Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Chief Slams Euro "greens" - Article  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

The debate is heating up.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...r-aviation-emission-proposals.html

Quote:
Blakey blasts European greens for aviation emission proposals
US FAA Administrator Marion Blakey on 9 May issued a fierce counter-punch against a movement in Europe to “unilaterally” impose an aviation emissions trading system.
“In Europe, there are factions working to curtail aviation growth regardless of the benefits we offer to the economy and quality of life,” said Blakey, who addressed the Phoenix Aviation Symposium.
“Trying to force a European solution on the world given the different aviation sectors, economic circumstances, and environmental issues of countries is unworkable, not to mention illegal,” she added.
Blakey described several anecdotes to illustrate the seriousness the issue of aviation emissions is in Europe, even as no public outcry exists so far in the US. Blakey described an attempt to impose a $200 green tax on all flights to Europe and Africa and $500 on flights to the rest of the world.
In her speech, Blakey mocked a proposal by the residents of one region of Belgium to use airborne surveillance to monitor emissions from backyard “barbecue grills”.
“It’s a bird. It’s a plane. No, it’s a helicopter with a thermal imaging sensor that’s cracking down on backyard BBQ,” she said, using the American acronym for barbecue. “So eventually cooler heads prevailed. But keep in mind that even if the average civilian helicopter burns about 10 or 12 gallons of fuel an hour --. We’re laughing, but it’s really not funny.”
The level of concern in Europe raises fears of a rapid backlash against aviation in the US as well.
“One thing is for sure: This shift in the European view toward aviation happened virtually overnight,” Blakey said. “We should not be so foolish as to presume that it can’t happen here.”

As a way of illustrating her point, I've noticed that the media seems to be jumping onto this bandwagon in a big way. Note this article from the BBC on aviation in India. It contains what is by now the almost obligatory reference to environmental concerns.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6640147.stm

Quote:
Few of those flying today, though, know what all this will mean in terms of pollution and carbon emissions.
"I'm not thinking about all that right now," said Anita Gupta as she arrived to catch her flight to Mumbai.
"How it impacts the environment is difficult to grasp," added Anjali, as she queued at the security gate.
Danesh, a businessman, was the only person we found who was concerned.

Aviation is getting a bad rap IMO and it's going to get much, much worse.


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4169 times:

So using the European rationale on this...I guess we should all drive across the pond?

Seriously, to some degree air travel is like mass transit. Should we shutdown mass transit systems because they cause harmful emissions? Of course not.

While I am in favor of higher airfares, another tax is not the answer.



Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
Seriously, to some degree air travel is like mass transit. Should we shutdown mass transit systems because they cause harmful emissions?

Follow the money!

I've said it before, I'm saying it now, and I'll keep on saying it.

Come on, IPCC, this should be easy with all the $BILLION$ behind you - just prove conclusively that CO2 does all that you claim. No more of this maybe might possibly could perhaps "science" you've been peddling all this time. Put up or shut up.

Of course they've already done an about face, from it's too late to save the environment to we've got seven years to save the environment. Perhaps this has to do with the IPCC scientists filing suit against the IPCC for misrepresenting their work? LOL.


User currently offlineRivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 818 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4070 times:

What an extraorfinary outbust. I wasn't aware that the FAA was a political organisation. Surely their job is to regulate and monitor the industry, not get involved in political debates about issues such as taxation?

Personally, I am all in favour of a reasoned, intelligent, debate about the conflicting interests of the global environment and the global economy. Of course aircraft polute the atmosphere, and with predicted growth that will increase; but aviation isn't the only industry that polutes the atmosphere. That doesn't mean we should bury our heads in the sand and hope that the issue will go away - it won't. Instead of polarising the debate, political and industry leaders on all sides should be rationnally discussing how to make aviation sustainably greener, not spouting hysterical rhetoric to alienate either side of the debate. If organisations such as the FAA have a role to play, it is in working with the government and industry to push 'cleaner' solutions forward. The economy can take a hit in this area, so long as the hit is manageable, and is applied in such a way that it doesn't constrain future growth.

