AirbusOnly wrote:

Green-Peace" has to shrink...is that PEACE what they are proclaiming? No, they are always trying to disturb the peace! They cannot stop the rotation of the world - but it is hard for them to accept. So why taking them serious? They are comedians!

Well at least they can write a coherent sentence. Thanks for the laugh, you could be a comedian too

tommy1808 wrote:

AAPilot wrote:

. Much like the 97% that keeps getting repeated and is easily debunked.

I just had dunked you debunking, so obviously it is not debunked. And if it was easily debunked, why don't you show that, instead of that lame link that shows nothing but you ineptness at math?

Best regards
Thomas

From a climate scientist, here's an in depth analysis of how the claimed "97% of scientists" claim is faulty

What is there a 97% consensus about?
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what ... sus-about/

In the end she has a point with taxation. In many European countries you pay a higher tax for the oil or gas you use the warm your home than on the kerosene used to fly you around the world. You also pay much more for the petrol for your car. In the end it is convenient to be able to get a ticket within Europe for less and $100 and with a luck a ticket to the US for less than $250 but I am not sure it is sustainable. And when the CEO of WoW Air talks about airlines reducing the ticket price to zero in the future and just existing from optional services the direction does not look good.

Dutchy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

AAPilot wrote:

Only 65 papers endorsed the AGW scheme. The lie is that there is overwhelming support of the theory.

I don't know where you learned math, but 32.6% of
11,944 papers is about 4000 where i come from, not 65.
And 97% of anything is overwhelming btw.

Best regards
Thomas

AAPilot is trolling, he is a climate change denier, no evidence will ever convince him. Too bad though. But the whole thread is hijacked by this denier.

Your use of the pejorative "denier" is intentionally insulting,therefore, trolling.

Meanwhile, more evidence is presented that the alleged warming is due to data manipulation

DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... udy-finds/

While infamous warming scientist Michael Mann refuses a court order to turn over his data that claims mankind is warming the planet...

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann
http://principia-scientific.org/breakin ... tick-mann/

Planetalk wrote:

log0008 wrote:

I love how she promotes a tax on air travel because there is a tax on car travel. And he I was thinking that the fuel tax was design to promote the use of cleaner types of transport like aircraft. Would she rather the 180 people on a flight drive in individual cars to their destinstion? I am no climate skeptic but with articles like these I can actually understand why some people are.

What?! I can assure you the fuel tax is not designed to encourage the use of planes. It's to encourage people to take a train, or ride a bike. And yes, aviation does have absolutely massive tax advantages compared to other industries, correcting those would at least mean that aviation is paying some way towards the vast externalities it creates.

And where would this tax money be going? I admittedly know nothing about the taxation system in the Netherlands or EU but if this were in the US that tax money would go into some black hole (also known as politician pockets) or be used to fund things that have nothing to do with the environment. It seems like in today's world anyone with a connection to politics only solution is more tax. Perhaps we should be demanding that the tax money we give the governments of our countries is simply used more efficiently and to fund programs the tax was intended for.

In the US I pay car registration and gas tax which are all supposed to fund infrastructure yet I constantly find myself dodging potholes. That is, when I'm not sitting in near constant gridlock because the traffic light systems and roadways are inadequate. So if the good citizens are paying their fair share wouldn't one expect the roads to be in good shape? Since they're not, where has the money gone? A tax on aviation for the sake of the environment only helps if it is used to fund projects that help the environment.

Perhaps we can collect a tax on aviation then funnel money back to the aircraft manufactures for R&D on more efficient airliners and give incentives to the airlines that operate more efficient fleets and have other environmentally friendly programs in place.

77H

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Here is an exhaustive, cited, and sourced overview of the global scientific consensus on climate change, provided by our friends at NASA.

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, you have read this article in the Dutch context. Greenpeace takes Schiphol and KLM as an example. They say that aviation is a big polluter - which it is - and that they lobbied quite hard to stay out of the Paris agreement - which they have. So they are saying if we want to stay well below the 2 degrees rise and as close to the 1,5degrees as possible, this will have to impact air travel as long as there isn't a green way to travel by air.

In 2050 the annual emission quote per year is about 1,5 times a flight from AMS - NY and that is for all your emissions and there you see the problem.

That simply shows the absurdity of those targets. Enjoy your agrarian future.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, you have read this article in the Dutch context. Greenpeace takes Schiphol and KLM as an example. They say that aviation is a big polluter - which it is - and that they lobbied quite hard to stay out of the Paris agreement - which they have. So they are saying if we want to stay well below the 2 degrees rise and as close to the 1,5degrees as possible, this will have to impact air travel as long as there isn't a green way to travel by air.

In 2050 the annual emission quote per year is about 1,5 times a flight from AMS - NY and that is for all your emissions and there you see the problem.

That simply shows the absurdity of those targets. Enjoy your agrarian future.

Then that is your future too. Or do you expect the rest of the world aint going to pollute anymore in order for Americans to keep their life styles as they have now? Or alternatively, we can all search for alternatives so we can continue our lifestyles and enjoy our planet even more.

Slide wrote:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Here is an exhaustive, cited, and sourced overview of the global scientific consensus on climate change, provided by our friends at NASA.

Fake organization! Completly biased to the truth, how can you trust them? Much better to go with your gut feeling.

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

I don't know where you learned math, but 32.6% of
11,944 papers is about 4000 where i come from, not 65.
And 97% of anything is overwhelming btw.

Best regards
Thomas

AAPilot is trolling, he is a climate change denier, no evidence will ever convince him. Too bad though. But the whole thread is hijacked by this denier.

Your use of the pejorative "denier" is intentionally insulting,therefore, trolling.

Meanwhile, more evidence is presented that the alleged warming is due to data manipulation

DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... udy-finds/

While infamous warming scientist Michael Mann refuses a court order to turn over his data that claims mankind is warming the planet...

