Petition Against Massive Air Tax Increases

[Sebrof]

And a high percentage of the local produce emits massive amounts of destructive methane front and back! I understand that NZ is talking of introducing a 'fart' tax for livestock to encourage farmers to work on either alternative foods or on finding ways of drastically reducing the methane emissions.

 

Every cow should have a tank strapped to its back to capture these emissions, and then the nation's fuel imports could be reduced dramatically. A win/win situation. You read it here first.

 

S

[Sebrof]

it predicts that population growth will tail off around 9 Billion.

 

That terrifies me.

 

S

[The Voice of Reason]

it predicts that population growth will tail off around 9 Billion.

 

That terrifies me.

 

S

 

Why? We'll get by, always have done.

 

Now if the Daleks or Cybermen landed in say,Port Erin, that would terrify me.

[Evil Goblin]

it predicts that population growth will tail off around 9 Billion.

 

That terrifies me.

 

S

 

Why? We'll get by, always have done.

 

Now if the Daleks or Cybermen landed in say,Port Erin, that would terrify me.

I guess that's what they all said about The Black Death!

[manshimajin]

I'm trying to think what Ireland did acheive with its plastic bag tax. Can you enlighten me?

A dramatic drop in the use of plastic bags (by over 90%) - not only saving on petrochemicals but helping to make the countryside a lot tider (anyone who has been to Ireland pre this tax will know what I mean). It also got people thinking about the issue of supermarkets shoving out plastic bags willy nilly.

 

I've also eaten in France, Greece and Italy (and a couple of Japanese restaurants) and it's not all raw food - that's just silly.

 

I think you said "God forbid that we cook our food" - not all nations cook there food as often (or as much) as we do - a light hearted comment but food preparation gobbles up energy and the whole food cycle is far more of a problem than planes - but planes are an easy target. Let's face it if we want to reduce carbon emissions life needs to get a LOT simpler whether at home or travelling.

 

Uncooked pizza anyone?

 

Sounds 'interesting'

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm trying to think what Ireland did acheive with its plastic bag tax. Can you enlighten me?

A dramatic drop in the use of plastic bags (by over 90%) - not only saving on petrochemicals but helping to make the countryside a lot tider (anyone who has been to Ireland pre this tax will know what I mean). It also got people thinking about the issue of supermarkets shoving out plastic bags willy nilly.

 

I've also eaten in France, Greece and Italy (and a couple of Japanese restaurants) and it's not all raw food - that's just silly.

 

I think you said "God forbid that we cook our food" - not all nations cook there food as often (or as much) as we do - a light hearted comment but food preparation gobbles up energy and the whole food cycle is far more of a problem than planes - but planes are an easy target. Let's face it if we want to reduce carbon emissions life needs to get a LOT simpler whether at home or travelling.

 

Uncooked pizza anyone?

 

Sounds 'interesting'

 

 

 

Sorry but life goes on while you are playing eco-warrior. Plastic carrier bags are but a tiny fraction of the problem. (I've stopped going to M &S (who blather on about their green credentials) since they started charging for them, forcing me into the arms of those less eco-friendly supermarkets)

 

We'll get by we always do, with human inginuiety in the face of adversity, be it self made or that of nature.

 

Chill

[triskelion]

Sorry but life goes on while you are playing eco-warrior. Plastic carrier bags are but a tiny fraction of the problem. (I've stopped going to M &S (who blather on about their green credentials) since they started charging for them, forcing me into the arms of those less eco-friendly supermarkets)

 

We'll get by we always do, with human inginuiety in the face of adversity, be it self made or that of nature.

 

Chill

You've hardly been 'forced' into the arms of other supermarkets. Indeed you seem to be forgoing any of this much-vaunted "inginuity" in favour of carrying on as normal.

