Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Flying is Dying

By George Monbiot, AlterNet. Posted March 1, 2006.


There is no way to halt global warming and continue traveling long distances at high speeds. The only solution is to stop flying in airplanes.
Advertisement

At last the battlelines have been drawn, and the first major fight over climate change is about to begin. All over Britain, a coalition of homeowners and anarchists, NIMBYs and internationalists is mustering to fight the greatest future cause of global warming: the growth of aviation.

Not all these people care about the biosphere. Some are concerned merely that their homes are due to be bulldozed, or that, living under the new flight paths, they will never get a good night's sleep again. But anyone who has joined a broad-based coalition understands the power of this compound of idealism and dogged self-interest.

The industry has seen it, and is getting its revenge in first. Last week the Guardian obtained a leaked copy of a draft treaty between the European Union and the United States which would prevent us from taking any measure to reduce the airlines' environmental impact without the approval of the U.S. government. This, though it might be the widest-ranging, is not the first such agreement. The 1944 Chicago Convention, now supported by 4,000 bilateral treaties, rules that no government may levy tax on aviation fuel. The airlines have been bottle-fed throughout their lives.

The British government admits that the only area in which it is "free to make policy in isolation from other countries" is airport development: it could contain or reverse the growth of flights by restricting airport capacity. Instead it is softening us up for a third runway at Heathrow, and similar extensions at Stansted, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Twelve other airports have already announced expansion plans. According to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, the growth the government foresees will require "the equivalent of another Heathrow every 5 years."

Orwell's most accurate prediction in 1984 was the mutation of Britain into Airstrip One.

Already, one fifth of all the world's international air passengers fly to or from an airport in the UK. The numbers have risen five-fold in the past 30 years, and the government envisages that they will more than double by 2030, to 476 million a year. Perhaps "envisages" is the wrong word. By providing the capacity, the government ensures that the growth takes place.

As far as climate change is concerned, this is an utter, unparalleled disaster. It's not just that aviation represents the world's fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions. The burning of aircraft fuel has a "radiative forcing ratio" of around 2.7. What this means is that the total warming effect of aircraft emissions is 2.7 times as great as the effect of the carbon dioxide alone.

The water vapor they produce forms ice crystals in the upper troposphere (vapor trails and cirrus clouds) which trap the earth's heat. According to calculations by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, if you added the two effects together (it urges some caution as they are not directly comparable), aviation's emissions alone would exceed the government's target for the country's entire output of greenhouse gases in 2050 by around 134 percent. The government has an effective means of dealing with this. It excludes international aircraft emissions from the target.

It won't engage in honest debate because there is simply no means of reconciling its plans with its claims about sustainability. In researching my book about how we might achieve a 90 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030, I have been discovering, greatly to my surprise, that every other source of global warming can be reduced or replaced to that degree without a serious reduction in our freedoms. But there is no means of sustaining long-distance, high-speed travel.

The industry claims it can reduce its emissions by means of new technological developments. But as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution points out, its targets "are clearly aspirations rather than projections." There are some basic technological constraints which make major improvements impossible to envisage.


Digg!

George Monbiot is the author of 'Poisoned Arrows' and 'No Man's Land' (Green Books). Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
world trade is built on flying
Posted by: Norb Radd on Mar 1, 2006 12:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How will all the just-in-time manufacturing adjust?
Who wants to refuse the vacations many of us take now?
Would a solution be to use space flights...or re-adjust our lifestyles?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Liquid oxygen fuel? Posted by: Bic Pentameter
» RE: world trade is built on flying Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Moderation
Posted by: anothername on Mar 1, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, remember the study after 9/11, when planes did not fly for three days? The study documented what many scientists suspected, namely that contrails have drastically reduced the differential between day and night temperatures on the ground.

