Quote :

"Opinion: For the sake of the world's poor, we must keep the wealthy at home We all know the damage aviation does, but the government and the airlines want to turn the country into Airstrip One The Guardian (UK) 02/28/2006 Author: George Monbiot At last the battlelines have been drawn, and the first major fight over climate change is about to begin. All over the country, a coalition of homeowners and anarchists, of Nimbys and internationalists, is mustering to fight the greatest future cause of global warming: the growth of aviation. Not all these people care about the biosphere. Some are concerned merely that their homes are due to be bulldozed, or that, living under the new flight paths, they will never get a good night's sleep again. But anyone who has joined a broad-based coalition understands the power of this compound of idealism and dogged self-interest. The industry has seen it, and is getting its revenge in first. Last week the Guardian obtained a leaked copy of a draft treaty between the European Union and the US that would prevent us from taking any measure to reduce the environmental impact of airlines without the approval of the US government. This, though it might be the widest ranging, is not the first such agreement; the 1944 Chicago convention, now supported by 4,000 bilateral treaties, rules that no government may levy tax on aviation fuel. The airlines have been bottlefed throughout their lives. The British government admits that the only area in which it is "free to make policy in isolation from other countries" is airport development; it could contain or reverse the growth of flights by restricting airport capacity. Instead, it is softening us up for a third runway at Heathrow, and similar extensions at Stansted, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Twelve other airports have already announced expansion plans. According to the Commons environmental audit committee, the growth the government foresees will require "the equivalent of another Heathrow every five years". Orwell's most accurate prediction in 1984 was the mutation of Britain into Airstrip One. Already, one fifth of all international air passengers fly to or from an airport in the UK. The numbers have risen fivefold in the past 30 years, and the government envisages that they will more than double by 2030, to 476 million a year. Perhaps "envisages" is the wrong word. By providing the capacity, the government ensures that the growth takes place. As far as climate change is concerned, this is an utter, unparalleled disaster. It's not just that aviation represents the world's fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions. The burning of aircraft fuel has a "radiative forcing ratio" of around 2.7; what this means is that the total warming effect of aircraft emissions is 2.7 times as great as the effect of the carbon dioxide alone. The water vapour they produce forms ice crystals in the upper troposphere (vapour trails and cirrus clouds) that trap the earth's heat. According to calculations by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, if you added the two effects together (it urges some caution as they are not directly comparable), aviation emissions alone would exceed the government's target for the country's entire output of greenhouse gases in 2050 by around 134%. The government has an effective means of dealing with this. It excludes international aircraft emissions from the target. It won't engage in honest debate because there is no means of reconciling its plans with its claims about sustainability. In researching my book about how we might achieve a 90% cut in carbon emissions by 2030, I have been discovering, greatly to my surprise, that every other source of global warming can be reduced or replaced to that degree without a serious reduction in our freedoms. But there is no means of sustaining long-distance, high-speed travel. The industry claims it can reduce its emissions by means of technological developments. But, as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution points out, its targets "are clearly aspirations rather than projections". There are some basic technological constraints that make major improvements impossible to envisage. The first problem is that our planes have a remarkably long design life. The Boeing 747 is still in the air 36 years after it left the drawing board. The Tyndall Centre predicts that the new Airbus A380 will still be flying, "in gradually modified form", in 2070. Switching to more efficient models would mean scrapping the existing fleet. Some designers have been playing with the idea of "blended wing bodies": planes with hollow wings in which the passengers sit. In principle they could reduce the use of fuel by up to 30%. But the idea, and its safety and stability, is far from proven. Yet this is as good as it gets. As the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe says: "The consensus view is that the rate of progress for conventional engines will slow down significantly in the next 10 years." And if the efficiency of engines does improve, this doesn't necessarily solve the problem. More efficient engines tend to be noisier (so even less acceptable to local people), and to produce more water vapour (which means that their total climate impact could in fact be higher). Even if the outermost promise of a 30% cut could be met, it would offset only a fraction of the extra fuel use caused by rising demand. The airline companies keep talking about hydrogen planes, but if ever the technological problems were overcome they would be an even bigger disaster than current models. "Switching from kerosene to hydrogen," the royal commission says, "would replace carbon dioxide from aircraft with a threefold increase in emissions of water vapour." Biofuels would need more arable land than the planet possesses. The British government admits that "there is no viable alternative currently visible to kerosene as an aviation fuel." New fuel consumption figures for both fast passenger ships and ultra-high-speed trains suggest that their carbon emissions are comparable to those of planes. What all this means is that if we want to stop the planet from cooking, we will simply have to stop travelling at the kind of speeds that planes permit. This is now broadly understood by almost everyone I meet. But it has had no impact whatever on their behaviour. When I challenge my friends about their planned weekend in Rome or their holiday in Florida, they respond with a strange, distant smile and avert their eyes. They just want to enjoy themselves. Who am I to spoil their fun? The moral dissonance is deafening. Despite the claims made for the democratising effects of cheap travel, 75% of those who use budget airlines are in social classes A, B and C. People with second homes abroad average six return flights a year, while people in classes D and E hardly fly; they can't afford the holidays, so are responsible for just 6% of flights. Most of the growth, the government envisages, will take place among the wealthiest 10%. But the people who are being hit first and will be hit hardest by climate change are among the poorest on earth. Already the droughts in Ethiopia, putting millions at risk of starvation, are being linked to the warming of the Indian Ocean. Some 92 million Bangladeshis could be driven out of their homes this century in order that we can still go shopping in New York. Flying kills. We all know it, and we all do it. And we won't stop doing it until the government reverses its policy and starts closing the runways."

