Eusless
 

In message
, at
02:30:06 on Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Mizter T remarked:
Air travel is a rather effective way of polluting the atmosphere as
well of course, though many other things do that as well quite
prodigiously.

I hope you aren't counting CO2 in the definition of "pollution", because
airplanes mop up (and therefore neutralise) almost enough Methane, and
create sufficient vapour in the atmosphere, to cancel out the effect of
the CO2. [All these effects are "as alleged" in recent climate science]
--
Roland Perry

Eusless
 

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:43:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
02:30:06 on Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Mizter T remarked:
Air travel is a rather effective way of polluting the atmosphere as
well of course, though many other things do that as well quite
prodigiously.

I hope you aren't counting CO2 in the definition of "pollution", because
airplanes mop up (and therefore neutralise) almost enough Methane, and
create sufficient vapour in the atmosphere, to cancel out the effect of
the CO2. [All these effects are "as alleged" in recent climate science]

*snort*

Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere anyway , it slowly reacts with hydroxyl
all by itself so it doesn't need anything to mop it up. The half life is 10
years or thereabouts , compared to hundreds of years for CO2

B2003

Eusless
 

In message , at 12:39:19 on Tue, 6 Apr
2010, d remarked:
Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere anyway , it slowly reacts with hydroxyl
all by itself so it doesn't need anything to mop it up. The half life is 10
years or thereabouts , compared to hundreds of years for CO2

But if it's being created all the time (and it is) won't taking more of
it out of circulation sooner, be a Good Thing [tm] ?
--
Roland Perry

Eusless
 

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:35:43 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:39:19 on Tue, 6 Apr
2010, d remarked:
Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere anyway , it slowly reacts with hydroxyl
all by itself so it doesn't need anything to mop it up. The half life is 10
years or thereabouts , compared to hundreds of years for CO2

But if it's being created all the time (and it is) won't taking more of
it out of circulation sooner, be a Good Thing [tm] ?

You're just exchanging short term gain for long term pain. I'm no eco nutter
and fly myself once or twice a year, but saying aircraft are a good thing
enviromentally is just absurd.

B2003

Eusless
 

In message , at 08:32:44 on Wed, 7 Apr
2010, d remarked:

I'm no eco nutter and fly myself once or twice a year, but saying
aircraft are a good thing enviromentally is just absurd.

They are better than most other forms of mass transport, if you do the
sums properly. And what should be banned first, if transport needs
slimming down - buses with 5 or fewer people in, probably.
--
Roland Perry

Eusless
 

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 10:44:57 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:32:44 on Wed, 7 Apr
2010, d remarked:

I'm no eco nutter and fly myself once or twice a year, but saying
aircraft are a good thing enviromentally is just absurd.

They are better than most other forms of mass transport, if you do the
sums properly. And what should be banned first, if transport needs
slimming down - buses with 5 or fewer people in, probably.

I'm quite happy to believe than on a per passenger per mile basis aircraft
are more fuel efficient than some other methods of transport , but the point
is that they encourage journeys that otherwise wouldn't be made. If there
were no flights to Ibiza how many people would spend 2 days attempting to get
there by train and boat? Virtually none I should imagine. But if there were
no buses people would still need to get to work and go shopping and so would
take the car.

B2003

Eusless
 

In message , at 12:01:24 on Wed, 7 Apr
2010, d remarked:

I'm no eco nutter and fly myself once or twice a year, but saying
aircraft are a good thing enviromentally is just absurd.

They are better than most other forms of mass transport, if you do the
sums properly. And what should be banned first, if transport needs
slimming down - buses with 5 or fewer people in, probably.

I'm quite happy to believe than on a per passenger per mile basis aircraft
are more fuel efficient than some other methods of transport , but the point
is that they encourage journeys that otherwise wouldn't be made.

So does all modern transport. Especially High Speed Trains!!

If there were no flights to Ibiza how many people would spend 2 days
attempting to get there by train and boat? Virtually none I should
imagine.

Take their passports away, that'll stop them going abroad at all. Travel
broadens the mind, and that's no good at all.

But if there were no buses people would still need to get to work and
go shopping and so would take the car.

Most so called "shopping" is an optional leisure activity, and there are
many other optional activities travelled to by bus.
--
Roland Perry

Eusless
 

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:19:27 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
I'm quite happy to believe than on a per passenger per mile basis aircraft
are more fuel efficient than some other methods of transport , but the point
is that they encourage journeys that otherwise wouldn't be made.

So does all modern transport. Especially High Speed Trains!!

Yes , but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I doubt you'd advocate everyone
being allowed to launch their own rocket if they fancied a trip to the moon.

Take their passports away, that'll stop them going abroad at all. Travel
broadens the mind, and that's no good at all.

Depends where. A trip to one of the Costas probably does the opposite.

Most so called "shopping" is an optional leisure activity, and there are
many other optional activities travelled to by bus.

At some point someone has to say there are enough flights in the sky
and if people can't get a booking when then want then thats just tough.

N2003

Eusless
 

In message , at 15:19:01 on Wed, 7 Apr
2010, d remarked:

I'm quite happy to believe than on a per passenger per mile basis aircraft
are more fuel efficient than some other methods of transport , but the point
is that they encourage journeys that otherwise wouldn't be made.

So does all modern transport. Especially High Speed Trains!!

Yes , but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I doubt you'd advocate everyone
being allowed to launch their own rocket if they fancied a trip to the moon.

Society decides where to draw the line. SleazyScare jets to Ibiza are
currently well inside the 'obvious innit' realm.

Take their passports away, that'll stop them going abroad at all. Travel
broadens the mind, and that's no good at all.

Depends where. A trip to one of the Costas probably does the opposite.

Whoosh!

Most so called "shopping" is an optional leisure activity, and there are
many other optional activities travelled to by bus.

At some point someone has to say there are enough flights in the sky
and if people can't get a booking when then want then thats just tough.

That's pretty much the situation at the moment, actually. While there's
a popular meme that you can fly anywhere in Europe for a pound, if you
want to go on holiday during a holiday period, expect to pay more like
£400 and be packed like sardines onto a full plane.
--
Roland Perry

Eusless
 

On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 10:43:42 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Yes , but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I doubt you'd advocate everyone
being allowed to launch their own rocket if they fancied a trip to the moon.

Society decides where to draw the line. SleazyScare jets to Ibiza are
currently well inside the 'obvious innit' realm.

Indeed it does , but exactly where is what some people want to change.

Take their passports away, that'll stop them going abroad at all. Travel
broadens the mind, and that's no good at all.

Depends where. A trip to one of the Costas probably does the opposite.

Whoosh!

No , I got the sarcasm. But it did make me think that most package holiday
travel really doesn't broaden the mind at all.

That's pretty much the situation at the moment, actually. While there's
a popular meme that you can fly anywhere in Europe for a pound, if you
want to go on holiday during a holiday period, expect to pay more like
£400 and be packed like sardines onto a full plane.

Why anyone who doesn't have kids would go away during the school holidays is
a mystery to me but some do. It takes all sorts.

B2003

Eusless
 

In message , at 11:54:10 on Thu, 8 Apr
2010, d remarked:
Why anyone who doesn't have kids would go away during the school holidays is
a mystery to me but some do.

Sometimes it's a result of a "virtual wakes week" where their company or
industry is in effect wound down for the periods in question, while the
weeks either side can be quite busy. An extreme example would be
childless school teachers.

Others may simply have a habit or shock horror friends who have
children, and want to go away together.
--
Roland Perry