Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is Cheap Air Travel Destroying The Enviroment?  
User currently offlineCumulus From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1402 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8307 times:

This is a interesting topic posted on the BBC website this morning.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...351&&&edition=1&ttl=20061018084551

[Edited 2006-10-18 09:48:52]


What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
114 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkarus2006 From Netherlands, joined Apr 2006, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8280 times:

Hi guys,

Take a look at this related web site, about pollution of all air travel , not only cheap one, and some way to compensate for it.

http://www.greenseat.com/us/Hoofdpagina.asp


User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8248 times:

Quoting Cumulus (Thread starter):
Is Cheap Air Travel Destroying The Enviroment?

Is the human being destroying the Enviroment?

Georg


User currently offlineTurkishWings From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1441 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8230 times:

This is why we need larger aircraft and less frequency as well as usage of secondary airports. Well, many more needed to help the environment of course but giving up flying cheap airlines does not sound like a good option to me.


Coffee - Tea or Me?
User currently offlineCumulus From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1402 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8172 times:

Question (showing my ignorance here!):-

If you had 130 people drive London to Glasgow (a FR 738 hold 130 odd right?) I wonder the compative pollution would be assuming two people per car (65 cars) would be between the 738 in the air for an hour and 65 cars on the road for 6 hours.



What Goes Up Must Come Down, Hopefully In One Piece!
User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8129 times:

Quoting Cumulus (Reply 6):
you had 130 people drive London to Glasgow (a FR 738 hold 130 odd right?) I wonder the compative pollution would be assuming two people per car (65 cars) would be between the 738 in the air for an hour and 65 cars on the road for 6 hours.

Per mile a person flying a modern jet liner polutes less then if he had been going in a car !!


User currently offlineGeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 980 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8095 times:

Actually, it is the EXPENSIVE air travel, ie private jets like the ones Al "I Invented The Internet" Gore fly on, that wreck the environment and cause global warming.

Environmental wackos and crackpots don't have a shred of reproducible, reliable, objective scientific data to back up a single wide-eye, foaming at the mouth, hysterical claim they make.

Tick off a crackpot, and fly somewhere, and smile and dream of Kyoto as you lift off.



"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8087 times:

Quoting Cumulus (Reply 6):
If you had 130 people drive London to Glasgow (a FR 738 hold 130 odd right?) I wonder the compative pollution would be assuming two people per car (65 cars) would be between the 738 in the air for an hour and 65 cars on the road for 6 hours.

180 people, and it would probably take you a lot longer than 6 hours, knowing the UK's motorways! Flying is much, much greener, the aircraft burn the equivalent of less fuel per mile than your average family car. Now think how many sports cars and high performance saloons there are out there which guzzle even more gas, so flying really is the best was in all respects. Ok, there is the train, but still they use fossil fuels somewhere along the line, no pun intended  Wink

Dan Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineCODCAIAH From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8082 times:

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 8):
Actually, it is the EXPENSIVE air travel, ie private jets like the ones Al "I Invented The Internet" Gore fly on, that wreck the environment and cause global warming.

Not to defend expensive air travel -- but, please. This represents a comparatively much smaller portion of air travel today.

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 8):
Environmental wackos and crackpots don't have a shred of reproducible, reliable, objective scientific data to back up a single wide-eye, foaming at the mouth, hysterical claim they make.

Unfortunately, you likewise don't have anything to prove that cars, planes, and all the rest of it DON'T damage the environment in what could eventually be catastrophic ways. It's just not that simple.

I will never understand why people make comments like this -- such loud-mouthed reactionary statements that seem to be devoid of any careful consideration!



CO/IAH-loyalist happily driven into the arms of WN/HOU
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8010 times:

Quoting Cumulus (Thread starter):
Is Cheap Air Travel Destroying The Enviroment?

A cruel thing to ask aviation enthousiasts..

I thnink I'm not being political correct / in correct if I say it probably doesn't help the environment..


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7926 times:

I say old planes and helos is worse, cheap air travel often means brand new fuel efficent planes.

User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting question! The amount of air pollution caused by airplanes would vary by the type of plane and engine used. As far as fuel used air travel may be the way to go.