As with automobiles, houses, and every other thing, the problem is how do we balance opportunity with excessive consumption. Personally, I think we should tax second homes at a very high rate because it is excessive consumption. However, communities want the tax revenue of the building without the added cost of year-round resident maintenance and individuals want the wealth association or sometimes frequent use of a second home.

Do we really need half hour flights from Boston to New York? Is it environmentally better to have airline hubs and feeder flights or to have direct flights with smaller planes? What would be the operating cost differences for the airlines and ticket prices for passengers?

We need to re-assess how we use assorted items for short vs. long distance. I find it irritating to drive long distances, trying to use the interstates, only to encounter the major highways being used as local roads at virtually every city. What would happen if we returned to having jobs near housing and stopped sprawl?

Airline travel is just another part of this puzzle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the fork in the path
Posted by: mwildfire on Mar 1, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another great piece from Monbiot. I see the same thing here in West Virginia--my environmentalist friends driving big vehicles, some going off on flying vacations--almost no one who has a home has invested in solar panels. Instead, they spend a lot of time fighting the (extremely destructive) coal industry.
We need to spend much more of our time envisioning and depicting the alternative. Yes, if we continue down our current path, soon we'll have millions of displaced Bangladeshis. But Another World is Possible, if we just start putting our energies, our investments, our speech into the Soft Path. Inevitably the day is coming when there's no more jet travel. It's not only because of global warming, but also because we're about to pass the oil peak. What lies beyond the end of the oil age? It could be horror, but there is another possible world, a friendlier, healthier, slower one. Where people take long distance vacations rarely, and invest months, or even years in a trip abroad, traveling by a combination of exotic conveyances: horse, canoe, foot, sailboat, bicycle. Imagine it--a world which accomodates such fantasies. People are no longer wage slaves tied to a fifty-week-a-year grind. Young adults are expected to go on an exploratory journey, and every town takes pride in establishing a traveler's center where visitors can stay free--although they're generally expected to wash the dishes, weed the garden, and entertain the locals, especially kids, with tales of the far-off places they've been. It wouldn't be entirely a return to the past, because our electronic toys are much less energy-intensive than engines are--those kids would have an idea of what the other side of the world looks like from videos and computer screens. But nothing beats a real journey in person...and it need not be too expensive, if the accomodation is free and if you can take lots of time. This is not a vision of a poorer world than ours, but a much richer one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the fork in the path Posted by: brunowe
» RE: the fork in the path Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: the fork in the path Posted by: brunowe
Too little, too late.
Posted by: grokked on Mar 1, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ugly truth is that the human species is on a way way ticket to a planet wide catastrophy.

At 52, I probably won't live to see it. But its my guess that billions of young people alive today are going to die, either as a direct result of a "heat death" climactic event. Or in the wars of desperation that will accompany it.

Such events have happened before. Twice. In the late Permian, and in the early Eocene. Look it up. All it takes is sufficient warming to release the methane gas trapped in methane hydrate ices currently buried below the oceans.

My only consolation in this is that these right wing christian assholes will not be wisked away to heaven at the last second. They are still going to be here to face the armageddon that they have done so much to facilitate, right along with all the rest of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too little, too late. Posted by: grokked
» RE: Too little, too late. Posted by: badkitty53
It isn't flying per se
Posted by: Jesse on Mar 1, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the problem is not flying as such, but policies that encourage the building of airports and roads at the expense of every other mode of travel.

Part of the problem with Monbiot's analysis is the assumption that the lion's share is in long-distance hauls. While there is more of that now, one of the biggest growth sectors is those short hops to minor cities, at least in the US. the biggest seller or jet fleets is not the Airbuses, but the Embraer regional jets.

For example, the rail link between Boston and New York could easily be built to accomodate more people and faster trips. I might add that fewer people fly from London to Paris precisely because the Chunnel exists-- while in the US we deal with a link that only now approaches the quality of a third-world nation. (It should be said that door to door the NYC-Boston shuttles take longer than the trains do now, because you waste an hour or more in the airport before the flight, and Amtrak is getting its act together, but they missed a HUGE opportunity after 9/11).