There are two points that make this article interesting to me. Their assertion is that not just air travel but high speed travel in general is killing the environment. Unlike most other technologies, there is simply no real alternative to dramatically reducing this pollution. The other interesting thing would be the impact that reductions in air travel would have on the world's population. Would air travel go back to being the luxury of the rich again? What impact would this have on the global economy? Thoughts to ponder.

2/28/2006 5:18:17 PM

AIRSTRIP ONE?

OH NOES BIG BROTHER

2/28/2006 5:25:09 PM

Insert fundamentals:
#1 Carbon Dioxide is not a polutant, it is food for plants
#2 Even the most draconian restrictions on CO2 use would have little impact
#3 A warmer planet is not necessarily any worse than the current planet
#4 Draconian restrictions on CO2 use would cost the global economy trillions, and only help the poor a little bit (their standard of living is just a shy above death as it is)
#5 Everyone would be much better off if we simply cut the poor a check and ignored global warming

2/28/2006 5:48:00 PM

Quote :

"The first problem is that our planes have a remarkably long design life. The Boeing 747 is still in the air 36 years after it left the drawing board. The Tyndall Centre predicts that the new Airbus A380 will still be flying, "in gradually modified form", in 2070. Switching to more efficient models would mean scrapping the existing fleet."

im not trying to attack what they are saying, but are the jet engines on the planes really 30 years old?

2/28/2006 5:58:50 PM

Quote :

"Despite the claims made for the democratising effects of cheap travel, 75% of those who use budget airlines are in social classes A, B and C. People with second homes abroad average six return flights a year, while people in classes D and E hardly fly; they can't afford the holidays, so are responsible for just 6% of flights. Most of the growth, the government envisages, will take place among the wealthiest 10%. But the people who are being hit first and will be hit hardest by climate change are among the poorest on earth. Already the droughts in Ethiopia, putting millions at risk of starvation, are being linked to the warming of the Indian Ocean. Some 92 million Bangladeshis could be driven out of their homes this century in order that we can still go shopping in New York. Flying kills. We all know it, and we all do it. And we won't stop doing it until the government reverses its policy and starts closing the runways.""

we should make sport's illegal to while we're at it. None of the poor get Ferrari's, it's not fair. Whaaa whaa whaa...

