Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pipnasty

Extinction Rebellion

Recommended Posts

"Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — a far smaller share than emissions from passenger cars or power plants. Still, one study found that the rapid growth in plane emissions could mean that by 2050, aviation could take up a quarter of the world’s “carbon budget,” or the amount of carbon dioxide emissions permitted to keep global temperature rise to within 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel-emissions.html

 

As I have said, the problem at the moment is that if you continue to fly now, then infrastructure will be built to ensure that we all continue flying for the next 30 years or so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already built, and it isnt stopping whether here in Europe, the US, south and south east Asia, anywhere. Too much is already invested in it for trade and tourism etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already built, and it isnt stopping whether here in Europe, the US, south and south east Asia, anywhere. Too much is already invested in it for trade and tourism etc etc.

 

It's not - all major UK airports have started a massive expansion programme that will basically lock us into complete climate breakdown. Final decisions have yet to be made on their expansions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not - all major UK airports have started a massive expansion programme that will basically lock us into complete climate breakdown. Final decisions have yet to be made on their expansions.

 

If nothing changes now surely the end result is the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nothing changes now surely the end result is the same?

 

Depends what you mean by 'the end result is the same'?

 

The difference between 1.5c and 2c is huge in terms of the effect it has on the planet. The difference between 1.5c and 5c is literally the difference between life and death for our current civilisation. We carry on the way we are and we could be heading for a 5c rise by the end of this century. It's all about choices.

 

We have around 11 to 12 years to start seeing massive reductions in our carbon emissions. If our airports expand at the planned rate, then we have less time - do you want to make it even harder for the next generation by giving us all less time to become zero carbon? By continuing to fly, we knowingly take the life from others less privileged than us. 

 

One way or another, we will end up carbon zero anyway either through total collapse or something (hopefully) more controlled but the longer we wait to start cutting our emissions, the harder it will be.

Edited by pipnasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any research being carried out looking into the possibility of replacing jet fuel?

 

 

I think that this has been looked at for many years and no workable solutions have been found. It appears that very small and light aircraft that are very slow might be the limit for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any research being carried out looking into the possibility of replacing jet fuel?

The near future tech is more like augmentation rather than replacement - electrical assisted turbofans and the like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government unveiling their plans to spend billion widening roads to get more cars on. They are also going to throw a few million at buses.

 

We're f***ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest more buses/bus routes isn't a bad idea at all is it? Particularly as most should be electric or at the very least hybrid.

 

Encouraging more people to use public transport rather than a car is sensible.

 

That's assuming that widening roads is also to facilitate buses.

 

But yeah if it's to get more cars on, then I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear calls for a 'socialist revolution' to save us from climate breakdown but both the actions and words of the Trade Unions are proving to be a huge problem for any potential climate action. 

 

This is from Tim Roache of the GMB a few days ago;

"The proposal to do it by 2030 threatens whole communities, threatens jobs, and frankly GMB members in communities right up and down the UK have heard it all before. We heard it before about a just transition. What does a just transition mean?

This will mean that within a decade people’s petrol cars being confiscated. This will mean families can only take one flight every five years ...
Net zero carbon emissions by 2030 is utterly unachievable. We can’t go to the country with a plan that is, frankly, not credible, is not deliverable."
 
Really not helping at all and so bad that Andrea f***ing Leadsom actually quoted Roache today in her speech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is millions for bus routes and billions for accommodating cars is the wrong way round

Yeah I get that, I was trying to reinforce the same point I just worded it badly!

 

My use of "...is it?" didn't help ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49725741

 

No idea how realistic this is or what its impact would even be

 

Biomass probably means that it is a non-starter as it is hugely problematic at any scale.

 

The problem we have with flying at present is that nobody is willing to take responsibility for emissions - so it's not the airports responsibility, it's not the plane manufacturers responsibility, it's not the passenger responsibility and no country will take responsibility. Until that changes, we are potentially heading for 25% of our total worldwide carbon budget being used by aviation alone in 30 years time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hear calls for a 'socialist revolution' to save us from climate breakdown but both the actions and words of the Trade Unions are proving to be a huge problem for any potential climate action. 

 

This is from Tim Roache of the GMB a few days ago;

 

"The proposal to do it by 2030 threatens whole communities, threatens jobs, and frankly GMB members in communities right up and down the UK have heard it all before. We heard it before about a just transition. What does a just transition mean?

 

This will mean that within a decade people’s petrol cars being confiscated. This will mean families can only take one flight every five years ...

Net zero carbon emissions by 2030 is utterly unachievable. We can’t go to the country with a plan that is, frankly, not credible, is not deliverable."
 
Really not helping at all and so bad that Andrea f***ing Leadsom actually quoted Roache today in her speech

 

Wasn't he roundly booed?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49725741

 

No idea how realistic this is or what its impact would even be

Just seen this, and was just about to post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do hypothetical people have rights?

most of them won't be born...due to climate change

 

doesn't this make it one of those circular fails you get when you do a formula on excel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...