Other fun rail facts in the US:

The New York to Chicago train takes longer now than it did in 1960. (It's 24-30 hours now-- it used to be 18).

There is little convenient, point-to point rail service from LA to San Francisco. (The train leaves like twice a day and doesn't even offer a direct connection).

There is no local rail network to accomodate the Chicago area to do the runs between Chi-town and Madison, Gary, Indianapolis, Milwaukee and South Bend.

Nor is there a decent link from Madison to Minneapolis.

Texas? The three major cities -- Houston, Dallas and Austin-- are only now building such links, and I won't hold my breath.

All these links existed at one time, the land rights are still there, and could be refitted for the cost currently expended on expanding airports in many of these cities. All these links are currently handled primarily by air, auto and bus travel.

If the US invested in this, then the air travel that is done the most -- relatively short hops-- is eliminated.
(Contrast this with Europe, where most people take trains from Paris to Marseille, about the same distance as New York to Charlottesville, NC or LA-San Fran). Solve that problem, and a lot of other stuff follows. But it would require a serious effort and investment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Maglev trains? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Maglev trains? Posted by: Drae
» RE: Maglev trains? Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Maglev trains? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Maglev trains? Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Maglev trains? Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: It isn't flying per se Posted by: Robert Stevens
The time is right...
Posted by: Warren on Mar 1, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to reintroduce zeppelins/dirigibles.

How much airline fuel is spent just keeping the damned thing up in the air? Switch to lighter-than-air travel and the cost goes dramatically down, I'm sure. Furthermore, the travel is slow enough that you don't get jetlag. Would I exchange some speed of travel for a lower price, better climatological futures, a quiet ride and no jetlag? You betcha.

And what could anyone hijack?

Warren

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The time is right... Posted by: madscribe
» RE: The time is right... Posted by: Jesse
Great!
Posted by: LynxReign on Mar 1, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the only way to stop global warming is to stop flying?
Thanks for making it so simple and easy! We're doomed, there's no way that'll happen so we might as well stop trying. Time to go buy a hummer and start releasing CFCs into the atmosphere just for fun! Burn that coal. Who cares? We're doomed!
Flying isn't going to stop, you might as well as people to stop watching tv or using a microwave. Instead of nonsense like this, why not come up with plans to push for better designs in airplanes instead of just lamenting that current planes last so long?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great! Posted by: palladas
» RE: Great! Posted by: LynxReign
» RE: Great! Posted by: Wacre
» RE: Great! Posted by: LynxReign
» get a paperbag... Posted by: decembrist
eco-fascists
Posted by: TagsNOLA on Mar 1, 2006 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This drivel is just the greeneis showing their true selves. If there were any doubt, Jimmy Carter's "lowered expectations" was the general public's first tip off. But the ecology wackos have always been anti-technology, anti-population growth, anti-human. Shutting down aviation is not a solution. It's just more of the technological "rolllback" of the eco-fascists who want to destroy modern society and return us to a feudalist dark age.

Long range aviation will not go away. But, many shorter range flights could be replaced by high speed maglev rail, like the link between Shanghai and its airport, built using German technology.

TagsNOLA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eco-fascists Posted by: palladas
» RE: eco-fascists Posted by: nickptar
» RE: eco-fascists Posted by: Roverton
» RE: eco-fascists Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: eco-fascists Posted by: Wacre
reregulation...but we'd need a good government to do it
Posted by: thaumaturgistguy on Mar 1, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before I became more politically and environmentally aware I worked as a flight attendant for a low cost carrier. I got to travel the world and get paid to do it. It was the most exciting thing and I enjoyed it greatly. Then we declared war on Iraq. My airline participated in the charter flying contracted by the government to move troops into Kuwait...and from Kuwait into Iraq. I felt extremely conflicted. The charter flying allowed me to travel to places in the world I would probably never see even as a tourist, but the same charter flying was taking young men and women to die in a war for oil in the middle east. I managed to disassociate my feelings about it and remain emotionally distant from the troops as best as I could...but so many of them could show me scars of bullet wounds and tell me tales of friends who we took over...but weren't bringing back.

