What I Burned on My Summer Vacation
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 09.13.06
Every time we write about fear of frying/flying we get incredulous comments from readers in larger countries like Canada, the US and Australia thinking that those Brits are just nuts, but like it or not, it is coming to North America. Globe and Mail correspondent Doug Saunders says "a great number of reasonable people are expressing the view, which even a year ago was considered pretty flakey, that cheap and widely available air travel is a big part of this [global warming]. We have entered the age of the toxic vacation" Saunders goes on to point out how cheap air transport has had huge economic and social benefits, dramatically increasing the mobility of people and goods. However he reports that at a recent debate, John Adams, a University College professor, concluded: "Mobility is liberating and empowering, but it is possible to have too much of a good thing... The growth in the numbers exercising their freedom and power is fouling the planet and jamming its arteries." Saunders says that next year he is taking the train. ::Globe and Mail image from ::gathered images, which prints wonderful postcards on chlorine free 100% recycled paper with vegetable inks.
Come fly with me Treehuggers ... because the best thing we can do with environmentalists is shoot them ... Yours, Michael O'leary - CEO - Ryanair
http://www.enoughsenough.org/fry.pdf
I thought jet engines are fairly efficient flying at altitude. Not so much at take off and landing. Also they say the contrails have a cooling as well as a warming effect.
Sounds like Michael O'Leary doesn't like Earth...Maybe he should move to Venus if he likes poisonous atmospheric gasses
"a great number of reasonable people are expressing the view, which even a year ago was considered pretty flakey, that cheap and widely available air travel is a big part of this [global warming]."
One is not "reasonable" when one considers something to be a "big part" of a problem when it is, at most, 1-2% of the it.
That is textbook "flakiness".
Why do you guys keep saying air travel is cheap? Its not. Unfortunately, the best way to keep people from flying so much (at least in the U.S.) is to shrink the size of the country.
1-2%.....and growing.
But i'm not gonna go there with anon again.
Maybe it's just cos us Brits have such a small "quaint" country, so we don't have to fly to get around it ;)
Here are some other priceless O'Leary quotes:
"Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, has said it is sinful to pollute
the planet by jetting off on holiday. In support of the Bishop's
comments, Magnus Linklater, writing in The Times under the headline,
'We're all heading for the fiery furnace if we go on taking these cheap
flights', said: "I should have thought that if God did indeed create the
heavens, the earth and all that is therein, he would be mightily
displeased to see us collectively disabling it." Michael O'Leary,
Ryanair's boss, took a different line when he retorted, "The Bishop of
London has got empty churches - presumably if no one went on holiday
perhaps they might turn up and listen to his sermons."
"We will double our emissions in the next five years because we are
doubling our traffic. But if preserving the environment means stopping
poor people flying so only the rich can fly, then screw it."
"This week, the green lobby was in Mr O'Leary's sights. Rattled by
pressure over aviation's contribution to climate change, a coalition of
airlines formed a "sustainable aviation group" claiming to take the
concerns of environmentalists seriously. It wasn't Mr O'Leary's style
and Ryanair was isolated in the industry in refusing to offer its
support. Concerns about climate change, Mr O'Leary maintained, are
nothing to do with him. He proudly declared that Ryanair intended to
increase its emissions of carbon dioxide, adding that if his customers
were worried about the environment, his advice was straightforward:
"Sell your car and walk." He said his rivals' attempts to reach out to
the greens were fraudulent: "The sustainable aviation group, God help
us, is another bunch of lemmings shuffling towards a cliff edge."
"This week, airlines including British Airways, Virgin Atlantic,
easyJet, Flybe and First Choice, formed a sustainable aviation group
aimed at cracking down on pollution, noise and harmful emissions. Mr
O'Leary said Ryanair would not be joining: "A lot of members of the
sustainable aviation group won't be around in 10 years' time - that'll
be their main contribution to sustainable aviation."
