Environmentalists want us to stop Air travel now...

[insein]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/D8COL13O4.html

Scientists: Cut Air Travel for Environment
Sep 21 8:22 AM US/Eastern


By MICHAEL McDONOUGH
Associated Press Writer


LONDON


Britain should drastically reduce the growth of air travel to bring greenhouse gas emissions within levels that will avoid dangerous climate change, a report by leading environmental scientists said Wednesday.

Air travel has boomed in recent years thanks largely to cheaper flights, and the government predicts that the number of air passengers in Britain will more than double by 2020. But aviation is a major source of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, because planes burn huge amounts of fossil fuels at high altitudes.

The government says it wants a 60 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels, as the nation's contribution toward preventing an increase in temperatures that would threaten a dangerous level of climate change.

But the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, which includes scientists from universities across Britain, said that target is incompatible with the current expansion rate of the aviation industry.

"If the U.K. government does not curb aviation growth, all other sectors of the economy will eventually be forced to become carbon neutral," said Kevin Anderson, who led the research team. "It will undermine the competitiveness of U.K. industry."

Economic activity is said to be carbon neutral if its net carbon dioxide emission level is zero _ a requirement that would severely restrict most industries and hamper economic growth.

But the Tyndall Center report, "Decarbonizing the United Kingdom," said combining economic growth with emissions reductions remains possible, if improvements in energy efficiency are made and more low- carbon sources of energy are used.

Aviation, however, is much more difficult to decarbonize, so growth in the sector must be "dramatically curtailed," the report said.

Current government predictions suggest the number of air passengers will grow from 189 million in 2002 to between 350 and 460 million in 2020.

Environment Minister Elliot Morley said he accepted the need to reduce emissions, but opposed a tax on aviation fuel.

"The evidence is that people will simply pay the tax and continue to travel and we won't actually stop the growth," Morley told British Broadcasting Corp. TV.

"I actually think there are other ways of doing it. The most effective one is to include aviation within carbon trading schemes, so there is an absolute limit on the amount of emissions from the aviation sector."

Britain is pressing for aviation to be included in the second phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which begins in 2008, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The emissions trading scheme allows European companies that emit less carbon dioxide than allowed to sell unused allotments to those who overshoot the target.

Environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth, however, said it favored an aviation fuel tax.

"The Department of Transport's own models on aviation growth show dramatic reductions in air travel when assumptions are added for fuel taxes and other factors," the group's director Tony Juniper said in a statement.

"Aviation is a rogue sector and its environmental impact is out of control. Climate change is the most urgent challenge facing humanity and yet aviation policy is doing the opposite of what is needed."

Where is the evidence that humans are causing climate change? They have yet to show any. Yet they demand governments beleive their bullshti and create laws that hinder capitalism. Hmm sounds alittle fishy doesnt it. Sound like communism's secret weapon. Its been working for about 30 years now. Who knows what damage it can cause in the next 30 if we let it go at the current rate.

 

[Avatar4321]

I wouldnt mind a climate change. its going to be too cold soon.

 

[no1tovote4]

There was a story put out recently about climate change on Mars. I wonder how that is Bush's fault.

 

[Nuc]

Slightly off topic, but I wouldn't mind seeing a drastic reduction in air traffic. You can't say that hinders capitalism, because the airlines are all bankrupt last I looked.

I fly a lot and I'd rather be surrounded by other experienced travelers than a bunch of yahoos, their kids, their dogs and cats (I am not making this up) and their inability to even get in and out of their seats without some sort of a soap opera. It's like being on a Mexican bus. All because these bankrupt airlines sold them a ticket for $25 on the internet.

Without all these frivolous travelers it would be a lot easier and more efficient to have proper security precautions rather than the anarchy offered us by the FAA and TSA.

If it reduces pollution, that's nice too.

 

[insein]

Slightly off topic, but I wouldn't mind seeing a drastic reduction in air traffic. You can't say that hinders capitalism, because the airlines are all bankrupt last I looked.

I fly a lot and I'd rather be surrounded by other experienced travelers than a bunch of yahoos, their kids, their dogs and cats (I am not making this up) and their inability to even get in and out of their seats without some sort of a soap opera. It's like being on a Mexican bus. All because these bankrupt airlines sold them a ticket for $25 on the internet.

Without all these frivolous travelers it would be a lot easier and more efficient to have proper security precautions rather than the anarchy offered us by the FAA and TSA.

If it reduces pollution, that's nice too.

IVe often wondered, why dont the airlines simply raise prices? IF they are losing money then raise your prices. Those that still need to fly will and those that don't want to spend the money won't but you will cover your costs. Obviously they need to cut the fat as well. Trim the number of employees, the number of flights, etc till you can operate under budget. When the freaking government bails them out though, it offers ZERO incentive for them to do so. Exactly like welfare but with big business.

 

[Nuc]

IVe often wondered, why dont the airlines simply raise prices? IF they are losing money then raise your prices. Those that still need to fly will and those that don't want to spend the money won't but you will cover your costs. Obviously they need to cut the fat as well. Trim the number of employees, the number of flights, etc till you can operate under budget. When the freaking government bails them out though, it offers ZERO incentive for them to do so. Exactly like welfare but with big business.

Yep, corporate welfare to the max!

If security is such a concern you'd think the government would rather have smaller numbers of travelers to secure. So many of these travelers have no business going anywhere more exotic than the local Walmart.