I got laid off from that job about a year ago because the airline went into bankruptcy. It was hard, but I was secretly glad that I wouldn't be an employee of a corporation that was assisting a government enacting imperialist wars. Now if given the opportunity to return I would not take it and I much prefer trains to planes...but our train infrastructure is pretty pathetic. If the government reregulated the airline industry it would stop the rampant price wars between the airlines and return some kind of balance to the industry. (and preferably few airlines and fewer flights) Then if we could link up the train system to the major airports we could have a much less wasteful system. (ie fly from LA to Chicago...hop on amtrak at O'hare and take the train to kentucky...or something like that). It is not an ideal soloution, but it is more feasible perhaps than dumping the airline industry altogether and spending too much too late on a crippled rail system. Of course peak oil might make trains our only option......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ecofascists? Posted by: rickcreswell@yahoo.com
» RE: ecofascists? Posted by: Wacre
» RE: ecofascists? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: ecofascists? Posted by: nickptar
» the hell? Posted by: thaumaturgistguy
Yes the Maglev!
Posted by: jpinder on Mar 1, 2006 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For continental city to city travel the only available alternative is the Maglev train. 500kmh/310mph (even faster trains on the drawing board). These trains can be used between cities, they are quiet, efficient and vastly safer. The only time air travel should be used would be to cross large expanses of water and remote locations. As a pilot I am very curious to find out what alternative fuels will be used to power turbine engines, I also rhetorically ask why aircraft manufacturers are building larger and faster planes? When fuel would have the cost of traveling be so high that once again only the wealthy folks will be able to afford. As in the previous comment, the current trend in aviation will not change (I can bet my life on it), especially with the new light jets, which will be in service 2006-2007, thousands already sold. For those who thought you lived around a quiet small airport will soon be awaken by this new air traffic. About global warming, it's already too late too reverse the damage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Problems with this column...
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Mar 1, 2006 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been in the airline industry for 25 years, and there are a few misconceptions in this column. The author is using the "Throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach, which is ineffective and counterproductive.

1) The modern, more efficient engines are actually quieter than the older engines. If you don't believe me, listen to a Boeing 777 and then compare it to an old Boeing 707, DC-8, or DC-9 (Not an MD-80/90). The turboJET was noisy, inefficient, and a major polluter. The turboFAN is much better all around.

2) Instead of cutting flying down, perhaps we should consider adding substances to increase the albedo and staying power of the contrails (research needed). After all, a contrail actually is mostly water vapor, which reflects sunlight. Perhaps we can use the high-altitude "spreading" of these clouds by aircraft to mitigate some of the global warming. (Not my idea. It's Kim Stanley Robinson's from his SF series on global climate change.)

Global air tranportation is here to stay. We have to find ways to limit the impact it has on climate, not eliminate it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's easy Posted by: nickptar
Global air travel is most likely here to stay
Posted by: CrystalD on Mar 1, 2006 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really don't think we are going to be able to stop travelling by air. Perhaps we can cut down, but stop? No. Not only is our global trade system dependent on it, so are people who have emigrated to other countries and want to see their families. I'm sure even Monbiot wouldn't have the heart to tell someone, "If you emigrate to a distant country, tough luck, you'll never see your family again."

