This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Read about this in the Travel Section, quite an interesting concept.
"One single shorthaul flight produces roughly the same amount of the global warming gas as 3 months worth of driving a 1.4 litre car."
You can redress this balance by making a contribution to forestry projects here http://www.futureforests.com/ lots of interesting information on the site.
And I am as guilty as the next person of flying too much!
"One single shorthaul flight produces roughly the same amount of the global warming gas as 3 months worth of driving a 1.4 litre car."
You can redress this balance by making a contribution to forestry projects here http://www.futureforests.com/ lots of interesting information on the site.
And I am as guilty as the next person of flying too much!
In reply to Chris Fryer:
Didn't it work out at an approximate donation of £10 for a European flight which isn't much considering the enjoyment going on holiday brings
Didn't it work out at an approximate donation of £10 for a European flight which isn't much considering the enjoyment going on holiday brings
In reply to Rowie B:
About that - I've just used the calculator to see that my long weekend in Rome in March will be responsible for 0.71 tonnes of CO2, which I can offset with 1 tree or 1 energy saving light bulb. Think I'll go for the tree.
About that - I've just used the calculator to see that my long weekend in Rome in March will be responsible for 0.71 tonnes of CO2, which I can offset with 1 tree or 1 energy saving light bulb. Think I'll go for the tree.
In reply to Chris Fryer:
is that 3 months per passenger?
is that 3 months per passenger?
In reply to Anonymous: In the car or the plane? Either was I dont know. It is a quote from the website, hence the exclamation marks. Why don't you email them and ask?
Does no-one else give a toss about this?
In reply to Chris Fryer: I do but, but then I like to think I'm reasonably environmentally friendly, e.g. energy saving bulbs wherever possible, turning lights, economical car etc.
I did mention to my girlfriend that perhaps raising car tax on anything thats got an engine larger than 1.8l to £300 pounds, hitting not just 4x4's but anyone who has a huge car.
As for flying I totally agree a flight will go wheteher its fully booked or not, making it less economical and harming the environment more. I for one would support an increase in price on short haul flights simply because I couldn't give a toss about the length of journey to get somewhere and actually regard it as part of the trip, so would rather drive get the train or whatever. Plus I didn't like flying.
I did mention to my girlfriend that perhaps raising car tax on anything thats got an engine larger than 1.8l to £300 pounds, hitting not just 4x4's but anyone who has a huge car.
As for flying I totally agree a flight will go wheteher its fully booked or not, making it less economical and harming the environment more. I for one would support an increase in price on short haul flights simply because I couldn't give a toss about the length of journey to get somewhere and actually regard it as part of the trip, so would rather drive get the train or whatever. Plus I didn't like flying.
In reply to Graeme:
you forgot abnout diesels. A medium size diesel like mine needs a 2 litre engine to be reasonable to drive (comparable to a 1.6l petrol I reckon) and is about as efficient. They pollute more with particulates but I don't think thats a factor with global warming. I get clobbered on car tax because i've got a diesel!!!
Pete
you forgot abnout diesels. A medium size diesel like mine needs a 2 litre engine to be reasonable to drive (comparable to a 1.6l petrol I reckon) and is about as efficient. They pollute more with particulates but I don't think thats a factor with global warming. I get clobbered on car tax because i've got a diesel!!!
Pete
In reply to Chris Fryer:
It's an interesting site...
http://www.futureforests.com/explainmore/reduceyouremissions.asp
for phone chargers (and all other charging devices, as well)
http://www.futureforests.com/explainmore/athome.asp
for other reduction tips...
It's an interesting site...
http://www.futureforests.com/explainmore/reduceyouremissions.asp
for phone chargers (and all other charging devices, as well)
http://www.futureforests.com/explainmore/athome.asp
for other reduction tips...
In reply to Chris Fryer:
Yes I care, but biomass growth is NOT a method of balancing carbon. It's fundamentally flawed and a waste of time for CO2 balancing. There are lots of other very good reasons to plant trees. Carbon balance is NOT one of them.
<rant>
Consider where the carbon in the jet fuel comes from, it's from oil/coal reserves locked away beneath the earth. Carbon locked into biomass is there only temporarily until the tree dies and rots. It is then oxidised to CO2 as the wood rots similarly to burning the tree but slightly slower. As such the carbon budget of a tree is precisely nil.
UNLESS the tree is then buried and converted to coal again locking its' carbon out of the carbon cycle.
It may upset you to read this but unless you somehow lock the carbon out of the cycle there is no way to mitigate the effects of fossil fuel burning.
