying is the major contributing factor.

On the news the other morning they were saying that cruise ships are responsible for twice the carbon emissions per passenger than flights. What's the next big baddy?

Originally posted by easygoingeezer
I will continue to fly, because I do not consider GW to be manmade, even if I come to believe it to be prooved I still will not believe that flying is the major contributing factor.

Am with you on this one egg. My feeling is that it's just another excuse to milk us of yet more money in the form of tax. Along with the cry of 'greenhouse effect' and 'global warming'. So what was the excuse for previous (as in hundreds of years ago) shifts up or down in the climate then????!!!!!!! It's just the latest mantra....[:w]

What exactly did happen to the "Global cooling" horrors of ten years ago? Did I misst the next ice age??

Let's face it - air travel, just like the UK motorist - is an easy target for taxation and can be readily held up as an environmental hazard by the so-called 'greens'. Witness the huge 'green rallies' in London - how many gallons of petrol/diesel were burnt getting these protestors into the centre of the City? Aren't they the ones espousing the reduction of needless journeys?

I think it's today's soapbox and an easy bandwagon for politicians to jump on.

Tony

Cough! Is one allowed to rubbish a stereotype of a holder of an alternative point of view in order to degrade their argument?

[Darren Wheeler]

Global Warming caused by human intervention is still an unproven theory. Yes, the Earth is warming, just as it did in Roman times and it cooled about the time of the Black Death so increasing the mortality rate due to malnutrition.

It is long been recognised that the Earth's climate goes in cycles of warming and cooling, occasionally cooling to the extreme so an Ice Age is started. Global warming is nothing new and will continue long after we have turned to dust until the Sun becomes a Red Giant and engilfs the Earth.

I think the rate of temperature change maybe a smidgin different to previous editions of the cycle.

Originally posted by Bean Counter
I think the rate of temperature change maybe a smidgin different to previous editions of the cycle.

Actually it isn't, its the estimates of what "might" be from Discovery Channel wannabee experts or politicians without any other agenda that are above the normal rate. A large volcanic irruption can be a far bigger factor to GW than human Emmissions.

Seems odd to me that such a supposedly huge problem to the continuance of life as we know it seems to be solved by way of Taxation rather than scientific research in to a solution.

If we are able to afford to kill the planet it seems we can just get on with it.

40 years cooling followed by 40 years increase in temp, its nothing new, now where was that iceage that they terrified me about when I was at school?

[Darren Wheeler]

Originally posted by easygoingeezer

Originally posted by Bean Counter
I think the rate of temperature change maybe a smidgin different to previous editions of the cycle.

Actually it isn't, its the estimates of what "might" be from Discovery Channel wannabee experts or politicians without any other agenda that are above the normal rate. A large volcanic irruption can be a far bigger factor to GW than human Emmissions.


40 years cooling followed by 40 years increase in temp, its nothing new, now where was that iceage that they terrified me about when I was at school?

Especially as there is a Super-Volcano underneath Yellowstone NP that could blow very soon (between tomorrow or 10,000 years time). If ever 'goes' it has been predicted that it will end most of the life on earth.

I remember the Iceage warning too. Sweeping away all traces of civilisation in the North so we would all have to live in the Bahamas. Still waiting.......

Actually my comment was based on observed rather than predictive date. It certainly was not based on scaremongers like discovery - please don't assume my mind is a flabby as my belly.

For recent trending try http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/demos/temrecmontage . For longer term trends see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war ... al_warming which is based on EPICA. This one ( http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch ... es_co2.htm ) from Seed based on NOAA data plots CO2 and temperature quite nicely too. I don't think it would be reasonable to dismiss these sources as wannabee experts, politicians or indeed those with other agendas.

I really don't intend providing a evangelical proclamation that anyone who says global warming is man-made is wrong, and hope your don't take it that way - evangelists lecturing people about how dumb they are is about as useful as a kick in the groin. And there certainly is an argument to be made that we are potentially on a normal cycle. For example, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... glob14.xml Met Office date casts some doubt on recent sea temperature measurements. A counter arguement is also provided here http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html although I am not sure that "republicans against climate debate" could be considered totally un-biased. Another here that disputes a co2/C causal link http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1354.htm . Or google Pat Michaels for proably the leading US counter arguer (if there were such a word!)


But it really is not true to say the leg of the cycle we on does not appear to be accelerated in comparison with previous examples. And I really don't think it is not an issue we should all consider at least. Dismissing it out of hand just would seem as closed minded and irresponsible as saying it is an indisputable truth.