Not to mention, flying saves lives. Would we ban flights to disaster areas? It would reduce polution. But, maybe I'm not thinking like a true enviromentalist. I think a true enviromentalist should advocate the extermination of most humans. No humans, no technology. No technology, no polution. Fact is that technology saves lives. We could not support the population that we do right now with the technology of several hundered years ago.

I have this silly idea that human life now should be put before any hypothetical environmental
disaster of the future. Humans with technology actually produce less overall damage to the environment then the same number of humans without technology. So, unless you are going to
reduce the number of humans it is foolish to limit technology. For example, Haiti is a place free from the rampant consumerism that ravages our country. But, despite the fact that few people in Haiti can afford airtravel it is a cess-pool environmentally.

And since when was it the droughts in Etheopia that kept people hungry? I thought it was the
pitiful infighting of so many waring tribes/ politics of Africa. We send the food (grown with the help of evil C0(2) producing farm equiptment) and then they don't distribute it.

Anyway, LoneSnark already summarized my thought on this modulo #5 which I think is
hurtful to the poor in many instances.

2/28/2006 8:12:56 PM

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 8:30 PM. Reason : }]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

2/28/2006 8:29:57 PM

Quote :

"im not trying to attack what they are saying, but are the jet engines on the planes really 30 years old?"

Fuck yeah.

2/28/2006 8:34:05 PM

Quote :

"The first problem is that our planes have a remarkably long design life."

reading is fundamental

2/28/2006 8:38:48 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "im not trying to attack what they are saying, but are the jet engines on the planes really 30 years old?" Fuck yeah. "

No. The airframes are often old. They are designed to very high tolerances, and will last a long long time properly maintained. They recondition everything over time. Engines, on the other hand, are overhauled or replaced every X number of hours.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 8:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 8:42:35 PM

While this article kinda sucks, it makes valid points. Aircraft engines consume a LOT of fuel, and while they have improved, they still emit a ton of emmisions. I would wager that one continental flight is far more harmful than if the 100 passengers just drove to their destinations and back individually. And it is indeed true that the poor fly very little and for emergencies only while the rich will fly crosscountry at the drop of a hat.

I don't see a solution though. A tax on air fuel would drive the airlines out of business, and the poor need the rich in order to keep flights regular and affordable.

2/28/2006 9:32:46 PM

^ this is information that exists.

On average, a full plane consumes about the same amount of fuel as if the passengers had driven with two passengers per car (ignoring traffic and stop-lights). And these would be small cars. As many Americans own big cars, or even SUVs, it can easily be more fuel efficient for them to fly.

Going down this "road" of reasoning, however, is purely for fun. Attempting to "implement" engineering truths by manipulating society rarely work out well.

For example, what percentage of fliers are business travellers? What percentage of them would not go if they had to drive there? What percentage of them would have benefitted society had they gone? For example, some businesses rely on air-travel to cut down on labor duplication (employ one "fixer" and have him fly out to the number of sites under management when necessary) or increase colaberation efficiency (sometimes the blue-prints just don't cut it). Not to mention the businesses that rely upon air-freight (Fed Ex, UPS) to do business in the first place.

In the end, outlawing airtravel "could" result in increased carbon emissions in the long run as economic advancement slows and economic adaptability erodes. Nevermind that it is unnecessary and idiotic:
#1 Carbon Dioxide is not a polutant, it is food for plants
#2 Even the most draconian restrictions on CO2 use would have little impact
#3 A warmer planet is not necessarily any worse than the current planet
#4 Draconian restrictions on CO2 use would cost the global economy trillions, and only help the poor a little bit (their standard of living is just a shy above death as it is)
#5 Everyone would be much better off if we simply cut the poor a check and ignored global warming

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 11:26 PM. Reason : copied for those that missed]

2/28/2006 11:23:04 PM

While I'm all for warmer weather, saying that slight temperature increases are harmless is very dangerous. Catastrophic weather swings and global extinctions have been caused by far less in the past.

And while I love to fly, it drives me a little crazy to hear about businesses flying people halfway around the world to accomplish something that could just as easily happen with a telephone or a computer.

