Climate Change - taxation on flights

[EMDEE]

Put sailing ships on the routes that the clyde steamers used to run. That would help the environment and the Firth of Clyde economy.

[big tony]

then we could re-open the machrihanish railway!! no wait a minute bad idea, the old yard is ootside my hoose, canna have trains tearing up the cutting at all oors oh the day!!

[EMDEE]

Coal fired steam power? Remember the environment!

What about horses and kerts?

[dedalus]

Told you before my daughters will all be expert horsewomen and sailors by the time they are grown. I intend to teach em how to shoot as well ( might dress it up as a modern pentathlon olympic medal attempt or such) all necessary skills for the post apocalypse adult.

Might have to book ray mears for some extra lessons too - how to survive on moss or something like that.

[Tom B]

thats the ticket, keep the poor at home where they belong, sadly at the prices mentioned that now includes me!!!!

BT - I said that taxes were crude and unfair - and asked the question - "what's the alternative?" rationing might be one, but would be a nightmare to set-up and administer. If one agrees that there is a need to reduce the level of flying, then suggestions of effective and workable solutions to do that, that could be implemented quickly are needed.

[Tom B]

..... a mercedes S class is cradle to grave less polluting than said prius

Dedalus - I didn't realise this, where did you find this fact?

[Beachcomber]

Coal fired steam power? Remember the environment!

What about horses and kerts?

Isn't there something about wood-burning being carbon-neutral though?

[EMDEE]

Coal fired steam power? Remember the environment!

What about horses and kerts?

Isn't there something about wood-burning being carbon-neutral though?

Woodburning is a renewable source and carbon neutral.

[Sweltered]

The airline industry has been drawing more attention. According to The dirty sky (2006), there have been calls to include a polluting tax in the cost of airline tickets. This is regarded as a method of dissuading people from using air travel, in an attempt to cut down pollution. This seems to be somewhat unfair. Compared to land based transport, air travel is a relatively small contributor to the amount of carbons emitted into the atmosphere. The airlines are an odd target…They produce only around 3% of the world’s man-made carbon emissions. Surface transport, by contrast, produces 22%.” (The dirty sky, 2006 p1 4). Airlines enable many thousands of people to travel long distances for relatively little money. Air travel has improved the lives of millions. The airline industry is not required to pay tax on fuel used on international flights. This may change if the environmentalists get their way. As a result airfares will rise and people will be dissuaded from flying, for a while.

[EMDEE]

I am pleased that we can find some common ground.

What you say about surface transport is correct, (I assume your figures are correct). This is an area where activities will have to be curtailed. I think it goes without saying that the volume of surface transport is going to be greater than air transport, but for various reasons air transport has become an easy target, possibly because some of it is perceived to be unnecessary, because it is tourism orientated. (Just a personal opinion) It has become the "nigger in the woodpile". (Whether that is not a politically incorrect expression or not).

I am aware from my time in the US that air travel is much more predominant there than it is in the UK, purely because of logistical reasons, i.e. the distances involved, and that it has become an essential part of day today business over there because of the distances involved. I think the US economy would have major problems reducing air travel.

What has happened throughout the world over the last few decades is that commercial interests have taken precedence over the environmental considerations, and this was reasonable in the light of our knowledge of the consequences of our activities at the time. However, scientific research and knowledge have now gone beyond the interests of the human race, and found that we are not the inheritors of the earth, but mere custodians while we are here.

What this boils down to is that we are trustees of the earth for future generations, and we need to bear this in mind when we make decisions about these matters. The people who this will affect have not yet been born, and we will not be around to account for our actions.

We have been fortunate to have lived in a period when the use of hydrocarbon fuels was not questioned until recently, and it looks now like the party’s over. It has been unsustainable from the start, but most of us didn’t know that.

[Sweltered]

I am pleased that we can find some common ground.

What you say about surface transport is correct, (I assume your figures are correct). This is an area where activities will have to be curtailed. I think it goes without saying that the volume of surface transport is going to be greater than air transport, but for various reasons air transport has become an easy target, possibly because some of it is perceived to be unnecessary, because it is tourism orientated. (Just a personal opinion) It has become the "nigger in the woodpile". (Whether that is not a politically incorrect expression or not).

I am aware from my time in the US that air travel is much more predominant there than it is in the UK, purely because of logistical reasons, i.e. the distances involved, and that it has become an essential part of day today business over there because of the distances involved. I think the US economy would have major problems reducing air travel.