Independent Newspaper, UK
South-North Development Monitor
National Geographic
Jet-aircraft contrails neutralize the global-warming effects of the planes' engines' emmissions by creating cloud cover. (Tim Flannery, "The Weather Makers", 2005, p162)
"1-2%.....and growing."
No, it's not. Other contributors are increasing as well, so air transport isn't increasing its share - nor is it projected to over the next 50 years.
The subset that is "cheap and widely available air travel" is a portion of that 1 or 2%. To consider this to be a "big part" is to focus on a mouse with an elephant in the room.
"estimates of their contribution by the middle of the century range from 10 to 17 per cent"
And that's complete hogwash. I'd love to see their reference for such nonsense.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs10grc.html
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/env/aee.htm
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/aircraft_emissions.htm
Even if it is only 1-2% or 3.5%. This is the percentage of total global warming. But expressed as a percentage of global warming due to individual actions (such as car driving, food and other lifestyle choices) - it would be much higher. Much of global warming is due to industry, governments and military - that we unfortunately don't have much control of.
Wait, was I not around when Treehugger reported news about this sustainable aviation group, because I think that's a great idea!
Instead of trying to tell us all to extend our vacations so that we can actually incorporate slower means of travel, the travel companies are getting together to find more environmental ways to do what some of us jet-setters absolutely love to do.
I mean, boo Ryanair for their short-sighted CEO, but why can't we have more "yay"s for actual initiatives towards eco-plane travel?
C'MON Treehugger! Stop hating on flying so much that all you can ever post on aviation is how it sucks.
Ok so.. how do I get too Japan??
Do I take a cruise ship? that burns tones of diesel a day? that will take weeks to get there? that has to push its self through water?
that isn't very efficent and your burning more fuel with higher pollutents.
jet engined fuels are extreamly clean far cleaner then petrol.
Of course we could go too hydrogen thats made from burning coal and crude oil.
try telephone conferencing, video conferencing or even skype which is free ... save time ... save money ... save the climate
"try telephone conferencing, video conferencing or even skype which is free ... save time ... save money ... save the climate"
So no one should ever go to Japan and Japanese people should never leave their country?
Great idea!
Let's isolate the Aussies, Kiwis, Indonesians, and everyone else who lives on an island! No Americans should be allowed to leave for Europe or Asia, either.
Crop dusting for people.
Australia isn't an island, its a continent.
I don't think reducing flying in the grand scheme of things is going to make much change. I believe what must be done is to find a new energy source for flying that is inviromentally friendly and economically viable.
we can't just suddenly loss transport because its hurting the inviroment our world is built on being able to move from one part of the world to another quickly and easly.
To remove flying would bring the world to a hult as everyone suddenly became isolated.
What must be however, is to find new energy sources that are inviromentally sound and we really should be looking harder and investing more not just disjointed research groups here and there but massive undertakings with good resources that are allowed to explore all options so as too actually get somewhere in a timely fashion.
"Australia isn't an island, its a continent."
Ooh - semantics.
How many countries have a land border with Australia?
'One is not "reasonable" when one considers something to be a "big part" of a problem when it is, at most, 1-2% of the it.'
It is 3.5% of the problem and is expected to be anywhere from 5 to 17% by 2050. The 3.5 figure comes from the IATA (International Air Traffic Association) and the 5 figure comes from IATA. Aside from these points, your argument is distressing, coming from someone implying to be 'reasonable'. Air traffic 'only' contributes so little, your argument goes, so why make it a big deal. Light bulbs also 'only' contribute so little - still we push CFLs, daylighting and turning off unused lights anyway. But you are right, why waste our time and efforts on bulbs. Refridgerators 'only' contribute so little - still we push for A+ fridges and smaller ones. But you are again right, why waste our time on this non-issue. Washing machines 'only'...Household heating 'only'...Air conditioners 'only'...Motorcylces 'only'...Cars 'only'...Buses 'only'...Tractor trailers 'only'...Phantom loads 'only'...AC-DC cubes 'only'...The list goes on ad naseum. Add all these individual 'irrelevant''inconsequential''waste-of-time' onlys together, and you get global warming. So lets see, at what number does something become significant enough for those serious about stopping global warming to take it 'seriously'? 5, 10, 25, 50%? If it is 10, let us say, what individual human activity reaches that goal? Electric toothbrushes? Jet skis? RVs, maybe? Motorcycles? Hummers? Compacts? Trains? Cruise ships? Air balloons? French fries? Submarines? Anything at all? Since there really isn't any one activity that is big enough to take seriously, how is society going to solve global warming? By ignoring all the 3.5%s maybe?
