Do you get criticised for 'flying too much'?

[Commuter]

Do you get criticised by other people for 'flying too much', and sometimes get treated like an earth-murderer?

Considering that aviation is estimated to generate 2-8% of carbon emission, it isn't as if it were the only source of it.

 

[Soundguy]

No. Besides CO2 is very beneficial to fauna growth.

Anyway no-one here flies as much as the false AGW prophet (/profit) Al-Gore; and Flannery is close behind. Cleary they don't believe their own hoax but of course the money is good.....

 

[acampbel]

No. Besides CO2 is very beneficial to fauna growth.

Anyway no-one here flies as much as the false AGW prophet (/profit) Al-Gore; and Flannery is close behind. Cleary they don't believe their own hoax but of course the money is good.....

Soundguy - you are a serious moron.

Al Gore has responded to the criticism of his own travel by stating that he offsets the CO2 by the currently recognised manner, but that is in fact totally insignificant to the million-fold offset he has achieved by highlighting the dangers of human-induced climate change.

Why don't you do us all a favour by reducing your CO2 footprint to zero ....


Cheers,

Andrew

BTW - for the other mentally challenged forum readers the issue is not the absolute amount, but how many people are producing this pollution and is it really necessary (e.g. - status runs).

 

[Mal]

People don't criticise me for my flying - they are more interested in why I do it, what I see etc.

Anyone who tells me I am wrong for flying can basically take a flying leap. I don't care about them, nor do I care about their environmental causes.

Today I had greenies outside a large bank trying to push paper into my hands because they were criticising the bank for funding a large pulp mill in Australia. I laughed and wondered why their signs were cardboard and they were handing out paper.

People are constantly critical of things without realising the damage they do themselves and the natural environment patterns that are normal.

PS - I am environmentally friendly in certain ways - those ways are none of anyone's business except myself. I don't need pseudo greenies here trying to tell me that certain flying patterns are bad.

 

[NM]

Soundguy - you are a serious moron.

Al Gore has responded to the criticism of his own travel by stating that he offsets the CO2 by the currently recognised manner

That would be fine if the only environmental impacts were due to CO2 emissions. Unfortunately that is not the case.

 

[v8Statesman]

I am green to a degree. I do approx 2,000km per month in my car. Yet only use 90L of Petrol. (I drive a Toyota Prius hybrid)

Love to see a 747h or a 73Hh (read Lexus models)

Regenerate on landing Lots of wasted energy there!

 

[simongr]

I am not criticised for my travel in terms of my carbon footprint in the same way that I I do not criticise people for having more than two children , driving their kids to school, not car pooling etc.

I think picking on status runs etc. again is a little narrow focussed as there are many many activities that people undertake that some would deem unnecessary (how about all those amateur potters firing up their own kilns?) and people need to take responsibility for themselves and assess their personal total impact rather than taking pot shots. Who is to say my status run is less necessary than a family of four flying to coughet for a holiday?

 

[kiwicounter]

Some of the greenies I know accuse me of being evil for taking domestic flights in NZ! But I'm not too fussed really. I'm not going to sacrifice any of my pleasure and utility for sacrifice to Gaia. I'm certainly a global warming/environmental problems skeptic.

good point about the holidays simongr, I remember reading that one of Britain's biggest aviation related CO2 contributors was their package holidays to Spain etc

And Al Gore's film has been debunked on numerous levels, even had some of the errors defined as such in a British court!

v8statesman - the relationship between your username and prius driving is not readily apparent!

And anyway CO2 emissions from planes, vehicles and manufacturing only comprise a very small proportion of the atmosphere - more is released from decaying plant and animal matter.

 

[Gazza]

Without getting into the left vs right debate (where the truth is normally somewhere in the middle). I wish to make one point that people seem to miss when talking about the "footprint" of commercial aviation.

Schedulled Commercial flights are public transport. The use of this form of public transport (as opposed to me and the other 215 people on my flight say driving to Adelaide today) is one of the most effective things we can do to limit our overall impact.

This normally ends the discussion.

Gazza

 

[spiggy_topes]

Do you get criticised by other people for 'flying too much', and sometimes get treated like an earth-murderer?

Considering that aviation is estimated to generate 2-8% of carbon emission, it isn't as if it were the only source of it.

Interesting question. In terms of passenger miles per gallon, a long-haul 747 is actually one of the most efficient means of transport around. If I was going overseas to a climate change conference, a plane has it over a coal or oil burning ship any day.

This week's New Scientist (8th Dec) claims that 40% of the C02 from long-haul flights is due to business and first passengers, so if some were to switch to economy they could save 80% of their carbon emissions. The logic sounds a bit iffy - the plane emits the same amount of CO2 whereever you are in the plane. Besides, I would rather not go than spend 15 hours in a QF Y seat...

