"Why we should end domestic flights" public meeting

CCC | 12.07.2010 14:54 | Climate Chaos

Public meeting in the build up to the End Domestic Flights demo.

Speakers: John Stewart (chair of AirportWatch), Dan Glass (Plane Stupid), Anne-Marie Griffin (chair, Fight The Flights), Phil Thornhill (national co-ordinator, Campaign against Climate Change).

Venue to be announced nearer the time in future newsletters and on www.campaigncc.org

CCC
e-mail: info@campaigncc.org
Homepage: http://www.campaigncc.org

Comments

Hide the following 9 comments

Or...

12.07.2010 17:14

...you could have used your time at school more wisely, gone on to obtain a degree in aeronautic engineering, and researched ways to make aviation more efficient. Go and compare the improvements in emissions since the 1970s. Think what could be achieved if you spent less time complaining and more time contributing to society.

agreed

12.07.2010 18:24

>> ...you could have used your time at school more wisely, gone on to obtain a degree in aeronautic engineering, and researched ways to make aviation more efficient. Go and compare the improvements in emissions since the 1970s. Think what could be achieved if you spent less time complaining and more time contributing to society

Yes, agreed. Its always the same with these lot - happy to sit on their arses and bitch about how other people have got to fix the solution.

The day i meet a hardworking protesting liberal latte slurper will be a special one.

ambulance

..

12.07.2010 19:30

Will you all be taking domestic flights to the, yet to be announced venue?? Like you all took international flights to this gathering (free holiday) in Bolivia??

http://pwccc.wordpress.com/

Pilot

@ AH

12.07.2010 19:43

Of yes, no one should ever complain about anything unless they are experts in that field and we should not simply use less but instead spend time finding technological solutions.

Yes

Making aviation more efficient?

13.07.2010 08:04

There's no guarantee that making aviation more efficient would reduce emissions. It might be that a plane that flies further on the same fuel, and therefore produces less envisions per mile, would be used to burn MORE fuel.

If you can get further on each litre of fuel, flying would be cheaper, and people might therefore choose to fly more, increasing emissions. You've just built an even more efficient way to wreck the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Ben

@Ben

13.07.2010 08:57

Great logic - bend the truth to fit your own argument.

Using that logic, we should all be driving Chelsea tractors. Would you prefer the days of VC-10s and Concorde drinking fuel?

@AH

13.07.2010 15:06

I don't think you understand what Ben is saying. Did you read the linked article about Jeavon's Paradox?

Improving fuel efficiency will have the benefit of making travel more available to poorer people, which in itself is a good thing. But it still leaves the overall consumption unchanged, so the oil will run out just as quickly and the CO2 emissions will occur just as much.

I believe these are known as "techno-fixes", beloved of the extreme libertarian right, and ultimately doomed to failure.

What are we going to do when oil becomes more and more scarce so it becomes uneconomical to extract? Have you thought about that? There's no magic get-out clause for that.

anon

@anon

13.07.2010 16:01

I am familiar with Jevon's Paradox, and you answer your own question. Assuming we accept that increased aviation efficiency increases the amount of traffic, then the increased cost of oil extraction will mitigate it. If we take that to the extreme until there is no oil available, then the original poster's dream will be a reality, and the point is moot.

An alternative, although hardly a solution that is going to be popular with IM's anti-state readers, is a gradual taxation of jet fuel, which will give an incentive to run more efficient aircraft, with a higher loading factor, without the increase in passengers.

There is absolutely no good reason not to attempt to increase efficiency of any technology.

@AH

13.07.2010 23:00

"There is absolutely no good reason not to attempt to increase efficiency of any technology."

I would agree with that, but don't expect it to have a beneficial effect on climate change, pollution, or conservation of fossil fuels unless it is used in conjunction with other measures.

Really, anyone polluting (that includes all of us) needs to take responsibility for cleaning up after ourselves. At the moment we don't; we are just sweeping the problems under the carpet for the future.

I don't claim there are easy answers; the human race is headed for a monumental fuckup and I'm not totally optimistic we can get out of it without some serious human misery in the not-too-distant future.

anon