As to taxation being the solution - well based on too many years experience of politicians and their large financial apatites (as well as their love of being 'seen' to do the right thing) I too am very mistrustful of the intentions of APD, car tax,...., etc, etc. It would help my levels of trust if I could see the money raised being spent on serious research and development of products (fuel cells for example) that would help us maintain our lifestyles with out producing CO2. But I am afraid I cannot see the money really being ploughed back into this sort of activity. Nor do I think the government has lead an informed and convincing debate of the issues.

Just to tax, tax and re-tax with little consideration of providing alternatives the the behaviour your are trying to discourage seems to me not only to be insulting but also doomed to failure.

I am afraid that I really don't recall the iceage arguments, although I am sure you are right that this was the view. But being ignorant on that, I really cannot comment.

Originally posted by Bean Counter


Just to tax, tax and re-tax with little consideration of providing alternatives the the behaviour your are trying to discourage seems to me not only to be insulting but also doomed to failure.

Agree with that!!

And looking at it in a slightly irreverant way -

If global warming means that the average temperature in the UK rises and we have much better summers and milder winters, then the requirement to go abroad to "catch the sun" will deminish and consequently less people will fly anyway!!

Problem solved!!

[:w]

The iceage argument comes from the 70,80s, it was defo coming and documentaries like Panorama and "exclusive" news programmes told us of our plight, mock up pictures of icebergs in the Thames, these were taught in schools and appeared on tv with top scientists of the day giving us the scary facts. On one of them one scientist po poo'ed the whole thing and predicted that the temps would actually rise, but all the other scientists called him a crank.

Originally posted by MarkJ
If global warming means that the average temperature in the UK rises and we have much better summers and milder winters, then the requirement to go abroad to "catch the sun" will deminish and consequently less people will fly anyway!!

Problem solved!!

[:w]

Actually Global Warming would cause the UK to get colder as the jet stream would be royally screwed up, at least initially. Global warming is much more than people think it is. It's not just a warming of the earth. And we've had a discussion on global warming anyway so I don't see the point in having another pointless argument on the reasons to and to not believe it.

So if I stop flying for vacation, I no longer pump large amounts of money into the eco-tourism industries of Botswana and South Africa, providing even less reason for the people to care about their indigenous wildlife, and more incentive to poach, hunt and generally destroy habitat. The latter course of events will certainly wipe out wonderful creatures like Lions, Cheetah, Wild Dogs, Elepehants, Rhino faster than global warming.

What's a frequent flyer to do?

Of course Gordon Brown could just go ahead and take a bunch more of parents retirement savings to help pay for billboards educating us about global warming.

Who else remembers that twenty years ago, we would all be dead or dying from HIV / AIDS right now. Another issue, totally overblown in the rush to make money / receive grants.

Originally posted by VS-EWR
we've had a discussion on global warming anyway so I don't see the point in having another pointless argument on the reasons to and to not believe it.

Ta Nick - you are right there have been discussions around the website but the original poll was about our decisions with regard to flying not specifically about global warming - and anyway I ran a search first to see if there was anything specific first and not much appeared!!

[Decker]

Or perhaps the education campaign worked? Looks like 30%+ of the population in areas of Africa who didn't get the education ARE all dying regretfully... damn may have to move this OT if I'm not careful...

No flaming from me to your well put point. But I suppose it doesn't have much to do with the environment.

Phew that's OK then, I will sleep much better now that I know the majority of you think this is not an issue directly accountable to the human race and the way we live today. [:w]

If just one of the people who have commented so far were writing from a position of expertese in this field and not just whinging about taxation and the effects on their cash flow then it might have some basis for a constructive debate. Sadly that's not the case.

***disclaimer*** Not of course claimimg that I am an expert either

As for HIV / Aids, Well GJ is right. Until it starts impacting on the lives of middle / upper class society in the developed nations then treatment will remain underfunded.... A very sad reflection on the way we treat fellow human beings.

Jon B

Jon B

I am not sure, no scrub that, I am sure it is not helpful to suggest that just because people have not done a doctorate on climatology their opinions don't count on a matter which may have such a significant impact on us all (by the way - what make you so sure that some of our members are not expert in the field?). If people are confused by the contradictory evidence, and feel unable to come to a conclusion as a result then that is, in my opinion, a failing of government rather than indicating those people should shut up. If they do not know the information then that too is a failing of the people who believe that this issue is worthy of their consideration - in this case government again.