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann
http://principia-scientific.org/breakin ... tick-mann/

Ah yes, the world wide renowned peer-reviewed journal Breitbart. You have convinced me, thanks!

Dutchy wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

AAPilot is trolling, he is a climate change denier, no evidence will ever convince him. Too bad though. But the whole thread is hijacked by this denier.

Your use of the pejorative "denier" is intentionally insulting,therefore, trolling.

Meanwhile, more evidence is presented that the alleged warming is due to data manipulation

DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... udy-finds/

While infamous warming scientist Michael Mann refuses a court order to turn over his data that claims mankind is warming the planet...

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann
http://principia-scientific.org/breakin ... tick-mann/

Ah yes, the world wide renowned peer-reviewed journal Breitbart. You have convinced me, thanks!

Ah yes,the typical "source" response with no comment about the content or the peer reviewed and published paper which is referred to and linked in the article. Typical non-substantive response on this subject. I presented supporting evidence to my case, you did not. QED

There is no way KLM would ever shrink. The network that KLM has right now is perfect and it is growing with the addition of routes to BOM and MRU just to name a few.

Other than the fact that KLM has cut a few destinations (such as DFW and CGN) they have grown with a lot of more destinations. For example, in Europe they expanded with flights to Dresden, Dublin, Belfast-City, etc. Mumbai and Mauritius are the newest international destinations for KLM, for example.

But otherwise, shrinking isn't the solution. Once AMS hits 500,000 flights movements per year, no more flights will be allowed. AMS needs to find a new way to accommodate more flights in the future.

Finally, the last point I have this is. Why is KLM being told it needs to shrink while Turkish Airlines has rapidly expanded and grown without stopping in the past? Turkish Airlines has expanded to the point where IST cannot handle the traffic properly, but there not being told to stop expanding and growing more instead, despite the fact that they have made a few cuts to there network.

Dutchy wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ok, you have read this article in the Dutch context. Greenpeace takes Schiphol and KLM as an example. They say that aviation is a big polluter - which it is - and that they lobbied quite hard to stay out of the Paris agreement - which they have. So they are saying if we want to stay well below the 2 degrees rise and as close to the 1,5degrees as possible, this will have to impact air travel as long as there isn't a green way to travel by air.

In 2050 the annual emission quote per year is about 1,5 times a flight from AMS - NY and that is for all your emissions and there you see the problem.

That simply shows the absurdity of those targets. Enjoy your agrarian future.

Then that is your future too. Or do you expect the rest of the world aint going to pollute anymore in order for Americans to keep their life styles as they have now? Or alternatively, we can all search for alternatives so we can continue our lifestyles and enjoy our planet even more.

Those aren't are only choices. You are missing the obvious scenario where emissions are not drastically reduced (if they are reduced at all) and mankind continues to flourish. Why? Because climate alarmism is bullshit.

Thing is it's easy to joke about this and mock their viewpoint but is a little bit of sense to it and some of it is achievable, case in point on a random Wednesday in August KLM have 11 direct flights between LHR and AMS of which for are on KLCH so smaller RJ class aircraft, this number of flights could quite easily be condensed into fewer flights of larger aircraft okay maybe cutting down a little in the flexibility stakes

Another example the same day you've 6 flights from BHX of which half are on RJs this could be halted with larger aircraft and still maintain a morning, mid day and evening service

Okay so this would take years to implement such a startergy change but it's not impossible

And to those saying ah but what about this industry or that industry that's a crap argument we all need to step up and take action where we can

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Your use of the pejorative "denier" is intentionally insulting,therefore, trolling.

Meanwhile, more evidence is presented that the alleged warming is due to data manipulation

DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... udy-finds/

While infamous warming scientist Michael Mann refuses a court order to turn over his data that claims mankind is warming the planet...

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann
http://principia-scientific.org/breakin ... tick-mann/

Ah yes, the world wide renowned peer-reviewed journal Breitbart. You have convinced me, thanks!

Ah yes,the typical "source" response with no comment about the content or the peer reviewed and published paper which is referred to and linked in the article. Typical non-substantive response on this subject. I presented supporting evidence to my case, you did not. QED

Sorry, not taking Breitbart seriously, based on what they have published so far that is not an unreasonable stance, wouldn't you say. Breitbart is pushing an agenda as we have seen with Brannon in the White House and, shall we say, is flexible with the truth.
Why on earth, if these are renowned, scientist, are they publishing to a worldpress site?
For the evidence presented, fine, let other renowned scientists verify the findings in a peer-review magazine, then we'll talk. I am not a scientist, so I trust people whom are experts in their field. I don't trust myself to perform heart surgery either, are you a renowned climate scientist whom has access to all the data and came to radical other conclusions than the overwhelming peers in your field? Oh please let me know......

As for evidence of man induced global warming, there are links posted in this thread. If you don't believe them, fine, not a problem, that's up to you. Believe what ever you like, as long as the government only acts on data and science.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

That simply shows the absurdity of those targets. Enjoy your agrarian future.

Then that is your future too. Or do you expect the rest of the world aint going to pollute anymore in order for Americans to keep their life styles as they have now? Or alternatively, we can all search for alternatives so we can continue our lifestyles and enjoy our planet even more.

Those aren't are only choices. You are missing the obvious scenario where emissions are not drastically reduced (if they are reduced at all) and mankind continues to flourish. Why? Because climate alarmism is bullshit.

Yes, drive straight on to the concrete block believe it isn't there. Keep believing that, stronger yet, please put this comment in a frame - don't forget to date it - , forget about it and when you find it again in 2050, show it to your kids, perhaps even grand kids. Let's see how they react to your current foolish stand.

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Your use of the pejorative "denier" is intentionally insulting,therefore, trolling.