What has happened throughout the world over the last few decades is that commercial interests have taken precedence over the environmental considerations, and this was reasonable in the light of our knowledge of the consequences of our activities at the time. However, scientific research and knowledge have now gone beyond the interests of the human race, and found that we are not the inheritors of the earth, but mere custodians while we are here.

What this boils down to is that we are trustees of the earth for future generations, and we need to bear this in mind when we make decisions about these matters. The people who this will affect have not yet been born, and we will not be around to account for our actions.

We have been fortunate to have lived in a period when the use of hydrocarbon fuels was not questioned until recently, and it looks now like the party’s over. It has been unsustainable from the start, but most of us didn’t know that.

My paragraph above was from a paper i wrote on global warming, and the article cited was in the Economist, so I trust that they are accurate. After researching my paper, I am still unconvinced about global warming being caused by the release of carbons into the atmosphere. I think this is just part of a natural cycle. However, I don't understand why people (other than the oil companies etc) are so opposed to restricting emmissions. Why not? Even if these emmissions are not causing global warming, they are pumped out at a disgusting level, so it can't be bad if they are cut back. These pollutants are causing health problems and birth defects, which is more of a concern to me than global warming. I don't believe mankind can prevent the warming cycle, but a reduction in pollutants would help in other ways.

[dedalus]

If all the power stations in the UK were shut down tommorrow - in 30 months emissions would be back up to the level they are today - thanks to china's biblical expansion. ( source - have i got news for you)


Cant remember where I read about the s class but - the Bonobanger ( prius) has more polluting rare materials which cost a fortune ( and a lot of energy) to get rid of - the S class is 90 odd percent recyclable - and fairly efficient in the grand scheme of things.

When my Mrs drives my car - the MPG plummets to 30 odd - when I drive it I can get up to 54 ( TDI passat) which is way better than a prius. So should rock stars and Women attract a higher Tax? seems only fair.

Anyway - Just make sure you know how to catch and cook a seagull you'll be fine.

[bill]

Do'nt think £5 on the price of a ticket is going to stop my three times a year holidays to Tenerife.

Tony Blair's the man to save the planet ...now that is a joke.

Britain could sink under the sea tomorrow and it would make no difference what so ever to global warming.

Britain contributes less than 2% to the effects of global warming.

The exclusion of Great before Britain is intentional.

[Tom B]

Britain could sink under the sea tomorrow and it would make no difference what so ever to global warming

Britain contributes less than 2% to the effects of global warming

OK - but what if a citizen of Glasgow and one from New York were having a conversation. The New Yorker could say "you guys in Europe contribute 20% of greenhouse gases, here in my state of New York we only contribute 2%" We New Yorkers don't need to do anything, we only contribute 2%!, but hey, you European guys better get your act together?

Everybody needs to act equally, starting on a personal level, contributing to reduction at their local state level, then national state, then regional country grouping, continent etc. Part of that will be government 'enforced', but much of the lead will have to come from the people.

If we don't do anything because Britain is only 2%, and don't do anything about flying because its only 3%, and Germany is only 3%, France 2% etc. then won't the result be that nobody will do anything?

We need to tackle China - worth a separate thread.

Land transport is also a massive issue - its hard to get out of the car - also worth a separate thread.

Good point on health problems from emissions, it has been overshadowed in light of climate change, but still very serious problem.

I haven't done any research into climate change - but from what I read the majority of scientific evidence says it is real, it is caused by man, and if we don't do something, the earth will become hell for future generations, starting with our children.

For info - this afternoon between 4.30 & 7.30 everyone if encouraged to switch off - for more details go here http://www.icount.org.uk/my%5Factions/

[EMDEE]

[/quote] Sweltered

My paragraph above was from a paper i wrote on global warming, and the article cited was in the Economist, so I trust that they are accurate. After researching my paper, I am still unconvinced about global warming being caused by the release of carbons into the atmosphere. I think this is just part of a natural cycle. However, I don't understand why people (other than the oil companies etc) are so opposed to restricting emmissions. Why not? Even if these emmissions are not causing global warming, they are pumped out at a disgusting level, so it can't be bad if they are cut back. These pollutants are causing health problems and birth defects, which is more of a concern to me than global warming. I don't believe mankind can prevent the warming cycle, but a reduction in pollutants would help in other ways.[/quote]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Even if some don't believe in global warming being man-made, it is good to observe the precautionary principle.

Having said that, to our knowledge this is the first time that so much carbon has been released from carbon sinks into the atmosphere, and is completely unnatural. It is obviously going to throw the carbon cycle out of equilibrium, and it has been accompanied by deforestation, further compounding the problem.

The environment is so complex that the feedback loops set in motion may be almost infinite.