 

[Soundguy]

Al Gore has responded to the criticism of his own travel by stating that he offsets the CO2 by the currently recognised manner......

Why don't you do us all a favour by reducing your CO2 footprint to zero ....

Ha ha.... if you live a few years longer you will look back and shake your head wondering how you could have been sucked in so easily to this nonsense. Apocalyptic global warming and cooling scares go in cycles in the Media, this is the fourth cycle over the past 150 years. Helps no end when there is a slow news day. Regarding your last line, I have noticed serious Gaia worshippers often tend to be aggressive, violent types with little respect for human life beyond their own.

I will quote some info on your hero Gore who charges about $8000 per minute for his speeches; he defends this by claiming he donates a percentage of his speaking fees to the 'Alliance for Climate Protection'.

Chairman of this alliance? Al Gore.


Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman - and partly owns.


In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. In plain speak Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks .

He owns a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. Since the release of Gore's film his personal electricty consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.

 

[simongr]

This week's New Scientist (8th Dec) claims that 40% of the C02 from long-haul flights is due to business and first passengers, so if some were to switch to economy they could save 80% of their carbon emissions. The logic sounds a bit iffy - the plane emits the same amount of CO2 whereever you are in the plane. Besides, I would rather not go than spend 15 hours in a QF Y seat...

I am assuming that is based on some sort of allocation of the total emmissions based on volume of the aircraft used - i.e. if we chopped off the J/F sections of the A/C what would the carbon emmissions be in that case. I suppose if they converted to all whY config the CO2 per person would reduce.

Ah well at least it is still another vote for "rich people are bad mmmkay..."

 

[serfty]

There was some interesting discussion on a related subject here:

• http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/com...r/qfs-carbon-offset-one-11032.html#post141296

It seems to me:

• there appear to be several entities formed to cash in on this (while doing some little in relation to the issue) &
• Air travellers are seen an an easy (bourgeoisie/aristocratic) target.

 

[Homer]

I am assuming that is based on some sort of allocation of the total emmissions based on volume of the aircraft used - i.e. if we chopped off the J/F sections of the A/C what would the carbon emmissions be in that case. I suppose if they converted to all whY config the CO2 per person would reduce.

I understand the argument, but on the flipside all those folks down in whY are throwing back much more food than is consumed by the relatively few in F and J and apparently that aint so good for the environment either: Skip the Steak - The Global Warming Survival Guide - TIME

So it may be possible to argue that an all F configuration with relatively few pax consuming less highly processed food is actually better for the environment?

 

[simongr]

I understand the argument, but on the flipside all those folks down in whY are throwing back much more food than is consumed by the relatively few in F and J and apparently that aint so good for the environment either: Skip the Steak - The Global Warming Survival Guide - TIME

So it may be possible to argue that an all F configuration with relatively few pax consuming less highly processed food is actually better for the environment?

Certainly better for the Pax

 

[acampbel]

So sorry - you are all absolutely correct.

• There is no negative impact to the climate from human activity - in fact it's all good
• All carbon offset programs are a con and make no difference anyway
• We are just being targeted because we're special - it's all those brown people on motorcycles that cause the problems because there are 1000 of them to every 1 of us
• The scientific community are all simpletons who have been hoodwinked by a mere 50 years of data that indicate unprecedented climate change
• It's somebody else's problem - in fact let's spend all our effort shooting down the messenger rather than making a single change that may impact our cosseted lifestyle

Cheers,

Andrew

P.S. We all miss you Johnny - please come back soon.

 

[simongr]

acampbell - you actually have no idea what activities any of us undertake to minimise our impact on the planet. You have chosen our views on the attacks on airline frequent travellers as a reflection of our entire approach to interaction with the planet and our political allegiances.

I am quite concerned about carbon offset programs - but I need to know more about them and their total environmental and economic impact.

Just in relation to the scientific community being hoodwinked by a mere 50 years of scientific data a couple of comments. For the past 1000 years the scientific community have been proved wrong over and over again - the earth is not flat, doesnt rotate around the sun, the 4 humours do not cause disease, drilling holes in the skull does not release harmful spirits - so to simply state that they must be right is taking a leap. Couls you also clarify what you mean by that 50 years of data? Is that data collected over 50 years or data from the last 50 years?

I wont argue whether global warming exists - I do not have the scientific background to that - equally I wont brand you a lefty vegan hypocrite who still flies despite his passion for global warming.

Finally going back to carbon offsets - in calculating the $ offset do they factor in the cost of construction of the aircraft, construction of the factory, construction of the airport, travel to/from the airport etc.?

 

[Commuter]

I don't know whether there is any truth in it or not, but someone (in fact a greenie) said that flying activities are offsetting, to an extent, its effects on global warming by releasing moisture into the atmosphere at high altitude which is reducing the amount of solar heat from reaching the earth. Anyone got any idea whether it's true to an extent or not?