Various ways to do this have been mooted including -
Pumping CO2 (in solution) into empty oil wells (back where it came from).
Converting to CO3 (carbonate) and burying it.
So far none of these are simple or viable, reduction is the only option at present.
Tree campaigns like these are child science and to market them as a carbon balance option is a lie. However forests are pretty and help maintain biodiversity (unless they are monoculture) you won't do any harm by making a contribution.
</rant>
Yes I care, but biomass growth is NOT a method of balancing carbon. It's fundamentally flawed and a waste of time for CO2 balancing. There are lots of other very good reasons to plant trees. Carbon balance is NOT one of them.
<rant>
Consider where the carbon in the jet fuel comes from, it's from oil/coal reserves locked away beneath the earth. Carbon locked into biomass is there only temporarily until the tree dies and rots. It is then oxidised to CO2 as the wood rots similarly to burning the tree but slightly slower. As such the carbon budget of a tree is precisely nil.
UNLESS the tree is then buried and converted to coal again locking its' carbon out of the carbon cycle.
It may upset you to read this but unless you somehow lock the carbon out of the cycle there is no way to mitigate the effects of fossil fuel burning.
Various ways to do this have been mooted including -
Pumping CO2 (in solution) into empty oil wells (back where it came from).
Converting to CO3 (carbonate) and burying it.
So far none of these are simple or viable, reduction is the only option at present.
Tree campaigns like these are child science and to market them as a carbon balance option is a lie. However forests are pretty and help maintain biodiversity (unless they are monoculture) you won't do any harm by making a contribution.
</rant>
In reply to The Crow:
I quite happily admit to flying 'too much' and look forward to the day when aviation fuel is taxed as much as car petrol and we're all discouraged from hopping on the next 1 pound flight to nice or wherever.
travel may be good for us, but it's not good for the greenhouse effect.
I quite happily admit to flying 'too much' and look forward to the day when aviation fuel is taxed as much as car petrol and we're all discouraged from hopping on the next 1 pound flight to nice or wherever.
travel may be good for us, but it's not good for the greenhouse effect.
In reply to sg:
Well said! It's all about reduction, if we don't burn the fossil fuels we leave all that carbon locked away.
Things that have been done to make a real difference include fuel taxation, building regulations (to insist on better insulation), improvements in efficiency of modern engines, ANY non fossil fuel power generation (this includes biomass plants).
I'd like to see the sale of all energy inefficient lightbulbs/appliances outlawed.
I also believe legislation is the only way forward; even knowing what I know I'm not environmentally procative. I need to be forced as much as the next man.
Well said! It's all about reduction, if we don't burn the fossil fuels we leave all that carbon locked away.
Things that have been done to make a real difference include fuel taxation, building regulations (to insist on better insulation), improvements in efficiency of modern engines, ANY non fossil fuel power generation (this includes biomass plants).
I'd like to see the sale of all energy inefficient lightbulbs/appliances outlawed.
I also believe legislation is the only way forward; even knowing what I know I'm not environmentally procative. I need to be forced as much as the next man.
In reply to The Crow:
Whilst agreeing with most of what you say, the fact is that at the moment, globally deforestation is a growth business, so fewer trees means that far less CO2 is being taken out of the atmosphere naturally ie the absorption rate is far lower than it was a hundred years ago, simply because there are far fewer forests/trees.
Obviously some of the logging goes to make furniture, frames for buildings, boats etc etc (not just land clearance) - and so the carbon is still locked up, as that wood does not rot down (immediately, anyway)
One suggestion I've seen is to turn away from fossil-fuel burning power stations, and go to wood-burning ones, then at least you aren't releasing fossil CO2 back into the atmosphere. This requires huge forests, and forest management, so you always have more trees growing to replace ones that are burnt.
This is obviously more CO2 friendly (carbon neutral) than oil-, coal- and gas-burning power-stations, and can be used to supplement wind-turbines, wave and solar energy, and should replace fossil fuels.
And if the forests are planted around the power-stations then it also eliminates the massive energy expenditure involved in extracting coal, gas, oil and then transporting it vast distances - which goes on at the moment. (plus all the energy expenditure involved in getting people to and from the mines, oil fields etc, building oil-rigs, oil tankers etc...
(Although this involves moving vehicles away from burning fossil fuels, too, to a large degree. And reducing all the other things that oil is used for)
Just some thoughts...
Whilst agreeing with most of what you say, the fact is that at the moment, globally deforestation is a growth business, so fewer trees means that far less CO2 is being taken out of the atmosphere naturally ie the absorption rate is far lower than it was a hundred years ago, simply because there are far fewer forests/trees.
