# Michael O' Leary on Climate Change



## Gabriel (5 Jan 2007)

I just wanted to see others reaction to O' Leary on the Last Word tonight...and on various news casts throughout the day.

I have to say I fully agree with what he was saying. Nothing to do with Ryanair...the man just talked sense. The political hacking going on surrounding climate change is taking away from the very serious debate that needs to happen. 

I also had to agree with his points on public transport. The idea that our government is doing everything they can to get people onto public transport is just nonsense and the sooner people realise that the better. That's why people get into their cars more and more each year. The idea of a train to the airport is also a stupid one. Realistic and well thought out solutions are what this country (and the world) needs to combat emmissions....not silly soundbites from broken down politicians about everyone walking and cycling to work. Who dreams up these fiascos waiting to happen?

Lastly...he is also behind Nuclear energy...another subject after my own heart. Isn't it incredibly disheartening that our own government have seemingly passed a law banning the building of any reactor in Ireland?!! This can only be down to ignorance based on old nuclear energy as opposed to the fourth generation reactors now being built!! I suppose it will take us many, many years before we cop onto ourselves...no doubt we'll end up following the examples led by other European countries in the years to come.


----------



## Marion (5 Jan 2007)

Charlie Bird had a lot to say about Global Warming last evening on TV , but somehow it got lost in the whinging! 

Why did RTE send their "chief news correspondent" down the Amazon? It beggars belief! (Well, maybe they didn't - but he was shown on RTE to be a complete wuss!)

Marion


----------



## pat127 (5 Jan 2007)

Marion said:


> Why did RTE send their "chief news correspondent" down the Amazon? It beggars belief! (Well, maybe they didn't - but he was shown on RTE to be a complete wuss!)
> 
> Marion


 
Maybe they thought there was a good chance he mightn't make it back??


----------



## rabbit (5 Jan 2007)

pat127 said:


> Maybe they thought there was a good chance he mightn't make it back??


 
It made for pathetic TV all right.  He never stoped whinging.     I wonder how much RTE spent on his trip and the film crew following him around etc


----------



## franmac (5 Jan 2007)

Gabriel 
Did you mention Charlie Bird in your post?


----------



## Marion (5 Jan 2007)

In fairness, I think Gabriel was too polite to refer to him.

Marion


----------



## MugsGame (6 Jan 2007)

Arguably, due to their high load factors, Ryanair are [broken link removed].


----------



## jdwex (6 Jan 2007)

Gabriel said:


> I also had to agree with his points on public transport. The idea that our government is doing everything they can to get people onto public transport is just nonsense and the sooner people realise that the better. That's why people get into their cars more and more each year. The idea of a train to the airport is also a stupid one.


 
I missed the program, but in fairness the metro will serve Swords, Ballymun etc, not just the airport. Long distance commuting (Arklow, Gorey, Dundalk and yes, Mullingar) is not particularly sustainable either.


----------



## scuby (6 Jan 2007)

Why did RTE send their "chief news correspondent" down the Amazon? It beggars belief! [/quote]

probably like the iraq war coverage, he did it from his hotel bedroom a few hundred miles away....


----------



## Guest127 (6 Jan 2007)

he's no Michael Palin. thats for sure. apparantly the Amazon has changed direction, and if it had know he was coming probably would have changed back


----------



## CGorman (6 Jan 2007)

MugsGame said:


> Arguably, due to their high load factors, Ryanair are [broken link removed].



Add in the fact that their fleet is one of the newest in Europe (certainly the youngest large commercial fleet anyways) and O'Leary is entirely justified to claim Ryanair is the greenest airline there is.

He also pointed out the foolishness of a green tax on flights. If you add €10 onto the price of a flight, it's highly unlikely to significantly reduce the number of flights taking place, aviation growth will continue for years to come as globalisation marches onwards. Such a tax would just become yet another element of the "taxes and charges" section that one sees upon confirming a flight booking. 

It would be far better to incentives practical things like mass transit, discourage long distance commuting, and to promote investment in renewables and energy efficency.

I see above there was the comment that commuting from far away places like Mullingar (I realise this was just a jibe at O'Leary's taxi). True in the long run perhaps. But it's not going away for some time. Every morning hundreds of cars leave our town to eventually become entangled in traffic on the M50. However theres a train service from Mullingar to Dublin - I can hop on it and emerge at the IFSC in *exactly 60min*. So why dont many of those car drivers destined for the city center use the train? Because its ridiclously overcrowded and unreliable. 90% of the track is double track from Dublin to Mullingar. However the last 10% or so is single track which means trains frequently have to completely stop in the middle of no where and wait for maybe 10min for another train to pass in the opposite direction! If CIE where remotely well managed that section of track would be upgraded allowing more frequency and speed. I should be able to hop on the train in Mullingar, actually get a seat instead of being crammed in like a sardine, at 7am, 7:30am, 8am, 8:30am, 9am etc. and arrive in Dublin in 45min! But oh no... public transport does'nt work that way in Ireland... sorry if i'm ranting... but that bit of track is a pet hate of mine!


----------



## jdwex (6 Jan 2007)

CGorman said:


> If CIE where remotely well managed that section of track would be upgraded allowing more frequency and speed. I should be able to hop on the train in Mullingar, actually get a seat instead of being crammed in like a sardine, at 7am, 7:30am, 8am, 8:30am, 9am etc. and arrive in Dublin in 45min! But oh no... public transport does'nt work that way in Ireland... sorry if i'm ranting... but that bit of track is a pet hate of mine!


 
Was anything said about this in Transport 21? In any case, I think the government has to approve expenditure on this.


----------



## jdwex (6 Jan 2007)

Gabriel said:


> Lastly...he is also behind Nuclear energy...another subject after my own heart. Isn't it incredibly disheartening that our own government have seemingly passed a law banning the building of any reactor in Ireland?!!


 
Have they? He is right though, it has to be seriously considered.
jd


----------



## CGorman (6 Jan 2007)

jdwex said:


> Was anything said about this in Transport 21? In any case, I think the government has to approve expenditure on this.



T21 provides for a meagre increase in train frequency of every 2hrs at peak times on the Dublin - Sligo line... as far as i'm aware the single track problem was not addressed. It's CIE's responsibility to note problems like this and request relevent funding, so I blame CIE. 

One might claim that there's no demand for increased frequency - but, having used the train twice a week at almost every available time (morning trains, afternoon trains and evening trains) I assure you virtually every single train is packed every day bar perhaps the one in the afternoon around 2ish.