Anyway, I got a bit sick of being criticised for 'excessive flying' so I wanted to see if other people cop a similar thing. To be honest, if I drove everywhere myself, I'm quite sure I'd generate more pollution, not to mention the risk to other road users.

 

[acampbel]

acampbell - you actually have no idea what activities any of us undertake to minimise our impact on the planet. You have chosen our views on the attacks on airline frequent travellers as a reflection of our entire approach to interaction with the planet and our political allegiances.

Too true - but all I can go on are the comments posted and they don't fill me with confidence ..... why don't you tell us about the changes in your lifestyle that you have taken because of your concern for the environment?

I am quite concerned about carbon offset programs - but I need to know more about them and their total environmental and economic impact.

I agree that the whole "offset" industry is new and partly based on dodgy logic - but I fear that if we wait until these things are perfect then it will be too late

Just in relation to the scientific community being hoodwinked by a mere 50 years of scientific data a couple of comments. For the past 1000 years the scientific community have been proved wrong over and over again - the earth is not flat, doesnt rotate around the sun, the 4 humours do not cause disease, drilling holes in the skull does not release harmful spirits - so to simply state that they must be right is taking a leap. Couls you also clarify what you mean by that 50 years of data? Is that data collected over 50 years or data from the last 50 years?

I think we have come a long way since the church dictated scientific truths. There is actually data to be had from the time life appeared on Earth - the reference to the last 50 years is the direct correlation between human activity (mostly CO2 production) and the rapid and unprecedented rate of environmental changes. Yes - we are living in a biosphere that naturally cycles between hotter and colder states, but every scientist (barring those owned by vested interests) now agrees that applying a blow-torch to this ecosystem is having a detrimental effect. The main disagreement is whether there is a tipping point where we lose the ability to reverse the changes, and how close we might be to that point.

I wont argue whether global warming exists - I do not have the scientific background to that - equally I wont brand you a lefty vegan hypocrite who still flies despite his passion for global warming?

Vegan? Who you calling a vegan!!??!!

Finally going back to carbon offsets - in calculating the $ offset do they factor in the cost of construction of the aircraft, construction of the factory, construction of the airport, travel to/from the airport etc.?

As I mentioned before there are many half-truths and dubious statistics in this arena. I remember my uncle (who worked for a Scottish power company) saying that it was all very well people installing solar powered hot water heaters, but the energy consumed in making/transporting/installing the devices could never be recouped in its expected lifespan. Probably true in Scotland at the time.

I don't know whether there is any truth in it or not, but someone (in fact a greenie) said that flying activities are offsetting, to an extent, its effects on global warming by releasing moisture into the atmosphere at high altitude which is reducing the amount of solar heat from reaching the earth. Anyone got any idea whether it's true to an extent or not?

Yes - there was an interesting study done in the days following the September 11 attacks, which measured the amount of sunlight penetrating the atmosphere. This increased dramatically whilst all planes were grounded, and the theory was that the jet pollution caused a sort of dimming that actually reduced the greenhouse effect. So it was a bit of a case of 2 steps back and one step forward when the planes were running, and 2 steps forward and 1 step back when they weren't.

Anyway, I got a bit sick of being criticised for 'excessive flying' so I wanted to see if other people cop a similar thing. To be honest, if I drove everywhere myself, I'm quite sure I'd generate more pollution, not to mention the risk to other road users.

There's no doubt that mile-for-mile, air travel is the safest and most efficient. The trouble is that you wouldn't think of driving/sailing to the UK because it would take too long and be too expensive, but 22 hours on a plane and $2K is acceptable. So some of the better off in this world have become jet junkies who think nothing of flying for the fun of it. I won't pretend top be a saint in this regard - I travel for work and pleasure - but the spectre of leaving this world to my kids in a poorer state has made me question whether each trip is justifiable on both moral and economic grounds.

So I'm not saying we should all go back to living in trees, but the conspicuous consumption that was targeted in the 80's for egalitarian reasons has now become a more serious matter. As one of the leading polluters per capita, Australia needs to show that it is not purely driven by self interest and is willing to put some of its good fortune on the table.


Cheers,

Andrew

 

[SeaWolf]

Well, since this can of worms has been opened, I may as well comment...

What worries me is less the carbon emmisions (which is a concern, but a manageable one) and more what's going to happen as oil production slows and prices start to skyrocket. We all know that oil is going to run out, it's just a question of when and oil costs are going up even at the moment. In the case of cars there are at least viable options on the table. They aren't perfect, but like all new tech it will improve over time as more and more people use it.

But when it comes to jet engines, well there just isn't a viable option, not even a theoretical one (at least I don't think so, let me know if I'm wrong) and that's a big concern.