I travel between DTW-STL a lot. When I drive I use around 40 gallons of diesel or gasoline (depending on the car I am driving). I once used 104 gallons of gas when towing a car trailer with work's F350 with a 460. A DC-9 with a hundred passengers will use close to 14 gallons of fuel per person. If all of those people drove they would be using a lot more fuel.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7912 times:

I think the thread starter was more specific; cheap travel.

People going on city trips / beech holidays just because it has become so cheap, cheaper then the train, destination close by. There is no real business necessity, just a fun opportunity.

http://www.lamejorpaginaweb.com/2005...es/screenshots/big/ryanair.com.jpg


User currently offlineJustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1056 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7880 times:

Regarding Cheap Air travel - I saw SRB on HBO the other day, and he was remarking on how many tons of exhaust are emitted by a transatlantic flight.

Hydrocarbon (jet exhaust) by products are predominantly water (molecular weight of 18) and CO2 (molecular weight 44). Aliphatic Hydrocarbons (Use octane as an example molecular weight 114) burn their C8H18 chains at about a ratio of of about 1 octane to 8 CO2 and 9 H20 (the exact ratio is 2 to 16 to 18 with 25 molecules of O2 put in the mix with the fuel).

The math basically works out to about 3 times as much CO2 by weight is produced for every molecule of octane burned. When I heard SRB mention it the other day, I just heard the word "TONS". I just now checked my math (I believe it is roughly correct), and yep, its 3 times CO2 by weight. The reason for the porky exhaust is Oxygen (which "replaces" Hydrogen going from Octane to CO2) is about 16 times heavier than Hydrogen.

My point is that I think its more responsible in this day and age, that if you want to pamper passengers in business class, serve better wine, in seat massage, more exotic mushrooms, fresher lobster, johnny walker blue label or whatever. 35 inches in business class is I think a bit unecessary (I orginally posted this on the new SIA F class product thread where it describes business class at 35 inches of width). We should be reasonable in generating waste as a result of air travel.

It's easy to see now why SRB has such an interest in studying clean fuels...They are essential for the future...this 3 to 1 weight ratio for CO2 can't go on forever.

JLP


User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7871 times:

Quoting A3 (Reply 13):
EU is far more green than US .
Only have a look at the statistics. US is producing more CO2 per person than any other country in the world.
So before start blaming “cheep” airfares for the pollution start installing filters on the factories.

The US produces the highest levels of CO2 because the US is the most industrious country on earth, so we're guilty regardless of how big our cars are or are not.

The dirty little "secret" about global warming is that it would be happening even if man did not exist. Unfortunately that fact is getting lost on too many people who haven't bothered to take a look at what the IPCC is trying to suggest. The other dirty little "secret" is that global warming doesn't work quite the way so many have been lead to believe, but that's another discussion entirely.


User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4068 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7753 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 12):
I think the thread starter was more specific; cheap travel.

People going on city trips / beech holidays just because it has become so cheap, cheaper then the train, destination close by. There is no real business necessity, just a fun opportunity.

I think what the thread starter further meant was all of the cheap charters to far off places form Europe where people typically go on holiday. Take a look at how many European and Canadian charters one sees in places like the Dominican Republic each winter. While not very far from Canada, the DR is a significant distance away from the UK, France, The Netherlands or Germany. Even tropical getaways to the Indian Ocean such as to Seychelles or The Maldives are a long distance away and charter carriers make these excursions VERY cheap for those in Europe. Further, charters usually involve older more inefficient and more pollution prone aircraft, so in that case there is at lease some validity albeit I don't agree with it entirely.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7746 times:

Quoting TurkishWings (Reply 3):
This is why we need larger aircraft and less frequency as well as usage of secondary airports.

Yes.. because clearly the size of the airplane impacts how efficient they are!!!!  sarcastic 

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 5):
Per mile a person flying a modern jet liner polutes less then if he had been going in a car !!

 checkmark  If someone really want to I'll be happy to work it out (when I have time LOL). It's not even CLOSE. If you want to cut down on global warming start by looking at the car not the plane.