What's not an option is to say "There's no problem." That's just stupid, and irresponsible.



I travel, therefore I am.
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17420 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4054 times:

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 3):
Personally, I am all in favour of a reasoned, intelligent, debate about the conflicting interests of the global environment and the global economy

The EU, however, is not.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineRivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 818 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4019 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
The EU, however, is not.

What is that based on...? As far as I can see, we are having a very healthy debate about environmental impact on this side of the pond, and there are members of EU that don't want any kind of restriction, and will certainly do their best to block any such move. The EU won't/can't 'impose' anything without the agreement of France & Germany, and France has very little interest in this issue so far. I can't see that changing with their newly elected president.



I travel, therefore I am.
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4002 times:

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
So using the European rationale on this...I guess we should all drive across the pond?

Why, you can use sail boats -- you know like they use to have 200 years ago. Should take about a month, but hey, we are all suffering from high blood pressure and a nice sea voyage would do you wonders. Big grin

Sometimes I wonder if some of the greens shouldn't get a life. While they raise legitimate points, all too often their solutions are worse than the problem.


User currently offlineRivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 818 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3968 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 6):
Sometimes I wonder if some of the greens shouldn't get a life. While they raise legitimate points, all too often their solutions are worse than the problem.

Why are 'the greens' always portrayed as 'the enemy'? They simply respresent one end of the debate. Of course their solutions are way off to the extreme, there wouldn't be any point in their idealistic position otherwise. The point of the debate is surely to find the middle ground that I alluded to above, and the 'green' lobby have a role in that, if only to counteract those political & corporate voices that say there isn't a problem.



I travel, therefore I am.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8470 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3910 times:

Wow, the words of an unelected political apointee of a president with a 72% disapproval rating.

It is fair to say her words mean nothing. To call our partner's proposals "illegal" is provocative. The WTO itself has no idea yet.

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
So using the European rationale on this...I guess we should all drive across the pond?

No, but we should pay the minimum monthly payment on our atmospheric VISA card through a cleanup fee per ticket (as we should with all fuel, and many countries agree). Also, there are concerns about fairness with the USA/EU taking out natural debts that will impact all 6 billion people, without their consent. The atmosphere debts will need to be paid, the question is when, how and by whom.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

The point I find funny with the whole green vs. aviation debate is this:

I cannot think of one industry that has reduced carbon emmisions per unit of work MORE than the aviation sector in the last 30 years. For the airline industry I would think a reasonable measure would be fuel per seat mile. Today aircraft are vastly more efficient than yester-year's and tomorrow will be vastly mroe efficient than today. Sure it's for very selfish reasons, but the fact remains that I think you would be hard pressed to find many airlines that wouldn't meet the conditions of the Kyoto agreement individually.

And for those that don't, with the advent of the 380, 787, 748 and 350, they likely soon will.

I strongly feel that while being environmentally conscious is a good thing (regardless of global warming issues, I still like clean air), picking on air travel is a very poor place to start. How about cleaning up the global reliance on coal fire power plants. Or perhaps automobile emissions (and don't just ask automakers to do it all either, fix infrastructure so you don't have traffic jams constantly in major urban centers).

I would wager if every major city in Europe cleaned up their traffic woes, the carbon savings would vastly outweigh the total carbon emissions by all air travel originating or terminating in Europe. The down side ofcourse is that the governments would be spending rather than making money from such a solution and therefor have no interest in doing it.

Heaven forbid logic prevail in these sorts of debates though... :/



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6370 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3831 times:

Kind of funny that Marion Blakey would slam the Europeans for "curtailing aviation growth" when she is on the cusp of doing the exact same thing in the USA with her plan to impose user fees on our Air Traffic Control system... sarcastic 


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21502 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3814 times:

The point that should be taken is that the $500 tax is illegal. The EU can not apply such a punitive tax under treaties, no matter what the reason. They could apply the $200 tax to the EU only, as that is "local" but that can't be spread to the world.

