Carbon Footprint Disconnect?

I am sometimes tempted to feel that way - but I can't afford that luxury. I have a 23-year-old daughter, most of us on this forum have children.

So, technological fixes, yes, possibly - reducing our consumption, certainly, or at least change the way we consume natural resources. I must admit I don't understand the belief that trying to improve our relationship with the environment will take us back to the Neanderthal age, or the stone age, or whatever. That's not what I want for my daughter, and that's not what we're going to have.

There are a number of high profile individuals that have been brave enough to express an opinion that runs counter to the "consensus" of scientists on climate change. For example:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...eman_dyson_interview

For my own part I'm happy to be called a "sceptic". It's a fundamental of proper (or maybe Popper) science. If no one asked questions then we'd never have exposed the "mistakes" that have been made over climate change predictions.

Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is an interesting read, detailing some previous instances where climate change has previously has a dramatic effect on established civilisations long before mankind could have had an influence.

In the past decade the climate has deviated significantly from the predictions of the models. Maybe this is what has given the politicians the confidence to take a punt on agreeing to limit the rise to below 2°C;-)

Regards,

Willy.

It's a fundamental of proper (or maybe Popper) science.

Not when there's such a consensus, or when evidence is so overwhelmingly against the opponents of the theory. You can be a sceptic if there's little evidence, or if it's a question of faith (does God exist? I doubt it very much, but we have little evidence).

At one point you have to decide that a specific theory is the most likely explanation for any given phenomenon. You don't question Darwin's theory of evolution - or perhaps you do? - although it's only 95% proven. You don't question Einstein's theory of relativity, because you (and I) have little understanding of it - and it's not going to affect our lives, so we don't care.

The real question, as far as climate change is concerned, is: why is it that people find it so difficult to give credence to a theory which is well-nigh universally accepted (in scientific circles, that is)? Ah, that must be because it means  people will have to act upon it, and they think (wrongly) that they will have to give up things which they believe are essential to their well-being. Don't worry, I'm sure Naim will come up with "green" amplifiers...

Willy posted:

There are a number of high profile individuals that have been brave enough to express an opinion that runs counter to the "consensus" of scientists on climate change. For example:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...eman_dyson_interview

For my own part I'm happy to be called a "sceptic". It's a fundamental of proper (or maybe Popper) science. If no one asked questions then we'd never have exposed the "mistakes" that have been made over climate change predictions.

Get a grip FFS. There is nothing inherently brave about taking a different position on a scientific consensus, particularly in a democracy. The worst that could happen to you is that people might take this piss or send you a nasty message on social media.

Truly brave individuals are the writers, artists and other dissidents who speak out at great personal risk to themselves against totalitarian regimes.

This is a world where French cartoonists get murdered for allegedly insulting a supposed prophet; where bloggers get macheted to death in the streets of Bangladesh for daring to go against the grain of religious orthodoxy; where, in regimes like North Korea, even the slightest murmur of dissent can mean death for whole families.

Brave people are not climate change sceptics or contrarians, but those who dissent in countries where freedom of expression is seen as dangerous and contemptible - places such as KoSA, Belarus, China, Iran, Turkey, China, Cuba, Gambia, Zimbabwe, Russia.

The "anti-PC" brigade, climate sceptics, religious extremists and others like to flatter themselves that  they are somehow a persecuted minority and it's just BS.

I agree with you that scepticism is an essential quality in science, however.

PS - Just because the predictions  of a theory are wrong, it doesn't necessarily follow that the theory itself is wrong.

In science consensus counts for nothing. Absolutely nothing. All that counts is that observations agree with the predictions of the theory. In this climate science is at best struggling. The models have a poor record of predicting climate behaviour and are subject to ongoing revision in order to better agree with observations. (There may also be some revision of the observations in order to better fit the predictions).

I'm open to the idea of mankind influencing our climate however given the poor track record in climate science prediction I'd have to be a fool not to adopt a sceptical stance regarding the scale of any effect.

Evolution on the other hand has a good track record of observations agreeing with the predictions. There are a lot of details of the mechanisms that are still unclear but overall it is, to my mind, a proven theory.

As for the God theory, well I'm unaware of any observation that has given any credence to this.

Regards,

Willy.

There can be as much air travel as we like, provided it is full priced to account for both short and long-term costs, including the cost of any climate change it may precipitate. The problem is that air travel and pretty much everything else we do, isn't proced accordingly. We are borrowing from the future.

