Planes and carbon, vs cars

[HertsBiker]

On the BBC website there's an article that states;-

In 2012, 689 million tonnes of carbon dioxide were emitted from planes representing 2% of all human carbon emissions.


I just cannot understand how much this really is. Are they saying that in just one year, planes have emitted 2% of all carbon ever released by the human race since we began burning fuels? And this is year on year, and will continue to grow?

Considering the fuss made over car emissions, seems a bit rich that what are basically frivolous flights (holidays mostly) are causing the motorist to pay through the nose while air travel is subsidised. Cars are getting cleaner, planes continue to dump carbon dioxide at high altitude which is far worse than ground level emissions!

I'm no green, and I don't particularly agree that we are changing the climate, but if we are... It's not cars that need sorting first.

[Puddenchucker]

http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html

R Tickle said:

Worldwide, flights produced 705 million tonnes of CO2 in 2013. Globally, humans produced over 36 billion tonnes of CO2

R Tickle said:

Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions from all transports sources, compared to 74% from road transport.

Disclaimer: I have not checked that these claims are accurate.

I agree with you about unnecessary flights, but how many unnecessary car journeys are made?

[SluffMcDuff]

It means 2% of all human carbon emissions in that year, not for all time

[Rich_W]

HertsBiker said:

On the BBC website there's an article that states;-

In 2012, 689 million tonnes of carbon dioxide were emitted from planes representing 2% of all human carbon emissions.


I just cannot understand how much this really is. Are they saying that in just one year, planes have emitted 2% of all carbon ever released by the human race since we began burning fuels? And this is year on year, and will continue to grow?

Considering the fuss made over car emissions, seems a bit rich that what are basically frivolous flights (holidays mostly) are causing the motorist to pay through the nose while air travel is subsidised. Cars are getting cleaner, planes continue to dump carbon dioxide at high altitude which is far worse than ground level emissions!

I'm no green, and I don't particularly agree that we are changing the climate, but if we are... It's not cars that need sorting first.

Given your posts generally. Specifically you won't accept there's no such thing as "CAR TAX" (since Churchill abolished it) and that VED doesn't get spent solely on roads anyway. It all goes in the pot with income tax, VAT etc

What was it?

HertsBiker 10th May said:

Great. The people who pay for the road are paying to have it made worse for themselves, in favour of those which don't pay for the road. Progress.

HertsBiker 11th May said:

Let's play a game. You can rename the tax all you like. No one is fooled apart from the fool. If the tax is only paid by road users, what do you think it gets spent on? If we pay 39 billion a year on vehicle related taxes, why do you think any tax that a non driver pays will get spent on the road? Stop being so naive Greg. I assume you cycle a lot?

It's no surprise you can't fathom facts generally.

SluffMcDuff said:

It means 2% of all human carbon emissions in that year, not for all time

Don't, you're wasting your time.

There's no mention of cars in the article anyway, yet he's decided to talk about them in relation to planes Co2

Edited by Rich_W on Saturday 24th May 11:19

[HertsBiker]

SluffMcDuff said:

It means 2% of all human carbon emissions in that year, not for all time

Ta. At least it's not as bad as it read. Cheers

[HertsBiker]

Rich_W said:

HertsBiker said:

On the BBC website there's an article that states;-

In 2012, 689 million tonnes of carbon dioxide were emitted from planes representing 2% of all human carbon emissions.


I just cannot understand how much this really is. Are they saying that in just one year, planes have emitted 2% of all carbon ever released by the human race since we began burning fuels? And this is year on year, and will continue to grow?

Considering the fuss made over car emissions, seems a bit rich that what are basically frivolous flights (holidays mostly) are causing the motorist to pay through the nose while air travel is subsidised. Cars are getting cleaner, planes continue to dump carbon dioxide at high altitude which is far worse than ground level emissions!

I'm no green, and I don't particularly agree that we are changing the climate, but if we are... It's not cars that need sorting first.

Given your posts generally. Specifically you won't accept there's no such thing as "CAR TAX" (since Churchill abolished it) and that VED doesn't get spent solely on roads anyway. It all goes in the pot with income tax, VAT etc

What was it?