Obviously some of the logging goes to make furniture, frames for buildings, boats etc etc (not just land clearance) - and so the carbon is still locked up, as that wood does not rot down (immediately, anyway)
One suggestion I've seen is to turn away from fossil-fuel burning power stations, and go to wood-burning ones, then at least you aren't releasing fossil CO2 back into the atmosphere. This requires huge forests, and forest management, so you always have more trees growing to replace ones that are burnt.
This is obviously more CO2 friendly (carbon neutral) than oil-, coal- and gas-burning power-stations, and can be used to supplement wind-turbines, wave and solar energy, and should replace fossil fuels.
And if the forests are planted around the power-stations then it also eliminates the massive energy expenditure involved in extracting coal, gas, oil and then transporting it vast distances - which goes on at the moment. (plus all the energy expenditure involved in getting people to and from the mines, oil fields etc, building oil-rigs, oil tankers etc...
(Although this involves moving vehicles away from burning fossil fuels, too, to a large degree. And reducing all the other things that oil is used for)
Just some thoughts...
In reply to sg:I don't fly on holiday at all,i decided it wasn't fair on people most affected by global warming and animals affected by it,i flew in a biplane last year and a helicopter as a boy,but i've never flown on holiday,the rest of my family where going in the bi-plane so it didn't seem to make much difference if i didn't,but appart from that i don't fly.
In reply to Dominion:
Of course you're right biomass plants are carbon neutral, but surely it would actually be easier to implement other technologies.
However judging by these fora it would seem that people would rather plant a well-intentioned but useless tree than suffer the visual intusion of an alternative energy scheme.
Perhaps we need to bring back nuclear power - carbon neutral and the waste/pollutants although dangerous are solid and low volume. Deep disposal in impervious bedrock makes perfect sense and we'd do it already if it weren't for alarmist reporting by the media.
Of course you're right biomass plants are carbon neutral, but surely it would actually be easier to implement other technologies.
However judging by these fora it would seem that people would rather plant a well-intentioned but useless tree than suffer the visual intusion of an alternative energy scheme.
Perhaps we need to bring back nuclear power - carbon neutral and the waste/pollutants although dangerous are solid and low volume. Deep disposal in impervious bedrock makes perfect sense and we'd do it already if it weren't for alarmist reporting by the media.
In reply to Chris Fryer:
Sorry Chris, just noticed it.
I see that new super-jumbo plane claims that it can carry passengers with a fuel-per-passenger-per-km consumption rate similar to that of a diesel car!
Incidentally, next time you eat prawns from Thailand or Basil from Israel, you might need to buy some trees too. The amount of inter-continental transport of food these days is amazing.
> Does no-one else give a toss about this?
Sorry Chris, just noticed it.
I see that new super-jumbo plane claims that it can carry passengers with a fuel-per-passenger-per-km consumption rate similar to that of a diesel car!
Incidentally, next time you eat prawns from Thailand or Basil from Israel, you might need to buy some trees too. The amount of inter-continental transport of food these days is amazing.
In reply to DougG:
I heard the makers throwing about some of these unlikely claims. can they really be true? even if they are, that's still a lot of fuel...
very good point, and my understanding is that a surprising amount really does go air freight and land freight - it's not all in refrigerated containers bobbing across the oceans.
> (In reply to Chris Fryer)
>
> [...]
>
> Sorry Chris, just noticed it.
>
> I see that new super-jumbo plane claims that it can carry passengers with a fuel-per-passenger-per-km consumption rate similar to that of a diesel car!
>
> [...]
>
> Sorry Chris, just noticed it.
>
> I see that new super-jumbo plane claims that it can carry passengers with a fuel-per-passenger-per-km consumption rate similar to that of a diesel car!
I heard the makers throwing about some of these unlikely claims. can they really be true? even if they are, that's still a lot of fuel...
>
> Incidentally, next time you eat prawns from Thailand or Basil from Israel, you might need to buy some trees too. The amount of inter-continental transport of food these days is amazing.
> Incidentally, next time you eat prawns from Thailand or Basil from Israel, you might need to buy some trees too. The amount of inter-continental transport of food these days is amazing.
very good point, and my understanding is that a surprising amount really does go air freight and land freight - it's not all in refrigerated containers bobbing across the oceans.
In reply to DougG:
"The A380 is the only commercial plane designed from the outset to be environmentally friendly", said Mr Blair. "It consumes less than three litres of fuel per passengers over 100km, a rate comparable to a modern diesel car."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4184987.stm
But obviously only when full to capacity of passengers...