Meanwhile, more evidence is presented that the alleged warming is due to data manipulation

DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... udy-finds/

While infamous warming scientist Michael Mann refuses a court order to turn over his data that claims mankind is warming the planet...

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann
http://principia-scientific.org/breakin ... tick-mann/

Ah yes, the world wide renowned peer-reviewed journal Breitbart. You have convinced me, thanks!

Ah yes,the typical "source" response with no comment about the content or the peer reviewed and published paper which is referred to and linked in the article. Typical non-substantive response on this subject. I presented supporting evidence to my case, you did not. QED

Well we have two sources presented in recent posts. NASA, and Breitbart. I know who I'd take more seriously.

You're going to have to give a pretty compelling reason you choose to believe the outlier study linked by breitbart, rather than the far greater number of studies claiming the opposite.

NichCage wrote:

Finally, the last point I have this is. Why is KLM being told it needs to shrink while Turkish Airlines has rapidly expanded and grown without stopping in the past? Turkish Airlines has expanded to the point where IST cannot handle the traffic properly, but there not being told to stop expanding and growing more instead, despite the fact that they have made a few cuts to there network.

Like I have said before, this isn't about KLM, KLM is an example, it is aviation who needs to be included in the Paris agreement. Aviation is exempt of a lot of things, no VAT on international flights, no VAT behind the border, no taxes on fossil fuels etc. They are polluting, how much I like aviation and hate to admit it, that is just a fact. In its surroundings - I like the smell of kerosene in the morning - and contributing to climate change. So this isn't sustainable and needs to change.

I find it quite ridiculous that it is cheaper to take a flight to London via Spain, then take a train from Newcastle to London. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... per-train/

So flights are ridiculously cheaply, while we continue to destroy our planet.

First, it's easy to produce a study that says what you want it to say.
Second, none of the models has ever been able to even forecast the history upon which they are based.
Third, to get the data used to suggest AGW, the numbers have been fudged.
Fourth, the United States has reduced CO2 emission more than Europe because we haven't shut down our nukes and have greatly reduce coal usage by using natural gas.
Fifth, the new generations of jet engines are vastly more efficient than the older ones.
Sixth, I don't want people like Al Gore, who has a carbon footprint many times larger than mine, or Greenpeace weenies, who fly around the world telling me to live in the Stone Age, telling me what to do.
Seventh, the consensus is because the AGW crowd controls the funding and the peer review process.
Eighth, 97% of stupid is still stupid.
Ninth, the climate changes, it always has and it always will. It is extreme arrogance to think that we can build on the shore or below sea level and think anything we do can keep the seas from rising or falling.
Therefore, I want KLM and Schipol to grow as much as they possibly can.

Dutchy wrote:

Like I have said before, this isn't about KLM, KLM is an example, it is aviation who needs to be included in the Paris agreement. Aviation is exempt of a lot of things, no VAT on international flights, no VAT behind the border, no taxes on fossil fuels etc. They are polluting, how much I like aviation and hate to admit it, that is just a fact. In its surroundings - I like the smell of kerosene in the morning - and contributing to climate change. So this isn't sustainable and needs to change.

I find it quite ridiculous that it is cheaper to take a flight to London via Spain, then take a train from Newcastle to London. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... per-train/

So flights are ridiculously cheaply, while we continue to destroy our planet.

I agree they are cheap, but there's little that can be done about that. Aviation is a global market more than anything else so if anything is to be done about it it needs to be done on a global scale. Otherwise you don't solve the problem, you just move it from one place to another.

The problem with solving problems on a global scale is that there's always countries that don't want to participate because they care more about economy than about the environment. Then such countries become very attractive to in this case airlines. And if one country gets the benefits, then all other countries want those benefits too.

What can be done is make alternative environment-friendly transport cheaper. Trains should be a viable alternative to flying and that should start with lower train fares. Right now the trains are much too expensive and therefor not a viable alternative to flying. People will still keep flying, but a few of them might go by train instead if the train was cheaper.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Like I have said before, this isn't about KLM, KLM is an example, it is aviation who needs to be included in the Paris agreement. Aviation is exempt of a lot of things, no VAT on international flights, no VAT behind the border, no taxes on fossil fuels etc. They are polluting, how much I like aviation and hate to admit it, that is just a fact. In its surroundings - I like the smell of kerosene in the morning - and contributing to climate change. So this isn't sustainable and needs to change.

I find it quite ridiculous that it is cheaper to take a flight to London via Spain, then take a train from Newcastle to London. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... per-train/

So flights are ridiculously cheaply, while we continue to destroy our planet.

I agree they are cheap, but there's little that can be done about that. Aviation is a global market more than anything else so if anything is to be done about it it needs to be done on a global scale. Otherwise you don't solve the problem, you just move it from one place to another.

The problem with solving problems on a global scale is that there's always countries that don't want to participate because they care more about economy than about the environment. Then such countries become very attractive to in this case airlines. And if one country gets the benefits, then all other countries want those benefits too.

What can be done is make alternative environment-friendly transport cheaper. Trains should be a viable alternative to flying and that should start with lower train fares. Right now the trains are much too expensive and therefor not a viable alternative to flying. People will still keep flying, but a few of them might go by train instead if the train was cheaper.

Well, I agree that it is difficult. But we could do something.

The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), widening its scope to include airlines from outside the EU flying to the EU. I've read somewhere that this will be the case. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en

Further more you could add VAT to intra EU flights. You could add taxes to fuel like other fossil fuels have to intra EU flights.

The US could do the same if there is a political will it could be done - we wish with this president and congress.

BTW You make the perfect aviation lobbyist argument, which has some merit, but not all. And it should never be a reason not to act. The same with child labor, for instance, we can't control it all, so why act on it?