----------



## sunrock (6 Jan 2007)

We`re all flying more and aeroplanes use oil causing high up pollution.
Of course all the increase in driving cars etc is part of a good economy.
I like ryanair because of their cheap fares and routes.....i used to have to take the ferry to the u.k. as aer lingus fat cats charged outrageous fares.
Personally i think road traffic is the major problem to be solved.
All the single occupant cars and cars going to pick up kids in school and long commutes where drivers prefer to drive than take public transport.
Not to mention that people enjoy driving...mick o dwyer who will be taking a regular long commute until the first knckout match,at least ,admitted he enjoys driving as much as gaelic football and he likes his  footy.....and of course they are lots like him.
A person goes the full distance to insulate their house to the highest stds .....fair enough but he/she is wasting loads of energy by unnecessary driving.
We`re just going to have to wait until fuel costs prove prohibitive before people will reduce their driving/flying.
Aviation fuel is tax free...because of international agreements  so this is why the brit politico decided to score some brownie points against an successful irish airline.....it`s just hypocrisy...i bet he wouldn`t advise british tourists to stop flying to prevent climate change...not a vote catcher.


----------



## Gabriel (6 Jan 2007)

sunrock said:


> We`re just going to have to wait until fuel costs prove prohibitive before people will reduce their driving/flying.



I agree with most of what you said but I have to disgaree with this statement. O' Leary talked about this one too...no one is ever going to take a step backwards! We're never going to start flying less (only more). We might start to drive less...possibly...but only if really intelligent people started to put in place really great infrastrucure in this country to allow people to use a public transportation system. An underground system for instance. That would actually make sense. But it requires some serious forward thinking from a bunch of gombeens...so it's never going to happen.

Furthermore...this idea that we'll all start to do x, y and z as the oil reserves around the world run out just won't happen. It just won't. Mankind will have found alternatives before this happens...perhaps as prices begin to rise to such an extent that businesses are no longer viable at the current costs. There's far too much at stake. What's the alternative to NOT finding alternative fuels? The dark ages?


----------



## Gabriel (6 Jan 2007)

jdwex said:


> I missed the program, but in fairness the metro will serve Swords, Ballymun etc, not just the airport. Long distance commuting (Arklow, Gorey, Dundalk and yes, Mullingar) is not particularly sustainable either.



I'm not sure of the exact plan for the proposed trainline...but have heard it was to go from Stephen's Green to the airport...and perhaps beyond? I'm not that sure of it to be honest...but I think the driving force behind it was public transportation to the airport! So at what cost would this be somewhat useful to Swords, Ballymun etc? Is it worth the billions it will cost? 

Wouldn't we be far better off sitting down with some really clever people and designing vast underground tracts that might end up costing us 100 billion over 20 years or so? Maybe more? Wouldn't this be a really clever way of dealing with the ever growing needs of Greater Dublin? Imagine if you can an underground system that allowed you travel from Swords to anywhere in greater Dublin...in 20 minutes or less. Wow...wouldn't that be phenomenal? Is it conceivable? Yes it is. Is it possible? Yes it is. Is it ever going to happen? 

Instead let's chuck a billion down the drain for the LUAS! A tram system that has two lines that don't even meet up! Wonderful!


----------



## pat127 (6 Jan 2007)

Gabriel said:


> . What's the alternative to NOT finding alternative fuels? The dark ages?


 

Hi Gabriel. What makes you so sure that we will find alternatives? Just because we 'have to' doesn't mean we will. Even if alternatives are found, how much will it cost us to change and have we enough time? Who will pay to develop the alternatives and will they share them with everyone else? What about countries which are too poor to pay? If we can't alleviate their famine problems as is, then we sure as hell won't be giving them alternative fuels. As fossil fuels become scarce what's to prevent nations going to war over them?


----------



## Gabriel (6 Jan 2007)

pat127 said:


> Hi Gabriel. What makes you so sure that we will find alternatives? Just because we 'have to' doesn't mean we will. Even if alternatives are found, how much will it cost us to change and have we enough time? Who will pay to develop the alternatives and will they share them with everyone else? What about countries which are too poor to pay? If we can't alleviate their famine problems as is, then we sure as hell won't be giving them alternative fuels. As fossil fuels become scarce what's to prevent nations going to war over them?



You're right...nothing. You're talking about armeggedon. I choose to believe in an alternative...based on the current scientific endevours going into hydrogen fuel cell technology....GM are working with other companies on this technology. 

Then there's also the fact that in very recent years it's suddenly become 'okay' to talk about environmental problems without being considered a nut. Mind you there's still lots of nuts out there. Governments around the world are starting to wake up and recognise that we need to find alternatives. It's even started to filter into mainstream media.

It's sink or swim for the world as we know it...I choose to believe we'll swim...eventually.


----------



## Superman (7 Jan 2007)

Hydrogen is simply a method for storing power - a battery.  There has to be a method of creating that hydrogen in the first place.  Any ideas about how that could be done?


----------



## Glenbhoy (7 Jan 2007)

pat127 said:


> What makes you so sure that we will find alternatives? Just because we 'have to' doesn't mean we will. Even if alternatives are found, how much will it cost us to change and have we enough time? Who will pay to develop the alternatives and will they share them with everyone else? What about countries which are too poor to pay? If we can't alleviate their famine problems as is, then we sure as hell won't be giving them alternative fuels. As fossil fuels become scarce what's to prevent nations going to war over them?


There are as many alternatives as we want or need, they can be used large scale, but currently it's simply cheaper to take oil out of the ground and burn it.


----------



## sunrock (7 Jan 2007)

Glenbhoy said:


> There are as many alternatives as we want or need, they can be used large scale, but currently it's simply cheaper to take oil out of the ground and burn it.


 
Perhaps you would be good enough to tell us the transportation fuel of the 22nd century.You talk of cheaper.....half the worlds poulation don`t use any oil because they can`t afford it and a great many of these people suffer regular food shortages.There will always be very rich people who can afford our dwindling energy supply.
Wars about scarce energy resoucres are not just a part of our future...these wars have been going on for about 100 years at least.
The iraqi oil workers went on strike to get 35$ a week or was it a month...it was reluctantly agreed by the americans....it is clear that it is not the host citizens that are getting the benefit of this natural resoucre.
Technology is not "ever upwards and onwards"...it has limits and we are in a situation that most technology has been developed and we are in an era of diminishig returns as regards new inventions not to mention resoucre depletion.
Experts reckon that aviation will become super expensive as oil becomes scarce....we`re talking definitely inside 50 years....flying will be reserved for the top 1% of the population with hopefully benefits for the climate.