Kevin, think you need to "wind your neck in here". I never compared speaking out against the consensus on climate change with speaking out against a totalitarian regime. Two wholly different things.

A researcher who speaks out against the consensus on climate change runs the risk of losing their funding.

An individual who speaks out against a totalitarian regime risks torture and/or death.

Whilst two wholly different scenarios neither should be considered acceptable.

Regards,

Willy.

Willy posted:

 

A researcher who speaks out against the consensus on climate change runs the risk of losing their funding.

 

Regards,

Willy.

http://boingboing.net/2015/12/...npeace-activist.html

A credible, experienced and well-qualified researcher who runs contrary to the consensus would have little trouble being funded. There are plenty of well-funded interested parties who benefit from the denialist agenda. 

winkyincanada posted:

Willy posted:

 

A researcher who speaks out against the consensus on climate change runs the risk of losing their funding.

 

Regards,

Willy.

http://boingboing.net/2015/12/...npeace-activist.html

A credible, experienced and well-qualified researcher who runs contrary to the consensus would have little trouble being funded. There are plenty of well-funded interested parties who benefit from the denialist agenda. 

 I personally know of one researcher who feels unable to express his true views on climate change for fear of the negative effect it would have on his career. Supression of a dissenting voice is, IMHO, bad for science.

Regards,

Willy.

Willy, if that scientist is in Canada, the suppression the previous PM had on them has recently been lifted...  in fact, they have openly asked them to speak up.

Guy007 posted:

Willy, if that scientist is in Canada, the suppression the previous PM had on them has recently been lifted...  in fact, they have openly asked them to speak up.

Guy,

UK based researcher.

Regards,

Willy.

Willy posted:

In science consensus counts for nothing. Absolutely nothing. All that counts is that observations agree with the predictions of the theory. In this climate science is at best struggling. The models have a poor record of predicting climate behaviour and are subject to ongoing revision in order to better agree with observations. (There may also be some revision of the observations in order to better fit the predictions).

I'm open to the idea of mankind influencing our climate however given the poor track record in climate science prediction I'd have to be a fool not to adopt a sceptical stance regarding the scale of any effect.

Evolution on the other hand has a good track record of observations agreeing with the predictions. There are a lot of details of the mechanisms that are still unclear but overall it is, to my mind, a proven theory.

As for the God theory, well I'm unaware of any observation that has given any credence to this.

Regards,

Willy.

I agree that we must move beyond a consensus. In this instance, "consensus" means that the scientists involved agree on a number of basic points, which are considered to be beyond doubt - which is a good start. It's very hard to be a Galileo today, to be right against the crowd. That's why a consensus is good enough for me. And models, though imperfect, have been useful.

Incidentally, I never referred to a God theory, I just meant that the word "sceptic", to my mind (I may be wrong), is best used in contexts in which absolute certainty is impossible to achieve (which may or may not pply to climate science, I agree).

My final point is you'd probably agree that we can hardly wait another 20, 30, perhaps 50 years to have near-absolute certainty on the matter.

Time for a glass of wine... which causes limited damage to the environment.

Willy posted:

Kevin, think you need to "wind your neck in here". I never compared speaking out against the consensus on climate change with speaking out against a totalitarian regime. Two wholly different things.

A researcher who speaks out against the consensus on climate change runs the risk of losing their funding.

An individual who speaks out against a totalitarian regime risks torture and/or death.

Whilst two wholly different scenarios neither should be considered acceptable.

Regards,

Willy.

I need to do no such thing. You didn't even read my post properly. You were talking about "brave" people who went against CC consensus. I called you up on it, because it is not brave at all, despite what you might whimsically believe.

There's certainly nothing brave about Mr Dyson - a world-famous and long established physicist and mathematician (and, let's be clear, one of the world's most high-profile CC deniers/sceptics for more than a decade) - speaking out on this subject, he has no need to worry about funding. He's even admitted (in the Yale University journal  E360 - link here) that "I do not know much" [that's him, not me, although I'm no climate scientist either] on the subject of CC/global warming.

So far you've come up with one self-confessed maverick scientist and an acquaintance of yours who says he/she was denied funding. Hardly rigorous, is it?