We need to raise the tax on flights so all the peasants stop flying. Back to the good old days when only the rich could travel. Few flights, less pollution. Less wasteful plane building. Who cares about all those job losses? Actually, that's good because they won't be polluting to go to work. Less money means less food to eat and less food miles right? I think these environmentalists are on to something. We just need an economic death spiral. Who knows, if we're lucky we'll even get a war or two to kill off some CO2 producers.

nikeherc wrote:

First, it's easy to produce a study that says what you want it to say.
Second, none of the models has ever been able to even forecast the history upon which they are based.
Third, to get the data used to suggest AGW, the numbers have been fudged.
Fourth, the United States has reduced CO2 emission more than Europe because we haven't shut down our nukes and have greatly reduce coal usage by using natural gas.
Fifth, the new generations of jet engines are vastly more efficient than the older ones.
Sixth, I don't want people like Al Gore, who has a carbon footprint many times larger than mine, or Greenpeace weenies, who fly around the world telling me to live in the Stone Age, telling me what to do.
Seventh, the consensus is because the AGW crowd controls the funding and the peer review process.
Eighth, 97% of stupid is still stupid.
Ninth, the climate changes, it always has and it always will. It is extreme arrogance to think that we can build on the shore or below sea level and think anything we do can keep the seas from rising or falling.
Therefore, I want KLM and Schipol to grow as much as they possibly can.

Onyour point one, I assume you accept that applies to those who don't accept climate change as well? Often funded by vested interests specifically to discredit climate change. There is a strong parallel with research funded by a the tobacco industry some years ago. The methodogical flaws in studies disputing climate science tend to be rather embarrassingly obvious however.

To bring actual science to the discussion, carbon dioxide gas been known to be a greenhouse gas since the 19th century. Why do you doubt that digging up billions of years worth of it naturally stored by the earth, and releasing it in 200 years or wouldn't have an effect? Climate change is actually an inevitable result of a well known scientific fact. This is what CO2 does.

The argument that humans are too insignificant to affect the atmosphere is absolute BS. Far smaller natural changes in the atmosphere have caused changes in the climate. And because the climate has changed naturally before, does not in any way mean humans can't have an effect now. That's a completely illogical argument.

Whether you don't like being told to do by Al Gore or not, the messenger is irrelevant. It's still happening. It's childish in the extreme to excuse yourself having to pay attention because you don't like the messenger. It's just creating excuses. And no-one has told you to live in the stone age, statements like that just lose any credibility in your argument.

I'm also not sure what your source is that the US has reduced emissions by more than the EU, but it is certainly a far higher emitter.

And yes jet engines are getting more efficient. But progress is actually painfully slow measured in years. The difference between a 767 and 787 might look great in industry marketing, but over 30 years is kinda pathetic, and still leaves you with a massively polluting vehicle.

Bricktop wrote:

We need to raise the tax on flights so all the peasants stop flying. Back to the good old days when only the rich could travel. Few flights, less pollution. Less wasteful plane building. Who cares about all those job losses? Actually, that's good because they won't be polluting to go to work. Less money means less food to eat and less food miles right? I think these environmentalists are on to something. We just need an economic death spiral. Who knows, if we're lucky we'll even get a war or two to kill off some CO2 producers.

Ah thank you for revealing our hidden agenda, that's what we are all about, killing the economy so all the people are miserable than we are happy.

The leftwing death cult has turned it evil eye on aviation industry. Well see lots of calls for not having children and not flying on planes in the next few years, This going to upset the carefully crafted political narrative of we can do some minor changes and that will solve the problem. Trump and Putin are laughing as the toxic leftists turn the world towards them.

Bricktop wrote:

We need to raise the tax on flights so all the peasants stop flying. Back to the good old days when only the rich could travel. Few flights, less pollution. Less wasteful plane building. Who cares about all those job losses? Actually, that's good because they won't be polluting to go to work. Less money means less food to eat and less food miles right? I think these environmentalists are on to something. We just need an economic death spiral. Who knows, if we're lucky we'll even get a war or two to kill off some CO2 producers.

Sometimes it's better to keep quiet and maintain your dignity, than open your mouth and show your ignorance for all to see. The whole point is that acting to reduce AGW will make the economy larger. Not acting causes far more harmfully effects.

If the theory of anthropogenic global warming is true and that carbon dioxide is the cause then we must immediately stop all production of carbon dioxide. That means closing down every coal plant, oil plant, steel works, airline, airport, car manufacturer, shipping company, impounding all of our cars, trucks; diesel trains... in short taking the human race back to the stone age. Is this really what people are proposing?

The amount of flying that goes on to fancy international conferences (not necessary, could all be done by Skype) makes me think otherwise...

Dutchy wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

We need to raise the tax on flights so all the peasants stop flying. Back to the good old days when only the rich could travel. Few flights, less pollution. Less wasteful plane building. Who cares about all those job losses? Actually, that's good because they won't be polluting to go to work. Less money means less food to eat and less food miles right? I think these environmentalists are on to something. We just need an economic death spiral. Who knows, if we're lucky we'll even get a war or two to kill off some CO2 producers.

Ah thank you for revealing our hidden agenda, that's what we are all about, killing the economy so all the people are miserable than we are happy.

Thank you for having the courage to say that. Top down, centrally planned economies with massive social engineering through taxation. What could possibly go wrong?

Dutchy wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Then that is your future too. Or do you expect the rest of the world aint going to pollute anymore in order for Americans to keep their life styles as they have now? Or alternatively, we can all search for alternatives so we can continue our lifestyles and enjoy our planet even more.

Those aren't are only choices. You are missing the obvious scenario where emissions are not drastically reduced (if they are reduced at all) and mankind continues to flourish. Why? Because climate alarmism is bullshit.

Yes, drive straight on to the concrete block believe it isn't there. Keep believing that, stronger yet, please put this comment in a frame - don't forget to date it - , forget about it and when you find it again in 2050, show it to your kids, perhaps even grand kids. Let's see how they react to your current foolish stand.