----------



## RainyDay (7 Jan 2007)

Gabriel said:


> Wouldn't we be far better off sitting down with some really clever people and designing vast underground tracts that might end up costing us 100 billion over 20 years or so? Maybe more? Wouldn't this be a really clever way of dealing with the ever growing needs of Greater Dublin? Imagine if you can an underground system that allowed you travel from Swords to anywhere in greater Dublin...in 20 minutes or less. Wow...wouldn't that be phenomenal? Is it conceivable? Yes it is. Is it possible? Yes it is. Is it ever going to happen?
> 
> Instead let's chuck a billion down the drain for the LUAS! A tram system that has two lines that don't even meet up! Wonderful!



It's very easy to sit back & criticise the work of others. Have you had a good look at the [broken link removed]? Have you any proposals for funding these projects? Have you any proposals for handling the massive disruption to city centre life that would be caused by these projects?


----------



## Gabriel (7 Jan 2007)

RainyDay said:


> It's very easy to sit back & criticise the work of others. Have you had a good look at the [broken link removed]? Have you any proposals for funding these projects? Have you any proposals for handling the massive disruption to city centre life that would be caused by these projects?



Oh please! Where did the funding for the LUAS come from? Look at the disruption it caused. You talk about funding? This country is badly run. Perhaps if we used our money intelligently instead of squandering it as we do we wouldn't be in the mess we currently are in relation to transport. It's not just transport by the way. What about hospitals?

How much did the Spire project cost the state? Could that money have been put to better use? Does anyone really take these half hearted 'everyone get out of your car and onto crappy buses that take as long' campaigns seriously?

By the way I think it was this metro that O' Leary was talking about. It's a waste of money! Just because our government throw some money at something that transports people doesn't make it a good decision. Maybe they'll lay the tracks down on the wrong side again...or maybe in the wrong direction this time...that would be fun!

Incidentally...who's going to take a metro from Stephen's Green to the airport? Hardly needed is it? The integrated line in that report is worth something...perhaps. Too early to tell yet.


----------



## RainyDay (7 Jan 2007)

Again, it's very easy to rant & rave - but have you done a study of the transport needs for Dublin north? Or should we just build public policy around your personal views?


----------



## jdwex (7 Jan 2007)

Gabriel said:


> By the way I think it was this metro that O' Leary was talking about. It's a waste of money!
> 
> .


 
The one in the link above? Why is it a waste of money?




> Maybe they'll lay the tracks down on the wrong side again...or maybe in the wrong direction this time...that would be fun!
> 
> .


 
Thet tracks on the wroing side?? Where??



> Incidentally...who's going to take a metro from Stephen's Green to the airport? Hardly needed is it? The integrated line in that report is worth something...perhaps. Too early to tell yet.


 

That line above will also connect with a dart stations in Drumcondra and Stephens Green. I think the projection is for about 20% of airport passengers to use the metro.


----------



## CGorman (8 Jan 2007)

Gabriel said:


> Wouldn't we be far better off sitting down with some really clever people and designing vast underground tracts that might end up costing us 100 billion over 20 years or so? Maybe more? Wouldn't this be a really clever way of dealing with the ever growing needs of Greater Dublin? Imagine if you can an underground system that allowed you travel from Swords to anywhere in greater Dublin...in 20 minutes or less. Wow...wouldn't that be phenomenal? Is it conceivable? Yes it is. Is it possible? Yes it is. Is it ever going to happen?



The London Underground, the Paris Metro, the NYC subway - none of these were built in 20yrs... infact all three have been under construction and expansion for over a century now... the youngest being 103 years old (NYC one). These great systems were'nt drawn up in one elaborate integrated plan 100 years ago. 

Once both the North Dublin Metro and [broken link removed] are competed as per the current plan, i'm sure new plans will be unveiled for another line, possible southbound. However it would be very foolish to plan such a line now, as when the time comes to build it (over a decade away) the route may not be the most feasible or sensible one to embark on next. Nobody can accurately predict where the greatest housing growth will occur in Dublin fifteen or so years into the future.



Gabriel said:


> Incidentally...who's going to take a metro from Stephen's Green to the airport? Hardly needed is it?



Please tell me you have actually looked at the maps. Firstly Stephen's Green offers a southbound luas connection. Secondly, the next stop, O'Connell Street, offers a Luas connection westbound. Straight away you have the entire metro and luas systems integrated. 

Now, are you telling me hardly any airport user would like to pay say €2 or €3 to get to the city center in scarcly 20min? And once there to have direct connections to places as diverse as Sandyford, Tallaght and Dundrum? Are you telling me all those people who currently sit on a bus for an hour to get from Swords to city center will complain at of the construction of the 25min alternative? Next up, are the 10,000+ DCU students - a very large proportion of whom either commute or travel home regularly going to complain about a 10min service to both city center and to Drumcondra railway station?

Also, had you taken the time to look at the proposed metro west line you would note that upon its completion one will be able to hop on the metro in Dublin airport and emerge in a matter of minutes in such places as Blanchardstown and Tallaght. 

Also had you taken account of the preposed Luas extensions you would realise this highly integrated system will extend asfar as Bray, Lucan, Cherrywood and Citywest. 

The vast majority of this is scheduled for completion within the decade, never mind your 20yr proposal and the total cost is likely to be not far off the €100bn figure. Why do you complain about the lack of a paln for a large scale integrated Dublin transport system when there are plans already in motion for such a thing? I think your just one of these people who likes to complain about everything and criticize others from a distance. 

Like I said before, when all these new lines are built, i'm sure a brand new transport expansion plan will be unveiled with more Luas lines, Metro lines, Suburban Rail lines, Bus fleet expansion and dart service upgrades.



Gabriel said:


> How much did the Spire project cost the state?



Just €4m actually, which is just 0.004% of the cost of your proposed €100bn metro system. At that price I think it was well worth it to create an internationally recognised focal center for the city. However on a debate about aviation pollution and public transport it baffles me how you managed to complain about both public health services and The Spire.


----------



## CGorman (8 Jan 2007)

Just to point out the combine Luas, Metro, Dart and Suburban Rail systems will connect...