Jet-aircraft contrails neutralize the global-warming effects of the planes' engines' emmissions by creating cloud cover. (Tim Flannery, "The Weather Makers", 2005, p162)
'Contrails formed due to the emission of particles and water vapour can increase the cloud cover in the upper troposphere. This may result in a cooling or heating depending on the size and optical depth of the ice crystals of which the contrails consist. Presently it is believed that contrails lead to a net warming effect.' (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Section of Atmospheric Composition website)
No, it's not. Other contributors are increasing as well, so air transport isn't increasing its share - nor is it projected to over the next 50 years.>
IATA says it 'may grow to 5% by 2050.' Why would an organization whose interests lie in quoting this smallest number possible lie about this number...other than to lie it too low.
'"Aviation's share of overall EU greenhouse gas emissions is still modest at about 3%, but its emissions are growing faster than any other sector and risk undermining progress achieved through emission cuts in other areas of the economy," the Commission said in a statement.' http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/climate-change-aviation/article-139728
'The subset that is "cheap and widely available air travel" is a portion of that 1 or 2%. To consider this to be a "big part" is to focus on a mouse with an elephant in the room.' This type of thinking seems to be prevalent. People are intent on cutting off a large branch from a tree, holding it up against that tree, and then say: To consider this to be a "big part" is to focus on a mouse with an elephant in the room.' Cut off enough of the tree and you are left holding the elephant.
And that's complete hogwash. I'd love to see their reference for such nonsense.>
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did a number of comprehensive scientific analyses of net global warming from air traffic and ran numbers through for seven future possible air traffic scenarios. They estimated net total 'Radiative Forcing' (global warming) in 2050 at 3.82. The net total radiative forcing of the highest possible scenario was for scenario Edh at .564. .564 of 3.82 equals 15% of total global warming. This is the most pessimistic of the seven scenarios. (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/068.htm) So whether one believes it will be 5 or 15% depends on how much Mr. O'Leary negatively influences their optimism. He is not doing wonders with mine, and neither are individuals trying to ignore air traffic emissions.
'Instead of trying to tell us all to extend our vacations so that we can actually incorporate slower means of travel, the travel companies are getting together to find more environmental ways to do what some of us jet-setters absolutely love to do. I mean, boo Ryanair for their short-sighted CEO, but why can't we have more "yay"s for actual initiatives towards eco-plane travel?'
I am completely supportive of initiatives to make aircraft and air travel more efficient and less polluting. And such schemes will lead to emissions cuts per flight. But air travel is growing much faster than these emissions cuts. The IPCC has calculated that even with all foreseen improvements, air traffics contribution of total global warming will still rise to 5%. Of course, if people got serious about alternative flight technologies, such as the gravity plane and a few others I've seen, then maybe total global warming contribution would actually fall - but I don't see people taking these things seriously.
In light of this, besides the foreseen and absolutely necessary technology improvements there will also need to be a decrease in demand for passenger traffic in the West. It's either cheap flights today to the Bahamas or future cheap flights to the equally warm Antartic. You pick.
'Do I take a cruise ship? that burns tones of diesel a day? that will take weeks to get there? that has to push its self through water? that isn't very efficent and your burning more fuel with higher pollutents.'