That's exactly what environmentalist said back in 1970 about the year 2000. The great catastrophe is always 30 years away. Except that it isn't. Because it's bullshit. Here's what I know about 2050:

1. Emissions will be closer to today's levels than they will the Paris targets.
2. I'll still be flying in fossil-fueled airplanes and eating hamburgers. Preferably at the same time.

Planetalk wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

We need to raise the tax on flights so all the peasants stop flying. Back to the good old days when only the rich could travel. Few flights, less pollution. Less wasteful plane building. Who cares about all those job losses? Actually, that's good because they won't be polluting to go to work. Less money means less food to eat and less food miles right? I think these environmentalists are on to something. We just need an economic death spiral. Who knows, if we're lucky we'll even get a war or two to kill off some CO2 producers.

Sometimes it's better to keep quiet and maintain your dignity, than open your mouth and show your ignorance for all to see. The whole point is that acting to reduce AGW will make the economy larger. Not acting causes far more harmfully effects.

It's already too late. The peasants have seen Pa-ree. They aren't going back to the farm. It's arrogant to think you can make them, but that won't stop them from trying.

ETA: If there was so much money to be made from this utopian green economy, why hasn't it happened, except on the fringes? Or is it already underway so there's no need to panic?

Bricktop wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

We need to raise the tax on flights so all the peasants stop flying. Back to the good old days when only the rich could travel. Few flights, less pollution. Less wasteful plane building. Who cares about all those job losses? Actually, that's good because they won't be polluting to go to work. Less money means less food to eat and less food miles right? I think these environmentalists are on to something. We just need an economic death spiral. Who knows, if we're lucky we'll even get a war or two to kill off some CO2 producers.

Ah thank you for revealing our hidden agenda, that's what we are all about, killing the economy so all the people are miserable than we are happy.

Thank you for having the courage to say that. Top down, centrally planned economies with massive social engineering through taxation. What could possibly go wrong?

Ah yes, heaven on earth, my dream society, tell me more about this and you have asked the perfect question, thanks for being so interested in this, I feel grateful acknowledged and rewarded, you really made my day, I can go and sleep now.

Dutchy wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Ah thank you for revealing our hidden agenda, that's what we are all about, killing the economy so all the people are miserable than we are happy.

Thank you for having the courage to say that. Top down, centrally planned economies with massive social engineering through taxation. What could possibly go wrong?

Ah yes, heaven on earth, my dream society, tell me more about this and you have asked the perfect question, thanks for being so interested in this, I feel grateful acknowledged and rewarded, you really made my day, I can go and sleep now.

Then my work is done. Me too. Sweet dreams.

Bricktop wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

We need to raise the tax on flights so all the peasants stop flying. Back to the good old days when only the rich could travel. Few flights, less pollution. Less wasteful plane building. Who cares about all those job losses? Actually, that's good because they won't be polluting to go to work. Less money means less food to eat and less food miles right? I think these environmentalists are on to something. We just need an economic death spiral. Who knows, if we're lucky we'll even get a war or two to kill off some CO2 producers.

Sometimes it's better to keep quiet and maintain your dignity, than open your mouth and show your ignorance for all to see. The whole point is that acting to reduce AGW will make the economy larger. Not acting causes far more harmfully effects.

It's already too late. The peasants have seen Pa-ree. They aren't going back to the farm. It's arrogant to think you can make them, but that won't stop them from trying.

ETA: If there was so much money to be made from this utopian green economy, why hasn't it happened, except on the fringes? Or is it already underway so there's no need to panic?

Erm, I assume you think you're being super smart and some kind of revolutionary fighting the system, but really you just look a bit silly. Why are people on your side only capable of ludicrous exagerrated arguments about the stone age or going back to the farm? Who has suggested that. Hint, aiming to reduce the impact of aviation emissions a bit, like every other industry is not going back to the stone age.ita fairly sensible, even if you don't believe in climate change, isn't less air pollution a good thing?

I'm sure everyone approves of spending at least some money on security at airports, though many perhaps less than at present. Well air pollution kills thousands of times more people a year than terrorism. If you care about one and not the other you only show your own logical inconsistency and irrationality.

If I want advice on flying a plane I'll ask a pilot. If I want advice on climate change, well I probably wouldn't ask a plane enthusiast who's read a few scientifically redundant blogs.

Bricktop wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

We need to raise the tax on flights so all the peasants stop flying. Back to the good old days when only the rich could travel. Few flights, less pollution. Less wasteful plane building. Who cares about all those job losses? Actually, that's good because they won't be polluting to go to work. Less money means less food to eat and less food miles right? I think these environmentalists are on to something. We just need an economic death spiral. Who knows, if we're lucky we'll even get a war or two to kill off some CO2 producers.

Ah thank you for revealing our hidden agenda, that's what we are all about, killing the economy so all the people are miserable than we are happy.

Thank you for having the courage to say that. Top down, centrally planned economies with massive social engineering through taxation. What could possibly go wrong?

Well I guess you could be the most unequal and violent developed nation on earth as the great capitalist alternative? Maybe there's a middle ground? I believe numerous countries have found it. You just have to let go of some of the myths society has fed you since you were a child.

redroo wrote:

If the theory of anthropogenic global warming is true and that carbon dioxide is the cause then we must immediately stop all production of carbon dioxide. That means closing down every coal plant, oil plant, steel works, airline, airport, car manufacturer, shipping company, impounding all of our cars, trucks; diesel trains... in short taking the human race back to the stone age. Is this really what people are proposing?

The amount of flying that goes on to fancy international conferences (not necessary, could all be done by Skype) makes me think otherwise...

No, no-ones proposing that. Go and do some reading, perhaps the Paris treaty for a start. Next.

