There’s another round of push-poll fake surveys telling us how much the public want action on climate change. Part of the aim is to scare politicians and trick them into thinking that voters won’t vote for skeptics and will be happy to pay more for electricity, food, cars, and everything. But the awful truth is that the voters “vote” with their own wallets every time they fly, and 98% of them don’t care enough to spend a single dollar. That’s even when the airlines do all the work and just ask their customers to “tick a box”.
So that’s six bucks to save the world but hardly anyone can be bothered
Climate change: Half world’s biggest airlines don’t offer carbon offsetting
When airlines do offer a [carbon offset] scheme, generally fewer than 1% of flyers are choosing to spend more.
Prices vary but a return flight from London to Malaga, Spain, would cost around £4 to offset.
That tells us exactly how much the punters are panicking about climate change, and suggests that most western democracies are absolutely ripe-for-the-picking for any politician with the balls to make the case that changing the global weather will cost a fortune, and the costs will all go back to voters, and it’s an insane waste of money to even try.
The only reason voters ever tick the “we should do more” box is when they think “the government”, i.e. someone else, will have to pay for it.
And this dismal result is despite 30 years of non-stop propaganda and lectures. Even The Greta Effect is not making much difference. The headlines read “Greta Thunberg and ‘flight shame’ are fuelling a carbon offset boom but the truth is that it’s a small rise on a small number:
Verra, the biggest program for voluntary credits globally, has seen the monthly retirement, or usage, rate for offsets jump about 23 per cent this year to 3.8 million tons a month. — AFR, August 2019.
So 1% becomes 1.23%. Some “boom”? Shame on the Fin Review for forgetting to mention the startling nothing-burger that this news really is.
There is major social pressure to “be green” and yet still they fly…
Look at the Wired headline:
Carbon offsetting isn’t a cure-all for your filthy flying habit
Sabrina Weiss, Wired, 25th August, 2019
Susanne Becken, a professor of sustainable tourism, tells us flights are too cheap and we really shouldn’t just fly for fun:
The bitter truth is that there is only one way to reduce aviation emissions – to fly less, says Becken. “The key problem is of course that flying is far too cheap and too many people often travel for reasons that are not always necessary,” she says, highlighting that putting an end to the dump fares offered by low-cost carriers such as Ryanair would go a long way. Britons still take three to four holiday trips each year, half of which are to foreign destinations.
Next on the Green wish-list, obviously, flight bans:
Some governments have suggested going further. In Germany, the Green Party has suggested banning domestic air travel altogether to force Germans to travel by train, which pollutes less.
As long as the carbon religion hasn’t collapsed, the perfect storm is brewing. In 2018, the aviation industry emitted about 859 million tonnes of CO2, which is 2% of all human emissions, rising to 2.5% any minute:
Air travel emissions are rising faster than anyone expected
By Hiroko Tabuchi, New York Times
Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — a far smaller share than emissions from passenger cars or power plants. Still, one study found that the rapid growth in plane emissions could mean that by 2050, aviation could take up a quarter of the world’s “carbon budget,” or the amount of carbon dioxide emissions permitted to keep global temperature rise to within 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
Nostradamus, where are you? Who would have thought holidays on tropical islands would catch on, or that people would rather spend a day in a plane than two weeks on a boat.
Photo by Samuel’s Photos on Unsplash
I’ll help save the world when all the “experts, academics, politicians, celebrities” and climate mouthpieces do the same.
Don’t dictate morality and economics from a position of power or financial security to the working poor, their answers will always lead to actions that wasn’t part of the agenda.
350
As I have always said just who are these idiots that are trying to dictate where, when and how I will travel.
With the members of the UN Church of Climatology setting an example why should we be any different? They love flitting round the world for taxpayer funded jollies in the warm parts of the world, maybe we should start asking for UN funded jollies to warm parts of the world as well.
170
And lets not forget the Goracles huge mansion….powered by eco candles of course….not….
150
Sorry candles are not acceptable. Paraffin candle wax is derived from fossil fuels & lighting one results in CO2 + soot. Soot is a pollutant. Bad luck it’s the dark rooms for that lot!
40
Maybe candles could be powered using mann hours instead of using the ‘what’? (‘watt’ hour)
10
anthropogenic candles??
An environmental pollution/pollutant originating in human activity.
10
That’s exactly what the hard-left routinely did within the Soviet Union, Maoist-China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, DPRK and all other like-minded despotic authoritarian states.