2/28/2006 11:41:57 PM

Quote :

"While I'm all for warmer weather, saying that slight temperature increases are harmless is very dangerous. Catastrophic weather swings and global extinctions have been caused by far less in the past."

No one is arguing that it would be harmless, merely that it would be nothing we could not better deal with by other means. Remember, doing all the enviro-nazi's want us to do will not fix the problem, merely delay its arrival for a few years. And the cost of this delay would be astronomical in human terms. So, do nothing, give money to the people it harms, and do the best we can dealing with the ill effects in a rational and sensible manner.

Quote :

"And while I love to fly, it drives me a little crazy to hear about businesses flying people halfway around the world to accomplish something that could just as easily happen with a telephone or a computer."

Barring stupidity, odds are companies do that because they have learned over time that doing so will save them money in the long run (fewer mistakes).

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 11:46 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/28/2006 11:44:23 PM

Quote :

"#1 Carbon Dioxide is not a polutant, it is food for plants"

to plants, no it's not. but to animals and us, a high concentration is toxic. on the topic of global warming, it depends on who's side you're on to be saying if it's a pollutant or not.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0829-02.htm
http://www.expresswaysonline.com/expwys/ourselves.html

carbon dioxide make up less than 1% of the earth's atmostphere, and plants don't need that much carbon dioxide to produce food.

3/1/2006 12:04:36 AM

Quote :

"#1 Carbon Dioxide is not a polutant, it is food for plants"

OH
MY
GOD
^ thank you

3/1/2006 8:09:06 AM

dude shit isnt trash, its food for flys

3/1/2006 10:43:50 AM

"#1 Carbon Dioxide is not a polutant, it is food for plants"

My astronomy professor said that ancient plants consumed a ton more of this stuff and pumped out way more of what we breathe than do modern much weaker plants, that they are what gave us our oxygen atmosphere (modern plants can maintain it somewhat, but couldn’t have created it on that level). Assuming this is correct, knowing massive conversion plants are in the realm of natures possibilities, all we need is a little playing god genetic engineering. Then we can have our planes and eat them too.

3/1/2006 10:53:46 AM

Quote :

"but to animals and us, a high concentration is toxic."

Well, "Toxic" implies poisoning. It is not a poison, I do not think, it merely hinders your bodies ability to expel CO2, which hinders your bodies ability to absorb O2. You will asphyxiate, and only as long as the situation exists. Leave the room and you will recover completely in a matter of minutes. If you want to call it Toxic, I guess you can, I just suspect the term is a bit excessive.

That said, CO2 makes up far less than 1% of the Earth's atmosphere, 0.04% to be precise. This number needs to go up to almost 10% before you start having major problems, it can be even higher with training on your part.

Supplanter, that is neat... super-plants you say? Perhabs we can GM some corn to be super CO2 absorbant...

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 10:57 AM. Reason : ^]

3/1/2006 10:56:10 AM

Quote :

"Campaign and information site on the dangers of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning You can't smell it, see it or taste it, but it could be with you right now!!" Carbon Monoxide is the the most toxic substance you'll come into contact with in your daily life. In your home, at work, garage, car, caravan & boat."

how you are "poisoned"

Quote :

"Carbon Monoxide poisons by entering the lungs via the normal breathing mechanism and displacing oxygen from the bloodstream. Interruption of the normal supply of oxygen puts at risk the functions of the heart, brain and other vital functions of the body."

and that's exactly what happens when you inhale too much carbon DIoxide... or basically too much of anything that isn't oxygen. too much carbon dioxide IS poisoning. This isn't a big deal that you got this incorrect, but what is very telling is that you just majorly assumed something that was false, and you didn't even try to research it. It took me 30 seconds to find out the deal.

oh, and actually, here's an article on carbon dioxide toxicity
http://www.emedicine.com/wild/topic11.htm
Carbon dioxide build-up when diving is the result of inadequate ventilation. It is often caused by inadequate breathing, a tight wetsuit, overexertion, regulator malfunction, deep diving, and contamination of the air supply with exhaled gases. As a result, carbon dioxide levels in the blood can increase, causing shortness of breath and sedation.