It is true that a cruise ship would take a long time to get to Japan from the (US?) How fast depends on a number of factors, such as the type of boat, speed, weather, ports of call stops, etc. However, you falsely state that this is an inefficient form of transport because 'it has to push itself through water'. Water transportation is amongst the most energy efficient forms of transport and much more so than air. Much less fuel is required than for air. There is a simple reason practically all of the world's heavy shipping is done by sea and not plane - if it were the reverse, we would have already run out of oil. Furthermore, there are more possibilities to harness renewable energies - wind, solar, wave - on a ship to help power its movement than with an airplane. Having said this, I am not recommending that you never travel by plane. I simply believe people need to use air travel only when really necessary as opposed for taking a quick ski trip to the Alps. Too many defenders of air travel seem to be arguing that we can not eliminate air travel, and we can not. What we need to eliminate is IRRESPONSIBLE air travel. There is a substantive difference between NO air travel and responsible air travel, which these defenders mysteriously overlook.
'I don't think reducing flying in the grand scheme of things is going to make much change.'
Neither is changing to CFL bulbs, buying small A+ fridges, PHEVs, turning off unused appliances, building smaller more energy efficient homes, sticking some PV panels on the roof, cooking with solar ovens, and so on to infinity. None alone will make much of a change in the grand scheme of things. All together they will. And by all together I am including reducing air traffic.
'I believe what must be done is to find a new energy source for flying that is inviromentally friendly and economically viable.'
Two questions. Do you consider the gravity plane such a new energy source for flying? Many people seem to think it a joke. So if people don't take this seriously, this leads to my second question. Which are you willing to wait for the longest, environmental catastrophe or this wonder plane?
'we can't just suddenly loss transport because its hurting the inviroment our world is built on being able to move from one part of the world to another quickly and easly.
To remove flying would bring the world to a hult as everyone suddenly became isolated.' Once again the same fundamental oversight is made in this argument. I, as an environmentalist dedicated to trying to avert global warming, am NOT advocating elimination of air transport. I am advocating continuous and significant fuel efficiency improvements and REDUCED air traffic. I am advocating responsible air transport use. Don't you think there is a big difference between saying that I advocate elimination of airplanes and saying that I advocate responsible air travel?
So - some simple questions for the zealous on this issue.
What have you done to track all the air transport inputs to the things you consume?
How much of air transport is "cheap air travel"?
If "cheap air travel" is the problem, do you support forcing rich people to stop flying, too?
Do you ever consider the fact that technology will supplant a good deal of air travel?
Why are you concerned with very uncertain scenarios 50 years in the future instead of focusing on things 20 times larger in the present day -- things which are much more changeable?
'What have you done to track all the air transport inputs to the things you consume?'
I try not to consume much period. But of what I do consume, I track its transport little. I try to buy national produce, in order to reduce transport. And whenever I need to buy something like a brick or a shower plate, I buy a national product. I don't buy clothes since I have enough; the clothes I have from ten years ago are just fine. I buy little and of the little I buy, very little of that might have a 'air transport input.' But all of this is besides the point. Here is the point: 'You make a stunning point with this 'air transport input' insight, and you are right, if I don't track my product air transport input than why should I worry about my personal air travel? If I irresponsibly ignore one thing, then I should irresponsibly ignore the other as well. If I am going to do right, I should do right by everything or not bother doing right at all for anything.'
'If "cheap air travel" is the problem, do you support forcing rich people to stop flying, too?'
I apologize to you for not making my previous comments more specific. I will rehash them. The problem is IRRESPONSIBLE air passenger traffic. I, 'a zealot' against global warming, am not advocating the elimination of air traffic, for I am not against air traffic per se. Just like I am not against CHEAP air traffic per se. I advocate responsible use of air transport. If people NEED to fly, then better for them and everyone else if they only have to pay $10 than $100. But if cheap flights encourage people to abuse air travel, then this is bad for all of us - and cheap flights can be abused by rich or poor. In my opinion, they are more likely to be abused by rich than poor anyway since the poor can't be foolishly wasting their money - unless of course you are talking about poor rich people. Here is a suggestion that I think will cut abuse of cheap flights: restrict cheap flights to truly poor people - rich people can take expensive flights and poor people cheap flights. (Readers, please don't take this superflous suggestion seriously. It is simply meant as an equal counter suggestion. Even though I believe this suggestion is more astute than the other.)