Yep, one way to cut global emmissions is to for everyone to go back to eating only local produce, and not imported fruit, vegetables, meat etc..
And tell your supermarkets so...
> I see that new super-jumbo plane claims that it can carry passengers with a fuel-per-passenger-per-km consumption rate similar to that of a diesel car!
"The A380 is the only commercial plane designed from the outset to be environmentally friendly", said Mr Blair. "It consumes less than three litres of fuel per passengers over 100km, a rate comparable to a modern diesel car."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4184987.stm
But obviously only when full to capacity of passengers...
> Incidentally, next time you eat prawns from Thailand or Basil from Israel, you might need to buy some trees too. The amount of inter-continental transport of food these days is amazing.
Yep, one way to cut global emmissions is to for everyone to go back to eating only local produce, and not imported fruit, vegetables, meat etc..
And tell your supermarkets so...
In reply to Dominion:
Heard on you and yours the other day that waste paper is taken all the way to the far east for recycling. The reasoning was it was worth it as the ships would be going back empty anyway as we are net importers.
You can hear it if you wish.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/index_20050117.shtml
Heard on you and yours the other day that waste paper is taken all the way to the far east for recycling. The reasoning was it was worth it as the ships would be going back empty anyway as we are net importers.
You can hear it if you wish.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/index_20050117.shtml
In reply to Chris Fryer:
www.idontcareaboutair.com has a lot to say on pollution with regards to drivers of SUVS, also some great printable bumper stickers.
www.idontcareaboutair.com has a lot to say on pollution with regards to drivers of SUVS, also some great printable bumper stickers.
In reply to Dominion:
Think again. While deforestation by burning adds a one off volume to atmospheric CO2 since the budget of the other trees is nil the situation is not worsened following this.
Similarly while re-aforestation will remove CO2 and store it as plant biomass unless there is a commitment to re-plant in perpetuity then your tree does nothing to remedy the situation other than a temporary buffer. Say 50-100yrs.
Of course if we increased biomass with huge (and it would have to be MASSIVE) re-aforestation managed continuously we could have an effect.
This is why I'm suspicious of the program the OP mentioned while they will do their best to maintain the forests they plant they make no promises of permanancy (at least not on their site). I fear people will incorrectly believe that by planting trees they can balance their carbon budget. They don't, they just put it off for the lifetime of the trees/forest which will be small consolation to their grandchildren if/when the forests die.
People may take their eye off the ball which is 'reduction in fossil fuel use' not a gamble on future forests.
Of course doing both would be a bonus.
> Whilst agreeing with most of what you say, the fact is that at the moment, globally deforestation is a growth business, so fewer trees means that far less CO2 is being taken out of the atmosphere naturally ie the absorption rate is far lower than it was a hundred years ago, simply because there are far fewer forests/trees.
Think again. While deforestation by burning adds a one off volume to atmospheric CO2 since the budget of the other trees is nil the situation is not worsened following this.
Similarly while re-aforestation will remove CO2 and store it as plant biomass unless there is a commitment to re-plant in perpetuity then your tree does nothing to remedy the situation other than a temporary buffer. Say 50-100yrs.
Of course if we increased biomass with huge (and it would have to be MASSIVE) re-aforestation managed continuously we could have an effect.
This is why I'm suspicious of the program the OP mentioned while they will do their best to maintain the forests they plant they make no promises of permanancy (at least not on their site). I fear people will incorrectly believe that by planting trees they can balance their carbon budget. They don't, they just put it off for the lifetime of the trees/forest which will be small consolation to their grandchildren if/when the forests die.
People may take their eye off the ball which is 'reduction in fossil fuel use' not a gamble on future forests.
Of course doing both would be a bonus.
In reply to Hotbad Peteel: I thought about getting a diesel, but then saw the price of it per litre and changed my mind.
I take it when you say particulates your referring to the crap blown out the back, so they're really talking about soot then?
I take it when you say particulates your referring to the crap blown out the back, so they're really talking about soot then?
In reply to Graeme: I'm reasonably environmentally friendly too; recycle as much as possible, share car when I can, use public transport when possible, but I still feel I can do more, as can just about everyone on the planet (apart from a handful of crusties living in teepees).
Air travel is a case of supply and demand though. Saying it is more environmental for the flight to be fully booked is a bit of a cop-out. If no-one flew on the planes, do you think they would still fly? Routes get cancelled all the time due to lack of use.
Air travel is a case of supply and demand though. Saying it is more environmental for the flight to be fully booked is a bit of a cop-out. If no-one flew on the planes, do you think they would still fly? Routes get cancelled all the time due to lack of use.