This is just the beginnings of the latest rendition of hard-left total-control (i.e. totalitarian), within like-minded states parroting the UN IPCC and Paris “Agreement” agenda and echoing all Party-approved imaginary “crisis” hocus-pocus of the day. Once you’ve been taxed heavily enough and the economy sufficiently destroyed you’ll realize jet travel was imperialist, capitalist, racist, anti-feminist and deeply selfish Comrade. So you’ll denounce it at the next monthly District Party meeting as you don’t want people thinking you’re not fully committed to saving the planet, or that you harbor toxic-male white-privilege sentiment. Re-education camps can be tough on you brother and your social-score will become and impediment also. Best stay where you are.
100
I don’t ever bother.
It’s all stuff and nonsense !
Propaganda to brainwash us all.
So I’ve never ever paid for carbon off set credits when ravelling.
120
It’s the same old story, as revealed by many polls: people are happy to try and stop ‘climate change’ until it costs them one dollar.
120
I need subsidy to analyse that question, then more subsidy to implement and excute. No doubt for each $ I put in I can get at least double back. The business plan of our renewable industry and I wanna piece of the action.
100
Any institution, hotel or airline that tries to infect others with its virtue signalling kraptitude has to get past the bullschitt detector. It turns out that 98% of the time, they don’t.
What great news.
90
Hi Yonnie,
I didn’t want to jump in here but it is the most appropriate place … I’m following ‘Sir’ Richard on LinkedIn (by default) and the amount of times he posts with ‘climate’ dribble is astounding. A classic case of do as I say not as I do and for the uninformed Richard owns/controls/profits from (not necessarily in this order) planes, trains, cruise ships and hotels and lives on a private island (by all accounts, am I supposed to put allegedly in here?, to prevent paying taxes). You couldn’t possibly take him seriously, hypocrisy doesn’t even come close to covering it.
Have a great day,
Andy
80
Hello. My name is Richard, and I’m a pilot. I’ve never been to pilot’s anonymous before.
I love flying. The view of the world from the air is a great joy, and a great education.
Seeing the world live from a thousand feet is different than seeing a picture. like some
who fly, i still get a little thrill every time I leave the ground.
For the entire time I have been a pilot, it has seemed to me that world of officialdom has wanted to
eliminate the practice on one pretext or another.
I guess the ‘climate crisis’ may bring some commercial pilots to our meetings as well.
Take a step back.
Man went from first flight to the moon in about 50 years.
The miracle of flight was hard won, the value of human mobility incalculable.
The offsets we need to purchase are for mental health treatments for those who wish to discard these gains;
and for re-education of those hypocrites who simply wish to use the cult fervor to create another tax under another name.
480
Me too, Richard. At least when we can be even a fraction of an inch above the ground we have no footprints to worry about. Ain’t that grand?
240
Is which country do you fly? I fly in USA, and the FAA is very pro General Aviation. I have flown a little bit in Australia, and the same could not be said for CASA!
100
You are right James…my view is colored by a couple of base airports eliminated by housing developments
started long after the airport was established, then complaining about noise & perceived danger til the
airport was closed down. I fly N8011C 1954 Piper PA-22-135 out of 48X, traditional grass, visitors welcome.
130
New Zealand CAA have worked assiduously to eradicate general aviation with endless compliance, cost and constraint. They have largely succeeded. I flew the J5F Auster, P32-300, P28-200R, C182, all with whizz wheels and DR. The trail dragger was the most memorable, the P32, the most thrilling and the aerobatics in a C152 Aerobat, the most demanding, because the underpowered 100hp Aerobat has to be literally persuaded to do everything.
40
General aviation took a big hit when the courts decided to apply ridiculous liability theories when a pilot did something dumb and crashed. The airplane could be the best in the air, very airworthy but the manufacturers got stuck with the big judgment. Most stopped producing the planes most private pilots wanted. Lawyers could easily get a jury full of jurors ignorant about flying and there you go.
That problem got a little good judgment applied to it and the popular stuff appeared again. I know Cessna stopped production of the 150, 172, 182 and their variations.
The FAA has always been even handed in providing for everyone, commercial, airline and the little guy. They are tough on everyone equally.
10
Has anyone told these eco zealots to just mind thier own damn business?
180
Words and reason don’t work on religious zealots, it’s a climate crisis, anything goes in a crisis!
90
Without even being understood by the silly public, ‘climate change’ has settled in people’s minds and even made them believe that humans were the cause! (Ok, because the human can turn on the heating, so: responsible for the temperatures below the house).
As if it were possible to build a huge outdoor thermostat so that there are no more seasons! Whoh! Summer must be like winter and winter, so it’s summer! And Bam !
No more cold weather in the morning or cool evenings! Now the temperature should be 37 ° C in the ass as outside and, if the outside temperatures to be forced to 18 ° C, it will be the same in the ass!
The ‘Saturday night fever’ IT’S OVER!
The mentally retarded think that throwing money at it, through the window or into the fire will help change the temperatures! (‘Give me your money I’ll wear it in the sun!’)