Quoting CODCAIAH (Reply 8):
Unfortunately, you likewise don't have anything to prove that cars, planes, and all the rest of it DON'T damage the environment in what could eventually be catastrophic ways. It's just not that simple.

It's both. There is a natural cycle and we are nudging it along. Even worse than our emissions is our destruction of the carbon sinks in nature (TREES). And sometimes we're really smart and we burn the trees when we want to clear the forest!!!! yay us (us being people).



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineSupa7e7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7735 times:

Almost every country signed Kyoto. Aviation may not be included but there's no good reason why not.

If Kyoto pans out fully, aviation gets a carbon tax. That might be a 20% or 30% rise in prices to account for CO2 pollution costs, which today the world bears free of charge.

Until then, some will argue that aircraft pollute without paying the price (buying enough CO2 permits).

Yes, if you market a product to people - a $1000 vacation, $200 of which is kerosene they're gonna burn, that does result in pollution, assuming total world consensus on CO2 is correct.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7724 times:

Quoting Supa7e7 (Reply 17):
Almost every country signed Kyoto. Aviation may not be included but there's no good reason why not.

If Kyoto pans out fully, aviation gets a carbon tax. That might be a 20% or 30% rise in prices to account for CO2 pollution costs, which today the world bears free of charge.

Until then, some will argue that aircraft pollute without paying the price (buying enough CO2 permits).

Yes, if you market a product to people - a $1000 vacation, $200 of which is kerosene they're gonna burn, that does result in pollution, assuming total world consensus on CO2 is correct.

I think you've kidna miss the point here though. Planes are a *small* portion of a MUCH bigger problem. While not inconsequential, everyone is suffering from a typical short coming.. focusing on the WRONG things  Sad



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2179 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7707 times:

A full airplane would burn on average 3-4 liters/100 km of fuel per passenger (sorry fellow Americans, miles per gallon is unknown to me...) depending on aircraft type and seating configuration.

This is twice less than a car, so twice less than if everyone on board would do the trip by driving alone, assuming small / midsize cars only and that kerosene, gasoline and diesel fuel all have the same CO2 production per volume (which is wrong as all these fuels are chemically distinct). Air travel wins the first dual.

Of course some people are flying together, so would drive together, so the real result would be lowered.

Now if these people ride on a bus, the environmental impact is for sure much less.

If electric powered train, virtually none assuming the electricity is made from clean sources. Air travel loses the second dual then.

However, the ground impact of air travel is limited to airports, whereas roads and railways have to be continuous from A to B, and the more people on it, the more lanes, the more the infrastructures takes to the environment. Environment conservation is not only about global warming. Air travel wins once more.

However, without cheap flights from -let's say- Germany to the Canaries or USA to Cancun, or Japan to Bali, whatever... who would actually drive there or take a train? Virtually no one. These "cheap flyers" would all stay around home and drive / take a train to the nearest beach resort. And even by driving alone, as distances would be considerably reduced, the environmental impact would be much less.
This is where the air travel environmental cost is the highest, air travel vs no air travel at all, in other words, need for quick long-distance travel vs no need.
Airlines are not the main ones to blame here, a market opens up, they take it, and they try their best to get the best fuel efficiency out of their machines. The system at the origin of such a demand is the one to blame. But this is all about changing our habits of wealthy westerners.

Same problem as cars' environmental impact: why live 1 hour away from your work downtown and have to commute in your car twice a day when you could live downtown and bike to work in 10 minutes?

 twocents 

Happy flying! But think twice before boarding! Do we REALLY need it?



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7702 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 16):
If you want to cut down on global warming start by looking at the car not the plane.

Nothing does environmental damage like the car. Nothing.

Does the automobile carry people at long distances more efficiently than an aircraft? Nyet.

Now that said, my field is making things burn cleaner, so by all means keep making the regulations a little tighter every so often.  Wink

I grad school we had to compare the impact of various man made sources to nature. Sometimes man looked really bad, sometimes the sources that the media makes noise on... didn't matter. I still remember doing the integral of enviromental damage over 2000 years comparing nuclear to coal power. Nuclear power was far less damaging...

