Carbon Footprint Disconnect?

Don’t be afraid to reply, as this is a serious point, especially for the regular users of aeroplanes.

ATB from George

Don't sound too serious to me.

I ain't driving or getting a train to my next holiday in Greece.

I assume you are not serious George,  shutting down runways will just shut down most all business in UK, so that'll stop all the carbon emissions all right.  Problem is Schiphol, Paris & Frankfurt will take up the slack.

I believe Heathrow does need an extra runway, & by the time they have made a decision & finally built it they will probably be needing another one.  Schiphol has 5,  this is proper logistic planning (NB they don't use them all at the same time)  Gatwick should not be allowed to operate as an international airport with only one runway.  The Boris airport on the Thames estuary is an OK idea except being out on the coast its a bit out of the way for good land communication. I would be more inclined to support an all new airport linked to the north with HS2 & place it somewhere in the midlands.

radical question = radical answer.  

Dear Mike,

I am utterly serious.

In the internet age, there is no need for business travel. The replacement is called a video-conference.

If there were to be any development in airport runways, it should be in Newcastle or Durham, and be combined with the closing of the same number of runways in the South.

ATB from George

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

 

In the internet age, there is no need for business travel. The replacement is called a video-conference.

 

Afraid not.

I share your view but none of my overseas clients do. If I don't see them in person twice a year they will take their business elsewhere. 

The majority of my work is done electronically nowadays. It's nothing like it used to be. 

Maybe there will be a time when the traces of conventional mentality will be gone for good. Not in my life time I suspect.

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Dear Mike,

I am utterly serious.

In the internet age, there is no need for business travel. The replacement is called a video-conference.

If there were to be any development in airport runways, it should be in Newcastle or Durham, and be combined with the closing of the same number of runways in the South.

ATB from George

George so by the same token, no physical stores shouldn't be needed as you can order from the net and they can ship directly to you and no need to see your family or friends in the flesh, they can make do with video conferences...

I live in Canada and my folks in London. Planes are the only feasible way in terms of cost and time to get over to see them. 

You'd be better off looking at cars, trucks, factories et al than planes. 

Excellent question, George. We're all assuming that nothing will ever change, and that we'll still be flying all over the place in 20 years' time. I find Mike-B's "rather permanently" a bit ironic - certainly flying is one of the areas in which things will have to change, whether we like it or not. This year, I've flown to Italy, to Australia, but I have a feeling that it might be a wee bit more difficult in 20-30 years' time... London does not need a third runway - and Nantes, in France, does not need a new airport. Saying that they should look at cars, lorries and so on is the king of thing you hear in playgrounds: "It's not me, it's the lorries...".

I also share the idea of George, but I'm not ready to close all airports because, if is needed to transport goods or people, the aircraft engines are rather efficient nowadays in comparison to others combustion engines everywhere in the world.

In respect of the footprint I would suggest to improve system that are much less efficient (and not limited only to direct combustion process).

For short to medium distances, high-speed trains are more efficient. Not so good if you wish to go to New York for the weekend, I agree... But twenty years hence, a weekend in New York (or even a week) might appear totally antisocial.

Frenchnaim posted:

Saying that they should look at cars, lorries and so on is the king of thing you hear in playgrounds: "It's not me, it's the lorries...".

I don't fly as much as I did - now once or twice a year - but I drive here, there and everywhere ( Alberta is double the geographical size of the UK and only has 4 million people ) on a daily basis now.  So way more carbon impact from my SUV than my flight use. That said, being European I took umbridge with having to get anything over a 2.0L engine, which over here is low compared to those in the pickup trucks.

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

In the internet age, there is no need for business travel. The replacement is called a video-conference.

I would imagine a very small amount of business travel is unnecessary. I cannot certify, fix, investigate, test, demonstrate, replace, reassure, instruct etc on a submarine in Sweden, an HEP in Turkey or an airbase in Canada by video(whatever).

HSBC do some very interesting banking in Switzerland, apparently you never need show your face or actually see anyone, a nod's as good as a wink (so they say!)

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Dear Mike,

I am utterly serious.

In the internet age, there is no need for business travel. The replacement is called a video-conference.

If there were to be any development in airport runways, it should be in Newcastle or Durham, and be combined with the closing of the same number of runways in the South.

ATB from George

I like to meet my grandchildren in Canada face-to-face and actually cuddle them. Video conferencing isn't quite the same.

I moved from Chester-le-Street, Co Durham about 50 years ago. I don't really want to have to travel to Newcastle of Durham to get a convenient flight.

Heathrow is perfectly fine for me. About 35 minutes by car, doing 80mph at 25mpg. Roll on the AAA Sirloins and sod the veggie stuff. I didn't get to the top of the food chain to start eating cultivated grass again !

Frenchnaim posted:

Excellent question, George. We're all assuming that nothing will ever change, and that we'll still be flying all over the place in 20 years' time. I find Mike-B's "rather permanently" a bit ironic - certainly flying is one of the areas in which things will have to change, whether we like it or not. This year, I've flown to Italy, to Australia, but I have a feeling that it might be a wee bit more difficult in 20-30 years' time... London does not need a third runway - and Nantes, in France, does not need a new airport. Saying that they should look at cars, lorries and so on is the king of thing you hear in playgrounds: "It's not me, it's the lorries...".