But the world is NOT a ‘Greta world’! But only a world of psychopaths living in their nano-small group of pederasts who want the remaining 7 billion are like them!
110
Let’s say I buy a carbon offset. Does it help the planet, me, my children, or some else? Who “else” exactly?
120
It would be cheaper to confess.
lol
80
The seller of course.
80
The joke on St. Greta is that all that train travel exposes her to more CO2.
Tony Heller in
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/11/the-cure-for-climate-alarmism/
Quotes tests done on commuter trains in Sydney where the CO2 levels rose from over 1,000 ppm to 2846 ppm later in the peak hour. But Greta would know that because she can see carbon dioxide can’ she?
80
Every poll that goes as far to ask the question..”would you agree to spending your money on fixing the climate?” The answer is always 98% NO!
Air transport is our pinnacle of technological advantage that because of economy…read that as fuel efficiency…is available to the common man. So typical that the elites want air travel returned for the use, exclusively, of the beautiful people.
220
As far as I am concerned, the “beautiful” people can walk and pay one dollar tax per mile walked. No farts, no spitting, no drinking of fluids of any kind, no eating while walking, no discarded trash, no checked baggage, and no walking on the grass. Then just keep quite and walk.
The only excuse for not walking is that you are dead. In that case, your estate gets billed 50% of your net worth to get rid of your useless body plus sales tax, handling, and shipping. Your family gets what remains after a 90% death tax on what is left of your estate.
110
Air travel emissions are rising faster than anyone expected
Mainly due to thrust and smarter jet engines, there is smart technology involved here, via, of all things the planes air conditioning system ,that filters FARTS, and directs the methane into planes fuel system.
And I smell a grant here,(sorry Grant not you) plotting that FART curve.
130
Even if I thought climate change was a danger as terrible as the Hiroshima bomb falling toward me, what good is a carbon offset? History says that at one time the Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences — go ahead and sin but pay the local bishop a tidy sum of money and end up with a clear conscience (or so they tried to believe). Trouble is, it didn’t work then and it’s still the same old attempt to fool yourself that it’s going to do something useful when it’s not. The only thing that happens is that someone’s purse gets fatter while yours gets thinner.
If anyone can see any benefit from this, please let me know because I can’t see it.
251
Related question: Why does the world have a carbon budget? Who determines what it is? What objective standards are used?
I thought so. 🙁
190
There are none, and in answer to your second question – it funds the occult UN.
So quite simply put, all this climate nonsense is just a covert financial shake down of the earths population to fund an occult-values driven organization without consultation or agreement with the earths population, and said organization appears to have an agenda to be a global govt that is not accountable to anyone.
120
Sounds like the EU Commission.
50
The carbon budget is simple (and silly). They take a specific climate model (no idea which one and they all disagree) and ask how much CO2 it takes to raise the temp 1.5 degrees C. That is all you are allowed FOREVER.
Some pretty pictures here, just released by the IPCC:
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/EGR19ESEN.pdf?sequence=13
Figure ES4 makes it clear how impossible this nonsense really is!
60
Sorry, that is to raise the global temp another 0.5 degrees on top of the 1.0 degrees they say we have already raised it.
60
Roy
There is the other side of this – as Rudyard Kipling points out in “The Danegeld” –
“Once you pay up the Danegeld
You never get rid of the Dane”
120
CO2 is NOT the main driver of temperature or climate.
End of story.
Even it it were, the costs of reducing CO2 emissions completely dwarf any so called benefits.
End of story.!!
240
If only the sad story would end. No chance for now. Too profitable.
70
Flying……How dare you!!!
Oh….6 bucks….ta.
A soul in eco “purgatory” will now spring…..( a rework of the original indulgences saying )
Carry on…
20
This appears to have a whiff of leftist activism….
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-26/climate-change-worse-women/11735842/?pfmredir=ms
“Climate change has a negative impact on women’s ability to make meaningful decisions in their lives, according to new research looking at climate change hotspots in Africa and Asia.
“Even when household structures, social norms and legal frameworks support women’s agency, environmental stress and its repercussions can still increase the burdens they face compared to men.
“The study, published in Nature Climate Change on Tuesday, analysed 25 case studies from African and Asian climate change hotspots to identify factors that affect women and their ability to adapt.
“The researchers wanted to move away from basic climate change and gender analyses that present women as victims, said social scientist and lead author of the paper Nitya Rao of the University of East Anglia.
“”What we see in our fieldwork is that women are not sitting there doing nothing. Actually they’re quite active in trying to do a lot of things in order to adapt,” Professor Rao said.
“However, Professor Rao and her co-authors found that unless social supports like childcare, health services or minimum wage conditions were in place, it was very hard for women to actually adopt climate change solutions.
60
I think this has been the case since it was first introduced. I believe that government departments aren’t allowed to pay the extra either.