#1 way to cut pollution is tax cars more in the US. Say add a $1/gallon tax to gasoline. Put the money into a good bus system. Not only would that clean up the air, but it would free up a lot of real estate for better uses! (e.g., parks with... trees!). I once read that 75% of the land in Los Angeles is dedicated to the automobile, that's... scary (That's garages, streets, parking lots, car dealers, repair shops, car washes, freeways, etc.)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7701 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 19):
If electric powered train, virtually none assuming the electricity is made from clean sources.

Which is NOT the case in MOST of the world (Canada and France are notable exceptions where a lot of electrical power comes from 'cleaner' sources (hydro, nuclear, etc.)

Plus you train can't fly over the ocean, nor can your cars, and of course ditto for the bus.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 19):
Same problem as cars' environmental impact: why live 1 hour away from your work downtown and have to commute in your car twice a day when you could live downtown and bike to work in 10 minutes?

I live 1.25 hours from work. I take public transit (intercity commuter bus) from CYHM to CYYZ, and a 10 minute trip on the local mass transit to get to work. Total cost $7.70cdn (each way). I can't drive and park for that (and the route is identical to what I would drive so it adds maybe 15 minutes tops to my commute). It's a no brainer.

I'm doing my part. So leave my damn air travel alone LOL. (not directed at you YUL)



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7696 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 20):
#1 way to cut pollution is tax cars more in the US. Say add a $1/gallon tax to gasoline. Put the money into a good bus system. Not only would that clean up the air, but it would free up a lot of real estate for better uses! (e.g., parks with... trees!). I once read that 75% of the land in Los Angeles is dedicated to the automobile, that's... scary (That's garages, streets, parking lots, car dealers, repair shops, car washes, freeways, etc.)

Fine, but don't forget to increase Jet-A by $1 per gallon. Or is aviation not fuel efficient enough to compete?


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7685 times:

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 22):
Fine, but don't forget to increase Jet-A by $1 per gallon. Or is aviation not fuel efficient enough to compete?

Wow man, you're really missing the point. Aviation isn't the problem. The carbon load for Aviation would be EASILY sustainable by the planet if we didn't royally f*ck up the ecosystems.

Stop generating power from coal, reduce automobile traffic, stop dumping crap into the oceans and clear cutting the forests. All of those are MUCH more important than planes in the grand scheme of things. Why focus on a small part of the problem, when much larger ones exist.

For all the grief you'd go through to affect change in aviation you'd have a return for your efforts that did nothing in the grand scheme of carbon emissions.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7678 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 23):

For all the grief you'd go through to affect change in aviation you'd have a return for your efforts that did nothing in the grand scheme of carbon emissions.

If that is true, then aviation will easily pay the fees to continue the CO2 emissions in the context of the world economy you describe. I agree that aviation is important and that most people will pay.

But will casual vacationers / charter pax pay, probably not.