Similarly you do not have to be a climatologist to make an assessment of the effectiveness of taxation in stopping undesirable behaviour. Despite crippling levels of duty people still smoke and still drink, and often it is the lower paid segments of society who drink and smoke the most - so how exactly is tax elasticity working there? Easygoingeezer's point about the planet being scrapped by those who can 'afford' to do so seems a reasonable criticism of tax as a blunt instrument. It can also be argued that the biggest gains in reducing both smoking have been by providing education and information as well as investing in clinical assistance to help people.

Suggesting that increased levels of taxation in penalising CO2 producing activities should be redirected back into activities to assist people and organisation who wish to reduce their CO2 production (or to trade it if you support CO2 trading schemes) seems pretty valid to me. Did you have an issue with this assertion?

For my part, I feel quite encouraged that 40% (at the moment) of the members of this forum feel that the issue has significant enough potential that they are prepared to spend their money trying to offset. We could have a whole, and probably fruitless, debate about the effectiveness of trading schemes. But it seems a little unlikely that people would on the one hand "whinge" about a little extra tax, and at the same time voluntarily pay over what are in effect additional duties.

Originally posted by Jon B
Phew that's OK then, I will sleep much better now that I know the majority of you think this is not an issue directly accountable to the human race and the way we live today. [:w]

If just one of the people who have commented so far were writing from a position of expertese in this field and not just whinging about taxation and the effects on their cash flow then it might have some basis for a constructive debate. Sadly that's not the case.

***disclaimer*** Not of course claimimg that I am an expert either

As for HIV / Aids, Well GJ is right. Until it starts impacting on the lives of middle / upper class society in the developed nations then treatment will remain underfunded.... A very sad reflection on the way we treat fellow human beings.

Jon B

Jon B

As it stands the experts are divided on the issue, true more think its true, but plenty are not convinced. And if you hold to the theory that the majority must be right about global warming, then why did the IceAge global cooling enthusiasts of 30 years ago completely ignore and vilify the one scientist at the time that actually "discovered" the global warming theory.

Politicians, like us on this board are also NOT experts in Science, they are experts in whats popular to talk about, whats most likely to raise revenue to pay for other political aims and objectives, they look at the very same information that us mere mortals get to see and formulate a policy best suited to political circumstances and what subjects will keep them up there, or what subjects can be used to enable them to stop us mere mortals asking questions about something else.

On tax whinging. I would like any intelligent person to explain to me how scientific it is to ask people to pay extra to continue adding to a perceived global problem ( that will eventually affect those that couldn't afford to pay in the first place ) as opposed to spending money on researching in to solving the problem, rather than continually spending money on trying to prove its true, over and over again.

When we were asked to pay an extra 1p in the £ towards the Health Service everyone paid it no questions asked, no change of Government
took place at the following election.

Ask me to pay £80 every flight towards a solution to this problem and I will stop whinging, make me pay it and do sod all with the money and I will whinge, because it just tells me they really don't think its truly that important when they put the money in to school governers or hospital managers pockets, or party coffers.

Hell tell me that I will get a £100 added to my income tax and every penny is going towards working towards solving this supposed catastrophy that is going to happen to Gods good Earth and I will pay it, but not this silly political/media drama that is taking place where the fear is instilled in us and the money goes elsewhere.

When did this Guilt culture start.

Businesses make a profit ... bad businesses thats nasty
People prosper. Bad nasty people
People drive to work..Bad nasty people
People throw their rubbish away...bad nasty people
People go on holiday, bad nasty people.
People have central heating and actually use it..bad nasty people.

yada yada yada.

I am sick and tired of the constant Fear trip, Guilt trip scenario, which is generally foisted upon us by other people who have become comfortable in life and have nothing better to do than be sanctimonious.

Originally posted by Bean Counter
I am not sure, no scrub that, I am sure it is not helpful to suggest that just because people have not done a doctorate on climatology their opinions don't count on a matter which may have such a significant impact on us all (by the way - what make you so sure that some of our members are not expert in the field?).

Just a wild 'stab in the dark' that none of the members are experts in this field.

Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion, just seems a little shortsighted to say that the impact we have is not a major factor in the changing climate. I could have an opinion that adding a furry dice and large speakers to an F1 car would improve lap times, but as I'm no expert on this it would remain just that, an opinion....

Having a Doctorate and studying a subject through years of research, both qualitative and quantative, will give a much better understanding of a subject in all cases. Of course that data may be skewed to fit a theory, but at least it's based on something to begin with

Jon B

Originally posted by Bean Counter

For my part, I feel quite encouraged that 40% (at the moment) of the members of this forum feel that the issue has significant enough potential that they are prepared to spend their money trying to offset.

And sadly 51% coudn't give a toss (at the moment)