The same lack of interest is evident with buying green electricity, I’m certain I saw a similar survey where the takeup is minimal.
70
The other thing of note is that all those who proclaim that we should return to the caves from whence we came, do nothing themselves to lead the way. They always expect someone else make the sacrifices first.
Look at the likes of XR, how many of them undertake protests, yet everything they use as means and tools of protest are manufactured by the very processes and materials they rant against. What life sacrifices have any of them made as a measure of their true belief in their cause?
50
They skipped work.
30
“The same lack of interest is evident with buying green electricity…”
Our local grocery store often has a table set up for a group that sells “Green Electricity” (they always have a little plastic wind generator set up on their table). One time I was passing by their table and one of the “Consultants” (i.e. salesman) asked me If I’d be interested in signing my house up for “Green Electricity”. I told them I wasn’t interested and started to walk away. They tried to stop me by saying “but you’d be Saving The Planet!” I stopped, turned back to them and said “No I won’t, the whole thing is just a hoax.” They were stunned that anyone would think that and so had no reply so I just walked away.
90
To be fair, even if I believed all the green twaddle, I still wouldn’t spring for an “offset”. It’d be like giving money to a Clinton “Initiative” or hoping one cent of an expensive ticket to a Save Africa concert will end up in an impoverished African’s hand. You reckon 44 cents of Mal’s $444 million will go anywhere near a reef after it’s filtered through a marsh of consultants, advisors, administrators and corporate seagulls?
It’s another gouge, green people. May as well just take a ten dollar note and compost it under a needy pot plant.
It’s a gouge, okay?
210
Forget the CO2 and focus on the contrails, the dimming at Holocene’s end.
‘The aviation industry has long been criticized for its large environmental footprint, particularly its climate-warming carbon emissions. But a new study suggests that another byproduct of airplanes—the white contrails they paint across the sky—has an even bigger warming effect, one that is set to triple by 2050.’
Science Mag
53
I hope you are being sarcastic. Contrails are just the result of hot humid exhausts from jet engines at high altitude forming a trail of water vapour “clouds”.
100
that is what they are but what about what elG wrote?
32
Yeah but when they first detected the atmospheric effect of contrails, after the Israeli war, the authorities said dimming would cause cooling. Was that your impression?
20
I’ve never been to Israel so how could I comment?
21
Well then you might like to read this story in the Christian Science Monitor, looking at both sides of the argument with some good science.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201/Airplane-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures
20
And this from wiki.
‘Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990.’
30
particulates from pollution right?
22
That makes sense, the Asian Brown Cloud from India dimmed the sunlight reaching the Maldives by about 10%.
Apples and pears, might have a look at the historical background of cirrus.
20
Nope, nothing on cirrus, all I can find is that it was cloudy in Europe between 1400 – 1449, and very cloudy 1550 – 1599. Its low cloud caused by a quiet sun.
20
High level contrail are like cirrus ice crystals…they reflect uv back out into space…cooling the planet…its the low level clouds that keep the heat in.
80
Here is some science you might want to read.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD021914
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/19/8163/2019/
38
Temps are well within natural variability range, get over it.
90
I can say 100% on both studies…garbage in equals garbage out! Models? Really?
40
models based on data sure beats your best guess using nothing.
26
I guess you have never been to Israel, so not sure you can comment.
30
“models based on data sure beats your best guess using nothing.”
Bad models based on data (good or bad) are worse than useless.
60
Nope, because they are promising something and not delivering.
The only thing that bad models can deliver well is Uncertainty at best, but most likely Misinformation.
KK
40
Not much to hang your hat on, I would like to see a second opinion on these numbers.
‘A decrease in the IWP causes a warming effect in the short‐wave radiation, which outweighs the cooling effect in the long‐wave radiation and leads to a net global warming effect (+0.09 W m−2 for both cases).’
30
So all based on models. But where are the measurements showing that cirrus clouds can cause warming?
20
This has also been observed and verified.
After September 11 the US shut down all flights for period.
No flights over continental US meant no contrails.
Measured result? Temperature rise.
40
Flights were stopped when the Icelandic volcano put a lot of ash into the atmosphere. The result was that the sky became a brilliant shade of blue, much like in New Zealand, and the sunlight seemed much more intense, as in NZ.
I wished I had some instruments to measure the radiation levels over the period, as it would have been a good experiment to get actual data.
When flights resumed there was a rapid change back to a milky blue, with an apparent cooling.
So do contrails stop some of the sunlight reaching the earth.
As an aside, am I correct that climate models treat the earth as a black disc when absorbing radiation?
The area of the earth treated as a disc is (pi)r2, whereas the actual surface area is 4(pi)r2, and radiation must be leaving the earth’s surface at a much greater rate than it is being absorbed. Presumably the models take this into account.