In reply to Chris Fryer:
better to fill the flights than have them fly half empty, at least when full it serve a bit more of a purpose.
maybe the airlines should only let planes leave the ground if all seats is taken :0)
better to fill the flights than have them fly half empty, at least when full it serve a bit more of a purpose.
maybe the airlines should only let planes leave the ground if all seats is taken :0)
In reply to The Crow: Interesting debate guys. I, of course, don't know the definitive answer, but the trees aside, there is a lot of other useful information about energy use etc.
One other thing I had never thought about, until it was mentioned to me, was that "Reduce, re-use, recycle" should actually be prioritised in that order.
One other thing I had never thought about, until it was mentioned to me, was that "Reduce, re-use, recycle" should actually be prioritised in that order.
In reply to mik: No, because then the airline just puts more planes on that route. It would be more environmental for someone to stay at home rather than be on the plane, regardless of whether there were spaces on it or not.
In reply to The Crow:
>
> However judging by these fora it would seem that people would rather plant a well-intentioned but useless tree than suffer the visual intusion of an alternative energy scheme.
>
At the moment, given the lack of political and societal will to make the changes necessary, I'm happy to plant trees and look forward to more renewables. You're right with much of what you say about tree-planting, but right now, anything which takes CO2 out of the atmosphere is a good thing. It may only be a (relatively) short-term benefit, but anything which slows down the rate at which atmospheric concentrations are increasing has to be a good thing until more genuinely sustainable solutions are developed. A stury I saw on a Norwegian website suggested that about a third of the increase in CO2 concentrations is attributable to deforestation. Reversing that trend would be a welcome step. > However judging by these fora it would seem that people would rather plant a well-intentioned but useless tree than suffer the visual intusion of an alternative energy scheme.
>
In reply to Chris Fryer:
err ....... call my a cynic, but have a look at
http://www.futureforests.com/futureforests/financials.asp
This is just a commercial venture run by media types for profit!
You might as well invest your money in a proper forestry company (fountain forestry, tillhill etc) or an investment company with interests in forestry (standard life own plenty of the local blanket conifer forestry around my abode)
err ....... call my a cynic, but have a look at
http://www.futureforests.com/futureforests/financials.asp
This is just a commercial venture run by media types for profit!
You might as well invest your money in a proper forestry company (fountain forestry, tillhill etc) or an investment company with interests in forestry (standard life own plenty of the local blanket conifer forestry around my abode)
In reply to grumpytramp: Yeah, you're right sod this planet and chop down all the trees. They can't do much good anyway.
In reply to DougG:
I thought it would still cause more damage as to where it puts out the fumes - eg right up at altitude
> I see that new super-jumbo plane claims that it can carry passengers with a fuel-per-passenger-per-km consumption rate similar to that of a diesel car!
I thought it would still cause more damage as to where it puts out the fumes - eg right up at altitude
> Incidentally, next time you eat prawns from Thailand or Basil from Israel, you might need to buy some trees too. The amount of inter-continental transport of food these days is amazing.
In reply to sg:
I'll second that. Aviation fuel needs to be taxed.
> (In reply to The Crow)
>
> I quite happily admit to flying 'too much' and look forward to the day when aviation fuel is taxed as much as car petrol and we're all discouraged from hopping on the next 1 pound flight to nice or wherever.
>
> travel may be good for us, but it's not good for the greenhouse effect.
>
> I quite happily admit to flying 'too much' and look forward to the day when aviation fuel is taxed as much as car petrol and we're all discouraged from hopping on the next 1 pound flight to nice or wherever.
>
> travel may be good for us, but it's not good for the greenhouse effect.
I'll second that. Aviation fuel needs to be taxed.
In reply to Chris Fryer:
We were chatting about this at lunch today and Mark was saying that for the 2 days after Sept 11th when they totally cut back on the number of flights the world temperature rose by about 2 degrees because of the reduced about of C02 emmissions in the sky. Pretty mad stuff.
We were chatting about this at lunch today and Mark was saying that for the 2 days after Sept 11th when they totally cut back on the number of flights the world temperature rose by about 2 degrees because of the reduced about of C02 emmissions in the sky. Pretty mad stuff.
In reply to Rowie B: rose or dropped?
In reply to Minka:
As I understand it, aviation fuel is not taxed because nobody can agree what rate to tax it at. Also, there's no mechanism by which a worldwide aviation fuel tax could be imposed or enforced. Because airlines fly people from country to country, there is an argument that they could fill up in low-tax countries (who would deliberately keep their aviation fuel taxes low so as to attract airlines to land in their countries) and that would somehow distort the market and that would be a bad thing. I think.