77H wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

log0008 wrote:

I love how she promotes a tax on air travel because there is a tax on car travel. And he I was thinking that the fuel tax was design to promote the use of cleaner types of transport like aircraft. Would she rather the 180 people on a flight drive in individual cars to their destinstion? I am no climate skeptic but with articles like these I can actually understand why some people are.

What?! I can assure you the fuel tax is not designed to encourage the use of planes. It's to encourage people to take a train, or ride a bike. And yes, aviation does have absolutely massive tax advantages compared to other industries, correcting those would at least mean that aviation is paying some way towards the vast externalities it creates.

And where would this tax money be going? I admittedly know nothing about the taxation system in the Netherlands or EU but if this were in the US that tax money would go into some black hole (also known as politician pockets) or be used to fund things that have nothing to do with the environment. It seems like in today's world anyone with a connection to politics only solution is more tax. Perhaps we should be demanding that the tax money we give the governments of our countries is simply used more efficiently and to fund programs the tax was intended for.

In the US I pay car registration and gas tax which are all supposed to fund infrastructure yet I constantly find myself dodging potholes. That is, when I'm not sitting in near constant gridlock because the traffic light systems and roadways are inadequate. So if the good citizens are paying their fair share wouldn't one expect the roads to be in good shape? Since they're not, where has the money gone? A tax on aviation for the sake of the environment only helps if it is used to fund projects that help the environment.

Perhaps we can collect a tax on aviation then funnel money back to the aircraft manufactures for R&D on more efficient airliners and give incentives to the airlines that operate more efficient fleets and have other environmentally friendly programs in place.

77H

Thank you for admitting you know nothing about other systems. Despite your whining, the USA has some of the lowest taxes in the developed world. And guess what, that's why your public services are so decrepid, you have those potholes in the road, and you have one of the developed world's worst pre -university education systems. You do actually get what you pay for, as is evident from some contributions here.

I saw it today at MAO.... http://media.greenpeace.org/archive/The ... HIHIH.html

Curious...

Dutchy wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Why on earth, if these are renowned, scientist, are they publishing to a worldpress site? .

We already found out, back in 2009, that climate scientists had rigged the peer review system. Skeptics (or any paper that doesn't support human caused global warming) were PREVENTED from being published. So much for peer review.

ClimateGate: The Fix is In
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 99280.html

Planetalk wrote:

redroo wrote:

If the theory of anthropogenic global warming is true and that carbon dioxide is the cause then we must immediately stop all production of carbon dioxide. That means closing down every coal plant, oil plant, steel works, airline, airport, car manufacturer, shipping company, impounding all of our cars, trucks; diesel trains... in short taking the human race back to the stone age. Is this really what people are proposing?

The amount of flying that goes on to fancy international conferences (not necessary, could all be done by Skype) makes me think otherwise...

No, no-ones proposing that. Go and do some reading, perhaps the Paris treaty for a start. Next.

Really? How do you think we will reach the stated goal of 80% reduction in CO2 emissions and still have tens of thousands of commercial and private aircraft flying as they are today?

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

We already found out, back in 2009, that climate scientists had rigged the peer review system. Skeptics (or any paper that doesn't support human caused global warming) were PREVENTED from being published. So much for peer review.

ClimateGate: The Fix is In
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 99280.html

Somewhere in the back of my head, someone is shooting: conspiracy theory. Damn that little voice. But since the URL of the site says: real clear politics we all must believe them.

AirFiero wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

redroo wrote:

If the theory of anthropogenic global warming is true and that carbon dioxide is the cause then we must immediately stop all production of carbon dioxide. That means closing down every coal plant, oil plant, steel works, airline, airport, car manufacturer, shipping company, impounding all of our cars, trucks; diesel trains... in short taking the human race back to the stone age. Is this really what people are proposing?

The amount of flying that goes on to fancy international conferences (not necessary, could all be done by Skype) makes me think otherwise...

No, no-ones proposing that. Go and do some reading, perhaps the Paris treaty for a start. Next.

Really? How do you think we will reach the stated goal of 80% reduction in CO2 emissions and still have tens of thousands of commercial and private aircraft flying as they are today?

That's what we have to figure out, don't we. May I suggest we set out to work on that and invent things?

Kudos to Dutchy at least for not being so far up his own rear end at a little satire and hyperbole. Unfortunately, Greenpeace (at least through Ms. Oulahsen) seems to have devolved almost entirely into the satire and hyperbole spectrum without the knowing wink. Aviation has never been more green than it is today. I am sure that this little piece of attention seeking will soon be forgotten.

Planetalk wrote:

77H wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

What?! I can assure you the fuel tax is not designed to encourage the use of planes. It's to encourage people to take a train, or ride a bike. And yes, aviation does have absolutely massive tax advantages compared to other industries, correcting those would at least mean that aviation is paying some way towards the vast externalities it creates.

And where would this tax money be going? I admittedly know nothing about the taxation system in the Netherlands or EU but if this were in the US that tax money would go into some black hole (also known as politician pockets) or be used to fund things that have nothing to do with the environment. It seems like in today's world anyone with a connection to politics only solution is more tax. Perhaps we should be demanding that the tax money we give the governments of our countries is simply used more efficiently and to fund programs the tax was intended for.

In the US I pay car registration and gas tax which are all supposed to fund infrastructure yet I constantly find myself dodging potholes. That is, when I'm not sitting in near constant gridlock because the traffic light systems and roadways are inadequate. So if the good citizens are paying their fair share wouldn't one expect the roads to be in good shape? Since they're not, where has the money gone? A tax on aviation for the sake of the environment only helps if it is used to fund projects that help the environment.

Perhaps we can collect a tax on aviation then funnel money back to the aircraft manufactures for R&D on more efficient airliners and give incentives to the airlines that operate more efficient fleets and have other environmentally friendly programs in place.