I'm sure Monbiot is a lot of fun at parties, "confronting" his friends about their travel plans. Nobody likes an in-your-face do-gooder. Unfortunately, a lot of mainstream folks have come to associate such doomsaying and for-your-own-good finger-wagging with environmentalism, and it doesn't help the cause. Monbiot is most likely preaching to the fringie choir, and everyone else is rolling their eyes and saying "oh puh-leeze." If the environmental movement is to succeed it is going to have to appeal to the mainstream, and this article does not help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Warren has a point...
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Mar 1, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Warren has a good point about lighter-than-air (LTA) aircraft. For long-range freight hauling (one example), LTA is a great idea. Remember though, they are much more fragile and subject to damage/destruction in bad weather.

There has been considerable research done on the idea, and I fully support it. It won't work for urgent travel, but would be great for purposes where speed is not essential. It's also a wonderful idea for extremely bulky and/or heavy items.

As far as lift is concerned, the fuel burned in the engines creates thrust, which enables the air flowing over the wings to create lift. So, it's a misconception to think of 'all that fuel going to keep it up there.' That's not quite how it all works.

Besides, zepplins are awesome things to watch and have a beauty in and of themselves. They also are a more relaxed way to travel, which can olny be beneficial in this over-hurried world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rover
Posted by: Roverton on Mar 1, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A zep would be fun. Instead of the Concorde, there would be the high speed model that would go almost 200 mph! We'd have to plan last minute flights weeks in advance though...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

transportation of food should stop first, people last
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 1, 2006 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice article. However, I think that local production of food is closer to the bone. We need to stop transporting bananas from Ecuador to the US for 'consumer convenience', for example. This means an end to 'globalization' of basic commodities. This doesn't necessarily apply to high tech devices, as we don't expect small towns to start manufacturing their own computers. Local production of basic necessities (food, water, shelter, clothing, electricity, fuel) is the only way out of this. In the face of global corporate attempts to control water and food production (via privatization of water supplies and patenting of GM plants) organized resistance is necessary. We should have a global flow of information and high-end technology (such as solar panels and wind turbines). If this means you can't get bananas outide of tropical countries, that's just too bad. The vested interests in fossil fuels, electricity and agriculture will no doubt do their utmost to retain control, as they have been doing for the past century. I think people should be able to travel, but perhaps once a year? would be appropriate.

In the final analysis, this means the end of corporate - consumer culture as we know it. Corporate consumer culture is one of the lowest and most degenerate cultures to have arisen on the planet since the beginning of recorded history. Good riddance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War of the Worlds
Posted by: monkeywrench on Mar 1, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't worry; there is a little-understood group of hitchhikers on international air routes whose numbers are growing and who eventually will drastically reduce the number of flights, and the number of people who are able to fly, or do much of anything else: diseases.

Thanks to rapid air travel, we are turning the entire planet into a bacterial, viral and fungal petri dish – and we're all swimming in it. Throughout history, one of Mother Nature's population limiters has been disease; but back then outbreaks had been local. Now, pathogens can vacation anywhere they want in the world – and global warming will even make things comfy in the upper latitudes for some really nasty bugs from the tropics. Humans are not as all-powerful as we make ourselves believe, so will Nature once again humble us by culling our herd?

Stand by. And wash your hands before you touch yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So we deserve it? Posted by: nickptar
Peak Oil
Posted by: ScottP on Mar 1, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I noticed this mentioned in a couple of other comments, but peak oil is the factor that will stop the air travel in its tracks. Air travel will remain affordable for the very rich, and others for rare and special use, more like it was in decades past. Those fools who expand airports today will be sitting on white elephants in a few years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peak Oil Posted by: smccaw
A "Mad Max" future? Hold on, it's a-comin', folks.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Mar 1, 2006 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe all of us should just let the whole damn mess fall apart, and spend our time preparing our communities for the post-apocalyptic chaos. What with Western governments now showing utter disregard for ordinary (say:"not wealthy contributors") humans, and people being too distracted by cheap junk at the -Mart stores, or by techno-baubles, bling and TV trash – or maybe just feeling helpless – we seem to be heading hell-bent-for-leather toward that abyss anyway. Without a meaningful counter-movement coming directly from The People, we might as well get ready for the inevitable. Myself being a child of the space program, science fiction, and the '60's, a time when anything seemed possible, our current situation makes me sad, and it makes me angry; but it also makes me a realist – although I pray that I'm wrong. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of many
Posted by: hkc on Mar 1, 2006 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author's suggestion that flying is a major source of global warming may be true but there are lots of other ways to improve the situation and there may be ways to mitigate the harm of flying.
If China could replace the millions of tons of carbon pollution that it pours into the atmosphere every year I'm sure that it would have a bigger impact than all of flying. If India, China and Mexico could improve their air pollution it might be enough to turn the tide.

