QF's carbon offset - one of the cheapest ways to spend on QF services?

[straitman]

why is it OK for airlines to pay little or no tax on avgas (slugging us for most of it in fuel "taxes")


Cheers,

Andrew

.

Just a small correction here.

What you really mean is 'aviation fuel.' Piston engine aircraft use Avgas and jets use Jet A1 or Avtur.

 

[Mal]

Flying is being targeted because although airplanes contribute 3.5% of total carbon emissions, they deliver it in the worst possible place.

There is still divided scientific opinion on the difference between aviation carbon outputs vs car/industry etc outputs.

 

[acampbel]

There is still divided scientific opinion on the difference between aviation carbon outputs vs car/industry etc outputs.

Is it divided 1 to 99 or 99 to 1?

There will always be differences in opinion. There was division about slavery that caused a civil war, there was division about whether the Sun orbited the Earth that led to many persecutions and executions, there was division about Jews that caused millions of them to be exterminated.

Is there anyone on this forum who thinks that pouring millions of tonnes of CO2 directly into the atmosphere is a good thing for the environment? By all means broaden the carbon offset/trading/target schemes to cover all relevant activities .... but to whinge and moan that flyers shouldn't pay anything because farmers don't have to pay a burp/fart tax on cattle is fecking childish, selfish and arrogant all at the same vtime.

We know there's a problem but still continue to argue that someone else should fix it. How about a bit of leadership/selflessness for a change?



Cheers,


Andrew

.

 

[straitman]

Is it divided 1 to 99 or 99 to 1?

There will always be differences in opinion. There was division about slavery that caused a civil war, there was division about whether the Sun orbited the Earth that led to many persecutions and executions, there was division about Jews that caused millions of them to be exterminated.

Is there anyone on this forum who thinks that pouring millions of tonnes of CO2 directly into the atmosphere is a good thing for the environment? By all means broaden the carbon offset/trading/target schemes to cover all relevant activities .... but to whinge and moan that flyers shouldn't pay anything because farmers don't have to pay a burp/fart tax on cattle is fecking childish, selfish and arrogant all at the same vtime.

We know there's a problem but still continue to argue that someone else should fix it. How about a bit of leadership/selflessness for a change?



Cheers,


Andrew

.

This would be wonderful if we could get some real un-emotive arguments going rather than just one sided spin. People (me included) just get sick to death of the BS spins people, Al Gore etc, put on these things. Stick to the facts and the argument will win itself :!:

 

[Kowali]

Without challenging the concepts carbon offsets, global warming, airlines vs cars, etc, I have trouble understanding the following comparison.

- Government organisations such as the EPA aggressively monitor, control and put the onus on companies not to pollute waterways or contaminate soil.

- Airlines get to create a surcharge system, simultaneouly washing their hands of the problem and transferring guilt or responsibility to consumers.

Is it wrong to assume:
a) use of the funds would much more efficienct if the airlines were spending their own money ?
b) the on-charging to consumers would be more competitive if they didn't quote as "fare + surcharge" ?


Cheers

 

[acampbel]

... Stick to the facts and the argument will win itself ...

Are these the facts as you see them, or I see them, or as Al Gore sees them, or John Howard sees them, ..... or perhaps as the current collective wisdom of un-biased scientific experts see them?

We can play the "lies, damn lies, and global warming facts" game for as long as you like. Doesn't actually solve anything, but seems to be a great justification for doing nothing.


Cheers,


Andrew

.

 

[Soundguy]

Is there anyone on this forum who thinks that pouring millions of tonnes of CO2 directly into the atmosphere is a good thing for the environment?

I do, absolutely. The reason is that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential part of life. What you need to worry about is pollution and toxic chemicals, that is what should be reduced but of course there isn't so much money to be made from that and the current climate change faith runs on money alone.

In ages past the earth had many times the levels of CO2 that it does now (with not a plane or power station in sight of course) and the flora and fauna really flourished. For the same reason global warming is also a very positive thing as the previous global warm periods have shown - again this occured with no assistance from mankind.

Even King Canute knew he didn't control the tides; for the most part this current GW stuff is no more scientific than Scientology is, both are faith based and socialism is forcing the green faith on all of us. But this thread has gotten OT into religion and politics so I'll leave it there....

 

[Keith009]

This would be wonderful if we could get some real un-emotive arguments going rather than just one sided spin. People (me included) just get sick to death of the BS spins people, Al Gore etc, put on these things. Stick to the facts and the argument will win itself :!:

Well said mate.

Ha - this is turning out like that thread on FT. You all know my views on this issue so I shall shut up now, lest I be flamed for allegedly damning QF for an initiative in response to a "community concern."

 

[AnonymousCoward]

I do, absolutely. The reason is that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential part of life. What you need to worry about is pollution and toxic chemicals, that is what should be reduced but of course there isn't so much money to be made from that and the current climate change faith runs on money alone.

There are many chemicals that are essential for life - including trace metals - which are very hazardous to your health in larger doses than what you are exposed to currently.