And as Winky says, there's is plenty of funding available for CC sceptics. They're hardly a suppressed community either, as even a cursory reading of the mainstream media would demonstrate.

Kevin-W posted: ... dangerous and contemptible - places such as KoSA, Belarus, China, Iran, Turkey, China, Cuba, Gambia, Zimbabwe, Russia.

You forgot China!

hafler3o posted:

Kevin-W posted: ... dangerous and contemptible - places such as KoSA, Belarus, China, Iran, Turkey, China, Cuba, Gambia, Zimbabwe, Russia.

You forgot China!

China. So repressive they named it twice.

Kevin-W posted:

Willy posted:

Kevin, think you need to "wind your neck in here". I never compared speaking out against the consensus on climate change with speaking out against a totalitarian regime. Two wholly different things.

A researcher who speaks out against the consensus on climate change runs the risk of losing their funding.

An individual who speaks out against a totalitarian regime risks torture and/or death.

Whilst two wholly different scenarios neither should be considered acceptable.

Regards,

Willy.

I need to do no such thing. You didn't even read my post properly. You were talking about "brave" people who went against CC consensus. I called you up on it, because it is not brave at all, despite what you might whimsically believe.

There's certainly nothing brave about Mr Dyson - a world-famous and long established physicist and mathematician (and, let's be clear, one of the world's most high-profile CC deniers/sceptics for more than a decade) - speaking out on this subject, he has no need to worry about funding. He's even admitted (in the Yale University journal  E360 - link here) that "I do not know much" [that's him, not me, although I'm no climate scientist either] on the subject of CC/global warming.

So far you've come up with one self-confessed maverick scientist and an acquaintance of yours who says he/she was denied funding. Hardly rigorous, is it?

And as Winky says, there's is plenty of funding available for CC sceptics. They're hardly a suppressed community either, as even a cursory reading of the mainstream media would demonstrate.

 

 

Fair enough. Dyson can hardly be considered brave for expressing his opinion in this matter. (Maybe if there new forum layout didn't make trading anything so damn difficult if have picked up on your intent;-)

I never said anyone had been denied funding. The scientist concerned said, off the record, that he wouldn't openly express his true view on climate change as it would, in his opinion, be a career limiting move. Instead he would pay "lip service" to the "consensus" view. I'm sure you'll agree that this is an unacceptable situation in climate change or any other scientific field.

Regards,

Willy.

Frenchnaim posted:

Willy posted:

In science consensus counts for nothing. Absolutely nothing. All that counts is that observations agree with the predictions of the theory. In this climate science is at best struggling. The models have a poor record of predicting climate behaviour and are subject to ongoing revision in order to better agree with observations. (There may also be some revision of the observations in order to better fit the predictions).

I'm open to the idea of mankind influencing our climate however given the poor track record in climate science prediction I'd have to be a fool not to adopt a sceptical stance regarding the scale of any effect.

Evolution on the other hand has a good track record of observations agreeing with the predictions. There are a lot of details of the mechanisms that are still unclear but overall it is, to my mind, a proven theory.

As for the God theory, well I'm unaware of any observation that has given any credence to this.

Regards,

Willy.

I agree that we must move beyond a consensus. In this instance, "consensus" means that the scientists involved agree on a number of basic points, which are considered to be beyond doubt - which is a good start. It's very hard to be a Galileo today, to be right against the crowd. That's why a consensus is good enough for me. And models, though imperfect, have been useful.

Incidentally, I never referred to a God theory, I just meant that the word "sceptic", to my mind (I may be wrong), is best used in contexts in which absolute certainty is impossible to achieve (which may or may not pply to climate science, I agree).

My final point is you'd probably agree that we can hardly wait another 20, 30, perhaps 50 years to have near-absolute certainty on the matter.

Time for a glass of wine... which causes limited damage to the environment.

Agree, you didn't mention God Theory I used that expression to illustrate my point about the scientific method. The "presence" of a divine creator should be viewed as a theory and subjected to the same falsifiability as any other theory. 

I get your point that "sceptic" can probably be best applied where there is uncertainty. Where things are certain to go against the certainty is beyond scepticism.

Regards,

Willy.

Willy posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Willy posted:

 

A researcher who speaks out against the consensus on climate change runs the risk of losing their funding.