77H

Thank you for admitting you know nothing about other systems. Despite your whining, the USA has some of the lowest taxes in the developed world. And guess what, that's why your public services are so decrepid, you have those potholes in the road, and you have one of the developed world's worst pre -university education systems. You do actually get what you pay for, as is evident from some contributions here.

First off, I am not "whining" about paying taxes, or the amount of taxes I have to pay. What I am "whining" about is paying taxes being told those taxes are in place for one thing, used for another or seemingly disappear while the original reason for the tax remains in a state of disrepair. Wanting my tax dollars to be used efficiently and transparently and questioning where the money goes does not make me a whiner, nor anti-taxation. Moreover, I have no desire to get into a snotty pissing match about who's country has better/worse this and that. Speaking of education systems, was there much focus on reading comprehension in your country's education program? Or did it not just take with you specifically? Nothing in my original post gives the impression that I don't think taxes are worthwhile. But paying taxes to pay taxes is useless if they are not going towards the original reason behind the taxation. This is the problem I see within the US taxation system and why I posted. Have a good day.

77H

77H wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

77H wrote:

And where would this tax money be going? I admittedly know nothing about the taxation system in the Netherlands or EU but if this were in the US that tax money would go into some black hole (also known as politician pockets) or be used to fund things that have nothing to do with the environment. It seems like in today's world anyone with a connection to politics only solution is more tax. Perhaps we should be demanding that the tax money we give the governments of our countries is simply used more efficiently and to fund programs the tax was intended for.

In the US I pay car registration and gas tax which are all supposed to fund infrastructure yet I constantly find myself dodging potholes. That is, when I'm not sitting in near constant gridlock because the traffic light systems and roadways are inadequate. So if the good citizens are paying their fair share wouldn't one expect the roads to be in good shape? Since they're not, where has the money gone? A tax on aviation for the sake of the environment only helps if it is used to fund projects that help the environment.

Perhaps we can collect a tax on aviation then funnel money back to the aircraft manufactures for R&D on more efficient airliners and give incentives to the airlines that operate more efficient fleets and have other environmentally friendly programs in place.

77H

Thank you for admitting you know nothing about other systems. Despite your whining, the USA has some of the lowest taxes in the developed world. And guess what, that's why your public services are so decrepid, you have those potholes in the road, and you have one of the developed world's worst pre -university education systems. You do actually get what you pay for, as is evident from some contributions here.

First off, I am not "whining" about paying taxes, or the amount of taxes I have to pay. What I am "whining" about is paying taxes being told those taxes are in place for one thing, used for another or seemingly disappear while the original reason for the tax remains in a state of disrepair. Wanting my tax dollars to be used efficiently and transparently and questioning where the money goes does not make me a whiner, nor anti-taxation. Moreover, I have no desire to get into a snotty pissing match about who's country has better/worse this and that. Speaking of education systems, was there much focus on reading comprehension in your country's education program? Or did it not just take with you specifically? Nothing in my original post gives the impression that I don't think taxes are worthwhile. But paying taxes to pay taxes is useless if they are not going towards the original reason behind the taxation. This is the problem I see within the US taxation system and why I posted. Have a good day.

77H

I apologise if I misinterpreted your post, I took the line 'It seems like in today's world anyone with a connection to politics only solution is more tax.' to mean that you were fairly anti paying more tax. I appreciate your concern with how taxes are spent and efficiencies and so on, which is perfectly appropriate and something I'm sure we'd all like to see. Likewise for your comment 'So if the good citizens are paying their fair share wouldn't one expect the roads to be in good shape? Since they're not, where has the money gone? '. I took this to mean that you believe people are already paying enough. My point was that, compared to other systems, perhaps they are not actually paying enough/their fair share for the level of service you demand?

While you may not want to make comparisons, given that it was you who mentioned not being familiar with the European system, as I have become fairly familiar with both, it seems useful to provide that information, and that in the end, efficiencies will only go so far to correcting the problems you perceive. Paying the lowest taxes in the developed world is probably not going to get you the best services, which may be the cause of some of your complaints and the disrepair you observe, as much as mis-use.

Where is that 1979 Popular Mechanics article on how "Global Cooling" will destroy us all?

I soooooooo want KLM and Schiphol to do this. Go ahead and cut flights please, please, please. I am sure your JV partner Delta will be all for it too. Air France may be wandering "what?" And every other international airline competitor wants this. Yes, KLM and Schiphol show us the way, cut your flights!

Planetalk wrote:

77H wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

Thank you for admitting you know nothing about other systems. Despite your whining, the USA has some of the lowest taxes in the developed world. And guess what, that's why your public services are so decrepid, you have those potholes in the road, and you have one of the developed world's worst pre -university education systems. You do actually get what you pay for, as is evident from some contributions here.

First off, I am not "whining" about paying taxes, or the amount of taxes I have to pay. What I am "whining" about is paying taxes being told those taxes are in place for one thing, used for another or seemingly disappear while the original reason for the tax remains in a state of disrepair. Wanting my tax dollars to be used efficiently and transparently and questioning where the money goes does not make me a whiner, nor anti-taxation. Moreover, I have no desire to get into a snotty pissing match about who's country has better/worse this and that. Speaking of education systems, was there much focus on reading comprehension in your country's education program? Or did it not just take with you specifically? Nothing in my original post gives the impression that I don't think taxes are worthwhile. But paying taxes to pay taxes is useless if they are not going towards the original reason behind the taxation. This is the problem I see within the US taxation system and why I posted. Have a good day.

77H

I apologise if I misinterpreted your post, I took the line 'It seems like in today's world anyone with a connection to politics only solution is more tax.' to mean that you were fairly anti paying more tax. I appreciate your concern with how taxes are spent and efficiencies and so on, which is perfectly appropriate and something I'm sure we'd all like to see. Likewise for your comment 'So if the good citizens are paying their fair share wouldn't one expect the roads to be in good shape? Since they're not, where has the money gone? '. I took this to mean that you believe people are already paying enough. My point was that, compared to other systems, perhaps they are not actually paying enough/their fair share for the level of service you demand?