[The Voice of Reason]

Sorry but life goes on while you are playing eco-warrior. Plastic carrier bags are but a tiny fraction of the problem. (I've stopped going to M &S (who blather on about their green credentials) since they started charging for them, forcing me into the arms of those less eco-friendly supermarkets)

 

We'll get by we always do, with human inginuiety in the face of adversity, be it self made or that of nature.

 

Chill

You've hardly been 'forced' into the arms of other supermarkets. Indeed you seem to be forgoing any of this much-vaunted "inginuity" in favour of carrying on as normal.

 

 

Er no, part of my normal shopping pattern was to buy the odd bits & bobs from M & S (not being rich enough to use them as my prime source of grocery) I do begrudge paying 5p for a carrier bag. I know it may seem a bit churlish but I'm not the only one. )

 

So no I am not "carrying on as normal" and M &S as a consequence have lost custom to Tesco's and Shoprite (but I'm sure they will survive without my custom)

[jehovah]

Carry a bag with you, it doesn't take much room. I have a white one and, with a permanent marker, have marked it thus;

"M&S and TMAXX charge for bags. I use this one and give to charity". They don't like it at M&S.

[The Voice of Reason]

I mean is it so unreasonable if you spend £10/£20/£50 whatever on produce to be provided with the wherewithal which cost almost nothing to get it to your car/home whatever?

 

Ok you get the lesbians at the till with their canvas "bags for life"Good on them. Give them a 5p discount rather than penalising the rest of us

[manshimajin]

Sorry but life goes on while you are playing eco-warrior. Plastic carrier bags are but a tiny fraction of the problem. (I've stopped going to M &S (who blather on about their green credentials) since they started charging for them, forcing me into the arms of those less eco-friendly supermarkets)

 

We'll get by we always do, with human inginuiety in the face of adversity, be it self made or that of nature.

 

Chill

I didn't know I was an eco-warrior - I am happily keeping on flying, ferrying and driving my car.

 

My point was not that Ireland would save the world with its plastic bag tax but that food in its totality is a much bigger problem than planes. People seem to have bees in bonnets and their own hobby horses when it comes to environmental issues. Unfortunately some of the really big issues are not being tackled because they are either too difficult or too politically sensitive. As I said if we really want to reduce carbon footprints then we will end up leading much simpler lives - which is precisely what politicians are currently trying to avoid with fiscal stimulation!

[ballaughbiker]

Back to reality....

 

Whilst I applaude anyone trying to reduce their carbon footprint, the following figures show how much aviation isn't doing to end the world. Admittedly none at all would be better but unless we are to regress to pre-industrial revolution days, people will always travel and there will inevitably be some enviromental impact . So here they are:

 

Domestic flights account for less than 1% of UK CO2 emissions by source

 

Transport as a whole accounts for 23% of global greenhouse emissions which is the same as agriculture

 

If we grounded every flight in the UK it would cut global man-made CO2 by 0.1%

 

80% of aviation's emissions are related to passenger flights exceeding 1500km for which there is no practical alternative.

 

 

Source BALPA (yes, they have a vested interest)

[Slim]

Whilst I applaude anyone trying to reduce their carbon footprint, the following figures show how much aviation isn't doing to end the world. Admittedly none at all would be better but unless we are to regress to pre-industrial revolution days, people will always travel and there will inevitably be some enviromental impact . So here they are:

 

This is only relating to Co2 from aircraft, which isn't the only problem with air travel. The airline industry as a whole is a massive bloated complicated thing with airports, support vehicles and the associated social and transport network. It's huge, and it's wasteful, and it pollutes. In addition to co2, aicraft spits out NOx, hydrocarbons and they do nice and high in the atmosphere where they can do the most damage. They're also happily burning vast quantities of fossil fuels which we might actually need one day.

 

 

80% of aviation's emissions are related to passenger flights exceeding 1500km for which there is no practical alternative.

 

That stat is particularly good. No practical alternative to sitting on a beach in Barbados? The figures also completely ignore the growth of air travel.