 

Regards,

Willy.

http://boingboing.net/2015/12/...npeace-activist.html

A credible, experienced and well-qualified researcher who runs contrary to the consensus would have little trouble being funded. There are plenty of well-funded interested parties who benefit from the denialist agenda. 

 I personally know of one researcher who feels unable to express his true views on climate change for fear of the negative effect it would have on his career. Supression of a dissenting voice is, IMHO, bad for science.

Regards,

Willy.

Well, rather than express his views, your colleague should perhaps present his research. Isn't that how it works? "Views" count for nothing. Bring data.

Willy posted:

In science consensus counts for nothing. Absolutely nothing. All that counts is that observations agree with the predictions of the theory. In this climate science is at best struggling. The models have a poor record of predicting climate behaviour and are subject to ongoing revision in order to better agree with observations. (There may also be some revision of the observations in order to better fit the predictions).

I'm open to the idea of mankind influencing our climate however given the poor track record in climate science prediction I'd have to be a fool not to adopt a sceptical stance regarding the scale of any effect.

Evolution on the other hand has a good track record of observations agreeing with the predictions. There are a lot of details of the mechanisms that are still unclear but overall it is, to my mind, a proven theory.

As for the God theory, well I'm unaware of any observation that has given any credence to this.

Regards,

Willy.

I have a hard time agreeing that climate science models are "struggling". Temperatures and CO2 concentrations continue to increase as predicted well over 30 years ago. The modelling is staggeringly difficult and complex, but is getting it right in the most important areas.

Consensus itself counts for nothing, but that's not the point. The scientists agree, not for the sake of it, nor to increase access to funding nor according to whatever other nutjob conspiracy theory might be out there, but simply because the evidence is compelling. No one is saying that climate change is happening because scientists voted it into existence (I hope).

I would dearly love for human-accelerated climate change with the associated vast consequences to not be happening. But wishing does not make it so. However much we might want the scientisists to be wrong, it is vanishingly unlikely that they are, and we should act accordingly.

There are approaches to changing capitalist growth based economies- Bhutan and Gross Natiional Happiness is one approach driven on on necessity in that country.

In respect of tempering consumerism - Cuba and Malaysia are good examples, again brought about by necessity and circumstance.

Even Harvard is moderating its capitalist approach and some companies such as Puma have adopted  a 'zero bad' approach.  Whilst this type of approach is not fool proof as some 'bad' is done and offset.  Other such models include the European Emissions Trading system.

I haven't fully caught up with the agreement at COP21, but there seems to be hope as countries have agreed for once to reduce pollution (no doubt this will be based on efficiency rather than reducing consumerism).

Ultimately, I agree that a global accounting system that fully prices for the damage to the planet's Eco system services is needed. The question is how quickly willthis happen? at what will catalyse or galvanise countries to do so?

geting off the soap box now :-)

Jude

winkyincanada posted:

Willy posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Willy posted:

 

A researcher who speaks out against the consensus on climate change runs the risk of losing their funding.

 

Regards,

Willy.

http://boingboing.net/2015/12/...npeace-activist.html

A credible, experienced and well-qualified researcher who runs contrary to the consensus would have little trouble being funded. There are plenty of well-funded interested parties who benefit from the denialist agenda. 

 I personally know of one researcher who feels unable to express his true views on climate change for fear of the negative effect it would have on his career. Supression of a dissenting voice is, IMHO, bad for science.

Regards,

Willy.

Well, rather than express his views, your colleague should perhaps present his research. Isn't that how it works? "Views" count for nothing. Bring data.

I never said he was a colleague. Of course he does publish his work. That doesn't stop others in his field publishing work, or the IPCC  spinning work to present a more pro-concensus alarmist perspective. 

Regards,

Willy.

winkyincanada posted:

Willy posted:

In science consensus counts for nothing. Absolutely nothing. All that counts is that observations agree with the predictions of the theory. In this climate science is at best struggling. The models have a poor record of predicting climate behaviour and are subject to ongoing revision in order to better agree with observations. (There may also be some revision of the observations in order to better fit the predictions).

I'm open to the idea of mankind influencing our climate however given the poor track record in climate science prediction I'd have to be a fool not to adopt a sceptical stance regarding the scale of any effect.

Evolution on the other hand has a good track record of observations agreeing with the predictions. There are a lot of details of the mechanisms that are still unclear but overall it is, to my mind, a proven theory.