25 HPLASOps : Why are people ripping on long distance flying so much? Low fares are found primarily on short haul flying - and short haul flying is more damaging to
26 Supa7E7 : You are right. That is why Kyoto was invented. In includes all industries on a unified framework. Aviation is just another industry. Even if it's not
27 Osiris30 : Well before you suggest folks radically up end the entire culture of the planet now, what are you doing yourself? Secondly, PLEASE do not forget that
28 Osiris30 : See my post above. Aviation is a driver for economic growth (as well as a byproduct). If you cut off poor nations from flight you kill their chances
29 Ikramerica : CO2 is the pollutant du jour, mainly because the USA produces a great deal of it. CO2 contributes very little to global warming. H20 contributes much,
30 Osiris30 : I'd say we're kinda 50/50 on the global warming thing. But we contribute just by breathing. We've expanded like a virus in terms of population in the
31 SLCUT2777 : There are many Caribbean nations (the Dominican Republic especially, and increasingly Cuba) that rely heavily on air travel to pull them out of the t
32 Post contains images Osiris30 : One thing I'm curious about (as an aside) is what are YOU doing. You're preaching, but what are you practicing. It starts with you. Do you chose to f
33 Post contains images Lightsaber : Good point, but cars pollute far more per gallon burned... so actually, the tax should be distributed asymetrically just based on that. Why? Gas turb
34 Osiris30 : Like I said we need to attack the true source of the problem, not some fringe aspect of it. The problem is even the 'clean' energy isn't. Solar Panel
35 Ikramerica : And this is what makes me so mad. For decades environmentalists fought tooth and nail against nuclear power plants, and by and large made them imposs
36 Osiris30 : You have two mixed issues there LOL.. immigration and environmentalism. I'm an environmentalist, but I consider myself what I like to call a 'practic
37 Trintocan : A very interesting debate. The trouble is that climate change is a very difficult thing to assess and one cannot even be sure if some of the global wa
38 Robsawatsky : Yes, but we are part of a biological cycle that ingests carbon (food from animals and plants), water and oxygen (from air) so that there is no little
39 VV701 : My starting point is that I am not convinced that carbon emissions - primarily CO2 - are responsible for global warming. For example when the Romans i
40 Post contains links Khobar : "Ten years ago, Danish researchers Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earthâ
41 Post contains images Luis777 : I will not fly anymore, my next travel overseas I'll try to do it by ship, maybe an old vessel, caravelle or clipper would work, if I travel domestica
42 Supa7E7 : Again, Kyoto reflects world consensus and has been ratified. You're not just talking to me. It's 166 countries. It's not preliminary, it's a done dea
43 Khobar : Earning a PhD does not free one from having a political agenda. Are they eating on the same level as in the West? For example, does the average India
44 Osiris30 : And many countries (including my own) have paid no attention to it since it was ratified. The fact that the biggest contributers of CO2 in the next 5
45 LuvAir : Sometimes I feel that there is the notion that being environmentally-conscious equals being uneconomic. Quite the opposite is true, I think that the q
46 Post contains images LuvAir : (Maybe my above example is a bit flawed, but I think it gets the point across )
47 Post contains images LuvAir : (One more: I meant the growing prosperity/air travel relationship when I was refering to the maybe flawed example )
48 VV701 : Of course. How silly of me. Fancy saying I am not convinced about something without having a doctorate in the subject. You are right. How can anyone
49 VV701 : Supa7E7 has criticised me because I expressed a lack of conviction over the CO2 global warming scenario without having a doctorate in climatology. I
50 Post contains links VV701 : Supa7E7 has criticised me because I expressed a lack of conviction over the CO2 global warming scenario without having a doctorate in climatology. I
51 Post contains images Supa7E7 : "Koala semen has shelf life boosted." Hey, that IS fascinating.
52 VV701 : Do you have the appropriate doctorate to express interest in Koala IVF?
53 Post contains images Prebennorholm : Last time I visited Britain I took a boat - 18 hours, 550 nm, 10,000 horse power, 300 pax, oil consumed per pax = some 44 gallons. I could have used
54 Johnny : The problem is that the average fuel-flow/car in germany is between 6 and 7 liters/100km.That is amazingly low. But take a full B738 into comparion wh
55 Khobar : What's the fuel effeciency of a car travelling 600km/hour? LOL.
56 Johnny : @ Khobar Haha.You are funny! LOL As you can read in my post the saved time is for sure the advantage of the airplane. At the time cars will travel 600