It also smacks of one more attempt at wealth redistribution. Much of Africa is a longer trip from London than Boston, for example, but the tax to Boston would be 250% of the tax to Zimbabwe...

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8):
Wow, the words of an unelected political apointee of a president with a 72% disapproval rating.

Actually, it's a 35% approval, which doesn't even translate into 65% disapproval when the option "neutral" is offered. No president has ever had 72% disapproval, no matter how much they sucked...

Not that it's a great number by any means (a few points lower than congress), but it's also typical of people to exaggerate when they disagree, right?  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 1):
So using the European rationale on this...I guess we should all drive across the pond?

no, we should stay where our governments put us and don't go anywhere.
That's the end result if the Euro greens get their way, a travel system pretty much like the middle ages where almost noone ever left their own town or village because they couldn't afford to travel any distance whatsoever.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2283 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3595 times:

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 3):
I wasn't aware that the FAA was a political organisation

Ms. Blakey (no comment) is a Political Appointee from the President, like all FAA Administrators....so yea she's basically a pawn of the white house office. (Which is sad since i voted for him....twice.....Im shootin myself now)

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 10):
Kind of funny that Marion Blakey would slam the Europeans for "curtailing aviation growth" when she is on the cusp of doing the exact same thing in the USA with her plan to impose user fees on our Air Traffic Control system...

Good Show, Good Show! Amen my Brotha

ATCT



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently onlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5499 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3552 times:

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 7):

Why are 'the greens' always portrayed as 'the enemy'? They simply respresent one end of the debate. Of course their solutions are way off to the extreme, there wouldn't be any point in their idealistic position otherwise. The point of the debate is surely to find the middle ground that I alluded to above, and the 'green' lobby have a role in that, if only to counteract those political & corporate voices that say there isn't a problem.

Sadly most don't like or want to go to the "middle ground" which is why so many discussions become rancorous arguments. Though I must say the tone of this thread so far is very balanced, with no one really espousing an "my way or the highway" (or dare I say "you're either with us or against us"! Oooo bad! ) view point.

On the topic I would say that Osiris30:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 9):
I cannot think of one industry that has reduced carbon emmisions per unit of work MORE than the aviation sector in the last 30 years. For the airline industry I would think a reasonable measure would be fuel per seat mile.

is right on target. Aviation has got to be one of the most efficient forms of travel for what it is used for (long distance, time sensitive). Has anyone ever studied the per person resource use of aviation (from airports, to fuel, to manufacturing of the airframes, traffic control, etc) compared to other modes of travel?

Tug

[Edited 2007-05-10 23:09:05]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8506 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 3):
What's not an option is to say "There's no problem." That's just stupid, and irresponsible.

Lots of respected scientists say that the Earth is warming naturally, that it's not due to human activities, and it's a well-known fact that a lot of fraudulent "research" has been passed off as being actual science regarding the climate.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 7):

Why are 'the greens' always portrayed as 'the enemy'?

I regard all collectivists as "the enemy."

Quoting Tugger (Reply 14):
Has anyone ever studied the per person resource use of aviation (from airports, to fuel, to manufacturing of the airframes, traffic control, etc) compared to other modes of travel?

One of Flying's columnists wrote about this recently. There is a formula that can be used to determine how efficient a particular mode of travel is that takes velocity into account. On that scale, large jets like 747s are the most efficient form of travel.


User currently offlineWsp From Germany, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3440 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Blakey described several anecdotes to illustrate the seriousness

Are there any real sources that this $500 and $200 tax is actually planned?

People seem to be freely mixing some statements from backbench or non-parliamentary politicians or even local activists with actual policy. Ms. Blakey's anecdotes are certainly amusing, but don't bring us closer to understanding the real situation.

