Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Giving Up Flying vs "The Plane Is Going Anyway"
- Thread starter Seagull
- Start date
A mex eyecan
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 3,315
that’s just gone right over my head
GingerBeerMan
3-0
- Dec 29, 2011
- 8,026
The only two things we can do on an individual level is reduce our meat consumption and reduce our flying. These directly impact emissions for the individual. If you stop flying the aviation companies will very quickly reduce the number of flights in response.
Anything else needs to be a systemic change by the government.
Anything else needs to be a systemic change by the government.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
I'm very torn on this. I fly very regularly, primarily for work. I'm content with my personal role in combating climate change, so I don't feel guilty as such, but I see the hypocrisy, and yes, have made the argument you use. I have also been on massive trans-continental jumbo's with more cabin crew than passengers.
I think we could cope with emissions from planes if we sorted out emissions from elsewhere, there are lower-hanging fruit that would have more impact
Its my understanding that in many (all?) countries, a public transport subsidy is given for plane fuel, in the same way bus companies pay less for fuel. I would be happy for that to be removed and prices to go up, flying doesn't need to be so cheap. Newquay-Gatwick return by plane is half the price of taking the train, that is outrageous.
I think we could cope with emissions from planes if we sorted out emissions from elsewhere, there are lower-hanging fruit that would have more impact
Its my understanding that in many (all?) countries, a public transport subsidy is given for plane fuel, in the same way bus companies pay less for fuel. I would be happy for that to be removed and prices to go up, flying doesn't need to be so cheap. Newquay-Gatwick return by plane is half the price of taking the train, that is outrageous.
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Anyone who ignores flying as a major contributor to global warming is either a Trump sympathiser or simply doesn't care about the damage flying does.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 27,894
This, supply and demand. Air travel is well known to be causing huge problems yet is expanding anyway, the Chinese are expected to embrace foreign air travel a lot more in the next few years and this will be a disaster.
Sorrel
Well-known member
The solution is to tax aviation more; the problem with that is that only the better off will be able to fly.
An alternative would be if it becomes socially unacceptable and thus people don't want to be seen flying; this could happen, but I think it unlikely.
An alternative would be if it becomes socially unacceptable and thus people don't want to be seen flying; this could happen, but I think it unlikely.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Its 4%.
Its important, clearly a major contributor - but if that was all we were emitting we could cope with that.
Other forms of transport makes up 10%
Electric-cell technology for cars could clearly be applied to planes too one day.
Where do the jobs go?
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
340,000 people employed in aviation industry in UK. Yeah, thats substantial
Brightonfan1983
Tiny member
...
Last edited:
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Further to a point I made earlier, airlines don't pay fuel duty or VAT on tickets.
At 58p per litre fuel duty and 20% VAT, that's estimated at saving the airline industry over £10 billion annually.
Considering that flying is already the preserve of people with a couple of pennies to rub together, thats an unnecessary subsidy, and putting that tax on would both raise more income for the treasury and reduce demand
At 58p per litre fuel duty and 20% VAT, that's estimated at saving the airline industry over £10 billion annually.
Considering that flying is already the preserve of people with a couple of pennies to rub together, thats an unnecessary subsidy, and putting that tax on would both raise more income for the treasury and reduce demand
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Brightonfan1983
Tiny member
That's less than I expected. But then I saw this the other day and that's a few jumbos right there!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnGlYG8UjFk
jakarta
Well-known member
Nuke China and India, reduce worlds population by over a third. Job sorted. And about as likely as getting people to stop flying...
In reality Rolls Royce and Pratt and Whitney are already doing massive R&D on hydrocarbon free engine technology.
A mate of mine was head of Health and Safety at RR, got fed up (ironically) of the travel and is now H&S Manager for JCB so think this is probably accurate information?
In reality Rolls Royce and Pratt and Whitney are already doing massive R&D on hydrocarbon free engine technology.
A mate of mine was head of Health and Safety at RR, got fed up (ironically) of the travel and is now H&S Manager for JCB so think this is probably accurate information?
