Posted by Splatfly on Monday, 12 March 2007 16:30:55

LOL. Good example of why politicians can not and should not advise and legislate the public on scientific issues.
It seems like Dave's time at Eton wasn't well spent.

Posted by canvas on Monday, 12 March 2007 16:49:32

Is it not common sense that a full airplane is 'better' than an empty one - the more passengers travelling on a single plane the more energy efficient it is?

Why not tax the airlines a 'per empty seat' tax - instead of taxing every passenger? It's yet again another poor man's tax.
Why not have a 'super tax' for all private lear jet flights? Why not improve public transport so that trains are affordable and efficient?

What a bunch of schmucks our politicians are. LoL :)

 

Comment edited by canvas on Monday, 12 March 2007 17:03:13

Posted by DaveGould on Monday, 12 March 2007 17:46:59

According to my quick maths, a full 737 weighs about 40% more than an empty one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Specifications

"Is it not common sense that a full airplane is 'better' than an empty one - the more passengers travelling on a single plane the more energy efficient it is?"

No, because the CO2 emissions are ~40% higher and pumped directly into the troposphere thus less likely to be absorbed by oceans, forests etc.

It's hard to justify any planes flying considering the damage that scientists agree it's causing.

There are 2 main objectives:
1. Dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions, especially from planes.
2. More importantly, persuade other countries to do the same.

Longer flights obviously produce more CO2 than shorter ones but 2 short flights produce more CO2 than one long one (landing and especially take off produce more CO2).

The only sensible option is to tax flights' fuel usage even if they're flying from abroad. Correspondingly reduce income tax.

Posted by IAmNoOne on Monday, 12 March 2007 17:54:17

"It's hard to justify any planes flying considering the damage that scientists agree it's causing."

That should read "It's hard to justify any planes flying considering the damage that SOME scientists agree it's causing." Not all. The idea of human-caused climate change is NOT set in stone, and there is NO hard proof that it is the case. There IS lots of proof that the IPCC are following a political agenda, with lots of the "scientists" whose names went on the final report disagreeing with the conclusions, and even going to court to have their names removed.

Posted by Grumtatt on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 03:31:19

What Brain ?

He's a politician, they don't have one. That's why they have to have so many "advisors" to write their scripts for them.