57 Ptcflyer : This is really a philosophical question. No doubt air travel serves a great purpose and relative to alternative modes of transportation, although deba
58 Post contains images Johnny : @ Ptcflyer Great post! Welcome on my respected User-List! Johnny
59 Khobar : I wasn't trying to be. 1) Cars become less efficient at higher speeds. 2) Planes also carry cargo which your idea ignores. 3) Cars cannot travel at 6
60 Post contains links Johnny : @ Khobar " I don't think airlines, low cost or otherwise, are doing any permanent damage to the environment." If you really think that ,then i have to
61 Osiris30 : Ptcflyer: I'm curious how you come to this conclusion? Air travel has made the greatest strides of any major mode of transportation in terms of reduc
62 Post contains images Aviopic : It's not that simple. A car takes me from where I am to where I want to be. An A/C takes me from a place where I am not but first have to travel to a
63 Post contains links Khobar : Man could not make a dent against mother nature during all the atomic bomb testing in the 50's, and you think jet exhaust is going to do us in now? N
64 Johnny : @ Khobar "Man could not make a dent against mother nature during all the atomic bomb testing in the 50's, and you think jet exhaust is going to do us
65 Post contains images Khobar : Ah, the infamous "plausible" hockey stick. LOL. Perhaps you can answer this simple question. If increases in atmospheric CO2 levels cause increased t
66 Supa7E7 : No, it's when SCIENTISTS shout that makes it the truth. Many fields are that way - the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and medicine. I could
67 Post contains images Domokun : First of all, I might have missed it but nobody has pointed out the fact that the "miles per gallon" estimate, at least in the U.S. is complete rubbis
68 Khobar : Why? Al Gore certainly feels qualified on the subject. So does President Clinton. And Arnold Schwarzenegger too. As far as I know, they are politicia
69 Usair320 : I find this partially incorrect. While yes Travelocity Direct flys 742's but look at MYT and LTU with there A330/A320 fleet or Thomas cook or condor
70 Khobar : Fox is only the messenger. If you want to dismiss the research just because Fox picked up on it, that's up to you.
71 Johnny : @ Khobar Dream on about an increasing air traffic with no effect to our climate and world environment. Have a nice night. Johnny
72 Post contains links Joni : Airbus has famously said the A380 consumed 2,9 litres/pax/100km, whereas a compact car will take 4-6 or so per 100km. The car's consumption is define
73 Johnny : @ Joni "...Climate change is indeed an "inconvenient truth". " Sad, but i have to agree!
74 Post contains links Khobar : Well, you should at least ask if there is an actual link between CO2 and global warming before betting the farm. There's a weak correlation, but then
75 LTBEWR : To me motor vehicles are the real contribution over increasing air flights. Cheap gasoline and diesel (especially in the USA) encourages more to have
76 Post contains images Johnny : @ Khabar Well, you should at least ask if there is an actual link between CO2 and global warming before betting the farm." -So, there is absolutely no
77 Ptcflyer : We are free to be selfish and lazy. One person's important trip to see family every few years... can be looked up on as another person's greedy, self
78 Khobar : No link has been proven, but don't take my word for it - ask the proponents who continue to offer their best maybes, mights, coulds, perhaps, etc. wh
79 Johnny : @ Khobar "It all comes down to money." For most people "unfortunately yes".
80 BAtriple7 : Any discussion on global warming/climate change which mentions cheap air travel as a scapegoat is bull**** if you ask me. Suddenly, the masses can fly
81 Christao17 : Which I think gets to the OP's question. My observation: As a society, we travel further, consume more, and pollute more than previous generations. I
82 Bond007 : ....and the percentage of people who have big heavy trucks and SUVs who NEED to ever tow is ____ (fill in blank). Jimbo
83 Comeflywithme : The last time the earth went through a climate change the aeroplane hadn't been invented. End of argument!!
84 Khobar : Whole industries depend on the towing/hauling capability of their vehicles, and not just here, so the answer to your question "high". Overall, privat
85 Khobar : Hmm, the edit function doesn't seem to be working. Bond007 - sorry if my last message came across too bluntly.
86 Bond007 : I was simply replying to your question of how are we going to tow with our SUVs and Pickups. The simple answer to that is we don't need to....since a
87 Bwohlgemuth : I work from home, I'm saving all of my "commuting carbon" for my "flying away for a weekend to have fun" carbon. And all the "carbon market" is going
88 Khobar : The fact that the percentage of people who do need towing is actually significant shoots down the notion that we don't need it at all. I was in Europ
89 Post contains images Khobar : Is that better than sending a carbon copy in your place?