[ballaughbiker]

Ah there you are Slim

This is only relating to Co2 from aircraft, which isn't the only problem with air travel. The airline industry as a whole is a massive bloated complicated thing with airports, support vehicles and the associated social and transport network. It's huge, and it's wasteful, and it pollutes.

True, but if aviation wasn't there at all, people wouldn't stay within 20 miles of their birthplace as in the early 1800s. They would move about and the infrastructure you refer to would be different and spread differently but it would still be there in some form.

In addition to co2, aicraft spits out NOx, hydrocarbons and they do nice and high in the atmosphere where they can do the most damage

All engines produve NOx and whilst the upper atmosphere is not the ideal place to put it, that's hardly the case in aircraft flying to the IOM at say 15000' max.It's very convenient to bundle all air travel in the same argument. Whilst my stats were not just short haul flights, most people reading this forum will mainly travel short haul. I have only been on one return long haul in my life which was not leisure related.

They're also happily burning vast quantities of fossil fuels which we might actually need one day.

Some are. A 747 burns around 10 tonnes per hour and a Dash Q400 1 tonne. It sounds a lot but you can shift a big payload very quickly (therfore limiting the time the engine are running) by both these vehicles. We might well need it one day but I am old enough to have been issued with petrol coupons as it was 'nearly all gone'. That was nearly 40 years ago. It's still there.

No practical alternative to sitting on a beach in Barbados

Agreed, but it has to be said that you have chosen the worst and most profligate use of aviation. Not all long haul flights are like this. Some of the worst polluting engines in the world are in ships and they hardly ever get a mention. Why? because its simple thinking to link flying to rich people going on expensive unnecessary holidays. Like most sound bites it sounds good until you think a bit wider and realise that its not all like that. Not by a long way.

[Slim]

True, but if aviation wasn't there at all, people wouldn't stay within 20 miles of their birthplace as in the early 1800s. They would move about and the infrastructure you refer to would be different and spread differently but it would still be there in some form.

 

Agree, we've moved on, the worlds smaller as a direct result of cheaper accessible air travel, but that's largely based on false affordability because of tax brakes and fuel being too cheap. Without aviation, or with more expensive aviation people would still move about, but they'd move about less and they'd travel more efficiently. The figures from oil price rices back this up, people travel less the more it costs.

 

The current infrastructure surrounding air travel is utterly daft. It's a bloated mess, and can and should be reduced.

 

All engines produve NOx and whilst the upper atmosphere is not the ideal place to put it, that's hardly the case in aircraft flying to the IOM at say 15000' max.It's very convenient to bundle all air travel in the same argument. Whilst my stats were not just short haul flights, most people reading this forum will mainly travel short haul. I have only been on one return long haul in my life which was not leisure related.

 

Long haul is certainly the bigger polluter, but like I've said on here again and again, it's not just about hitting the big things, a reduction in waste and consumption and an increase in efficiency no matter how small makes a big impact globally.

 

Some are. A 747 burns around 10 tonnes per hour and a Dash Q400 1 tonne. It sounds a lot but you can shift a big payload very quickly (therfore limiting the time the engine are running) by both these vehicles. We might well need it one day but I am old enough to have been issued with petrol coupons as it was 'nearly all gone'. That was nearly 40 years ago. It's still there.

 

It's by far the least efficient transport method either way. You sacrifice efficiency for speed. Oil supplies have been miscalculated for a long time, but there's no argument that it's finite and we're currently completely reliant on it. Wasting it in the fashion we do is very short sighted.

 

Agreed, but it has to be said that you have chosen the worst and most profligate use of aviation. Not all long haul flights are like this. Some of the worst polluting engines in the world are in ships and they hardly ever get a mention. Why? because its simple thinking to link flying to rich people going on expensive unnecessary holidays. Like most sound bites it sounds good until you think a bit wider and realise that its not all like that. Not by a long way.

 

No, I understand, shipping is bad too. None of my arguments against pollution are exclusive. I'm talking about aviation because that's the subject here, that doesn't mean I think shipping is as efficient as it can be.