What is actually being debated as a possible legislative measure? And what are the actual positions of "the greens"?

1. A quick Google search on the German green party mentions in some remote document of their website that they want to extend the VAT (19%) to kerosene and use the proceeds to build rail infrastructure. I haven't heard them rehashing that idea for years, but maybe I just missed that.

2. And there is discussion on the EU level to include air traffic in the emission trading scheme.

So what other plans are real?


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2510 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3408 times:

Nice to see this discussion remaining civil - lots of other threads on this topic have turned nasty - kudos to all who've posted so far.
Osiris30 really nailed it with his post - couldn't have said it better myself. Commercial aviation has unfairly been targeted as a whipping boy on this issue and it's time to focus elsewhere when folks start talking about greenhouse gas emissions.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 15):
Lots of respected scientists say that the Earth is warming naturally

Actually about the only "scientists" saying this work for the White House or Exxon.  duck 


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

This is nothing more than silly politics. Pay it no mind. The idea of environment credits is fine if Europe wants to implement it on themselves. Let them vote on it, and so be it. Here is an interesting thought, the taxes on gasoline in Europe are far higher than in the United States, which causes Europeans to drive less and to drive smaller cars, ultimately in benefit, probably, to the environment. Do the Europeans tax jet fuel for commercial airlines more than the US, like they do gasoline? If they really meant what they said about reducing emissions, why not just place the same level of taxation on Jet A that they place on gasoline (petrol) or diesel.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 17):
Actually about the only "scientists" saying this work for the White House or Exxon. duck

Exxon's annual revenues are greater than the GDP of many, if not most of the countries on Earth, their scientists should be given some authority, right? Haha.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineMagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
�Trying to force a European solution on the world given the different aviation sectors, economic circumstances, and environmental issues of countries is unworkable, not to mention illegal,� she added.

She forget the most important one: it is also not desirable since they have already got an american model to impose on
the World!

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 7):
Why are 'the greens' always portrayed as 'the enemy'? They simply respresent one end of the debate. Of course their

Because they are in the way of big$$$. They are in the midst of a smear campaign with the phases of "no warming",
"not our fault", and "too late anyway". We are at phase 2, expect phase 3 slowly starting in about 10-20 years.


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3321 times:

global warming threats are no different than an aweful of well meaning but dead wrong theories like acid rain.... remember hearing how the US NE was going to be destroyed by acid rain.

I am all for all of us being responsible with the resources we have been entrusted with - the earth. But simply grinding commerce to a halt because a few scientists and alot of politicians have created a hysteria that says the world is on the verge of environmental collapse is just plain wrong.

Ms. Blakey has the sense to realize that if this global warming nonsense is not quickly put into the proper perspective and if it is not properly REDIRECTED away from aviation, the entire industry will collapse. If Europe wants to watch their aviation sector collapse, let them go for it. The rest of the world will not be so easily hoodwinked.


User currently offlineSmokeyrosco From Ireland, joined Dec 2005, 2112 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3307 times:

To quote southpark, European greens tend to be wimpy tree hugging hippies, speaking from the point of view that Ireland is having an election right now and I had to deal with one particular green a couple of years ago, they are very extream, some things they want to implement should be taken "on board" but damn, if they got control they would kill us all.


John Hancock
User currently offlineRivet42 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 818 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Quoting Smokeyrosco (Reply 21):
some things they want to implement should be taken "on board" but damn, if they got control they would kill us all.

Funnily enough that applies equally to the other end of the political spectrum!

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 20):
Ms. Blakey has the sense to realize that if this global warming nonsense is not quickly put into the proper perspective and if it is not properly REDIRECTED away from aviation, the entire industry will collapse. If Europe wants to watch their aviation sector collapse, let them go for it. The rest of the world will not be so easily hoodwinked.