*Via Metro*
St Stephen's Green, O'Connell Bridge, Parnell Square , Mater Hospital, Drumcondra, Griffith Avenue, Dublin City University, Ballymun, Santry Demense, Metropark, Dublin Airport, Nevinstown, Swords, Seatown, Lissenhall, Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan, Blanchardstown, The Square, Liffey Valley Shopping Centre, Blanchardstown Shopping Centre, Blanchardstown Institute of Technology, 

*Via Luas*

Sandyford, Stillorgan, Kilmacud, Balally, Dundrum, Windy Arbour, Milltown, Cowper,	Beechwood, Ranelagh, Charlemont, Harcourt, St Stephen's Green, Tallaght, Tallaght Hospital, Cookstown, Belgard, Kingswood, Red Cow, Kylemore, Bluebel, Blackhorse, Drimnagh, Goldenbridge, Suir Road, Rialto, Fatima,	St. James's Hospital, Heuston, National Museum of Ireland, Smithfield,	Four Courts, Jervis, Abbey St, Busaras,	Connolly Station, George's Dock, Mayor Square, Spencer Dock, Point Depot, Liffey Junction, Grangegroman, DIT Campus, Broadstone, City West, National Digital Park, Fettercairn, Cheeverstown, Cherrywood, Ballyfermot, Liffey Valley, Lucan, and Bray.

*Dart/Suburban Rail*

Malahide, Portmarnock, Howth, Sutton, Bayside, Howth Junction, Kilbarrack, Raheny, Harmonstown, Killester, Clontarf Road, Connolly, Tara Street, Pearse, Grand Canal Dock, Lansdowne Road, Sandymount, Sydney Parade, Booterstown, Blackrock, Seapoint, Salthill & Monkstown, Dún Laoghaire, Sandycove & Glasthule, Glenageary, Dalkey, Killiney, Shankill, Bray, Greystones, Dublin Connolly, Donabate, Rush and Lusk, Skerries, Balbriggan, Gormanston, Laytown, Drogheda, Dundalk, Kilcoole, Wicklow, Rathdrum, Arklow, Gorey, Dublin Heuston, Cherry Orchard, Clondalkin, Hazelhatch and Celbridge, Sallins and Naas, Newbridge, Kildare, Spencer Dock, Drumcondra, Broombridge, Ashtown, Castleknock, Coolmine, Clonsilla, Astown/Phoenix Park, Leixlip Confey, Leixlip Louisa Bridge, Maynooth, Kilcock, Enfield, Mullingar, Edgeworthstown, Longford

Note that some Luas lines will be fully upgradeable to Metro including Sandyford-Cherrywood. Park and Ride facilities will be built on the Bray line. Also note half of the cost of the Bray line is to be paid for by property developers. Also note much of the cost of the Citywest line will be paid for by developers. Also note many rail lines are due for electrification (including as far as Maynooth and Hazelhatch.) Also note several interconnectors will ensure you can reach the central transport hubs (O'Connell St, Houston, Connelly and Stephens Green) with relative ease from pretty much _any_ of the above stations.

You wanted a highly integrated metro/luas/train system to serve all of Greater Dublin? I think that's a pretty darn good start - and at a price tag of well short of €15bn (even allowing for screwups pushing that to €20bn) I think it's a great plan to work off.


----------



## ivuernis (8 Jan 2007)

Glenbhoy said:


> There are as many alternatives as we want or need,


Yes, there are many potential alternatives, BUT....




Glenbhoy said:


> they can be used large scale,


upscaling them to the degree required to replace ALL or MOST of the energy generated from fossil fuels is a task that may prove to be insurmountable, 




Glenbhoy said:


> but currently it's simply cheaper to take oil out of the ground and burn it.


Yes, and it's cheaper for a BIG reason. Withstanding nuclear fuels (e.g. Uranium and Plutonium), Oil packs an unsurpassed concentrated energy lunch that will be hard to replicate using alternative energy. 

The world's four largest oilfields: 

Ghawar, Saudi Arabia (~5 million barrels per day) 
Cantarell, Mexico (~2 mbpd)
Burgan, Kuwait (~2 mbpd)
Daqing, China (~1 mbpd)

which produce > 10% of the world's oil output are all close to peaking or are already depleting. Decline rates for these fields will be high due to the extraction techniques used. Replacing these (and all the others) with alternative energies will be a mammoth task and may not be possible with a global population of 6.5 billion and rising. It is no coincidence that world population has risen exponentially from the era of abundant fossil fuels.


----------



## jdwex (8 Jan 2007)

CGorman said:


> You wanted a highly integrated metro/luas/train system to serve all of Greater Dublin? I think that's a pretty darn good start - and at a price tag of well short of €15bn (even allowing for screwups pushing that to €20bn) I think it's a great plan to work off.


 
This map may help
The plan is for the Ballbriggan/Howth Dart to run to Hazlehatch via the interconnector (Pearse/Stephens Green) 
Maynooth Dart runs to Bray via Drumcondra/Connolly/Pearse
The metro hence has connectivity to the Dart lines at Drumcondra and St Stephens Green (The map would be cleare if it had Drumcondra indicated instead of Glasnevin)
[broken link removed]


----------



## CGorman (8 Jan 2007)

Great map! When all thats up and running it will be great base system. I don't think anyone could argue with the idea, other than perhaps on cost - however I feel its worth every penny it costs to build - from envirnomental, social and economic standpoints. I'm sure when its all built new plans will come out in 2020 or so to furture extend the system and probably link up the cherrywood and clondalkin lines among other things.

It was mentioned above that O'Leary has critizised the cost of this new system (in particular the metro). I think thats a positive thing. If there were'nt well known people out there like himself heaping ever more pressure on the governent regarding public transport, dublin airport and the costs of doing these things, do you think they would deliver or commit themselves to projects like this? By publically critizising them they are forced to actually deliver on time and budget - he'll lambast them otherwise - and they know it. He fulfils the skeptical balance on power the Irish media and opposition parties are incapable of. I'm not saying he's the sole balance, but by God, he certainly helps things.


----------



## Glenbhoy (8 Jan 2007)

sunrock said:


> Experts reckon that aviation will become super expensive as oil becomes scarce....we`re talking definitely inside 50 years....flying will be reserved for the top 1% of the population with hopefully benefits for the climate.


What experts believe that?  
As for alternatives, there were plenty put forward in the last debate we had on this in 'the great financial debates' section.


----------



## CGorman (8 Jan 2007)

I doubt mass aviation will disappear in 50 years. That ignores mankinds incrediable ability to change, adapt and come up with new ideas. I don't know what or how, but i'm sure in 50 years time a new power method for aircraft will have been developed. 

