Michael O' Leary on Climate Change

ivuernis said:
I have serious doubts. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

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!
 

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?
 
Last edited:

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.

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

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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
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.
 
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?
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.
 
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?
 
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. (
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:



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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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'
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register