As for the God theory, well I'm unaware of any observation that has given any credence to this.

Regards,

Willy.

I have a hard time agreeing that climate science models are "struggling". Temperatures and CO2 concentrations continue to increase as predicted well over 30 years ago. The modelling is staggeringly difficult and complex, but is getting it right in the most important areas.

Consensus itself counts for nothing, but that's not the point. The scientists agree, not for the sake of it, nor to increase access to funding nor according to whatever other nutjob conspiracy theory might be out there, but simply because the evidence is compelling. No one is saying that climate change is happening because scientists voted it into existence (I hope).

I would dearly love for human-accelerated climate change with the associated vast consequences to not be happening. But wishing does not make it so. However much we might want the scientisists to be wrong, it is vanishingly unlikely that they are, and we should act accordingly.

Temperature rises have not been in line with those predicted by the models. (Where are we now on the hockey stick curve?) There has been a continued refinement of the models adding more feedback mechanisms as they are discovered. The global warming Armageddon we were promised a decade or so ago has been much ameliorated. I suspect that there is more amelioration to come as we discover more negative feedbacks. That's a gut feeling based on how things have progressed so far.

As I said previously I'm not a man-made climate change denier. I don't believe I can "wish it away". However I believe that if we are to make decisions on addressing/accommodating the change then we should do so on the basis that we use information that is held to the highest scientific rigour. Too often this has not been the case in climate change science. So I'll continue to exercise scepticism with regards to the output of the climate change sector and hope that they continue to improve the rigour of their process.

Regards,

Willy.

Penarth Blues posted:
"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."Most air travel is not for business (15%), it is for recreation (85%).

"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." Putting aside the pathetic use of derogatory terminology, I notice that you at least recognise that recreational travel is part of the use of air travel. It actually accounts for about 85% of air travel. Confirm that you would deny people this unbelievable entitlement if you were so able. Presumably you would ban all holiday travel and family reunion travel ? What a dull world and life you must favour !
People who don't accept air travel or any other form of transportation for recreation or business need to stand back and look at the overall quality and practicality of life. I don’t want to return to living, breathing and dying within 10 miles of my birthplace, simply eating potatoes. Perhaps we should return to hunting and gathering ?

"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..."Well, I have seen better attempts at humour but I see that you are in agreement that there are issues several orders of magnitude more important to global warming than a pathetically unimportant additional runway in southern England.

"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... "You appear to be quite happy to jump to conclusions. The car in question is a 26/27 year old Mercedes 124 estate which does about 33 mpg during “normal” use but about 25mpg at 80mph. Given the choice between scrapping this car and replacing it with a newer E Class estate that would return (say) 40 to 45 mpg, which is the more environmentally friendly. BTW, I would love to be able to run a Ford Mondeo (say) like many of our neighbours……..but I just couldn’t afford the repair bills and running costs. So I’m afraid that I am stuck with relatively high capital-cost/low-through-life-cost cars like Mercedes. I also have to put up with a C Class cdi220 saloon that returns a half-decent 65mpg average and a 70mpg+ on a long steady run. Not everything boils down to fuel consumption. Perhaps you could explain more clearly what you were alluding to with your “There are some unbelievably entitled people around in the world...”

To summarise, another runway in southern England is pathetically insignificant in terms of climate change either in itself or in terms of "setting an example" or any other metric.
There are far, far more effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping temperature rise within 1.5 deg C.

George needs to keep things in perspective – again. Turning a Naim amp off each day isn’t going to save mankind. Life doesn’t have to be mundane or miserable for mankind to survive.

One other comment. A few weeks ago I understand the Gov was putting a fair amount of funding into an “ingenuity” fund. Brian Cox and a few others consider we have a few decades in which to find a more sustainable and economic source of power. A bit more enthusiasm in that direction would be more interesting than moaning about another runway.

Don Atkinson posted:

Penarth Blues posted:
"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."Most air travel is not for business (15%), it is for recreation (85%).

"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." Putting aside the pathetic use of derogatory terminology, I notice that you at least recognise that recreational travel is part of the use of air travel. It actually accounts for about 85% of air travel. Confirm that you would deny people this unbelievable entitlement if you were so able. Presumably you would ban all holiday travel and family reunion travel ? What a dull world and life you must favour !
People who don't accept air travel or any other form of transportation for recreation or business need to stand back and look at the overall quality and practicality of life. I don’t want to return to living, breathing and dying within 10 miles of my birthplace, simply eating potatoes. Perhaps we should return to hunting and gathering ?