Again, presumably convection takes CO2 up into the atmosphere and mixes it with the other gases, otherwise we would be suffocating in a layer of CO2 at the surface.
Does this mean that there is a conveyor of heat from the earth’s surface to the upper atmosphere where it is lost into space?
The effect of greenhouse gases would seem to be to slow the process.
Do greenhouse gases slow the absorption of radiation into the atmosphere? If not, why not?
I’m sorry if these questions seem a bit simple, but there seems to be little explanation by the climate alarmists as to the actual mechanism how CO2 is going to raise the global temperature by 4C. (Professor Robert Watson on today’s BBC Today programme.)
20
The average person, be they young or old, rich or poor, will put up with a ban on drinking straws and plastic bags and many other things, but try to stop them flying, well good luck with that.
Whether it’s bussiness, holidays or family reunion, people just ‘have to’ fly. It’s a lifeline for them and woe betide any government that dares to stop them . .
GeoffW
150
I must admit that I detest air travel. I had to do a lot of that before retiring and I became so fed up with the early starts, congested drives to and from airports, long queues at airport security checks, constant delays leaving and especially coming back home that I have no desire to step on a plane again. A 45 min return flight from Melbourne to Canberra could involve six hours of actual travel time, and that’s without flight delays.
120
Me too.
80
I’m with you bemused. More power to the train lobby.
By the way, flight times MEL-CBR have been steadily rising, I imagine to save fuel, and are typically 65 minutes.
50
I think it is more to do with airport congestion. Air traffic control asks the pilots to slow down or even circle until the aircraft can be arranged in an orderly landing pattern.
Also increased taxying time pre take off, waiting for other aircraft. That can take 5 minutes or more.
30
A long time ago I was at the pointy end of boeings with the now old defunct airline TAA. Mel to Syd was 55 minutes, then they brought in noise abatement in Syd because of all the housing up to the airport.
Had to bypass Syd to the south go way out over the ocean then come in and land from the ocean 70 minute flight lots more fuel not very green.
30
I do agree trains are such a relaxing way to travel.GeoffW
20
I haven’t been on a flight, domestic or international, for over thirty years so that all my air travel was undertaken over a decade in which one could carry a concealed weapon unchallenged, well except on a flight to Israel and no, I haven’t been there to offer an opinion on contrails. All my flights were done at the behest of employers as it is an activity for which my appetite has continually diminished to the extent that I declined a job offer last year on account of the unavoidable necessity of flying to the island worksite.
Leave flying to the birds say I; and stop their annihilation by giant windmills.
10
As Flanders and Swan put it
“If God had intended us to fly he would never have given us the railways”
50
[…] Nova reports that hardly anyone who travels by air bothers to buy a carbon offset. […]
10
I have met people in Europe who would love to have taken the train from, say, Berlin to Brussels, but the cost so outweighed the cost of flying that they flew instead. (I would prefer the train for such a journey, I expect, if the price was right, but for intercontinental travel there is no realistic alternative to flying, which has been a blessing to many in opening up the world. And I expect that, like driving cars, human ingenuity has made it cleaner and more efficient than it used to be.
100
Salome:
I took the train from Brussels to Cologne in 2014. Got as far as the border and everybody had to off-load and stand on the platform for nearly an hour, then a train arrived and we were told to board. As it was already full it was standing room only to Cologne. Very glad to arrive. Next day took the train to Berlin – bliss. Very comfortable, not crowded and living up to the German railroads reputation for service. Can’t tell you what it cost as booked in Australia by travel agent. View was spoilt by the ever-present crowds of wind turbines in the former East Germany.
A few days later went by train to Prague. A very scenic trip, mostly following the Elbe river.
30
The most uncomfortable flight in a full of passengers Boeing 747 was from Frankfurt to Hanover, a local commuter flight in an aircraft modified for “cattle class” with more seats across per row than usual. And barely enough knee room for anybody close to or over six feet tall.
Sandwich trays were passed around by the crew and many hands reached out to touch, check and grab, not mine.
10
How much air travel for holidays is to warmer places rather than colder places? Scared of CAGW? I think not.
140
I bet the execs of the airline company are disappointed about these findings. They would dearly love to shove an extra cost to flying to all passengers without opting out so they can cream off some (if not all) of the carbon offset and add it to their profit margin. It’s clearly a double scam since even if the carbon offset was applied across the board it would make absolutely zero difference to the climate. Under any other similar circumstances a company would not get away with this and in fact would be hauled through the courts for scamming with directors put behind bars.
60
The Qantas CEO must be explaining to the Board why half the aircraft fleet must be grounded.
The major shareholder in Virgin will surely do the same.
sarc.
60
There is an amazing WMO (A UN body which spawned the IPCC in 1988) scare piece reported by The Times and in the NY TImes and the Australian today.