My point is that it is comfortable for many people to point the finger at the rich world for its evil ways but one visit to most of the third world will show that there is nothing worse for the environment than poverty and totalitarianism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One of many Posted by: mwildfire
Scare piece
Posted by: lamar on Mar 1, 2006 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Stop flying airplanes" isn't a solution, its a scare tactic. How about piston planes? Turbo-props? How about turbojets vs. turbofans? How about the emissions of one plane full of 200 people vs. 200 automobiles going to the same place? Though interesting, this is a poorly researched scare piece.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

candlelight and mule power
Posted by: zooeyhall on Mar 1, 2006 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, this article, like so many "progressive" environmental articles, proposes a riduculous solution. The answer is not to return, as the author suggests, to some imagined idyllic pre-industrial paradise of candlelight and mule power. It lies in determing and finding new solutions that maintain the standard of living and preserving progress, while addressing the issues of social and economic inequality, along with environmental consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Airline Contribution to Green House Effect
Posted by: mgranat on Mar 1, 2006 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally someone is addressing how the airlines are enhancing the Green House problem. It is a well known fact that carbon dioide
is absorbed by vegetation and water. Thousands of aircraft, commercial and military are in flight, worldwide, 24/7. At near stratosphere heights, how are those toxic emissions absorbed? It is a problem that is only going to get worse as the proliferation of aircraft continues. We will need some good heads on this one

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chemtrails
Posted by: saywhat on Mar 1, 2006 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the chemtrails over the U.S. ? Why doesn’t anyone talk about the poison put in the sky by the U.S. government? Today in Taos, New Mexico, the sky is crossed by hundreds of chemical trails. Does anybody know ? Does anybody care?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: QuestionAuthority
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: saywhat
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: nickptar
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: saywhat
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: jobloe
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: saywhat
» RE: Chemtrails Posted by: jobloe
Absurdism
Posted by: blackkatanas on Mar 1, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the most absurd stories I've ever read on Alternet. Apart from the fact that it is potentially factually incorrect (see the study on contrails and global dimming produced after the 9/11 grounding of planes, which was also mentioned previously by a commenter), the suggestion that airplane travel should be halted is regressive, undermines the concept of a global economy and is a completely unrealistic goal in the modern world.

I read Alternet daily, and rarely do I read such drivel on this site. It is unfortunate that, alongside practical, realistic articles such as those written by advocates of renewable energy and environmentally friendly proposals, we get fanciful, alarmist and completely infeasible "suggestions" such as banning airplanes.

With regard to the commenter who mentioned reintroducing dirigibles, read this CNN article here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/02/16/aeroscraft/index.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Absurdism Posted by: ravengrrrl
» RE: Absurdism Posted by: blackkatanas
» RE: Absurdism Posted by: Warren
» RE: Absurdism Posted by: blackkatanas
» RE: Absurdism Posted by: Warren
Not all that new...
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Mar 1, 2006 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bringing back LTA aircraft has been around at least since the Oil Embargo of the 1970's. Remember, the mass media are the last ones to find out about stuff like this. It's in the aviation industry press YEARS before they hear of it. ;-)