HertsBiker 10th May said:

Great. The people who pay for the road are paying to have it made worse for themselves, in favour of those which don't pay for the road. Progress.

HertsBiker 11th May said:

Let's play a game. You can rename the tax all you like. No one is fooled apart from the fool. If the tax is only paid by road users, what do you think it gets spent on? If we pay 39 billion a year on vehicle related taxes, why do you think any tax that a non driver pays will get spent on the road? Stop being so naive Greg. I assume you cycle a lot?

It's no surprise you can't fathom facts generally.

SluffMcDuff said:

It means 2% of all human carbon emissions in that year, not for all time

Don't, you're wasting your time.

There's no mention of cars in the article anyway, yet he's decided to talk about them in relation to planes Co2

Edited by Rich_W on Saturday 24th May 11:19

You could have just replied, not go the full stalker routine. I don't see that your reply has helped anything in any way. Your insult is polite, but still an insult. I stand by the comments I made previously, it's nice to see them again. Now before I get banned for calling you what I really want to call you, I'll be off.

[Mave]

Take a look at car co2 emissions vs aircraft co2 emissions over the decades, not just the last few years. It's not just cars where there's a push for lower emissions...

[xRIEx]

HertsBiker said:

seems a bit rich that what are basically frivolous flights (holidays mostly)

I'd argue that our petrolhead hobbies and interests are just as frivolous as a holiday. Some of my drives are A to A, not even A to B.

And for comparative purposes, does anyone have figures for CO2 per person per mile, for cars and planes? Planes may have 2% or less of seats empty, I often drive round with 80% of my car's available seats empty.

[Jasandjules]

Mave said:

Take a look at car co2 emissions vs aircraft co2 emissions over the decades, not just the last few years. It's not just cars where there's a push for lower emissions...

Yup, billions of pounds being spent by society to line the pockets of several rich people. Wonderful.

[SkinnyBoy]

I'm more concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide released from soft drinks yearly, surely that number is massive, yet rarely discussed.

Nobody crying for them to be curbed

[Pan Pan]

C02 emissions which arise directly from global computer use, now exceed those coming from global aviation. Looks like we will have to give up using our computers as well as flying (and driving, and living in houses, and eating mass produced foods, and having any kind of entertainment etc, etc)
And as the average human emits around 1 tonne of C02 per year through breathing alone, before they have done anything else, it looks like we will have to stop making more of those too! Welcome to the brave new world of the Green hugger.

[MagneticMeerkat]

This is just a spurious personal take on what is, in effect, a non-argument.

Planes emit lots of pollution. Cars and road vehicles emit even more. Both need to be reduced.

Herts Biker isn't interested in planes, in fact implying that they're silly - taking the unwashed on needless holidays, so wouldn't really care if they were grounded or made more expensive. He likes road transport so seeks to divert attention away from the pollution it causes.

Someone on a plane is, maybe, not interested in road transport - but likes the fact they can go somewhere far away quickly and easily. They would argue the opposite in order to preserve their plane using lifestyle.

Ergo there's no point to this whatsoever; it's a load of opinion attempting to form a coherent hypothesis. No one pollution source is better than the other and we need to sort out both.

[Pan Pan]

MagneticMeerkat said:

This is just a spurious personal take on what is, in effect, a non-argument.

Planes emit lots of pollution. Cars and road vehicles emit even more. Both need to be reduced.

Herts Biker isn't interested in planes, in fact implying that they're silly - taking the unwashed on needless holidays, so wouldn't really care if they were grounded or made more expensive. He likes road transport so seeks to divert attention away from the pollution it causes.

Someone on a plane is, maybe, not interested in road transport - but likes the fact they can go somewhere far away quickly and easily. They would argue the opposite in order to preserve their plane using lifestyle.

Ergo there's no point to this whatsoever; it's a load of opinion attempting to form a coherent hypothesis. No one pollution source is better than the other and we need to sort out both.