It is the routine announcement of the new peak as CO2 climbs steadily. From beginning to end it is nonsense science.
One of the novel ideas is an entirely new concept in science “Irrespective of future policy, carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries, locking in warming trends.”. The first is completely wrong according to the IPCC which gives the CO2 ocean absorption half life as 80 years, even though it is demonstrably 14 years. The second is the concept of a slow acting blanket which keeps getting warmer, if not for the last 20 years. Otherwise someone might point out that while CO2 is going up steadily, air temperature is not. So they claim it is setting records by not changing.
THen “For nitrous oxide, which helps to erode the atmosphere’s ozone layer and expose humans to harmful ultraviolet rays, it was the biggest increase ever recorded.” That couldn’t possibly be the forced switch to diesel which the Green parties required and the core complaint behind the Gilets Jaune movement?
And behind it all the assumption that CO2 in the air has nothing at all to do with CO2 in the water where 98% of all free CO2 lives, that you can unilaterally lock in a specific gas like highly soluble, highly compressible CO2 and push up the concentration of CO2 in the air without it all being quickly absorbed by the water. People might start to wonder how fish breathe and where they get their oxygen and what happens to their CO2 but they would not be climate scientists.
No wonder Greta is worried. Why wouldn’t everyone believe the political bodies which are the IPCC and WMO? And why would they lie to us?
110
Once you’ve mastered lying to yourself, as the UN agencies do so comprehensively, lying to the world at large is a doddle apparently.
20
they need to make it more precise so people understand what they are getting, eg.
Your £4 can will be used to help pay for:
(1) abort one baby
(2) lock down land to prevent vital farming
(3) lock down land to prevent fire-prevention clearing
(4) pay for environmentally damaging rare earth mining
(5) pay for mercury to use in energy-saving light bulbs
…
70
“too many people often travel for reasons that are not always necessary”.
Am I allowed to drink a beer?
80
Only if it is within your carbon credit allocation.
70
All humans are walking carbon storage….
30
I started ‘blogging’ about all this way back in early 2008.
Early on, it was pretty amateur what I was writing, but I got into it.
Originally, it started out as a small Series, and that ended up morphing into a Series of more than 50 separate Posts, one every second or third day.
Early on in that Series, I mentioned how an internal Australian airline had introduced the same thing as spoken about with Joanne’s Posts here, a carbon offset for your flight.
Again as now, it was the same back then, as very few people took up the offer, and it was eventually canned.
I mentioned it in the Post for that part of the Series, the fourth Post of 52, so early on, and amateur in nature, if any of you want to read, and enjoy a smile or two, and read the date at the top, 30 March 2008.
Kyoto – A Perspective (Part 4)
Tony.
150
Tony,..
Sorry to go OT ……but any suggestions as to what S Australia electricity generation was doing yesterday ? (26/27 nov)
They seemed to support themselves through the pm peak,.. even exporting power most of the time, but then , after 9 pm, during the evening and night they appear to have shut down much of the gas generators and relied on IMPORTING power.. ? Even though they only needed 1.2GW.
They even fired up their DIESEL turbines for a while during the early hours .?
Did they have problems with their gas generators…?
I thought they had just fired up a new 200MW gas plant also ?
.FYI…i am looking at the graphs on Nemlog site.
40
I wrote a bit about this on Jo’s previous thread, but watching it is MUCH better.
VIDEO: 12min25sec: news.com.au: 26 Nov: Bolt Report: ‘People have right to reply to ABC programs’: Henderson
Sydney Institute’s Gerard Henderson says the ABC’s Media Watch program is long overdue for an overhaul, telling Sky News the media watchdog program needs to provide a “right to reply” to the journalists the show ridicules and sneers at.
“[Media Watch host] Paul Barry bangs on constantly about [the climate change] issue and no other view is allowed to be heard,” Mr Henderson told Sky News host Andrew Bolt.
“It has gone on now for a quarter of a century, it has always had left-wing presenters, and has been pretty much in the same format for decades”.
Mr Henderson said previous managing directors of the ABC had vowed to reform the Monday night watchdog program, but so far “no one has the intellectual courage”.
“It would be important reform, but it would require a very strong management team to reform Media Watch,” he said.
https://www.news.com.au/national/people-have-right-to-reply-to-abc-programs-henderson/video/3d7110075c4207675b7a72ed72bf1301
60
27 Nov: Reuters: Incoming EU chief wants to 3 trillion euro climate investment: FAZ
by Paul Carrel
BERLIN – Incoming European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wants to invest some 3 trillion euros ($3.31 trillion) in climate protection by 2030, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reported on Tuesday.
Von der Leyen, who takes over as head of the European Union executive on Dec. 1, wants to make Europe the first climate neutral continent by 2050.