In the past 50 years mankin has invented the internet, launched the first satellite, created the PC, invented the mobile phone, created a supersonic passenger plane, landed men on the moon, commercialised wind energy, gotten to the 4th generation of nuclear power, created a plane capable of carrying 850 people, went through four storage mediums (records, cassetes, CD's, and DVD's), seen the first space stations built, widespread commercialisation of LCD/Plasma, uprecedented growth in communications technologies... among other things.

So given another 50 years why can't mankind engineer it's way out of this problem? *10 years ago* there was no such thing as Google, blogs, or mass wireless broadband. *5 years ago* there was no such thing as the Millau Viaduct, the Iwate-Ichinohe Tunnel (longest rail tunnel), the Lærdalstunnelen (longest road tunnel), Taipei 101 (tallest building), Bugatti Veyron 16.4 (fastest accelerating car ever), Shanghai Maglev Train (first commercial high speed maglev)... among other things.


----------



## Glenbhoy (8 Jan 2007)

CGorman said:


> I doubt mass aviation will disappear in 50 years. That ignores mankinds incrediable ability to change, adapt and come up with new ideas. I don't know what or how, but i'm sure in 50 years time a new power method for aircraft will have been developed.


We have started already, apparently boeing have also recently launched their first fuel cell plane.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2003/03-29.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_planes


----------



## RainyDay (8 Jan 2007)

Thanks to CGorman for providing lots of useful details there.


----------



## sunrock (8 Jan 2007)

Well if oil goes up to over 200$ a barrell in todays money, the cost of flights is going to go up.Of course at this price there will be a slowdown in economic activity... called a recession, when people will have less disposable income.
This increase in oil price is a certainty as supply is reduced ,and don`t forget there is no tax on aviation fuel, so if the price of oil doubles this will have a much bigger effect than car fuel whose price is mostly made up of tax.
The present low prices of flight prices leave room for price rises, but as flight prices double or treble, then less people will fly and the flight costs will rise even more.
This is a real problem for airlines in the future and alternatives such as hydrogen may be tried out especially for cargo.
I DON`T THINK AN ELECTRIC AIRPLANE is possible....but i may be corrected.Anyway my point is the future high cost of air travel will mean much less flying.


----------



## CGorman (9 Jan 2007)

sunrock said:


> I DON`T THINK AN ELECTRIC AIRPLANE is possible....but i may be corrected.Anyway my point is the future high cost of air travel will mean much less flying.



At the moment, with existing technology an electric plane IS impossible - but given 50 years of devlopment in energy storage, who knows whats possible.


----------



## ivuernis (9 Jan 2007)

CGorman said:


> At the moment, with existing technology an electric plane IS impossible


Not quite... [broken link removed]


----------



## CGorman (9 Jan 2007)

ivuernis said:


> Not quite... [broken link removed]



Sorry, I should have qualified my statement...

At the moment I believe a large scale viable commercial passenger plane based solely on electric power is out of reach from existing technologies - however I do believe we will develop such a thing someday


----------



## ivuernis (9 Jan 2007)

CGorman said:


> At the moment I believe a large scale viable commercial passenger plane based solely on electric power is out of reach from existing technologies


 
I partly guessed. I was more in jest than anything else.



CGorman said:


> however I do believe we will develop such a thing someday


 
I have serious doubts. Time will tell.


----------



## CGorman (9 Jan 2007)

ivuernis said:


> I have serious doubts. Time will tell.



50 years ago if i'd told you, that one would be able to instantly communicate with someone in Russia, Australia or South Africa in a dozen different ways  for virtually nothing, would you not have had serious doubts too? Or 150 years ago if it was suggested that within two decades or so man would be able to fly and within another few decades he would set foot on the moon? I know there are incrediable technological barriers to be overcome, but I believe time will indeed tell... just don't count on being alive to see it!


----------



## pat127 (9 Jan 2007)

CGorman said:


> In the past 50 years mankind has invented the internet, launched the first satellite, created the PC, invented the mobile phone, created a supersonic passenger plane, landed men on the moon, commercialised wind energy, gotten to the 4th generation of nuclear power, created a plane capable of carrying 850 people, went through four storage mediums (records, cassetes, CD's, and DVD's), seen the first space stations built, widespread commercialisation of LCD/Plasma, uprecedented growth in communications technologies... among other things.
> 
> So given another 50 years why can't mankind engineer it's way out of this problem? *10 years ago* there was no such thing as Google, blogs, or mass wireless broadband. *5 years ago* there was no such thing as the Millau Viaduct, the Iwate-Ichinohe Tunnel (longest rail tunnel), the Lærdalstunnelen (longest road tunnel), Taipei 101 (tallest building), Bugatti Veyron 16.4 (fastest accelerating car ever), Shanghai Maglev Train (first commercial high speed maglev)... among other things.


 
I second what RainyDay says about you introducing useful info CGorman but I do need to challenge your reference to what we have 'created' and from that your implication that we'll pull a few new technological chestnuts out of the fire whenever we need them. . In an article I read lately concerns were expressed about how little actual innovation is done nowadays as distinct to 'tinkering'. There have few innovations since the invention of the telephone, radio, the generation of electricity etc. We didnt 'create' PCS, they are the end-product of a long line of improvements in computer technology going back to WWII and ultimately to concepts created by Babbidge and his 19th-century 'Analytical Engine'. The thermionic valve however could be described as an innovation and probably the transistor. The mobile phone, superjets, the Internet - all developments of what went before. The Bugatti Veyron - probably the most useless piece of technology ever developed - comes from a long line of cars stretching right back to the 18th-century (Ottos' combustion-engine - now that I'll allow as an innovation). Monocoque construction of car-bodies would count as an innovation also. Physical constructions, tunnels, bridges and the like, what are they but adding a few feet onto those which already exist?

I'd like to think that if we are to engineer our way of what is perhaps the biggest crisis facing mankind, we'll need a lot more than 'tinkering'.

One more thing while I have the floor. Plastics are derived from oil. The world runs on the stuff. Look no further than the insulation coating on electrical cable. No insulation material= no cable= no electrically-driven machines= no electricity generation or delivery, etc, etc. What viable alternatives have been found for plastic?