I believe a similar argument prevents the taxation of marine fuel oil, which I seem to remember hearing is one of the "dirtiest" fuels in widespread use.
I'm sure a bit of Googling would turn up tons more information, much of it significantly more reliable than my hazy recollections.
If getting these situations requires every country in the world to agree then we're basically stuffed, if Kyoto is anything to go by.
> Aviation fuel needs to be taxed.
As I understand it, aviation fuel is not taxed because nobody can agree what rate to tax it at. Also, there's no mechanism by which a worldwide aviation fuel tax could be imposed or enforced. Because airlines fly people from country to country, there is an argument that they could fill up in low-tax countries (who would deliberately keep their aviation fuel taxes low so as to attract airlines to land in their countries) and that would somehow distort the market and that would be a bad thing. I think.
I believe a similar argument prevents the taxation of marine fuel oil, which I seem to remember hearing is one of the "dirtiest" fuels in widespread use.
I'm sure a bit of Googling would turn up tons more information, much of it significantly more reliable than my hazy recollections.
If getting these situations requires every country in the world to agree then we're basically stuffed, if Kyoto is anything to go by.
In reply to Graeme:
what if i have a 3.0 litre 'cause I need to tow my livestock up and down and need the power/weight for safety?
what if I travel 1,000miles/year in it and someone in a 1.4 car drives 20,000 miles/year?
what if I keep it for 15years and the 1.4 car driver changes every 3 years?
not so simple - or is it?
what if i have a 3.0 litre 'cause I need to tow my livestock up and down and need the power/weight for safety?
what if I travel 1,000miles/year in it and someone in a 1.4 car drives 20,000 miles/year?
what if I keep it for 15years and the 1.4 car driver changes every 3 years?
not so simple - or is it?
In reply to Rowie B:
I think Mark must have misunderstood the argument put forward in last week's Horizon programme, which was that the brief interruption in high altitude particulates emissions from aircraft had reduced the "global dimming" effect, leading to a detectable increase in average temperatures (ISTR that the temperature data was only for the continental US but I might be mistaken on that point).
If the anthropogenic global warming theories are correct then reducing CO2 should lead to a reduction in temperatures (or perhaps a reduction in the rate at which they are increasing). In any case, I doubt that the effect would be so immediately detectable as the data put forward in that programme. (Data which were presented in a very questionable way anyway.)
> Mark was saying that for the 2 days after Sept 11th when they totally cut back on the number of flights the world temperature rose by about 2 degrees because of the reduced about of C02 emmissions in the sky.
I think Mark must have misunderstood the argument put forward in last week's Horizon programme, which was that the brief interruption in high altitude particulates emissions from aircraft had reduced the "global dimming" effect, leading to a detectable increase in average temperatures (ISTR that the temperature data was only for the continental US but I might be mistaken on that point).
If the anthropogenic global warming theories are correct then reducing CO2 should lead to a reduction in temperatures (or perhaps a reduction in the rate at which they are increasing). In any case, I doubt that the effect would be so immediately detectable as the data put forward in that programme. (Data which were presented in a very questionable way anyway.)
In reply to Rowie B:
I would love to know where he got that from!
> (In reply to Chris Fryer)
>
> We were chatting about this at lunch today and Mark was saying that for the 2 days after Sept 11th when they totally cut back on the number of flights the world temperature rose by about 2 degrees because of the reduced about of C02 emmissions in the sky. Pretty mad stuff.
>
> We were chatting about this at lunch today and Mark was saying that for the 2 days after Sept 11th when they totally cut back on the number of flights the world temperature rose by about 2 degrees because of the reduced about of C02 emmissions in the sky. Pretty mad stuff.
I would love to know where he got that from!
In reply to tony:
Sounds a bit implausible. 2 deg.C is an absolutely huge change in such a short space of time.
Sounds a bit implausible. 2 deg.C is an absolutely huge change in such a short space of time.
In reply to Martin W:
I don't have time for a massive googling sesh either, but I'm sure the tax thing has more to do with lobbying airlines than the impossiblity of implementing it. For example, the UK could simply rule that planes had to be full on leaving the tarmac
I don't have time for a massive googling sesh either, but I'm sure the tax thing has more to do with lobbying airlines than the impossiblity of implementing it. For example, the UK could simply rule that planes had to be full on leaving the tarmac
In reply to sentimentaljohnny:
Great sites, i'm really tempted to go out and raid some of those obnoxious SUV:s, particularly those downtown, driven by guys who never venture outside The City, to areas where You might actually need SUV:s/jeeps.