Citing internal European Commission plans, the FAZ reported that the lion’s share of 1 trillion euros should come from the EU budget, with the remainder coming from the European Investment Bank, EU member states, and the private sector.
Von der Leyen wants at least half of the EU’s budget focused on climate protection, to achieve annual investment of 100 billion euros, the FAZ reported.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-eu/incoming-eu-chief-wants-to-3-trillion-euro-climate-investment-faz-idUSKBN1Y02B9
40
Prepare for a UN stablized climate. No … wait …
Carbon offsetting, already a multi-billion dollar industry, will get a major boost from the launch of an international scheme to offset aviation emissions, called CORSIA, in 2021.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-easyjet-results-carbon-explainer/explainer-from-pig-power-to-cleaner-stoves-the-world-of-carbon-offsets-idUSKBN1XT25G
China denounces U.N. aviation emissions plan in blow to industry efforts
Sept 25, 2019: China has one of the world’s fastest-growing aviation systems and its participation in CORSIA’s first phase from 2021 is seen as critical for the deal.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-aviation-china/china-denounces-u-n-aviation-emissions-plan-in-blow-to-industry-efforts-idUSKBN1W938W
50
Who gets the offset money?
The airlines themselves?
The following, less a small admin fee from the Airlines?
Saint Greta?
The Labor Party?
The Greens Party?
Al Gore?
60
Good questions. It’s a bit like recycling where everyone has good intentions and the last one dumps it on a beach in a third world country. It’s hard to believe that China receives climate money.
70
Alarmist demands won’t be met,
From the pockets of people who jet,
When a few, hardly any,
Two% but not many,
Would pay for a carbon offset.
100
Air France says by 2020 it will offset emissions from all its domestic flights.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-air-france-carbon-offsets-aircraft-emissions-eco-skies-20191001-phnvtajsundh5fbpht2mbgfayy-story.html
“Air France will invest ‘several million euros’ in projects such as planting trees to soak up CO2 emitted by about 500 daily flights.”
But, but, but … trees warm the planet:
Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation
https://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6550
“We find that global-scale deforestation has a net cooling influence on Earth’s climate, because the warming carbon-cycle effects of deforestation are overwhelmed by the net cooling associated with changes in albedo and evapotranspiration.”
40
manufacturing OPINION:
26 Nov: VOA: Reuters: Concern Over US Climate Action Grows Among Republican Voters, Survey Shows
PIC: anti-global warming protester (DRESSED AS A POLAR BEAR WITH PLACARD “WHAT WILL YOU DO TO SAVE ME?) holds up a sign in Cleveland, Ohio, near the Republican National Convention, July 18, 2016.
In a survey by the Pew Research Center, a Washington-based ***non-partisan think-tank, two-thirds of Americans said U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration was “doing too little” to reduce the effects of climate change…
In the Pew survey, the proportion of people who said the government was taking too little action to tackle climate change was unchanged from a year ago – but unease among moderate Republicans grew significantly, noted the report.
“Previous analysis showed that concern about climate change has gone up over the past several years (since 2013) among Democrats but not Republicans,” said Cary Funk, director of science and society research at Pew.
But the new survey, which polled more than 3,600 people last month, found that 65% of moderate or liberal Republicans said the federal government was not doing enough to reduce the effects of global warming, up from 53% in 2018.
A divide was also seen by age…
Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, said the recent wave of extreme wildfires, hurricanes and flooding hitting the United States had likely played a part in shifting Republican opinion.
“People are beginning to hear and see that the impacts of climate change are here – now,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation…
“Many people, not just Republicans, underestimate the scientific agreement about this stuff,” noted Leiserowitz.
For decades, the fossil fuel industry has pushed a message that climate change is part of natural cycles, he said. Nonetheless, the survey showed most Americans favor adopting renewable energy sources, with ***92% of adults supporting the expansion of solar power and 85% backing wind power.