'Do you ever consider the fact that technology will supplant a good deal of air travel?'
I hope it does. I hope technology can solve our global warming problems and allow us to be as profligate as we individually wish. But there is a difference between hoping that it will and knowing that it will. What I do know is that air passenger traffic is INCREASING exponentially. It is not decreasing, it is not level, it is not rising slowly, it is increasing FAST. I am hopeful we will avoid the worst consequences of global warming, but people who are willing to risk my future well-being, that of those I care for, of all of man, based on a hope that some wonder technology will be a magic bullet, a hope that leads them to push for continued irresponsible air traffic...well, this simply does wonders for my hope.
'Why are you concerned with very uncertain scenarios 50 years in the future instead of focusing on things 20 times larger in the present day -- '
You make it sound like mankind is too stupid to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Should we quit chewing over the air traffic issue (along with thousands of other 'trivial' things) and concentrate on walking?
In my opinion, global warming is the most serious danger to the planet and to man. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many scientists, the future potential risks are very real and very dangerous. And in my opinion, the potential consequences will cause problems '20 times larger' than all of the world's combined problems today. Why exactly do you think so many countries are going out of their way to try to stop global warming? Spending lots of time, money and effort? I don't think they are doing this because they agree with a 'lets concentrate on walking' philosophy. Actually, I think many of these countries probably consider avoiding global warming risks the walking.
Also, your logic that we should concentrate on current problems rather than future ones is a counterproductive philosophy. I wouldn't tell a smoker who is considering quitting that he should stop worrying about 'very uncertain scenarios (20) years in the future' because his large immediate debts are a problem '20 times bigger'. Man is intoxicating the planet's internal organs, and when the inevitable cancers take root, people will look back and say: Why exactly didn't we deal with this when we had the chance?
'things which are much more changeable?'
I simply disagree. I read a report recently (I think it was from a British govt. org. - can't remember for sure) that stated that the costs over several decades to 'fix' global warming would be around 1% of global GDP over that period - this plus some minor modification of the laws, they stated, would avoid the worst consequences of global warming. In comparison to eradicating global poverty, global warming is a cool breeze. Not to mention the fact that the negative consequences of global warming are expected to do most harm to many of those countries that have the greatest poverty - so here is a suggestion: lets concentrate exclusively on fixing global poverty and then let global warming put them back in poverty. Agreed?
Also, your logic that we should concentrate on current problems rather than future ones is a counterproductive philosophy.
You're misreading what I said. Air transport, as a whole, is currently 1-3% of anthropogenic contribution to global warming -- depending on how you want to look at it. The subset of the subjectively-defined "irresponsible" air travel is a subset of that.
The point is: it is a small part of the problem, and even under the worst case scenario (which is obviously highly unlikely) of that report you referenced, it may go up to a share of roughly 15%. Correct?
Well, currently, coal combustion and driving around in personal vehicles is at least 50% of the problem -- today. Global warming's definitely a huge problem -- that's what you're misunderstanding about my position.
So, it needs to be dealt with now. Talking about 2050 is foolish, since the scenarios in that report basically assume nothing substantial is being done to dealt with the problem, so if that's the case, we'll be screwed by then.
In the meantime, there are two distinct things -- personal ground transport and coal burning for electricity -- which are a huge contributor to overall emissions and which can be dealt with relatively easily. With air transport, there's just certain substitution limits (eg, over water) and the unlikeliness of there being an outright ban or some sort of "irresponsible travel" limitation which could ever be foreseeably imposed globally.