SUV:s suck
Great sites, i'm really tempted to go out and raid some of those obnoxious SUV:s, particularly those downtown, driven by guys who never venture outside The City, to areas where You might actually need SUV:s/jeeps.
SUV:s suck
In reply to DougG:
Sounds downright complete bollocks to me.
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Sounds a bit implausible. 2 deg.C is an absolutely huge change in such a short space of time.
>
> Sounds a bit implausible. 2 deg.C is an absolutely huge change in such a short space of time.
Sounds downright complete bollocks to me.
In reply to Minka:
Which would give the airlines even more incentive to avoid the UK. Imagine a high-tax/compulsory-fillup UK with low-tax/do-as-you-please continental neighbours and it's not too big a stretch to envisage a situation where flights to the UK would be so scarce and/or expensive that you could be better off flying in to Paris and taking the Eurostar for onward travel to the UK. And that would be a bad thing. Or so the argument goes. I think. But I am quite willing to be shown otherwise.
> the UK could simply rule that planes had to be full on leaving the tarmac
Which would give the airlines even more incentive to avoid the UK. Imagine a high-tax/compulsory-fillup UK with low-tax/do-as-you-please continental neighbours and it's not too big a stretch to envisage a situation where flights to the UK would be so scarce and/or expensive that you could be better off flying in to Paris and taking the Eurostar for onward travel to the UK. And that would be a bad thing. Or so the argument goes. I think. But I am quite willing to be shown otherwise.
In reply to tony:
Actually, I stand corrected. Apparently a paper in Nature did suggest that temperatures did increase by up to 1.8C after September 11, as a result of the absence of contrails in the upper atmosphere. Nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
Actually, I stand corrected. Apparently a paper in Nature did suggest that temperatures did increase by up to 1.8C after September 11, as a result of the absence of contrails in the upper atmosphere. Nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
In reply to DougG:
He heard it from someone else so maybe a case of chinese whispers!
> Sounds a bit implausible. 2 deg.C is an absolutely huge change in such a short space of time.
He heard it from someone else so maybe a case of chinese whispers!
In reply to DougG:
Short for condensation trail - the wispy bits of white fluffy stuff that seem to follow jet planes. It all seems to be related to them pretending to be clouds.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2642
Short for condensation trail - the wispy bits of white fluffy stuff that seem to follow jet planes. It all seems to be related to them pretending to be clouds.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2642
In reply to tony and Rowie B:
Wow! I stand corrected as well then! Amazing to think that we can have such an influence on the temperature of the earth...
Wow! I stand corrected as well then! Amazing to think that we can have such an influence on the temperature of the earth...
In reply to rob k: If you try and follow what I'm saying, which could be difficult cos I'm confused already,
If you've got a bigger engine in say a landrover, which your using for business, rather than showboating I can understand the need, and if it could be proved that you actually needed a car, van etc for business use, e.g. V.A.T. receipt etc, then cheaper tax etc. But if you just want a porsche 4x4 for example to tw*t about in and drop the kids off at school then I'll take 10% of the price as tax, per year.
It goes up because they p*ss me off and very few people who own them actually use them for any real reason other than to avoid a giant ribena slick on the street.
However I'm sure there'll be a hundred reasons why that can't be policed so I'm off back to work.
If you've got a bigger engine in say a landrover, which your using for business, rather than showboating I can understand the need, and if it could be proved that you actually needed a car, van etc for business use, e.g. V.A.T. receipt etc, then cheaper tax etc. But if you just want a porsche 4x4 for example to tw*t about in and drop the kids off at school then I'll take 10% of the price as tax, per year.
It goes up because they p*ss me off and very few people who own them actually use them for any real reason other than to avoid a giant ribena slick on the street.
However I'm sure there'll be a hundred reasons why that can't be policed so I'm off back to work.
In reply to Chris Fryer:
Does anybody know where I can get automatic light switches or sensors that detect when nobody is in the room and turn the light off? At the moment the teenagers at home insist on making sure that our house is lit up like a beacon, and don't seem to care about turning a light off when they walk out of a room (or even the house).
Does anybody know where I can get automatic light switches or sensors that detect when nobody is in the room and turn the light off? At the moment the teenagers at home insist on making sure that our house is lit up like a beacon, and don't seem to care about turning a light off when they walk out of a room (or even the house).