----------



## pat127 (9 Jan 2007)

CGorman said:


> 50 years ago if i'd told you, that one would be able to instantly communicate with someone in Russia, Australia or South Africa in a dozen different ways for virtually nothing, would you not have had serious doubts too? Or 150 years ago if it was suggested that within two decades or so man would be able to fly and within another few decades he would set foot on the moon? I know there are incrediable technological barriers to be overcome, but I believe time will indeed tell... just don't count on being alive to see it!


 
When Guglielmo Marconi fired up his big spark transmitter in 1899, it too was capable of being heard all over the world (because it broadcast right across the entire radio spectrum). It didn't cost much either, a few bob to the sheet-metal guy and a few miles of wire. 


As to the supposed moon landing, everyone knows it was a put-up job -it was really filmed in a hay-barn in Idaho.


----------



## ivuernis (9 Jan 2007)

CGorman said:


> 50 years ago if i'd told you, that one would be able to instantly communicate with someone in Russia, Australia or South Africa in a dozen different ways for virtually nothing, would you not have had serious doubts too?


Possibly not. That was the beginning of the era of the space race.... back then it was assumed we'd have bases on the Moon and probably Mars, orbiting space stations, etc. A few years later I'd have been watching 2001: A Space Odyssey expecting a not too dissimilar world in the year of its eponymous title. It envisaged sentient computers, we didn't them (yet?)... but we did get the internet though. 



CGorman said:


> Or 150 years ago if it was suggested that within two decades or so man would be able to fly and within another few decades he would set foot on the moon? I know there are incrediable technological barriers to be overcome, but I believe time will indeed tell... just don't count on being alive to see it!


Every generation/era has hopes and aspirations for the future. Every generation/era imagines what the future could be like. As we can see from history the future doesn't always turn out as expected or hoped. Some things unimagined come to be, others imagined never happen and some of what we expect does indeed come to pass. 

However, technology can bring both positive and negative effects. Sometimes in the pursuit of positive technological gain we can unleash negative and destructive elements we did not anticipate. The trade-off may not always be to our liking or long-term benefit. 

Science has in some ways become the new religion and many put a faith in science to save us from ourselves and our less commendable attributes. Science MAY do but it is by no means guaranteed. 

Getting back on topic, Michael O'Leary says Ryanair's fleet is the most efficient in the skies and therefore less detrimental to the environment compared to others. As true as this may be it does not discount the fact that the growth in commercial aviation more than offsets any savings and adds to the cumulative environmental damage rendering his arguments moot in my book.


----------



## Glenbhoy (9 Jan 2007)

ivuernis said:


> Getting back on topic, Michael O'Leary says Ryanair's fleet is the most efficient in the skies and therefore less detrimental to the environment compared to others. As true as this may be it does not discount the fact that the growth in commercial aviation more than offsets and adds to the cumulative environmental damage rendering his arguments moot in my book.


That presumes that any of them are detrimental to the environment, something that many are still not convinced of


----------



## ivuernis (10 Jan 2007)

Glenbhoy said:


> That presumes that any of them are detrimental to the environment, something that many are still not convinced of


 
“Delay is the deadliest form of denial.”
- C. Northcote Parkinson


----------



## CGorman (10 Jan 2007)

Good points pat127, very few of the truely groundbreaking technological leapforwards in our history have occured recently - most of our new inventions are indeed the result of endless incredmental improvements. However, when Quantum Computing, Nuclear Fussion, efficent fuel cells, and other such things start to appear in the century to come - whilst they will be utterly revolutionary, they will still be the end result of a long period of improvements and minor innovations - it's unlikely there will be a single 'eureka' moment.

O'Learys fleet is the most efficent in Europe and contrasts entirely with the likes of a half empty 15yr old plane carrying beds across the atlantic for BA. I'd sooner give up car transport than air transport (although given I live in a city set to beneifit massively from new public transport, I would say that!) 

I'm not prepared to give up international flights until a real alternative presents itself and that won't happen until a very high speed electrified mag lev rail network transgresses all of Europe and Asia, including a tunnel (The tusker tunnel) to Ireland is in operation! I don't seen such a thing happening for a long long time - but it would offer a real alternative to flying (bar trans-atlantic flights)

To sum up my point, to combat climate change/pollution we should tackle the things that are most practical to change first... (these apply globally)

1) Reduce car usage with more local public transport (or as O'Leary says "Sell your car and walk.")
2) Replace energy generation with greener means - wind, wave, solar, gas, etc.
3) Toughen laws regarding building insulation
4) Toughen laws regarding heavy industry efficency (steel, cement, cars...)
5) Discourage urban sprawl with better planning laws and put in place metro/tram systems with the vision of keeping things centralised
6) Tax incentivise greener cars like Hybrids
7) Invest in electrifing rail networks
8) Invest in rail networks to increase there reach and integration
9) Invest in high speed mag lev rail to offer a real alternative to air travel within ranges of several thousend miles
10) Incentivise distribution via rail rather than trucks where possible
11) Slaughter O'Learys herd of cattle (his own suggestion!... "Shoot cows instead of blaming aviation'")


----------



## pat127 (10 Jan 2007)

CGorman said:


> Good points pat127, very few of the truely groundbreaking technological leapforwards in our history have occured recently - most of our new inventions are indeed the result of endless incredmental improvements. However, when Quantum Computing, Nuclear Fussion, efficent fuel cells, and other such things start to appear in the century to come - whilst they will be utterly revolutionary, they will still be the end result of a long period of improvements and minor innovations - it's unlikely there will be a single 'eureka' moment.


 
Excellent CGorman. Sorry about the 'Marconi' post though, but I'm sure that you have spotted that it was a spoof! The point I was trying to get across is that it may not be sufficient to wait in the confident hope that scientists will come up trumps when we need them to. I agree completely that we can start taking initiatives now, both collectively and individually. 

I don't think people actually understand the power of individual action. If for example I install a PIR so that the outside lights only come on occasionally, the difference is trifling. If 1M do it however then real savings follow. Same effect if a sufficient number of people use their cars a little less, or drive them more economically, and so on. The problem I see however that it's often not enough to leave people to their own devices. We need central support through either incentivisation or penalisation. 

Politicians, with one eye constantly focussed on the next election are often slow to make hard decisions however. Which suggests that if we individually believe that action has to be taken, we need to lobby them and there will be lots of opportunities in advance of the next general election.

Another thing.....A key question to be addressed in my opinion is whether our planning laaws ned to be tightened to avoid situations (Rossport for example) where individuals are free to block or hinder badly-needed initiatives which confer benefit on all.