In sum, it's a small part of the puzzle today, may grow larger over 50 years, but even then won't be the top contributor by a long shot. It's better to deal with the "low hanging fruit" of today instead of creating more enemies of change by getting hysterical over something which is a few percentage points of contribution and is not amenable to change other than by force -- which won't happen.
First, I agree that personal ICE ground transportation is a significant problem and that coal burning needs to be eliminated or 'fixed', just like I agree that homes need to be more efficient, electrical appliances need to be more efficient, renewables need to be exploited, food needs to be grown locally, deforestation needs to end, and so on. They are all big problems and all need to be addressed now. You can separate these problems into two groups: ones to be dealt with right away and others tomorrow. But you thereby risk reducing CO2 emissions in one area at the expense of sacrificing those hard-earned gains elsewhere. And this is what will probably happen with air traffic if we don't take it seriously now (just like deforestation, efficient green home design, local food consumption, and any number of other issues). I already quoted this once before but will do so again to illustrate this point:
"Aviation's share of overall EU greenhouse gas emissions is still modest at about 3%, but its emissions are growing faster than any other sector and risk undermining progress achieved through emission cuts in other areas of the economy," the Commission said in a statement.' http://www.euractiv.com/en/sustainability/climate-change-aviation/article-139728 This coming from the EU. From the EU. Arguably, the place that has bent over backward the most to meet Kyoto targets in CO2 reductions and arguably the place that has made the greatest impact in reducing total global CO2 emissions. Which just goes to show that we can't just focus on some things (like the EU's focus on propping up renewables to lessen use of coal and oil and pushing public transport and bikes to lessen use of cars) and forget about others (which is exactly what the EU has done to date with air traffic).
'With air transport, there's just certain substitution limits (eg, over water)'
First, over land there are several alternatives that are better. Train being the obvious one. And then buses and fuel-efficient cars for the vast majority of short to medium trajectories. Over water, obviously ships. Of course, I can imagine submarine passenger travel using the principles of the gravity-plane - it is more feasible to implement a lighter-than-water/heavier-than-water cycle than LTA/HTA cycle. The principle obstacle with boths ships and subs being speed.
'and the unlikeliness of there being an outright ban or some sort of "irresponsible travel" limitation which could ever be foreseeably imposed globally.'
Well, for starters, how about planes paying fuel taxes like every other gas-guzzling vehicle in Europe. Currently, Europeans pay a ton in taxes for every liter of gasoline or diesel they purchase. Airplanes pay 0. That's right 0. Zero. There is a useful start. Then air ticket prices will reflect the damage they are doing to the environment. Price that externality in.
Then there is the talk in the EU of putting the air traffic industry under the CO2 cap-and-trade system that other EU industries have to deal with. This is real talk by real politicians with real possibilities. It would also be a useful step in helping air traffic limit CO2 emissions by limiting total CO2 that they can release and by pricing in this externality into tickets. What of the UK governments talk of individual carbon allowance? Giving each citizen a set number of CO2 emissions they can spew into the air and no more. It would work similarly to the cap-and-trade system now in place. Those are three things that can be done now that are already being seriously considered in EU governments and that would help promote responsible air traffic.
'even then won't be the top contributor by a long shot.'
The 15% scenario of the IPCC was the most pessimistic of the seven most PLAUSIBLE scenarios that they came up with. Not the most pessimistic of the most IMPLAUSIBLE scenarios. Those figures would of course be higher than 15%, possible much higher. But if it gets to 15%, a real possibility considering people's determination to give air traffic carte blanche with global warming, then I suspect that it will be the very biggest global warming problem we will have 40 years from now - not one of the smaller ones as you suggest.
'It's better to deal with the "low hanging fruit"'
In my opinion, nothing could be easier than to implement the fuel taxes, cap-and-trade inclusion, and personal carbon allowances mentioned above. That fruit is practically peeled, cut and sugared already.