Dear Frenchnaim,

I am sure you are correct in what you write. The days of heavy Carbon Footprints are numbered. 

If. as you suggest, things will have changed in twenty years time, then we can easily do without a third runway at Heathrow. For the intervening period the air-travelling public will have to go that bit further to the airport from London if their flight cannot be managed within the current capacity of Heathrow.

ATB from George

I think the reality is that until face-to-face business meetings are no longer possible (probably for financial reasons) then there will always be a demand for air travel. Don's rather obnoxiously presented viewpoint about physically needing to see loved ones (and interesting places by extension) is another major reason flights will continue to increase as the world increases the numbers of people living on it.

Of course, if pollution continues to increase in major cities the way it is going then we may manage to keep population growth down just by choking people to death instead - Beijing is a delightful place now, as is vast swathes of Indonesia...

I wonder if Don's 25 mpg car will seem equally as appealing to him in the future as he watches his grandkids quality of life diminish? There are some unbelievably entitled people around in the world...

Dear Penarth B-.

I did deliberately choose to avoid replying to Don, because his post seemed to exclude the results of his horrible car’s polution affecting his nearest and dearest and their offspring on the small scale, let alone the big scale. He seemed to defeat his point without me adding to it.

Best wishes from George [cyclist]

Whilst emitting fewer carbon pollutants etc. is no doubt a good thing, without air travel, the whole world would grind to halt and be dragged into poverty until such time as we produce all of our own food, only buy locally made products and services and revert to travelling by sailing ships and horses.
People will always wish to explore the globe and experience other cultures first hand.

In 20 years time, Heathrow will more than likely be looking at building a 4th or even 5th runway.

"Climate Change" is nothing new - it's been going on for centuries - just look at the history of Angkor Wat in Cambodia for example. A massive (originally) Hindu temple, surrounded by a massive city, built in the 12th century, self sufficient with rivers diverted into canals, providing water for drinking and irrigation for crops.
Then, after many centuries, they suffered a 70 year draught. (Yes seventy)
At that stage, they diverted the river to flow directly to the centre of the city. Then guess what? After 70 years, the draught broke and the city was flooded and those who didn't perish in the floods, moved elsewhere. Obviously man-made climate change?

Also look at the history of Krakatoa and the well documented 7 years of darkness and crop failures that resulted from its eruption. 
There is far more going on in this world than anyone could possibly predict and whilst it makes sense to limit, as far as is reasonably possible, our emissions.
Don't forget that the so called "experts" were claiming back in the 1980s & 1990s that we would all be wiped out by now due to man made global warming if emissions weren't halved. They weren't halved and we're still here.

Call me a sceptic but using recent history figures rather than centuries of data (not actually available) is really scare mongering and a way for governments to raise cash from taxes and/or carbon trading schemes which generate money for themselves and do little or nothing to actually improve air quality.

Just my 3p worth.

Dear Martin,

I don’t suggest the complete banning of aeroplanes, but rather their radical reduction.

There is certainly a point where carbon emissions by human-kind could be of less significance than what Nature throws up on its own account from time to time. 

However, it would be a good thing if each country would buy locally and make its own consumer products within a short distance of where they were used and consumed. 

Globalisation serves only the one per cent who have enough money already, while impoverishing the great mass of plebeians. And I am a plebeian for all that!

Very best wishes from George

I see your point about local bought products - there is too much waste sending all kinds of things around the country & globe.
That of course includes the precious metals mined in Australia then sent to Japan to make batteries which are sent to Canada to be built into new Toyota Prius cars, which are then shipped around the world to be sold. With an expected life-span, based on the life of the battery, (think of your mobile phone/laptop battery life-span) until it's uneconomical to replace the battery so the whole cars is scrapped.......Then a new one built using lots more resources and pwer....
Globalisation serves the many less well off people as well, those who buy clothes from cheaper sources (Primark etc), buy their car (if they can afford one) & a  TV or phone made in the far east, plus, they buy cheap imported and veg fruit all-year-round,  imported from the Caribbean or Israel etc.
At the high end of the scale, the components of each Naim made piece of equipment I feel quite sure will contain a large proportion of far eastern components - transistors, capacitors etc. etc.
Sadly, I think if we were to achieve the wonderful notion of self-sufficientcy we would effectively be returning to the dark ages.

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Dear Penarth B-.

his horrible car’s polution affecting his nearest and dearest and their offspring on the small scale, let alone the big scale.

The fastest and most effective route to cutting pollution caused by vehicles is to stop building them.  There are plenty to go around. Rather than formulate a strategy for how capitalist economies could withstand the cancellation of consumerism the end user is blamed and taxed. Comments like this just reinforce this unfocused thinking.