3/1/2006 11:42:58 AM

dont worry dihydrogen monoxide will save us.. i have faith...

3/1/2006 11:58:08 AM

HA HA! You fuck-off!
Carbon Monoxide != Carbon Dioxide!
The two act radically differently. Do ANY research and you would know that. You EXHALE Carbon Dioxide, you fucktard, if it did what Carbon Monoxide does that would be impossible and would kill you. The problem with Carbon Monoxide is that it cannot dislodge from your blood cells. Once a blood cell has absorbed carbon monoxide it is forever incapable of carrying oxygen, it might as well be dead.

Carbon Dioxide is readily dislodged from blood cells, that is how you expell it by breathing.

NO Amount of Carbon Monoxide is safe. The less there is the longer it takes you kill you, that is all. You blood stream is naturally about 5% Carbon Dioxide, about 40 Torr, of your blood stream.

If you enter a room with .01% Carbon Monoxide, the concentration begins rising in your blood stream far above .01% and keeps rising (slowly) until there is no more Carbon Monoxide in the room! Your blood stream becomes incapable of carrying anything else and you die (the time depends on the concentration, but it is inevitable).

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 12:19 PM. Reason : value]

3/1/2006 12:11:54 PM

Quote :

"oh, and actually, here's an article on carbon dioxide toxicity http://www.emedicine.com/wild/topic11.htm Carbon dioxide build-up when diving is the result of inadequate ventilation. It is often caused by inadequate breathing, a tight wetsuit, overexertion, regulator malfunction, deep diving, and contamination of the air supply with exhaled gases. As a result, carbon dioxide levels in the blood can increase, causing shortness of breath and sedation."

no need for personal attacks.

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2006 12:20:00 PM

^ I appologize for the personal attack, I took what you wrote to be condescending, it was unbearable to me since every statement I made was correct...

Carbon Monoxide is undeniably a poison. Any amount is harmful, just as cyanide. Breathing Carbon Dioxide is like drinking water, too much can kill. And just like Carbon Dioxide, as long as the subject is still breathing full recovery should be achieved simply by removing them from the environment in a matter of minutes. Should we call water a poison to?

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 12:45 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/1/2006 12:43:42 PM

no, too much water is poisonous, as is too much carbon dioxide. As far as I can tell, a small amount of carbon monoxide is no more dangerous than a small amount of carbon dioxide. There is some carbon monoxide in the air, too, especially in cities. http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=1788


the two basically cause the same problems - if there's too much of them, they displace oxygen, and you suffocate. Carbon monoxide is worse in parts per area, but the effect is similar.

Quote :

"Carbon Monoxide poisons by entering the lungs via the normal breathing mechanism and displacing oxygen from the bloodstream. Interruption of the normal supply of oxygen puts at risk the functions of the heart, brain and other vital functions of the body"

Quote :

"Carbon dioxide build-up when diving is the result of inadequate ventilation. It is often caused by inadequate breathing, a tight wetsuit, overexertion, regulator malfunction, deep diving, and contamination of the air supply with exhaled gases. As a result, carbon dioxide levels in the blood can increase, causing shortness of breath and sedation."

3/1/2006 1:03:33 PM

^ DG? Why? Why are you doing this? Are you trolling or something?

Quote :

"A concentration of as little as 0.04% (400 parts per million) carbon monoxide in the air can be fatal. Because carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobin several hundred times as strongly as does oxygen, its effects are cumulative and long-lasting, causing oxygen starvation throughout the body."

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

Hell, the wikipedia entry for Carbon Dioxide doesn't mention the words "poison" or "toxic" once, it doesn't even have a section on health-risk, merely a link to Asphyxia because of its oxygen displacement tendency. An oversight, I argue, because CO2 at a concentration of 10% can kill even if the other 90% of the atmosphere is O2.

