The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has called for tobacco style health warnings to be displayed on advertising for flights, warning people about the possible damage their chosen method of travel will do to the environment. IPPR head of climate change Simon Retallack told Reuters: "The evidence that aviation damages …
Damages the atmosphere?
How exactly does CO2 released from Aircraft 'damage' the atmosphere. Are they suggesting that CO2 from the sea or volcanoes or other natural sources is less 'damaging'?
Once again, this proves to me how politicized the whole evironment debate has become, with the result that the chance of seeing objective, non-hysterical reporting of these topic is rapidly approching zero.
Politicized science = non-credible science.
lets face it
Shipping creates far more pollution then flying, that's before we get onto the extended pollution caused by producing and maintaining shipping fleets in comparision to maintaining an aircraft.
Also livestock makes more co2 then planes.
Driving creates more pollution, if the country had a 1/5th adequate integrated public transport network we'd more then make up for the extra flying.
The whole pressure on the air industry has only one result stopping poorer people from traveling abroad. It wont effect people with higher wages really, or people on business trips, but it will effect people (working/lower middleclass folk) who want to take the family to disney land.
Production of most "eco-fuels" generally creates more pollution then most non eco fules.
Lets face it we scrap the coal/oil plants and build nuclear, and we implement carbon storage. It's the only way to go, but the crazy hippies don't like that idea. So we'll keep on cruising with lol worthy generally very expensive measures that shall do nothing.
Have "green" taxes stopped people driving? It's a crock of poop, made by hippies who think that living in mud huts and reaching a grand old age of 45 is a great way of life.
solution: high sulfur jet fuel
To counter the global warming caused by aircraft carbon dioxide emissions, use high sulfur content jet fuel. This will cause a haze in the upper atmosphers a la LA, where it will reflect sunlight countreacting warming. And being deposited so high in the atmosphere, it will not be a health hazard like LA smog. Meanwhile here in the US, we are moving to low sulfur diesel fuel, when we should be adding sulfur to counteract global warming. The principal is similar to the historic sulphur spewing volcanic eruptions which have caused mini ice ages lasting a few decades.
"The evidence that aviation damages the atmosphere is just as clear as the evidence that smoking kills. We know that smokers notice health warnings on cigarettes, and we have to tackle our addiction to flying in the same way,"
Perhaps pre-flight screening can be arranged to weed out the addicts. They can then be advised to walk, bike, swim, dogsled, teleport, etc. to their chosen destinations.
Simon Retallack and his ilk might benefit from more sense and less sensationalism.