Since CO2 has an atmospheric lifetime of over a hundred years, I would really enjoy it if Mr. Monbiot would provide for us a detailed inventory of his CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions to this point in his life. I am particularly interested in the amount of flying he has done, and when, so we can get a rough sense of how much HIS flying has put CO2 into the atmosphere.

If he's going to go around telling people it's evil to fly, then perhaps he should tell us why it was okay for him to fly all around the globe.

I guarantee you he has contributed far more greenhouse gases than I have.

One issue I have with the guy is that he wants to 'stop' all climate change. I have it on good confidence from climatologists that this is impossible. There is simply yoo much inertia in the system, such that if all of humanity *POOF*ed out of existence today, all the latent heat and feedbacks would still generate significant climate change for decades at least.

We can however try to slow it down to a speed we can adapt to. And it will take economies to engage in necessary adaptation.

Maybe eventually we can take the reins of our planets climate to get the most optimum results, but that age is not today.

Been here before. I can't understand this obsession with an activity which produces 2% of the world's CO2 output, vs. 40% for automotive travel, and which as Monbiot himself says, results world-travelled people who are better able and willing to deal peacefully with foreigners.

Nor do I agree with Mr. Monbiot's take on the evolution of the turbine engine, which has changed drastically since 1947 and is very much more efficient. Fuel use has been cut in half in just the past 30 years.

Beyond this, aircraft are growing lighter and aerodynamically better, thanks to the use of composites and other technologies. The 787 is all about reducing fuel use.

And I don't find the contrail numbers credible. CO2 lasts a century while a contrail lasts a few hours or days at the most.

Mr. Monbiot has managed the unique feat of claiming that burning hydrogen (as opposed to producing it), is a climate change threat.

Frankly I think the man hates airplanes. There have always been such people. Before, their narrative was about the danger of flight and how unnatural it is, etc. Now they put global warming in the picture.

Which is not to say that aircraft efficiency should not be closely monitored, that older, thirstier aircraft should not be retired, or that personal jet travel (the air equivalent of SUVs but much worse) should not be discouraged at a time when there are thousands of new "VLJ" (Very Light Jet) aircraft on order.

I am particularly interested in the amount of flying he has done

I can't say how much flying he has done in the past. But I do seem to remember reading a recent article arguing that EVERYONE would have to curb their airtravel. I think he said something along the lines of "painfully for me, that will mean giving up flying to anti-corporate globalisation meetings in Porto Alegre." Maybe he is walking his talk.

One issue I have with the guy is he wants to 'stop' all climate change.

I'm not sure where he has argues this. Certainly his new book says nothing of the sort. He is arguing that we need to make drastic cuts now if we stand any chance of keeping emissions below a dangerous level where run-away climate change would kick in. He fully covers the fact that feedback loops are already kicking in, and that CO2 and other GHGs remain in the system for long periods of time.

Looks like Mr. Monbiot can't be "bothered" to even calculate his own, present carbon footprint - let alone fess up to all the flying he's done in the past that has left all kinds of greenhouse gases still persistent in the atmosphere.

Poor thing has so many "deadlines" that he can't be bothered to check his own behavior. He needs to devote all his time to telling OTHER people what they can't do (now that he's had his own fill of world travel by airplane).

You're right - I should have done it. But do you have any idea how many deadlines I have to meet? It takes a great deal longer than five minutes if you're to do it properly: for example, I would need to calculate what proportion of the electricity I buy (from Good Energy) really is carbon free. I would have to work out the proportion of the food we eat that I grow myself ... etc etc. It takes a least a couple of days. When I have that time to spare, I'll do it.

Looks like Mr. Monbiot can't be "bothered" to even calculate his own, present carbon footprint - let alone fess up to all the flying he's done in the past that has left all kinds of greenhouse gases still persistent in the atmosphere.

If he's going to go around telling people it's evil to fly, then perhaps he should tell us why it was okay for him to fly all around the globe.