'instead of creating more enemies of change'
The enemies you are referring to seem to be certain airline executives. And only certain, because other ones have already made clear their support for including their industry in the cap-and-trade system.
'by getting hysterical over something which is a few percentage points of contribution'
Very diplomatic.
'and is not amenable to change other than by force -- which won't happen.' My response to this should be an equal measure of 'very diplomatic.'
The enemies you are referring to seem to be certain airline executives
No, it would be anyone who flies. And since air travel is common among the decision-making class, you can forget about banning it.
You're not seeing the big picture - namely, by focusing on something trivial, which lacks good substitutes (like it or not, speed is a reality), and then putting that into an issue with a lot of built-in backlash, you're just digging a hole for the other things which matter (namely, ground tansport and coal burning).
Those figures would of course be higher than 15%, possible much higher.
How? How does that work? There's just a certain limit to how much air transport can increase, not just because of fuel prices, but because of ability to pay by the consumer base, congestion, and noise. And maybe it gets beyond 15% only because we took care of all the rest of the problems - in which case it's 15% of a much smaller total, which is good.
But if it gets to 15%, a real possibility considering people's determination to give air traffic carte blanche with global warming, then I suspect that it will be the very biggest global warming problem we will have 40 years from now - not one of the smaller ones as you suggest.
Something that accounts for 15% will be the biggest? Huh?
I really find no value in belaboring this further. It's trivial now, and 50 years from now, we'll either have dealt with global warming or not - so air transport's position at that point is moot. And I also believe there will be ground transport innovations which address the speed issue that supplant a good deal of air transport by that time anyway, so it's again moot from my perspective that way.
But to belabor this now and start talking about "irresponsible air travel" will only serve to create a lot of hostility towards ALL actions that deal with global warming.
Hopefully you get around to realizing that.
´No, it would be anyone who flies.´
I disagree with your assessment that most people who fly are irresponsible. I occassionally fly and so does my wife. Neither of use is opposed to airline fuel taxes, including the air industry in the cap and trade system, or citizen carbon allowances. And since I believe most people, including rich people who have money to waste foolishly, are responsible people who want to do right, neither will they. That is my opinion, just like your reverse assessment is your opinion.
´And since air travel is common among the decision-making class, you can forget about banning it.´
For some mysterious reason, you seem intent on purposefully confusing the issue. It is not about BANNING air traffic. It is about implement regulations to encourage RESPONSIBLE air traffic. Why exactly are you intent on trying to confuse people into thinking that the only choices are either completely eliminating air travel or doing nothing at all?
´You're not seeing the big picture´
Luckily for all of us, and that includes you, you are missing the big picture, and responsible politicians in the EU are not missing it. That is why they are already discussing how best to implement fuel taxes and the cap-and-trade to air traffic.
´- namely, by focusing on something trivial,´
This is only trivial for you. I have already made the argument as to why it is not trivial. Should I take those arguments, copy them, and repaste them for you? It was 3.5% of global warming a few years back. It undoubtedly is higher than that now. It is increasing very fast. It´s increases may make it the largest contributor to global warming in the next 40 years. And it is already risking to set back the CO2 emission cuts made in the EU in the areas it has focused in to date, mainly displacing coal and oil electricity through renewables and promoting alternative and energy-efficient transport to reduce oil consumption.
´which lacks good substitutes (like it or not, speed is a reality),´
Lucky for us that no one is talking about BANNING it then. Anyway, there ARE good substitutes for a majority of routes. Trains - when my wife travels from Helsinki to Joensuu she has numerous options including flying but she takes a train. Buses - when I travel from my home to Alicante, where relatives have a beach place, I go by bus rather than take they flight option. If my wife wants to go to Talliin from Helsinki she would go by hydrofoil rather than plane, as most people do. And if my wife needs to discuss important work matters with a college, she sets up a videoconference or makes a simple call. Please don´t try to imply that the only reasonable transport medium is air traffic because in the vast majority of cases it is not.