Why am I arguing. If you refuse to see that different chemicals have different properties, that is your problem. Watch out! Dihydrogen Monoxide! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!

BTW: Your link is neat!

Quote :

"ranging from about 390 parts per billion (dark brown pixels), to 220 parts per billion (red pixels), to 50 parts per billion (blue pixels)."

Ok, so, the worse they found was 390 parts per billion, or 0.00000039%. You must breath for 10 minutes to get a single molecule of CO in your lungs.
Compare this with the world-wide average for Carbon Dioxide concentration: 0.04%

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 1:46 PM. Reason : NASA ROCKS!]

3/1/2006 1:42:47 PM

as I said, carbon monoxide is certainly worse (and yes, the fact that it binds to hemoglobin makes a difference), but there is clearly a carbon dioxide toxicity, as pointed out by that medical article I posted.

3/1/2006 1:47:26 PM

And as your article demonstrates, Carbon Dioxide released into the atmosphere is not remotely dangerous, leaving us with what I originally stated: "Carbon Dioxide is not a polutant, it is food for plants"

3/1/2006 2:24:16 PM

Everyone just needs to die so we stop breathing out carbon dioxide. SAVE THE PLANET.


And leave it to an idiot to bring up carbon monoxide poisoning in a conversation about the effects of carbon dioxide.

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 2:48 PM. Reason : ]

3/1/2006 2:47:39 PM

again with the personal attacks. the comparison is apt. I don't see why I'd be the idiot. You're the one who doesn't see the difference between normal organisms exhaling carbon dioxide vs. one organism producing more per amount of time than has ever been produced, leaving the earth's ability to process it completely impotent.

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2006 3:12:41 PM

Quote :

"No. The airframes are often old. They are designed to very high tolerances, and will last a long long time properly maintained. They recondition everything over time. Engines, on the other hand, are overhauled or replaced every X number of hours."

Agreed. The US Air Force is still running B-52s and KC-135's that date back to the 1950s and early 1960s. They've probably gutted and overhauled everything else, but the airframe is still original.

They could (and probably do) phase in engines that are more efficient, but it's going to be very hard to convince airlines to replace their engines en masse today. For example, a typical Boeing 777 engine, the GE90, runs for around $19 million. Now if you have a fleet of 100 of these aircraft, you can see their reluctance in chucking them (2 engines a plane, another four of five in reserve). Also, using a different engine would require that you redo the engine mount, tweak software, etc. The cost adds up quickly; I don't even know if the turbine manufacturers would bother designing new, more efficient engines for older airframes like the 757 or 767 which are being phased out by the bigger airlines since there wouldn't be much of a market for them.

Also, when you throw in other factors like the airframe's composition and aerodynamics, it does make more sense to just buy a new plane instead of trying to refit an existing one.

Quote :

"And while I love to fly, it drives me a little crazy to hear about businesses flying people halfway around the world to accomplish something that could just as easily happen with a telephone or a computer."

I don't know if you've worked in a virtual environment before, but without those trips cross country to sit down with your coworkers every now and then, there's no way that a business unit can function properly. Never underestimate the value of face-to-face time.

3/1/2006 3:16:54 PM

Quote :

"again with the personal attacks. the comparison is apt. I don't see why I'd be the idiot. You're the one who doesn't see the difference between normal organisms exhaling carbon dioxide vs. one organism producing more per amount of time than has ever been produced, leaving the earth's ability to process it completely impotent."

Wow, DG, just love digging the hole deeper, I see.

Of course, since the comparison between CO and CO2 is "apt," then a comparison between water and cyanide would also be "apt," right? I'll go to the store and buy some dry-ice to play with indoors, you can go play with some frozen CO outside.

Also, most years forest fires alone release more CO2 than the human race. One such forest fire in Asia a few years back released enough CO2 to fuel the human race for a year, all by itself. Or were you referring to the fire-bug?

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 5:26 PM. Reason : fire]

3/1/2006 5:23:35 PM

Wow, just wow.

3/1/2006 10:45:44 PM