I think he's fessed up, in the sense that he says he has drastically reduced the amount of flying he does.

Many people here and at the Guardian implicitly accuse GM of hypocrisy, as he used to fly all over the globe. It's not hypocritical for him to ask people to stop doing something that he used to do, now that he has determined (note: you may disagree with him on this) that it's harmful. It would be hypocritical to keep on doing it, and it would be negligent not to warn others of the harm.

I think the gist of GM's argument is yes, today, air travel is a small component of CO2 emissions. But, it's not negligible. Even more importantly, it will become a much larger issue as other economies (ok, let's say it together now, "India and China") become more developed. Air travel is a luxury of the rich. And yes, I include middle class Europeans, Americans, and everyone else who is wealthy by global standards. As income goes up, we can expect air travel to go up as well. Global median income in 2000, using purchasing power parity, was estimated at $1700. It's not the 50% of people living on less income, or the 80% of the world's population living on less than $5533/yr, that are doing all the flying.

Many people here and at the Guardian implicitly accuse GM of hypocrisy, as he used to fly all over the globe. It's not hypocritical for him to ask people to stop doing something that he used to do, now that he has determined (note: you may disagree with him on this) that it's harmful. It would be hypocritical to keep on doing it, and it would be negligent not to warn others of the harm.

You're telling me that a man with his intelligence was unable to apprehend that flying around the globe had a large carbon footprint?

What Mr. Monbiot is doing is saying, "Yeah, I got mine and it was great. Those were the days. Now the rest of you can suffer the consequences of my wasteful behavior and feel guilty about it to boot."

That he can't apprehend how offensive such an attitude is -- and how dishonest it is for him to act as if he was unaware of the amount of resources he was consuming by flying around and the amount of CO2 he was leaving in the atmosphere -- just indicates how self-absorbed he is.

"A weapon with wings"??

I just got done reading Monbiot's little essay from 2003 on the 100th anniversary of flight.

Some choice quotes:
"Dec 17th 2003 is the centenary of the world’s most effective killing machine."

"The aeroplane was conceived, designed, tested, developed and sold, in other words, not as a vehicle for tourism, but as an instrument of destruction."

"But commercial flights, like military flights, are an instrument of domination. As tourists, we engage with the people of other nations on our own terms. The world’s administrators can flit from place to place enforcing their mandate. The corporate jet set shrinks the earth to fit its needs. Those with access to the aeroplane control the world."

"The men who attacked New York and Washington on September 11th 2001 drove one symbol of power into another. The aeroplane, more precisely than any other technology, represents the global ruling class. In the past we raised our eyes to the men on horseback. Today we raise our eyes to the heavens."

"...even when used for strictly commercial purposes, the airliner remains a weapon of mass destruction."

"Flying is our most effective means of wrecking the planet...."

"Every time we fly, we help to kill someone."

"The $1000 [the Wright Brothers] spent on developing their beast is just about the only expenditure on this doom machine which has not been state-assisted."

"The aeroplane, in other words, is still treated by governments as a social good. This might have something to do with the fact that prime ministers and presidents use it more often than anyone else. Or it might reflect the perennial male obsession with the instruments of control. Just as Alexander the Great worshipped his horse, George Bush, the new conqueror of Persia, will tomorrow worship the aeroplane."

"Our societies are built upon these technologies of war: the current world order fell from the hatches of the aeroplane. At 10.35am, North Carolina time, George Bush and the other enthusiasts for domination will bow down before it. The rest of us should observe 12 seconds of silence, in commemoration of the deeds wrought by those magnificent men in their killing machines."

=======

Is this person supposed to be taken seriously when discussing this subject, especially when it comes to facts?

Oh Lordy. His is the kind of bombastic rhetoric one only sees from fascists and communists -- and similar extremist kooks.

I guarantee you he has contributed far more greenhouse gases than I have.

Greener than thou, eh?