----------



## ivuernis (10 Jan 2007)

Michael O'Leary would love this guy:

Chrysler's chief economist Van Jolissaint has launched a fierce attack on "quasi-hysterical Europeans" and their "Chicken Little" attitudes to global warming.

Fear not, the lunatics are running the asylum.


----------



## ivuernis (10 Jan 2007)

pat127 said:


> I don't think people actually understand the power of individual action. If for example I install a PIR so that the outside lights only come on occasionally, the difference is trifling. If 1M do it however then real savings follow. Same effect if a sufficient number of people use their cars a little less, or drive them more economically, and so on. The problem I see however that it's often not enough to leave people to their own devices. We need central support through either incentivisation or penalisation.


 
Therein lies the nub of the problem. Why should you or I or anyone who may care change our behaviors when the vast majority (of the developed world at least) are unwilling to change theirs. Individual action in and of itself is next to useless in this scenario. Collective action on the other hand is where change can happen. However, the vast majority of people WANT big cars, second homes, cheap & frequent flights if they are allowed to have them. It is only by removing or curtailing access to these behaviors that change can happen. This change can only be effected globally by governments otherwise even in a resource constrained or degraded environment states and individuals will continue to compete with each other in a race to the bottom.


----------



## micamaca (10 Jan 2007)

I can agree on some level with the last poster. I was watching Duncan Stewart's Eco-Eye programme last week (think it's on again tonight) and as a result have started turning off lights, turned down heating and putting on warmer clothes to lessen our consumption of energy in our house. 

But will my doing this have any affect at all if no-one else on the road is making similar efforts. It's the same feeling I get as I'm washing bottles and dividing waste for recycling. If recycling is only done by the minority, it won't be enough. How do you change the attitudes??? 

Living in a beautiful town, I noticed that there are people who can't even bring themselves to use the bins here...so what hope have we got unless there is some regulation or incentive to get people to want to cut down on energy.  I'm not very hopeful for the future of Green Ireland.


----------



## sherib (10 Jan 2007)

> Originally Posted by *ivuernis*
> Why should you or I or anyone who may care change our behaviors when the vast majority (of the developed world at least) are unwilling to change theirs. Individual action in and of itself is next to useless in this scenario. Collective action on the other hand is where change can happen.


We should care because it is in our own interest and that of future generations. It was shocking to see, as shown on that Eco-Eye RTE programme the other night, the rate at which the polar ice cap is melting and the reduction in the ozone layer which protects us from ultra violet light. We've already seen the consequences of the Tsunami in Asia and the New Orleans catastrophe. Global temperatures are rising and we can only guess at the effects on eco-systems and farming not to mention health. Either way they won't be good. 

With rising temperatures in the northern hemispere the day might not be too far away when the mosquito and other disease bearing creatures will find our climate as attractive as those in the southern hemisphere. If we wait until we get our own little tsunami at our latitudes, it will be too late.

While it is known that global warming began at least fifty years ago or earlier, the alarming feature now is *the rate* at which this is continuing. 

Regardless of the possibilities of technologies in developing safer energy, who can believe that *any *technology can possibily cool down the planet and replace the melting ice caps? All we can do now is stabilise our carbon outputs which means a drastic reduction in carbon usage and severe penalties to those countries that don't comply. Isn't survival more important than developing economies so that we can further abuse the planet? 


> However, the vast majority of people WANT big cars, second homes, cheap & frequent flights if they are allowed to have them. It is only by removing or curtailing access to these behaviors that change can happen. This change can only be effected globally by governments otherwise even in a resource constrained or degraded environment states and individuals will continue to compete with each other in a race to the bottom.


The day may not be too far away when cars will be banned. Would it not be better to get rid of gas guzzling cars (or severely penalise those who insist on using them) and perhaps ration home energy usage? If the carrot doesn't work, that leaves only the stick! Responses to this global threat so far are reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. We ignore the very real warnings at our peril. While world leaders must show the lead on this issue of survival, nations can also lead by example.


----------



## Glenbhoy (10 Jan 2007)

CGorman said:


> To sum up my point, to combat climate change/pollution we should tackle the things that are most practical to change first... (these apply globally)
> 
> 1) Reduce car usage with more local public transport (or as O'Leary says "Sell your car and walk.")
> 2) Replace energy generation with greener means - wind, wave, solar, gas, etc.
> ...


These are good points and are in the main are suggestions that i think we should be racing to implement.  Regardless of my own views on whether or not man causes global warming (I don't know either way), it surely makes sense to waste less enegy, provide more and better public transport and most importantly for this country, we have to find alternatives to fossil fuels.  This is an area in which we can become world leaders if we start now - we need a government that does more than pay lip service to alternative energies, we need real incentives to invest in R&D in alternatives. 
I think killing the poor cows is a step too far though, perhaps we could place a collection bag of some sort at the cow's rear end and use the collected methane to heat our homes?


----------



## polaris (11 Jan 2007)

sherib said:


> We've already seen the consequences of the Tsunami in Asia


 
Ironically, the asian tsunami was not in any way attributable to global warming.


----------



## CGorman (11 Jan 2007)

micamaca said:


> It's the same feeling I get as I'm washing bottles and dividing waste for recycling. If recycling is only done by the minority, it won't be enough. (



Interesting to see today that Ireland has reached it's national and EU recycling targets *8 years ahead of schedule* with over 35% of waste recycled in 2005 (as opposed to 9% in 1998). Thats a million tonnes of waste avoiding landfill a year. As the 05' figures are only out now, i'm sure 06' was even better... so hopefully that'll make you feel like you've helped make a difference!

I think what has happened with regard to waste shows the power of everyone doing a little. The government have made it relatively easy to recycle - centers every where, bottle banks, marketing campaigns, cheaper than landfill etc. 

In theory if everybody reduced their electricity consumption by 25% (by turning off lights, getting energy efficent bulbs, not leaving stuff on standby etc.) we would be able to shut down Moneypoint straightaway - a plant that alone contributes 8.6% of our CO2 emissions (5,900,000 tonnes).

In theory if everybody switched to Honda Civic Hybrids & Toyota Prius' car emissions would drop by as much as 50% overnight. Transport makes up 30% of emissions, of which cars are the biggest pollutors. Add in a 25% reduction in annual mileage and there's another bit chopped off... look at this...