90 Supa7E7 : Khobar, you can argue about emotional things all you like. The math just doesn't support you. Europeans use far less energy per capita than Americans
91 Post contains links Khobar : Europe has a smaller economy than the US. As I said, it's all about transfer of wealth and power. "America's fourth- and eighth-grade students signif
92 JoeCattoli : Trusting foxnews and similar sources that are near to government sources as too many televisions even in western countries is the worst thing to do no
93 Bond007 : 85% don't tow, yet we advertise how much stronger a Silverado is than a F150, or whatever. Americans simply DO want the biggest and loudest, and the
94 Khobar : Even the IPCC doesn't say that climate change is solely caused by humans. You do know who the IPCC is, yes? You mentioned that we "have so many sourc
95 Osiris30 : Ptc: Ok thanks for the clarification. All I'm saying is, those of us on this thread focusing on aviation are missing the boat. There are much more si
96 Post contains links Joni : This is why I wrote "2nd-generation biodiesel", where these (and net CO2) have been optimized further. This train has already left the station. You m
97 Post contains images Baroque : Just one complaint with that comment, the word "careful" seems to be redundant. Every character saved is probably good for CO2 emissions!! Yes, but n
98 Post contains links Khobar : Not at all. I suggest you read what the IPCC has claimed rather than listening to the news, Fox or otherwise. I also suggest you understand what the
99 Khobar : Interesting post. For some time it's been suspected that the increased cost of oil had to do with converting economies in the Middle East and other o
100 Baroque : Well it has been noticed in some circles, and I am sure it has been noted but AFAIK not remarked on is that the Saudis (and probably the other Gulf A
101 Khobar : I thought the difference between $60 and $80 was because of Bush being on the verge of nuking Iran...no wait, Chavez...no, wait...North Korea (key wo
102 Baroque : Or did they go away as an attempt to smooth the path to the elections and might we expect next summer to arrive early, as in late November? I thought
103 Khobar : There's currently no logical reason for another big shake up, but when has logic entered into the crude price debate, eh? As for Ghawar, according to
104 FlyDeltaJets87 : When I flew to Portland back in 2005 on a Delta 767-200, the Captain told us that we would burn about 8,000 gallons of jet fuel in flight (also gave t
105 Joni : This is exactly what I meant in Reply 96. I certainly agree that Kyoto is only a first step, and further and more drastic steps need to be taken urge
106 Baroque : That was lucky, I started to reply to the first part before reading the bit on water injection. Indeed they control that information, but sufficient
107 Post contains links Khobar : "The European Union has the world's largest economy, larger than that of the United States of America with a 2005 GDP of 12,865,602 million vs. 11,73
108 Express1 : I dont think Aviation is distroying the Enviroment at all,China and the United States are more likely to be distroying it,if Chaina stop starting up n
109 Post contains links Joni : Comparing the relative largeness of two numbers isn't a question of opinion. I believe the latter quote you mentioned didn't consider the EU as one "
110 Post contains links Khobar : Okay. When I refer to the Royal Society you claim it's errant or errantly interpreted piece of data to wave around, but when you do it it's not. Inte
111 Joni : Khobar, I'm not going to get involved in your personal filibuster any longer. You can find material to address all the points you raised in (your) Rep
112 Khobar : Your response speaks volumes.
113 RJ111 : The car would win. It's only when you get to 747 sizes that the Aircraft goes ahead according to Boeing. And that's assuming fully loaded 744, 40% fu
114 VV701 : It is very difficult for the lay man to argue with a scientist's prediction when he makes it. It is much easier for the lay man to argue with a scien
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
1975: How Braniff View Air Travel Of The Future! posted Wed Aug 9 2006 22:34:06 by Fbgdavidson
Air Travel Within The Dominican Republic? posted Thu Aug 11 2005 17:33:43 by RICARIZA
Air Travel In The USA-post US & UA Reorgs posted Sat Dec 7 2002 21:04:10 by Dutchjet
Air Travel In The Sub-continent At Present posted Thu May 23 2002 18:17:42 by GF-A330
Why Air Travel Is The Best Form Of Transportation posted Thu Oct 14 2004 23:56:51 by Tony Lu
The Air Travel Consumer Report Is In! posted Tue Dec 17 2002 02:50:36 by L.1011
% Of Total US Air Travel Is Business/First posted Fri Nov 17 2006 04:49:23 by Gpeso8
Braniff's View Of The Future Of Air Travel posted Tue Oct 10 2006 15:52:30 by OPNLguy
Is Saha Air The Last 707 Pax Operator? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 22:59:37 by IsuA380B777
How Soon Before Air Travel To Turkey Is Affected? posted Sun Jan 8 2006 16:50:57 by TK787