Aviation accounts for 13% of UK CO2 emissions

[watervole]

Carbon dioxide emissions from the extra flights at Stansted if the expansion is permitted will increase from five million tonnes to seven million tonnes a year - the equivalent of the emissions that would be saved if every home in the UK switched all its lightbulbs to energy saving bulbs.

The damage is already being felt in the Arctic as Innuit villages are overtaken by the sea and the ice thins enough for hunters to fall through and drown.

Comments

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

Surely it's better to build another runway at Stansted than to build another airport, which is the other alternative to meet the increasing desire of people to fly. The airport is only responding to demand.

[kerravonsen]

Yeah, but the point is, that people are supposed to not desire to fly, and therefore everyone ought to be making it harder for people to fly. I think that's watervole's logic.

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

And this is where I disagree strongly. I believe cheap flights are a good thing. I believe encouraging people to travel more is a good thing. And I'm opposed to attempts to curb this, especially based on some unproven scientific theory.

[kerravonsen]

Eh? Since when has global warming been "unproven"?

[jthijsen.livejournal.com]

Every single theory is unproven, up to and including Einstein's relativity theory and Newton's theory of gravity. Proper scientific theories can never be proven, they can only be disproven. Until then, as long as they explain things in a consistent manner, they're the best thing we've got to make things work. Which is working out just fine, seeing as those theories have given us the kind of houses we live in today, DVD-players and aeroplanes.

So to all those who say "it's just a theory", I (and many others) say: okay, this theory is what has been explaining things properly so far. Where is your proof that it is false? And what is your alternative, and does it explain things equally well and in equally great detail?

In an aside, the new planes are incredibly energy efficient, and actually emit less carbon per passenger per kilometer than any ground-based form of transport. This because the companies that buy them want to waste as little kerosene as possible so they can keep the flights cheap and still make money. Competition can be a very good thing.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

"In an aside, the new planes are incredibly energy efficient, and actually emit less carbon per passenger per kilometer than any ground-based form of transport."

That figure only holds for very long flights (where it would be impossible to drive in any case). TAke off and landing are VERY energy-intensive. Short-haul flights use far more carbon per passenger mile than ground based transport.

And I notice that that comparison carefully excludes water-bourne traffic... (Ships beat aircraft by a large margin)

[jthijsen.livejournal.com]

"That figure only holds for very long flights (where it would be impossible to drive in any case)."

Since you're living on an island, that's true for you (and the airport in question). However, I live on the mainland, and from here you can drive all the way to Asia. Lots of people do in fact drive to Turkey or Greece. Flying is, in that case, the better option. If you're buying the cheapest possible ticket, that is. The cheap airlines are the one that use the most fuel efficient planes and fill up most of their seats (so no half-empty planes using up just as much kerosene, like you get with the older and more expensive airlines). Strange as it may sound: if you have to fly, then by buying the cheapest available ticket you do the least damage to the environment.

As for water-bourne traffic: the use of that is limited to slow freight, cruise ships and ferries, none of which is very useful for most of our travelling needs.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Of course, you have to realise that planes are only cheaper because fuel for cars is taxed and fuel for planes is not.

If you remove that artificial subsidy, the economics of travel change dramatically.

If you *have* to fly (and it is rarely essential - my choice has been to stop taking overseas holiday), then yes, I agree, the cheap airline will do less damage overall.

[vicarage.livejournal.com]

And that's one of the problems of the UK unilaterally trying to influence the aviation market, as any attempts to curb intercontinental traffic from this country will cause people to take short hops to continental hubs for their journeys. More flights and more miles to reach the same destination.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

But if we do it, there's a fighting chance that European countries will follow suite, and that will solve that particular problem. (and some people will choose not to make the journey at all)

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

There is some climate change going on, but the climate is always changing, that is a constant. In the 1970s, for example, temperatures were on average falling, at the moment temperatures are on average rising, in a few years time they will probably be falling again, that's the way climates work.

What is unproven and is just a theory is that human-produced carbon dioxide is causing the current temperature rises. That is just a theory, and what that has never been proven. In fact, despite what the press would have you believe, there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community over this.

[gaspodex.livejournal.com]

Its more what degree that man made CO2 is contributing that people are argueing over - its certainly having some effect but I also think certain political factions are milking things - and changing to neclear fuel would help in so many ways - but that opens more worm cans. But I also agree that cheep flying and travel are good things .. sorry - but there you go.

Yes there are things that need to be done - but in all honesty most are a more commone sense approach to cleaning up fuel emmissions and get the US to play ball than worrying about extra runways at standstead and taxing UK flights to death ...

[watervole.livejournal.com]

In the 1970s, for example, temperatures were on average falling, at the moment temperatures are on average rising, in a few years time they will probably be falling again, that's the way climates work.

Care to bet money on that? I'll bet you £50 that temperatures will not fall significantly in the next five years.

If you're on, then we'll agree a valid source for global temperature data and how far average temperature has to fall for you to win the bet.

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

But if temperatures rise or fall in the next five years, it doesn't prove or disprove your point as regards the cause. I've never denied that the climate is changing. As I said, the climate always changes and there are a million and more elements that affect that. OK, humans are one of the effects, but a minor one given all the other causes.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

But I'm predicting that the temperature will rise in line with CO2 emissions - which will rise during that period. Thus, I'm demonstating a correlation between the two.

If you're saying there is no link, then you have to be against a prediction that will take the temperature higher than it's been in the last couple of thousand years.

I think I have a lot more confidence in my beliefs than you do in yours.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

50% of global warming has been conclusively linked to CO2 levels (in a report I know you read at least the first few lines of) and the rest will probably be linked to CO2 levels once they have enough data.

There is NO other theory that adequately explains the observed warming - and I observe that you don't appear to have one.