The plane is going anyway. At least today it is.
I fly for business now and again. I have to. I have customers in Edinburgh and other prospects in Europe and I need to be in my office one day and theirs the next. Boat is not an option, train is not to Edinburgh in those circumstances (six hours at least). As a family we fly to a holiday abroad every other year and stay in the UK every other year. This year was a "home" holiday. We drove to Devon and back at Easter and again in August. Next year we'll be flying to Cyprus. I don't feel the least bit guilty.
As pointed out by Kalimanten it's only 4% of the issue. Those two six hour drives to Devon and back would have been just as bad really. I offset a fair bit of this in other ways. I get the train to my main office, walk, run, cycle or get public transport when travelling locally and have cut down on meat significantly. I buy better raised, more expensive meat less often.
Did you sense the "but" coming? Here it is.
The INCREASE in flying that is proposed is not sustainable. The third runway at Heathrow is a terrible idea. Somrthing has to give. But we are notorious as a species for trying to fix tomorrow's problems with today's solutions. People in the future will be innovative and social norms will change gradually over time. As tech improves and flying becomes less socially acceptable so more and more deals and meetings will be done over video conference (though the tech involved in that has an environment impact as well). As science improves we may find ways to deal with the impending doom in a practical way. Could we cloud seed? Could we find ways of releasing stuff in the atmosphere that cools the earth? If that sounds like science fiction then so did video conferences, the internet and driverless electric cars not so long ago. As posited could we use electricity to power planes?
Today the plane is going anyway. Tomorrow the people who are the most likely to suffer will find the most innovative solutions.
I fly for business now and again. I have to. I have customers in Edinburgh and other prospects in Europe and I need to be in my office one day and theirs the next. Boat is not an option, train is not to Edinburgh in those circumstances (six hours at least). As a family we fly to a holiday abroad every other year and stay in the UK every other year. This year was a "home" holiday. We drove to Devon and back at Easter and again in August. Next year we'll be flying to Cyprus. I don't feel the least bit guilty.
As pointed out by Kalimanten it's only 4% of the issue. Those two six hour drives to Devon and back would have been just as bad really. I offset a fair bit of this in other ways. I get the train to my main office, walk, run, cycle or get public transport when travelling locally and have cut down on meat significantly. I buy better raised, more expensive meat less often.
Did you sense the "but" coming? Here it is.
The INCREASE in flying that is proposed is not sustainable. The third runway at Heathrow is a terrible idea. Somrthing has to give. But we are notorious as a species for trying to fix tomorrow's problems with today's solutions. People in the future will be innovative and social norms will change gradually over time. As tech improves and flying becomes less socially acceptable so more and more deals and meetings will be done over video conference (though the tech involved in that has an environment impact as well). As science improves we may find ways to deal with the impending doom in a practical way. Could we cloud seed? Could we find ways of releasing stuff in the atmosphere that cools the earth? If that sounds like science fiction then so did video conferences, the internet and driverless electric cars not so long ago. As posited could we use electricity to power planes?
Today the plane is going anyway. Tomorrow the people who are the most likely to suffer will find the most innovative solutions.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Oh the technology is definitely on track, us humans are quite smart. I know someone who has claimed very confidently that they have a prototype combustion engine that runs on water. The beauty of that is the main by-product of burning water is water, capture that and you have a car that you need never fill up again!
I'll believe it when I see it mind
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,310
if we arent stopping flying, we arent really taking emissions reduction seriously. its one of the more discretionary uses of energy.
i dont believe there is any technology that offers the energy density of jet fuel to be viable. some say airships would be the alternative as they can deal with higher weight.
i dont believe there is any technology that offers the energy density of jet fuel to be viable. some say airships would be the alternative as they can deal with higher weight.
cloud
Well-known member
You can also learn to cook from scratch, thereby reducing the need for packaging / ready meals / takeaways etc
Learn to mend, repair and re-use, instead of just buying replacements
Grow your own fruit and veg
etc etc ..
there is a lot that we can do.