In reply to grynneman:
These any good for you?
http://www.x-10europe.com/occupancy_sensor.htm
http://gadgetsuk.com/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=16279
These any good for you?
http://www.x-10europe.com/occupancy_sensor.htm
http://gadgetsuk.com/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=16279
In reply to DougG: Something I learned from the Horizon programme was that the changes we've implimented in Europe in the past 10-15 years are already having a significant effect on air quality. Of course we have to do better, but it's good to see some positivity.
Does anyone think flights are too cheap? Perhaps we should be applying higher taxes to jet fuel as we do with road transport fuels so that flight costs are more realistic with respect to their environmental impact?
Cheers,
Tom.
Does anyone think flights are too cheap? Perhaps we should be applying higher taxes to jet fuel as we do with road transport fuels so that flight costs are more realistic with respect to their environmental impact?
Cheers,
Tom.
In reply to tony:
Extract from the article in Nature, Vol 418, 8 Aug '02:
(DTR has been earlier defined as "diurnal temperature range")
...
DTRs for 11–14 September 2001 measured at stations across the United States show an increase of about 1.1 °C over normal 1971–2000 values (Fig. 1). This is in contrast to the adjacent three-day periods, when DTR values were near or below the mean (Fig. 1). DTR departures for the grounding period are, on average, 1.8 °C greater than DTR departures for the two adjacent three-day periods.
...
This increase in DTR is larger than any during the 11–14 September period for the previous 30 years, and is the only increase greater than 2 standard deviations away from the mean DTR (s.d., 0.85 °C). Moreover, the 11–14 September increase in DTR was more than twice the national average for regions of the United States where contrail coverage has previously been reported to be most abundant (such as the midwest, northeast and northwest regions).
...
Extract from the article in Nature, Vol 418, 8 Aug '02:
(DTR has been earlier defined as "diurnal temperature range")
...
DTRs for 11–14 September 2001 measured at stations across the United States show an increase of about 1.1 °C over normal 1971–2000 values (Fig. 1). This is in contrast to the adjacent three-day periods, when DTR values were near or below the mean (Fig. 1). DTR departures for the grounding period are, on average, 1.8 °C greater than DTR departures for the two adjacent three-day periods.
...
This increase in DTR is larger than any during the 11–14 September period for the previous 30 years, and is the only increase greater than 2 standard deviations away from the mean DTR (s.d., 0.85 °C). Moreover, the 11–14 September increase in DTR was more than twice the national average for regions of the United States where contrail coverage has previously been reported to be most abundant (such as the midwest, northeast and northwest regions).
...
In reply to tony:
I was also a bit sceptical until I had a look at the article.
The paper in nature didn't actually find an increase in mean temperature; it found an increase in the temperature range, i.e. the days were hotter, but the nights were cooler. Howeverm being a short article, it was pretty vague about the methodology, in particular it would be nice to know what sort of errors were associated with the values they gave, and what sort of varience there is associated with these temperature ranges (after all, the planes weren't grounded for long).
Still, you have to give the authors 10 out of 10 for opportunism!
Mark
> Actually, I stand corrected. Apparently a paper in Nature did suggest that temperatures did increase by up to 1.8C after September 11, as a result of the absence of contrails in the upper atmosphere. Nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
I was also a bit sceptical until I had a look at the article.
The paper in nature didn't actually find an increase in mean temperature; it found an increase in the temperature range, i.e. the days were hotter, but the nights were cooler. Howeverm being a short article, it was pretty vague about the methodology, in particular it would be nice to know what sort of errors were associated with the values they gave, and what sort of varience there is associated with these temperature ranges (after all, the planes weren't grounded for long).
Still, you have to give the authors 10 out of 10 for opportunism!
Mark
In reply to Matthew B:
Ahh, missed that bit, thanks.
Mark
> This increase in DTR is larger than any during the 11–14 September period for the previous 30 years, and is the only increase greater than 2 standard deviations away from the mean DTR (s.d., 0.85 °C).
Ahh, missed that bit, thanks.
Mark
In reply to tony:
Don't think that was CO2. The issue is with high altitude stratus formed by contrails. These cause a clouding effect which is one of the issues with global pollutants. They are looking for ways to reduce this, but it looks like new engine designs currently in the works have up to 80% reduction in NOX emissions. With enough pressure and money, the use of aircraft will not be such an issue.
> (In reply to Rowie B)
> [...]
>
> I would love to know where he got that from!
> [...]
>
> I would love to know where he got that from!
Don't think that was CO2. The issue is with high altitude stratus formed by contrails. These cause a clouding effect which is one of the issues with global pollutants. They are looking for ways to reduce this, but it looks like new engine designs currently in the works have up to 80% reduction in NOX emissions. With enough pressure and money, the use of aircraft will not be such an issue.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...