While you may not want to make comparisons, given that it was you who mentioned not being familiar with the European system, as I have become fairly familiar with both, it seems useful to provide that information, and that in the end, efficiencies will only go so far to correcting the problems you perceive. Paying the lowest taxes in the developed world is probably not going to get you the best services, which may be the cause of some of your complaints and the disrepair you observe, as much as mis-use.

Understood. I am a major supporter of anything that preserves the environment. My second major in college was Environmental Science with an emphasis in Renewable Energy Systems. That said, I am also a major supporter of governmental accountability and I become skeptical when I hear anyone say, "we should tax this, and tax that" without fully explaining where that tax money will be going, and how it will be used. I brought up the example of the roads in my home state as we pay vehicle registration that is relatively high by US standards and is based on vehicle weight. The notion is, the heavier your vehicle, the more wear and tear on the roads. Seems fair, but the roads, including the "interstates" in the county I live in are crumbling. Which makes me question where the tax money from registration and fuel is going as it does seem to be going in full to the roadways. If a demonstrable connection can be made between taxing the aviation industry for the betterment of the environment and how those dollars will be used to achieve that goal I would put my pen to petition or ballot today.

That said, I am not sure I necessarily agree with the notion of taxing the aviation industry as a means to discourage air travel in the same way tax is used to discourage cigarette smoking and soft drink consumption. I think a tax on the aviation industry would be better served going toward R&D for aircraft/power plant design and efficiency, biofuels, technological advances in air traffic control and airspace design as well as incentives for airlines and aviation companies who implement environmentally friendly initiatives.

Moreover, I think there is much lower hanging fruit than the aviation industry that can be revolutionized with the environment in mind. What I mean by this is that the technology has not yet provided us a way to efficiently power large transportation vehicles such as ocean going ships and commercial airliners. However, we have technology that allows us to power our homes and cities and stationary infrastructure with renewable, green energy. In my humbled opinion, getting our cities, states, countries to 100% renewable resources is a lower hanging fruit with technologies largely already in place to achieve it. Another low hanging fruit, at least in the United States is re-thinking the way we design our cities. Major US cities have become sprawling nightmares. If there were to be a mentality shift in the United States away from the antiquated "American Dream" of single family home in the suburbs to more compact, urban living we could cut down on the number of personal cars on the road and ground based public transportation would be more effective and popular.

My post is getting a little off topic from civil aviation but suffice it to say we are mostly on the same page, a few viewpoints notwithstanding.

77H

There seems to be quite a lot of nonsense going on in this thread. For starters, climate change is real, NASA corroborates it, as do all but two of the world's countries, including major oil producers. Second, there are some good points about the greenpeace idea not working, because people will simply use other airports. That said, here are some sane things that could be implemented:

1. A fuel tax to offset some of the externality
2. Ongoing investments into renewable fuels, ideally funded by the externality tax
3. Slot pricing to encourage larger average plane size
4. ATC improvements (worth 13% in EU)

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

Nonsense like this just relegates them further to the fringe

They don't seem to exist in reality but in some fantasy dream world...or what would be a nightmare for normal people

Only way to accomplish what they want would be for people to stop traveling or stop being born

Kinda like Germany shuttering their nuke plants only to buy more fossil/carbon energy from the east. Yeah, that was brilliant.

If you want to cut greenhouse emissions, nukes are the best way to do that. Coal is horrid. Wind and Solar is far less of power than people realize, it is as if they cannot integrate.


But eventually the people count must go down. Not a fun thing to think about.

But aviation is economic growth. If the Dutch want to push jobs elsewhere, they can. Is the best way to cut greenhouse gases to cut aviation? Will next it be the ports?

And how does that stop growth in India and China? I'm not saying do nothing. But emissions go with fuel burn.
Aviation is 3% of CO2. Should planes get more efficient? Yes. Funny thing, as fuel is such a high fraction of business costs for airlines so the want to cut.

https://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/ ... -emissions

More mass transit powered by nukes.
More heating/Air Conditioning, and light with little to no CO2. Solar and wind might power a fraction, but not the growth.

Lightsaber

EVERY TIME in history that someone has tried to eliminate a technology because of fear of what it would mean, that technology has proceded anyway. Even nuclear power is still in use. In another ten years when Fukushima is a memory, there will be new reactors.

The only thing that will eliminate the aviation sector is a new technology that offers similar capabilities with advantages, just like ocean liners were eliminated by airliners (although passenger shipping is a bigger industry today than it ever was at the height of the great liners, it's just not used for transportation).

A switch to carbon-neutral (or negative) biofuels is the only viable solution. The thermal cycles governing gas turbine engines can only be only so efficient and there aren't other energy-storage media that work well for this specific application.

I'm sure one day, assuming we still exist, some exotic technology will replace either combustion or air travel. But the world will have changed so much by then that nobody on this board can make any useful predictions about it.

Bricktop wrote:

Kudos to Dutchy at least for not being so far up his own rear end at a little satire and hyperbole. Unfortunately, Greenpeace (at least through Ms. Oulahsen) seems to have devolved almost entirely into the satire and hyperbole spectrum without the knowing wink. Aviation has never been more green than it is today. I am sure that this little piece of attention seeking will soon be forgotten.

Sure, a single flight from a to b has never been so efficient, so little fossil fuel has been used to perform the flight. The problem, of course, is that the efficiency gains are far exceeded by the increase in the number of flights, so the environmental damage done by aviation has been vastly increased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environme ... f_aviation

Aviation "contribution" to emissions.



Link: http://www.cate.mmu.ac.uk/research-them ... e-climate/

Individual aircraft within the US:

[imghttps://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/images/nclimate2865-f1.jpg[/img]