Call me a sceptic but using recent history figures rather than centuries of data (not actually available) is really scare mongering and a way for governments to raise cash from taxes and/or carbon trading schemes which generate money for themselves and do little or nothing to actually improve air quality.

I wouldn't call you a sceptic - just someone who won't accept what the overwhelming majority of climatologists the world over are telling us, someone who won't accept that we might have to adjust to future changes, possibly sooner than we think - and that we might see these changes as beneficial rather than negative. We live in an irrational world, and it's time we did something about our relationship with the environment. I'm sure you are perfectly aware, deep down, that we can't go on like that.

As for the old argument about governments and taxes - well, climate change is an embarrassing problem for most of them, apart from the few in those countries that have begun to adjust. If we make a few changes in our lives, the world will be a better place to live in.

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

 

However, it would be a good thing if each country would buy locally and make its own consumer products within a short distance of where they were used and consumed. 

Globalisation serves only the one per cent who have enough money already, while impoverishing the great mass of plebeians. And I am a plebeian for all that!

 

Local sourcing and manufacture is good in what way? Keeping those rubber plantations alive in Norway would cost a bomb (after all got to keep inner tubes local). The metal for that bike bell? Imagine all the local holes dug to find a palty amount of metal in a resource poor area. Now we've found enough for three bells (and ruined the local environment and expended a vast amount of CO2 in the process) our local foundry is fired up to melt the metal to make some springs, screws, and other sundry parts (at great expense) Now for the chrome plating, but there's no chrome. Sod it, dig some more holes. How about a leather apron for the worker as chrome takes some scrubbing out if you get it on your locally made clothes. No leather apron available as the town hall said it would be better if the tannery was located somewhere else, due to the local leek fields and oyster beds, although these items do pile up and smell (and it's getting taller and smellier) as only local people are allowed them (non-locals from not-so-nearby have to make do with their carrots and cheese). One lad said he would hop on a bike and (if someone could weave a basket to put on the bike) maybe start some trade. A list of items was drawn up and some wag put a Naim DAC V1 on it! Much head-scratching followed but as there was no leather for the bike saddle (and no-one could afford the bell anyway) the idea was scrapped and everyone lived locally ever after.

Globalisation serves anyone who wants global products or services. You want a banana? Think global. A Campagnolo chain-set? Think global. Cheaper electric? Think global. If everyone made video conference equipment locally, it would most certainly not work globally!

Harry has the right radical idea in tackling consumerism. Aisles of plastic tat in order to keep other countries' workers hovering below some notional povery line. Stop subsidising humanity via consumerism. Accept a new stone age. Even the builders of Stonehenge realised local stone was scarce and would need to be found NOT locally. Imagine the huffing and puffing getting those stones moved? CO2 by humanity unnecessarily generated.

Humanity is not nor ever will be endangered by CO2.

I'm sure George didn't mean bananas should be produced in the Outer Hebrides... The point he was making is that if it can be produced locally, then it should.

Humanity is not nor ever will be endangered by CO2, if we keep the proportion below a reasonable level.

Frenchnaim posted:

I'm sure George didn't mean bananas should be produced in the Outer Hebrides... The point he was making is that if it can be produced locally, then it should.

Humanity is not nor ever will be endangered by CO2, if we keep the proportion below a reasonable level.

Absolutely right about locally produced items Frenchnaim, no arguments from me. The trouble is the vast majority of 'stuff' be it in the form of high value goods, natural products, medicines, information, power etc cannot be made or found locally to anyone. A meage and dull range of foodstuffs can be grown, and much arguments about grazing rights can recommence. Idyllic communities will be torn apart by the presence of porky pig / sacred cow as 'food', a brain drain will move intelligent people to silicon valley to make iPlops, leaving only idiots in the villages 

I take exception to the rather 'telling' statement that globalisation serves ONLY the one percent... it has pros and cons. If a few ultrarich and some CO2 are the downside I'll take my chances and not don the 'virtuous hairshirt' today.

Unfortunately you are right about Humanity being completely unendangered by global warming, our response is proportional to our danger. I propose the generation of a dry ice manufacturing plant on the ocean bottom, CO2 loaded air is pumped down, the dry ice is made, bagged and left on the sea floor and CO2 free air bubbles back up. Problem solved and a lot cheaper than firing carbon briquettes at the sun.

Even an ant will tell you that if the acquisition of food costs more energy than it releases you are finished.  But that's another nail in the coffin of the global economy so tax away and keep preaching about how it's everyone's fault without doing anything significant to stop it as opposed to fiddling about.. This planet is not going down the toilet. It's the human race that's stuffed. The planet's going to be just fine, same as always.  Different to what it was before we turned up and shat all over it, but it will keep changing and evolving long after it has got us out of it's system.

The skies are full of planes. Factories all over the world are pouring out unneeded goods. Supermarkets are transporting goods and food over tens of thousands of miles.  People are traveling many miles to assemble in offices  when they could be working at home or nearer to home. How much energy and pollution is one day's collective UK commute responsible for? There is no will to change. Apparently charging for plastic bags is as radical as it can be allowed to get.