cheesemonster2005 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 it predicts that population growth will tail off around 9 Billion. That terrifies me. S There are about 6.5 billion now. 9 billion by the end of the century isn't scary especially if it's a peak. 2 centuries ago the world population was barely 1 billion and maybe they had the same fears then that we're having now. We have created big problems with higher standards of living but these higher standards of living have also given us the means to make things better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 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 But why? Are you really so stupid that you can't take a carrier bag with you when you go shopping? Yes it's hard to do some 'environmentally-friendly' things like stop driving, hand wash, recycle every piece of garbage but something as simple as re-using plastic bags isn't that hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtj73 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Sorry Slim an afternoon at the dentist interrupted my flow. To answer your assertion that all air travel is hugely inefficient, let's take a local example. This is real life stuff, not data from 20 years ago. The Dash 8 Q400 (round figures) burns 1 tonne/hr. If the sg of JetA1 is say 0.8 = 1250 litres per hour. It can cruise at 400 mph max but lets use 350mph in this example. So a flight from Southampton to IOM, say 290 miles, will take 50 minutes. That equates to a burn of 1040 litres. Anyone still awake, no? OK, I'll continue on my own. Let's say it's 3/4 full = 55 passengers. That's a burn of 18.9 litres per passenger or 4.15 gallons. If they were each driving a car all the way using the mythical bridge from Liverpool, the car would have to be doing 70mpg to equal the Dash 8's burn and it would take forever. Even if there were two per car instead, the car would still have to do 35 mpg to break even. Ok, it's the best example I can come up with and doesn't include going round the hold a few times when its busy etc. However I trust it shows that certain aircraft that are reasonably loaded (and we haven't even included the 1 tonne of bags that these 55 might have) are nothing like as bad as the Plane Crazy lot would have us believe. Of course the faster you go, the worse it gets (as in simple terms wind resistance increases as a square of the speed increase) and the likely load factor will drop too. However, my example is still reasonable for the type of aircraft that come here. The uk government care much more for the profit they will make than the environment they pretend to want to protect. Edited for bad maths - it must be the anaesthetic wearing off.... That is interesting. What about a train though, say London to Manchester, now that Virgin claim their trains are just as quick when you knock off checkin time and waiting for luggage, what would a 3/4 full train be compared to 3/4 full dash? To make it easy use a intercity 125 diesel train, still plenty of these in use in the UK. Yes before someone says it, I know they don't go to the IOM it's just for comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Anyone still awake, no? OK, I'll continue on my own. Let's say it's 3/4 full = 55 passengers. That's a burn of 18.9 litres per passenger or 4.15 gallons. If they were each driving a car all the way using the mythical bridge from Liverpool, the car would have to be doing 70mpg to equal the Dash 8's burn and it would take forever. Even if there were two per car instead, the car would still have to do 35 mpg to break even. Why are you comparing a nearly full aircraft and an empty car? The car carries 4, that's 160 mpg per passenger in mine. And the car won't have used all the associated nonsense of a huge aircraft terminal, support vehicles, transport to/from the airports, etc. But yes, I agree generally tax on seats is a bit daft when the efficiency varies so much. Each aircraft journey should be taxed regardless of how many passengers are on board, then airlines would havee far more incentive to fill flights. However, to shut down civilisation as we know it 2009, as many would have us do, is just not on. If the taxes levied by governments were going directly into environmental projects then the case for them might be made but we know that the monies raised are doing nothing more than disappearing into the fiscal abyss. APD is a stealth tax and should be abolished at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, it has become one of the many 'stealth' taxes that government now relies on - and don't think our town councillors are any different. Preventing someone from reading a book on a beach in barbados isn't shutting down civilisation, don't be over dramatic! I'd obviously prefer the government to put increased tax revenue into environmental projects, but the price increases have proved that tax works to reduce air travel, so the result justifies the action. Stealth tax? How's it stealthy? Looks like a very obvious tax to me! mtj: Trains have a very high mpg per passenger mostly because they can carry so many more and can handle the weight of frieght too. Certainly the most efficient way to do the journy above in terms of fuel consumption would be ferry + train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Why are you comparing a nearly full aircraft and an empty car Because that's the likely scenario at the moment. The majority of planes I travel on are mostly full, the majority cars you see are mostly empty. OK generalisations I agree but thats how it is. People travelling from Southampton to the Island would not fill their cars with 4 people. They would most likely come on thir own or at best with a partner. I think unless/until all cars have more than two people it's a valid comparison. I missed my bus t'other day and had to wait on Peel Rd for half an hour at the morning peak time. The vast majority of cars had one occupant. It's wrong but I'm sure we are all guilty of it. Trains - a very valid comparison although not for the IOM for obvious reasons. I haven't a clue what a HST burns per hour but with 2 x 70 litre engines it must be a lot. However, the payload of a train can be considerable and the power doesn't have to be on all the time. I think the future of travel is electric trains powered by nuclear but thats a very long time off