Until we have found a way of producing humans who don't breath, eat, or drink, or want to wear clothes, Humans who don't want to move from where they were born, Humans who don't want computers, TV`s Ipods, computer games, cinemas etc. Humans who don't want to be warm in winter, or cool in summer, Humans who don't want to live in, fuel consuming C02 producing homes, and crucially humans who don't want to produce more humans. Then every human added to the planet on top of those already here, is another resource consuming C02 producing entity, and we are globally adding up to three hundred adn forty seven thousand net new humans to the planet every single DAY!
if you are going to look at reducing our effect on the planet, at least try to look for the root cause, rather microscopic irrelevancies, such as how we choose to move around.

[xRIEx]

Pan Pan said:

MagneticMeerkat said:

This is just a spurious personal take on what is, in effect, a non-argument.

Planes emit lots of pollution. Cars and road vehicles emit even more. Both need to be reduced.

Herts Biker isn't interested in planes, in fact implying that they're silly - taking the unwashed on needless holidays, so wouldn't really care if they were grounded or made more expensive. He likes road transport so seeks to divert attention away from the pollution it causes.

Someone on a plane is, maybe, not interested in road transport - but likes the fact they can go somewhere far away quickly and easily. They would argue the opposite in order to preserve their plane using lifestyle.

Ergo there's no point to this whatsoever; it's a load of opinion attempting to form a coherent hypothesis. No one pollution source is better than the other and we need to sort out both.

Until we have found a way of producing humans who don't breath, eat, or drink, or want to wear clothes, Humans who don't want to move from where they were born, Humans who don't want computers, TV`s Ipods, computer games, cinemas etc. Humans who don't want to be warm in winter, or cool in summer, Humans who don't want to live in, fuel consuming C02 producing homes, and crucially humans who don't want to produce more humans. Then every human added to the planet on top of those already here, is another resource consuming C02 producing entity, and we are globally adding up to three hundred adn forty seven thousand net new humans to the planet every single DAY!
if you are going to look at reducing our effect on the planet, at least try to look for the root cause, rather microscopic irrelevancies, such as how we choose to move around.

Plant more trees. Job done.

[Pan Pan]

xRIEx said:

Pan Pan said:

MagneticMeerkat said:

This is just a spurious personal take on what is, in effect, a non-argument.

Planes emit lots of pollution. Cars and road vehicles emit even more. Both need to be reduced.

Herts Biker isn't interested in planes, in fact implying that they're silly - taking the unwashed on needless holidays, so wouldn't really care if they were grounded or made more expensive. He likes road transport so seeks to divert attention away from the pollution it causes.

Someone on a plane is, maybe, not interested in road transport - but likes the fact they can go somewhere far away quickly and easily. They would argue the opposite in order to preserve their plane using lifestyle.

Ergo there's no point to this whatsoever; it's a load of opinion attempting to form a coherent hypothesis. No one pollution source is better than the other and we need to sort out both.

Until we have found a way of producing humans who don't breath, eat, or drink, or want to wear clothes, Humans who don't want to move from where they were born, Humans who don't want computers, TV`s Ipods, computer games, cinemas etc. Humans who don't want to be warm in winter, or cool in summer, Humans who don't want to live in, fuel consuming C02 producing homes, and crucially humans who don't want to produce more humans. Then every human added to the planet on top of those already here, is another resource consuming C02 producing entity, and we are globally adding up to three hundred adn forty seven thousand net new humans to the planet every single DAY!
if you are going to look at reducing our effect on the planet, at least try to look for the root cause, rather microscopic irrelevancies, such as how we choose to move around.

Plant more trees. Job done.

I agree planting more trees would be a good idea, only we kept cutting them down, to make houses,and furniture, and ships, and to burn to keep warm.
There may not be enough room to plant the trees we need to offset the effect on the planet of up to 10 billion humans, especially since trees wont grow every where (especially not on the oceans which form the majority of the Earths surface) Just saying.

[TooMany2cvs]

Rich_W said:

Specifically you won't accept there's no such thing as "CAR TAX" (since Churchill abolished it)

ITYF it was the Thatcher government that got rid of "Car Tax" - the 10% duty on new cars payable through to the mid '80s. B'sides, it was Stanley Baldwin's government who ended the hypothecation of vehicle taxation into an explicit road fund in 1936.

If you're going to have a pedantic "road tax" rant, at least get it right...