Axe Moneypoint:  - 8.6%
Switch to hybrids: - 20%
Lower Milage: -5%
= -33.6% off existing emissions

We are currently 25% over 1990 levels, Kyoto calls for this to be less than 13% above 1990 levels. That 33.6% off is'nt particularly hard to do - incentivise hybrids, invest in public transport to reduce milage, and doing everything possible to reduce electricity usage. There's lots more that could be done - why not do as they do in portugal and require all new houses to have a small solar panal on the roof? Or heavily tax any additional electricity usage above an annual household quota (based on factors like house size and number of occupants)? Or switch the national bus fleet to cleaner biofuels? Or halve train commuter train fares? Or heavily tax motorists who exceed an annual milage cap? Or toughen home insulation rules? Or do as has been done in London and use the cooling towers of electricty plants in urban areas to heat domestic water supply (hot water for nothing)? There are loads of ways the government can encourage individual behaviour.

I just read this today - everyday in Ireland 48 Kg of greenhouse gas emissions are produced per person. That truely is shocking.

As seen with recycling, collective individual action, guided by central government, can yield huge rewards for society.


----------



## pat127 (12 Jan 2007)

micamaca said:


> But will my doing this have any affect at all if no-one else on the road is making similar efforts. It's the same feeling I get as I'm washing bottles and dividing waste for recycling. If recycling is only done by the minority, it won't be enough. How do you change the attitudes???
> 
> Living in a beautiful town, I noticed that there are people who can't even bring themselves to use the bins here...so what hope have we got unless there is some regulation or incentive to get people to want to cut down on energy. I'm not very hopeful for the future of Green Ireland.


 


All you have to do is to convince one other person to do what you are doing, and all they have to do is to convince one other person, and so on........and the idea spreads like wildfire.


----------



## sherib (12 Jan 2007)

> Originally Posted by* Casiopea - Global warming - Ski property*
> Every year there are adverse changes in our environment. It is not all of a sudden going to start in 200 years. In the 5 years I have lived in switzerland there has been a big difference in the amount of business resorts in switzerland and austria do in December compared to what they did 5 years ago. 5 years ago the OP would have had gauranteed rental income here in December, now the OP wouldnt. In recent years CH has resorted to wrapping some glaciers in gigantic foil (similiar to what you'd put on a turkey!) to protect them as there is such a difference now from year to year in how much the glaciers retreat.


*Very *opportune post - heard recently that in the future temperatures in places like the south of Spain may be far too high for holidays. In light of casiopea's observations maybe it's worth repeating mine:

_While it is known that global warming began at least fifty years ago or earlier, the alarming feature now is *the rate* at which this is continuing. _

_Would it not be better to get rid of gas guzzling cars (or severely penalise those who insist on using them) and perhaps ration home energy usage? Responses to this global threat so far are reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned_.

There are plenty of "theorists" around but little sign of action. In the December budget the Minister mentioned something about putting extra tax on high c.c. car engines but it's not happening yet - deferred until next year I think or maybe later. 

The recent EU report made a lot of noise about cutting down on carbon usage but will that report just sit on a shelf like all the others? What exactly will it take to prompt action?


----------



## sunrock (12 Jan 2007)

The recent mild weather in northeast america and in europe has reduced the use of home heating oil,to such an extent that the price of oil has dropped.
And of course the mild weather is a result of global warming!
Oil is going to run out anyway and the replacements are going to be more expensive....will probably use wood products for home heating .
ALL OF THIS IS VERY CONFUSING BUT CONSIDER THIS
When we have used up most of our fossil fuels,the process of global warming will go into reverse and we`ll have very cold winters....and less house heating options.


----------



## badabing (12 Jan 2007)

Cgorman
Like most of your points regarding curtailing global warming, except for one....repressing industrial offenders. We're already causing these (in many cases) global corporations to shift production to countries whith no regulations, with the possible effect of actually making things worse.

'Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer'


----------



## CGorman (12 Jan 2007)

badabing said:


> except for one....repressing industrial offenders. We're already causing these (in many cases) global corporations to shift production to countries whith no regulations, with the possible effect of actually making things worse.



Great point, but I believe the EU's most powerful tool on a world stage is to impose global standards. At the moment if Europe decides all tires sold in the EU must be made to X quality, using Y material, etc., then all manufacturers will revise their products and processes to comply with EU legislation - even if the product is made in China, it still has to conform to our regulations to be sold here - and companies won't stick with a split factory system to supply Europe/Rest of World because they lose much of the benefits of mass production.


----------



## jmayo (12 Jan 2007)

Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by *CGorman* [broken link removed] 
_To sum up my point, to combat climate change/pollution we should tackle the things that are most practical to change first... (these apply globally)

1) Reduce car usage with more local public transport (or as O'Leary says "Sell your car and walk.")
2) Replace energy generation with greener means - wind, wave, solar, gas, etc.
3) Toughen laws regarding building insulation
4) Toughen laws regarding heavy industry efficency (steel, cement, cars...)
5) Discourage urban sprawl with better planning laws and put in place metro/tram systems with the vision of keeping things centralised
6) Tax incentivise greener cars like Hybrids
7) Invest in electrifing rail networks
8) Invest in rail networks to increase there reach and integration
9) Invest in high speed mag lev rail to offer a real alternative to air travel within ranges of several thousend miles
10) Incentivise distribution via rail rather than trucks where possible
11) Slaughter O'Learys herd of cattle (his own suggestion!... "Shoot cows instead of blaming aviation'")_

Leave the cows alone, so they fart a little, why not harness that energy instead.
Why not get the government to convert all it's public vehicles to biodiesel.
Buses, trucks, ministers cars in particular for a start before they start telling us that we should use public transport which is CR**.

BTW it is debatle whether hybrid cars are more friendly to the environment since they cost more to produce and cost more to dispose of than normal cars.  I guess it would depend if you used one for 10 years rather than 5 years and if you did manage to drive it for 200,000 miles.

Also one of the reasons everyone is climbing on the badnwagon about airliners is that studies showed during the prohibition on flying in the days after 11/09/01 (I am european not american), cloud formation at high altitudes had decreased due to less vapour trails triggering their formation.


----------



## CGorman (13 Jan 2007)

jmayo said:


> Also one of the reasons everyone is climbing on the badnwagon about airliners is that studies showed during the prohibition on flying in the days after 11/09/01 (I am european not american), cloud formation at high altitudes had decreased due to less vapour trails triggering their formation.



(AFAIK) It is certainly true that 1 tonne of CO2 emitted from cars is a lot less harmful than one tonne produced by a plane because the planes emissions are much higher up in the athmosphere.


----------