Personally, I'd love to see it happen...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bigger planes...
Posted by: QuestionAuthority on Mar 1, 2006 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only way to make money (or even break even) with an airplane is to put more "butts in seats" as fuel prices rise. It's simple economics. That explains the A380 (The WhaleJet, as we jokingly call it) quite well. Forget Airbus's promo pictures with all the luxury hotel gimmicks. Boeing used to have the same pictures of the 747 in the late 1960's. Seen an upstairs cocktail lounge lately? ;-)

Faster planes? Where? Only the military. Concorde is dead, a beautiful but totally impractical aircraft. All the newest commercial aircraft are subsonic..they top out at about Mach .90 or so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A slower world, please
Posted by: Mettalaw on Mar 1, 2006 3:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for your vision, mwildfire, which articulates my own.
I also remember reading about how speedy shipping of world goods on pallets, particularly used tires with their leftover puddles of water inside, is transferring unwelcome flora and fauna everywhere and contributing substantially to eco-devastation, because little beasts can survive fast trips and infest a new venue. Human beings are not the only critters who should not travel so fast.

I recently flew to India for a month's course. It took over fifty hours each way--fifty hours very hard on my aging body--and several days to recover from jet lag. I would much have preferred surface travel, especially since my Hawaii home is much closer to India than my fellow-students were. But there is no choice in our stupid world. Surface travel would consume too much working time, even if it were available.

We have to embark on a vast re-think to reduce air travel. I agree that luxury travel--tourism--must be a thing of the past. Travel must be justified by a purpose or excused by a method that outweighs the ecological cost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A slower world, please Posted by: smccaw
» Absolutely not... Posted by: brunowe
absurdity
Posted by: mwildfire on Mar 1, 2006 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's the word that keeps recurring in responses here...stop air travel? It would be inconvenient! It's impossible! Some technofix will solve all the problems--we couldn't possibly slow down. Drivel! Absurdity!
Forty years from now, someone much younger than you will ask you why you did nothing to stop the enormous devastation caused by global climate change and the relentless destruction of the incredible biological wealth derived from billions of years of evolution. You will tell this person that you had no idea that the problem was so serious, and they will show you old news accounts from way back in the Twentieth century, talking about all these problems.
"Well, yes, we KNEW," you will say, "but we didn't take it seriously, we didn't understand, it seemed at the time that there were more important things, like--I don't know, TV shows and our jobs and---you just don't understand, you weren't there." And they won't understand. Some have called this a hallucinatory culture. How will you explain that, once the hallucinations have passed, standing there in a ravaged, severely impoverished world next to a young person showing you an ancient National Geographic which has one article about the threat of global warming among many showing the beautiful, rich world of 2005? Perhaps you'll point to the ads, and try to explain the effect they had.
But the young person will not understand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: absurdity Posted by: TagsNOLA
Flying is Dying
Posted by: sidewinder on Mar 1, 2006 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, you can prove all this!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It made a difference...
Posted by: dirkster42 on Mar 1, 2006 11:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was actually logging on to book a San Francisco-Los Angeles flight when I read this article. Decided to take Greyhound instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil and Air Travel
Posted by: NYRugby on Mar 2, 2006 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So I'm reading this article and see figures projected to 2070. Now, I'm wondering after reading articles about peak oil, whether or not we should really be projecting figures to 2070. Seems to me that by then we'll be well beyond air travel for anything besides military activities or the uber-rich, as no one will have the financial resources by then to consume that much of the dregs of our petroleum resources in order to travel.

Whether or not the environmental catastophe at the point will be total or irreversible is still an unknown...but I don't think we have to worry about the airlines for too many more decades.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bash those polluting foreigners
Posted by: janakiblum on Mar 2, 2006 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two thirds of the carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion are produced by just 10 countries. The United States, with only 5 percent of the world’s population, has been the largest contributor, accounting for nearly one quarter of global emissions. China is second, with more than 1/5th of world population, has only now overtaken the USA. Other major polluters are Russia, Japan, India, and Germany.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]