"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..."Well, I have seen better attempts at humour but I see that you are in agreement that there are issues several orders of magnitude more important to global warming than a pathetically unimportant additional runway in southern England.

"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... "You appear to be quite happy to jump to conclusions. The car in question is a 26/27 year old Mercedes 124 estate which does about 33 mpg during “normal” use but about 25mpg at 80mph. Given the choice between scrapping this car and replacing it with a newer E Class estate that would return (say) 40 to 45 mpg, which is the more environmentally friendly. BTW, I would love to be able to run a Ford Mondeo (say) like many of our neighbours……..but I just couldn’t afford the repair bills and running costs. So I’m afraid that I am stuck with relatively high capital-cost/low-through-life-cost cars like Mercedes. I also have to put up with a C Class cdi220 saloon that returns a half-decent 65mpg average and a 70mpg+ on a long steady run. Not everything boils down to fuel consumption. Perhaps you could explain more clearly what you were alluding to with your “There are some unbelievably entitled people around in the world...”

To summarise, another runway in southern England is pathetically insignificant in terms of climate change either in itself or in terms of "setting an example" or any other metric.
There are far, far more effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping temperature rise within 1.5 deg C.

George needs to keep things in perspective – again. Turning a Naim amp off each day isn’t going to save mankind. Life doesn’t have to be mundane or miserable for mankind to survive.

One other comment. A few weeks ago I understand the Gov was putting a fair amount of funding into an “ingenuity” fund. Brian Cox and a few others consider we have a few decades in which to find a more sustainable and economic source of power. A bit more enthusiasm in that direction would be more interesting than moaning about another runway.

It appears we have both misread each others posts. My post was in agreement with your view that air travel was important - and I specifically noted that travel to see people was a major reason for this. I didn't put %ages on either as I didn't know them.

I objected to your apparent revelling in using what you wanted and sod the consequences for future generations - and you seemed to write your post to get this sort of reaction. If it was meant to be humour then it also passed me by. It's good to see you are actually self-aware enough to understand that there is a need to change the way we do things, and that keeping something for a long time may actually be more efficient than constant replacement.

My views are not 'hair shirt' either and I am as guilty of waste as anyone, but I do recognise the need to change to using only what is necessary in doing what we choose to do and my whole professional life is aimed at trying to practically achieve this across the whole of the EU at present. This does not exclude luxury but does mean going back to valuing the world's resources. Your 27 y/o Merc is a good example of moving away from the 'throw-away' society.

My comment on 'unbelievably entitled' meant exactly that - there are a significant number of people in the world who believe its theirs to do with as they want and they have no collective responsibility towards future generations. I've already explained why I thought you were behaving that way. I apologise if it's not what you actually believe or the way you behave.

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Can anyone explain to me how the question of a third runway at Heathrow and commitment to reduce Carbon-dioxide emissions, is not a complete logical disconnect?

Surely we should be looking at closing regional airports and shutting down one of the two runways at Heathrow as prelude to banning air travel altogether ... ?

There are times when i have to ask a radical question ...

ATB from George

I find George's point is very apt and the answer to his question is a definite yes!  It simply does not make sense.  Everyone who is honest would see this but no one wants to stand up and point out this disconnect.  

It seems the politically correct thing these days is to mouth some environmental sounding speak about 'carbon footprint' and 'saving the planet' and so on.  You have the Al Gore and David Suzuki profiting immensely by telling everyone about global warming while they fly around world none stop in luxury to tell us this and then they return to their mansions.  Hypocrites. 

Look, who believes it is possible to reduce anything is really misleading the public as no one is speaking about the elephant in the room - population growth.  

Judging from much of the discussion above it is clear as well that many believe in this fairy dust and at the same time have no intention of reducing any demands they make on the earth.  When this planet grows to 10 billion, 15 billion, 30 billion,...how will these targets of reduction actually matter as every person alive will still place ever increasing demand on this earth for resources.  What about pollution, lack of clean drinking water?

In the mean time the plans to reduce a carbon footprint is being enacted simply to extract money from the working poor to pay for this.  It is a distraction like we are now focusing on a pebble between the tracks and not seeing the freight train coming.