In ages past the earth had many times the levels of CO2 that it does now (with not a plane or power station in sight of course) and the flora and fauna really flourished. For the same reason global warming is also a very positive thing as the previous global warm periods have shown - again this occured with no assistance from mankind.

This is simply distortion of facts.

Certainly it is true that CO2 levels have changed over time.
Certainly it is true that life has gone on.

HOWEVER

That does not mean that there will not be significant cost due to rapid changes in climate to *humans*, or or other wildlife. Certainly when the globe was much warmer, or much colder, a lot of wildlife died out. For human kind, we also need to look at the *pace* of change. The more rapid the pace of change, the more it's going to cost to adapt.

for the most part this current GW stuff is no more scientific than Scientology is, both are faith based

Well, this is plain incorrect. Climate science is *scientific* - in fact it is the exact opposite of what you claim it to be.

There is plenty of scientific literature reviewed in the IPCC assessment reports. If you are able to point to *scientific* errors or omissions in the studies cited, then perhaps you can claim that the analysis is not scientific. But last time I checked, the thousands of studies that are reviewed and summarised in the IPCC assessment reports where all published in major peer reviewed *scientific journals* and undertaken by major scientific and/or academic institutions. It is just laughable that NASA, or the BoM, or the CSIRO, or major universities are engaging in faith based argumentation.

 

[Keith009]

Climate science is *scientific* - in fact it is the exact opposite of what you claim it to be.

Climate science might be scientific but from my POV popular notions of climate change are no more than a political ideology, and about as scientific as eugenics was regarded in the earlier part of the 20th century.

 

[straitman]

I think I'll duck for cover here before yuo guys come out with the 'flame throwers' :idea:

 

[simongr]

I think I'll duck for cover here before yuo guys come out with the 'flame throwers' :idea:

Not sure flame throwers are carbon neutral

 

[ColinP]

What's all this talk about carbon, climate change and the environment

I'm just looking for a cheap Qantas spend to get my QP passes from my Qantas Amex premium card ASAP.

$1.77 to offset an ADL - SYD would've been the cheapest QP passes in history.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Climate science might be scientific but from my POV popular notions of climate change are no more than a political ideology, and about as scientific as eugenics was regarded in the earlier part of the 20th century.

Absolutely agree. You need to separate out the stuff you see in the mass media, and what you see from various lobby groups (e.g. environmentalists, business groups etc) from what has been scientifically determined.

That's why reading the IPCC assessment reports are good if you want to get up to speed on what science can (and can't) tell us.

For the most recent AR (the 4th) You can get the Working Group 1's entire report here in PDF format:
IPCC WG1 AR4 Report

Alternatively, for a more concise summary you can just get the "Summary for policy makers"
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf

 

[beardoc]

Without wanting to detract from the discussion about carbon credits, can we go back to the original question, which is whether buying a carbon offset credit for an existing booking constituted "QANTAS Spend" for the purposes of getting Bonus Points (I'm thinking the 2500 bonus points on the QANTAS Ultimate card for my "first QANTAS spend").

We know that it doesn't appear on the QANTAS Merchant Account, but is it definitely the case that if you buy a carbon credit for an existing booking, then you will NOT be able to get an Amex Bonus for this transaction?

I guess a good method of gauging this is whether those that have a QANTAS Amex that have bought carbon credits get bonus points on those transactions (the extra 1 QFF point per dollar). Anyone that has done it, did you get the extra QFF points?

 

[ColinP]

Without wanting to detract from the discussion about carbon credits, can we go back to the original question, which is whether buying a carbon offset credit for an existing booking constituted "QANTAS Spend" for the purposes of getting Bonus Points (I'm thinking the 2500 bonus points on the QANTAS Ultimate card for my "first QANTAS spend").

We know that it doesn't appear on the QANTAS Merchant Account, but is it definitely the case that if you buy a carbon credit for an existing booking, then you will NOT be able to get an Amex Bonus for this transaction?

I guess a good method of gauging this is whether those that have a QANTAS Amex that have bought carbon credits get bonus points on those transactions (the extra 1 QFF point per dollar). Anyone that has done it, did you get the extra QFF points?

I tried it way back when this thread began. -- No bonus points.
As far as I can tell, it will not qualify as a Qantas spend for your purpose.
The cheapest Qantas spend I've found that qualifies is the ++++ on an award flight.

 

[beardoc]

I tried it way back when this thread began. -- No bonus points.
As far as I can tell, it will not qualify as a Qantas spend for your purpose.
The cheapest Qantas spend I've found that qualifies is the ++++ on an award flight.

Ah, thank you - I'm glad that is cleared up.

 

[pauly7]

Ah, thank you - I'm glad that is cleared up.

Couldn't you just book a hotel for 1 night thru Qantas Holidays (qantas.com)

Then cancel it, get your money back but sacrifice the $5.50 booking fee which counts as your spend as it goes through the Qantas Holidays merchant account which is valid?!