at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Because that's the likely scenario at the moment. The majority of planes I travel on are mostly full, the majority cars you see are mostly empty. OK generalisations I agree but thats how it is. People travelling from Southampton to the Island would not fill their cars with 4 people. They would most likely come on thir own or at best with a partner. I think unless/until all cars have more than two people it's a valid comparison. Exactly, I'd prefer all transport to be more efficient, rather than concentrate on one thing because that's a slightly bigger problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Actually at present the airlines are doing an excellent job of reducing their per passenger mile carbon emissions. Air travel is down globally by about 15% and in consequence airlines are reducing the number of flights and filling their planes much more. Even BA is now talking about reducing the number of First and Business Class seats in order to fit more passengers in. Fewer flights and higher seat occupancy is the most effective step in reducing emissions per passenger mile. As fleets get renewed the fuel consumption of planes has also fallen significantly. It is not in the interest of airlines to either have increased fuel consumption or to fly half empty (unlike the IOMSPC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 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 But why? Are you really so stupid that you can't take a carrier bag with you when you go shopping? Yes it's hard to do some 'environmentally-friendly' things like stop driving, hand wash, recycle every piece of garbage but something as simple as re-using plastic bags isn't that hard. Ok, what if you,re just out and dont intend shopping but suddenly remember you could use some salad and other bits and bobs from M & S. You've not remembered to take a carrier bag with you "just in case". Anyway your pockets are stuff full of condoms on government advice so no means to carry plastic bags anyway. Do you want to be responsible for a load of teenage pregnancies by displacing the condoms with plastic bags? They are not really an acceptable substitute. Anyway M & S for example are just making money on this. They charge 5p for a bag saying they wil give the profit to charity (3.7p or whatever) whereas they previously gave you them for nothing. Thus you are paying 3.7 involuntarily to charity (fine) and 1.3p extra into the coffers of M &S. Or is it the other way round? doesn't matter. Bloody hypocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 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 But why? Are you really so stupid that you can't take a carrier bag with you when you go shopping? Yes it's hard to do some 'environmentally-friendly' things like stop driving, hand wash, recycle every piece of garbage but something as simple as re-using plastic bags isn't that hard. Ok, what if you,re just out and dont intend shopping but suddenly remember you could use some salad and other bits and bobs from M & S. You've not remembered to take a carrier bag with you "just in case". Anyway your pockets are stuff full of condoms on government advice so no means to carry plastic bags anyway. Do you want to be responsible for a load of teenage pregnancies by displacing the condoms with plastic bags? They are not really an acceptable substitute. Anyway M & S for example are just making money on this. They charge 5p for a bag saying they wil give the profit to charity (3.7p or whatever) whereas they previously gave you them for nothing. Thus you are paying 3.7 involuntarily to charity (fine) and 1.3p extra into the coffers of M &S. Or is it the other way round? doesn't matter. Bloody hypocrites. Well if the 3.7p is profit the other 1.3p must be costs so that money's not staying in M&S's coffers for long is it? I like the idea of a stupidity tax and a reasonable tax of about 10p or 15p on each plastic bag would be very good. Most taxes are hard to avoid but this one would be very easy unless you don't want to put a plastic bag in your pocket 'just in case' or unless you can't be arsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 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 But why? Are you really so stupid that you can't take a carrier bag with you when you go shopping? Yes it's hard to do some 'environmentally-friendly' things like stop driving, hand wash, recycle every piece of garbage but something as simple as re-using plastic bags isn't that hard. Ok, what if you,re just out and dont intend shopping but suddenly remember you could use some salad and other bits and bobs from M & S. You've not remembered to take a carrier bag with you "just in case". Anyway your pockets are stuff full of condoms on government advice so no means to carry plastic bags anyway. Do you want to be responsible for a load of teenage pregnancies by displacing the condoms with plastic bags? They are not really an acceptable substitute. Anyway M & S for example are just making money on this. They charge 5p for a bag saying they wil give the profit to charity (3.7p or whatever) whereas they previously gave you them for nothing. Thus you are paying 3.7 involuntarily to charity (fine) and 1.3p extra into the coffers of M &S. Or is it the other way round? doesn't matter. Bloody hypocrites. Well if the 3.7p is profit the other 1.3p must be costs so that money's not staying in M&S's coffers for long is it? I like the idea of a stupidity tax and a reasonable tax of about 10p or 15p on each plastic bag would be very good. Most taxes are hard to avoid but this one would be very easy unless you don't want to put a plastic bag in your pocket 'just in case' or unless you can't be arsed. You're not very good at maths/economics are you? Before this "tax" came in M &S absorbed the cost of the bag, Whereas now the consumer pays for it. So say you get a bag to hold your £2 sandwich you now pay £2.05 (a 2.5% "tax"). Charity gets a bit and it costs M &S nothing, thus placing them at a competitive advantage over say Tesco's who do provide bags, for which they pay. So M & S increaase their profits while adopting a "holier than thou" stance'. (Win,win situation for them). Got to admire them, they certainly take in the weak minded (a bit like Ryanair) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.