Your tongue is VERY firmly in your cheek, isn't it? Isn't it??!!! Wow. It actually scares the s**t out of me that you might be serious...

I haven't heard anyone say that the aviation industry should be shut down, that we should stop all air travel, or that we should ONLY worry about aviation. The odd eco-warrior might believe some or all of those things, but the environmental groups that have any standing tend to take a more pragmatic approach, because they KNOW that aviation is here to stay.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 15):
One of Flying's columnists wrote about this recently. There is a formula that can be used to determine how efficient a particular mode of travel is that takes velocity into account. On that scale, large jets like 747s are the most efficient form of travel.

Nice, but completely worthless on a practical level, as we tend to use 747's (except in Japan) for journeys that we simply wouldn't make otherwise, because of the distances involved. If you want to compare equitable modes of transport over a distance that would be appropriate in each case, then you'll find that trains win, hands down.

But I still love flying, so I have to accept that air travel must become greener, in order to close the 'eco' gap. There are many ways in which that can be achieved, and yes, indeed, the industry has faced commercial presssure since its birth to become more and more efficient, but please don't equate efficiency with 'clean' - that's simply disengenouous. 'Cleener' means engines that consume cleaner fuel, which might - initially - be more expensive, hence the need for a political approach to force it forward; it also includes ideas such as the one promoted by VS, eg. having aircraft towed around airports until the engines are needed for takeoff, rather than burning fuel for up to half an hour in taxi patterns; it means spending money on new kinds of engines that reduce emmissions; it means improving public transport systems around airports in order to reduce the vast number of private cars that accumulate around them. None of these things are out of reach of sensible and visionary planning, but cannot be left to the industry on its own to sort out.

Finally,

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 9):
I would wager if every major city in Europe cleaned up their traffic woes, the carbon savings would vastly outweigh the total carbon emissions by all air travel originating or terminating in Europe. The down side ofcourse is that the governments would be spending rather than making money from such a solution and therefor have no interest in doing it.

- that's also rather misguided, I'm afraid. European cities generally have much more effective/extensive public transport systems than just about anywhere else in 'The West', and we are far less dependent on our cars than our friends in N America (for example). An interesting view, but invalid.



I travel, therefore I am.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8506 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 17):
Actually about the only "scientists" saying this work for the White House or Exxon. duck

Honestly, that's not true. Think about how "Global Cooling" was supposed to be our doom back in the 70s...


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 22):
I haven't heard anyone say that the aviation industry should be shut down, that we should stop all air travel, or that we should ONLY worry about aviation. The odd eco-warrior might believe some or all of those things, but the environmental groups that have any standing tend to take a more pragmatic approach, because they KNOW that aviation is here to stay.

it sure won't be if you slap taxes on aviation the size of what are now occurring and will only grow if these proposals are allowed to move forward.

if you don't understand the cost of regulation, I suggest you take a simple course in economics.... and then ask yourself what other industries are being asked to "contribute" to the effort as aviation is.

and why don't you ask yourself why the food history isn't being targeted to solve the problems of AIDS in Africa? the reason why aviation is viewed as an endless source of money for every political whim is because some people simply don't get the concept that aviation is not a luxury but a necessity in a global economy. If one part of the globe wants to check itself out of said economy, go for it but let cooler heads prevail that can be both responsible to the environment and keep business and people moving.