´and then putting that into an issue with a lot of built-in backlash,´´
The only built-in backlash is coming from certain airline executives. And people who work for them. And maybe a tiny minority of irresponsible air traffic passengers.
´you're just digging a hole for the other things which matter (namely, ground tansport and coal burning).´
Oh, come on. We are humans - not monkeys. We can do more than one thing at a time. And are doing more things than one at a time. How do you think civilization has progressed? By focusing just on our main need of food? There are over six billion people on the planet. Contrary to what you may think, there are more than enough intelligent people amongst us to be able to deal with ground transport solutions, coal solutions AND air traffic solutions.
´There's just a certain limit to how much air transport can increase, not just because of fuel prices, but because of ability to pay by the consumer base, congestion, and noise. And maybe it gets beyond 15% only because we took care of all the rest of the problems - in which case it's 15% of a much smaller total, which is good.´
Why don´t you ask the IPCC scientists and economists how they came up with the figures. I´m sure all of those smart people, regardless of how dull you make think them, can give you a good reason. Better yet, go to the IPCC website and read how they came up with the figures. It is also ironic that you are willing to admit that air traffic may need to be controlled to deal with congestion and noise but not due to global warming. Furthermore, your argument that the 15% may be part of a much smaller pie is possible. But if crime in a city drops by half so that a certain crime kingpin´s share, the one who hasn´t been forced to obey the law, rises from 3.5 to 15%, we don´t start arguing that this is a good thing. Every sector and business has a responsibility to reduce their contributions to global warming. No one gets to be a freerider off of everyone else´s efforts.
´Something that accounts for 15% will be the biggest? Huh?´
As you mentioned, if we manage to reduce everything else so that coal is then only 10% of the problem, and deforestation 10, and cars 10, and so on. Well, if my math is not wrong, 15 is larger than 10 and therefore makes it bigger. And if no number is bigger than 15, it makes it the biggest. And if something else is 18 and another thing 22, then 15 is still one of the biggest. Don´t you agree with this math?
´I really find no value in belaboring this further.´´
Neither do I, but you are nevertheless persistent in your counterproductive and dangerous arguments.
´It's trivial now,´
Luckily, politicians in the EU disagree.
´and 50 years from now, we'll either have dealt with global warming or not´
Or not? If it is not, it will be because special interests will have managed to use their wealth to block the needed reforms and changes in the economic structures and balances in our societies. Not because responsible people fall for specious self-serving arguments.
´- so air transport's position at that point is moot.´
Yes, if global warming unleashes it´s fury in 40 years, then 40 years from now trying to fix air traffic will be a moot point. Luckily, we have 40 years to fix it before we get to that moot point. So today it is anything but moot.
´And I also believe there will be ground transport innovations which address the speed issue that supplant a good deal of air transport by that time anyway, so it's again moot from my perspective that way.´
Your incoherence within a single post is quite surprising. You begin the post by saying we can´t rely on adequate alternative transport methods and end it by saying we soon will be able to rely on them. Well, if we ´soon´ will have (we ALREADY have good ones that are improving all the time) than why not push for government´s to implement policies that steer more and more passenger traffic to them now? Which is exactly what EU government´s are doing by setting up more and more fast rail lines (for your information, there are already in place many ultra fast rail lines between EU cities).
´But to belabor this now and start talking about "irresponsible air travel" will only serve to create a lot of hostility towards ALL actions that deal with global warming.´
We need to belabor it now and not 40 years from now when it is a moot point, as you insightfully implied elsewhere in your post. Again, you have a very dim view of the rest of us. I will not go ´hostile´ to any other measures to deal with global warming if government´s implement policies that promote responsible air travel. My wife won´t either. And in my opinion, the vast majority of people, who are trying to do the right thing regarding global warming, will not go ´hostile´ either. I simply don´t share your negative opinion of the rest of Man, so please speak for yourself.
´Hopefully you get around to realizing that.´
Hopefully you will get around to realizing that.
:)