25 Tugger : Actually there is huge money in the environmental side too. Don't kid yourself. They'll just become the next "entrenched" business interest. Wherever
26 Rivet42 : Eh? Didn't make any sense out of that, sorry. I can assure you that the aviation industry is just as important to the economy in Europe as it everywh
27 Wjcandee : The price of fuel is doing a lot to close the alleged "Eco-gap". Of course, God forbid an actual market force would be allowed to have an effect, rath
28 Post contains images ER757 : Bingo!!! Once it becomes economically feasible to phase in greener technologies, it will happen. That is, for better or worse, the way of the world.
29 Osiris30 : Call me from Rome will you. Last I checked that was in Europe.. many European cities have brutal traffic jams despite having alternatives. The view p
30 SB : I couldn't have said it better myself! If only the people in charge had the same mindset .... But it's easier to just blame aviation, without looking
31 Post contains images Leskova : Has she really been asleep for that long??? Seriously, saying it happened "overnight" is like saying the last global ice age ended yesterday morning
32 MD-90 : This time last year, was anyone accusing aircraft of ruining the planet? I don't think so.
33 Jdevora : I though that the global warming was now a SCIENTIFIC FACT My understanding was that the IPCC had to keep everyone happy and had to add some sugar fo
34 Leskova : Then you were just as asleep as Ms Blakely: that discussion has been running over here for at least 10 years, if not more.
35 Mrocktor : Yes, the "end of the debate" that wants humanity back in caves. Thats why they are "the enemy".
36 Post contains links Khobar : Actually, no. Yup. Follow the money, as I've said many times before. There's a difference between global warming and man-made global warming, and bot
37 WorldTraveler : but they will push for as many taxes as they think they can do without stalling out aviation. they might not stall out aviation in Europe altogether
38 Rivet42 : Ok, since we're on the subject of the 'science'...: global warming, aka climate change, happens today for two significant reasons, 1) the natural, cy
39 Khobar : Global warming is not aka climate change - climate change can also refer to "global cooling". Even the IPCC admits it's not absolutely sure on this.
40 Flighty : Well obviously you have a scientific opinion that is informing your politics. My own opinion is, don't have strong opinions about things you don't un
41 Jwenting : yup. Some figures: Since the end of the little ice age the earth has gotten warmer at a constant 0.5 +/0 0.1 degrees per century. That rate has not c
42 Lumberton : Now this is a very interesting take! Could this be used later as a defense against EK's pending A380 assault?
43 PHKLM : Sorry but this is another example of conspiracy crap. The current EU proposals are aimed at taxing CO2 emissions, and we all know that the 738's of R
44 Khobar : I agree. And?
45 Rivet42 : Well, that's an interesting point. If you compare similar sectors around Europe (say), then yes, it is arguable that LCC's might be more fuel efficie
46 Arrow : Maybe the problem here is that the proposal is European. I seem to recall all manner of changes to aviation security in the wake of 9/11, and they we
47 ANother : WTO isn't (yet) involved - It's ICAO on this one. Subject will be discussed at the assembly scheduled for September (in YMQ). Shouldn't that be ...th
48 CygnusChicago : I've never heard this about increased solar output casuing warming before. Got a source for that? My understanding is the average surface temperature
49 Post contains links and images Khobar : One of the "great worries" in the melting of polar ice on Earth is precisely that it changes reflectivity and thus will cause even greater warming. "
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...
FAA: Gary, Peotone Airports At "different" Stages posted Thu Feb 9 2006 20:01:49 by KarlB737
"Boys Parents Place Blame" Trib Article Re:WN 1248 posted Wed Dec 21 2005 17:30:19 by Planespotting
NY Post Slams CO For "stranding" Pax posted Sun Oct 2 2005 20:39:00 by Wjcandee
Mexicana "N" Numbers posted Tue May 1 2007 15:04:42 by Piedmont177
The Use Of The Number "8" For Marketing Purposes posted Sun Mar 4 2007 23:26:24 by KFLLCFII
CoEx Using "C" Gates At CLE? posted Mon Jan 22 2007 18:12:18 by Lincoln
"D" At Atlanta? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 23:33:41 by SW733
MKE Concourse "C" Expansion posted Fri Sep 8 2006 00:16:19 by Phxtravelboy
Flying Blue Mileage For AF "Z" Class posted Thu Aug 31 2006 11:24:27 by Marcus380
Why Do All Canadian Airport Codes Start With "y"? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 17:05:56 by NZ8800