https://www.voanews.com/usa/concern-over-us-climate-action-grows-among-republican-voters-survey-shows
4 PAGES: 25 Nov: PewResearchCenter: Science & Society: U.S. Public Views on Climate and Energy
DOWNLOAD COMPLETE REPORT PDF
Democrats mostly agree the federal government should do more on climate, while Republicans differ by ideology, age and gender
By Cary Funk and Meg Hefferon
How surveys ask about climate change matters
The new Pew Research Center survey takes a different approach to measuring people’s beliefs about the causes of global climate change and thus is not directly comparable to past Center surveys. The new questions allow respondents to rate how much human activity and natural patterns in the Earth’s climate cycles contribute to climate change. Past surveys have looked at beliefs about the cause of climate change in three broad categories: those who say climate change is mostly due to human activity, those who say it is mostly due to natural patterns in the Earth’s atmosphere and those saying there is no solid evidence that climate change is occurring, reflecting a prominent position in public discourse more than a decade ago…
Conservative Republicans stand out as particularly skeptical about the benefits of climate policies for the environment. A minority of this group (25%) says such policies do more good than harm for the environment, and a majority (62%) says these policies hurt the economy…
Republican men stand out as less likely to say they are changing their behaviors in any of the five ways included in the survey, from reducing food waste to eating less meat…
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/
Methodology
By Cary Funk and Meg Hefferon
Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. The panel is being managed by Ipsos…
A total of 3,627 panelists responded out of 3,954 who were sampled, for a response rate of 91.7%. This does not include three panelists who were removed from the data due to extremely high rates of refusal or straightlining…
20
The other issue with air travel and it’s carbon dioxide emissions is that the very same people who are telling us how bad it all is, are the very ones who fly the most. ie politicians, green activists, media people, the IPCC, the rich and famous etc etc. We all know them for their bigotry and double values.
GeoffW
80
Why isn’t virtue-signalling an offset? Not everyone can walk the talk. Some people are natural-born hypocrites – what about AOC then? Are you going to condemn her for living a life of total hypocrisy? Isn’t she saying all the right things? Why isn’t that enough to fly anywhere to save the world for others? She’s out there everyday trying to raise taxes by multiples and trying to destroy the US economy and eliminate Capitalism, but that’s not enough virtue? What are you doing? Why are we even talking? You’re probably one of these people who use a calculator or spreadsheet to check the math before you do anything. CO2 is the biggest most dangerous gas in the whole atmosphere, and you’re getting hung-up on “the evidence”! Are you nuts? Don’t you realize that’s how we got into this planet-threatening crisis? But you still want to be all “logical” about it?
Harumph!
40
‘natutal born hypocrites’ you can say that again . . .
GeoffW
30
Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — a far smaller share than emissions from passenger cars or power plants.
There are several major problems here!
Jet Engine exhaust is very HOT!
Jets fly at around 10000m.
HOT CO2 at that altitude has enough energy to go right up to the tropopause and enough energy to combine with any water vapor it encounters.
If the CAGW merchants know this why are they still flying everywhere?
20
The jet exhaust gets almost immediately entrained into the strong sinking wing-tip vortexes seconds after exiting the engine. The trailing wing vortices are the product of generating lift, and the more angle-of-attack you need to lift a large heavy jet full of fuel the faster and more energetic the descending wing-tip vortices are (they are paired contra-rotating horizontal tornados behind large jets). Equal but opposite ‘forces’, one up (plane lift), one down (air sink). Thus contrails do not rise, and nor are they hot. In fact the exhaust is super-chilled back to ambient temp within 2 to 3 seconds of leaving the engine. Internal post-turbine stage spiral mixing of cool bypass air in with the hot engine core exhaust is a method used by engine makers to make modern jets quieter and meet noise abatement requirements. Very hot rapidly expanding air is noisy, but cooled spiral mixing air is quiet. So the air is spun and pre-chilled by mixing it with the outer bypass-air’s thrust before it spirals out the back of the engine housing. The spiraling continues downstream as it leaves the engine, and falls back to ambient temperature within seconds.
Contrails in fact sink a couple of thousand feet per minute. They may descend 15 K feet or more into warmer air which often causes condensation ice Xtals to melt, which visually causes the contrail to dissipate. Alternatively warmer air pockets also rise through the contrails as they sink, to do the same melting in discrete patches, creating discontinuous contrails, as they melt and disperse.
If outside air temp is high and humidity is very low contrails may not form as the exhaust gases never reaches water saturation, so no condensation occurs, so not ice crystals form. So you can’t even see some very strong vortices descending behind a jet, which becomes another source of severe clear-air-turbulence on busy jet routs. i.e. you don’t let a small jet at a lower altitude follow behind a big jet 10 km in front and 1,000 feet above it.
No heated air and no convectively rising spreading contrail ice layer.
100
WX..
Thanks for the effort required to type that. Rather interesting!
30
WX..
Thanks for the effort required to type that. Rather interesting!
30
And explains why the item on “tailgating ” to improve efficiency of a following aircraft is definitely NOT encouraged
20
It makes the vertical separation just as important as a horizontal separation, and is referred to a “wake turbulence”. It does limit how many aircraft and what type and weight can fly at what altitudes and speeds. It’s caused many accidents, usually from loss of control and structural break-up. It was relatively common in the early years of aviation until the cause was recognized to be wingtip vortices from bigger faster aircraft on a similar or crossing flight path and altitude. It’s much more prevalent near runways on approach or departure paths when a small aircraft follows a heavy aircraft. Small aircraft are advised to wait a couple of mins before starting a take off roll and to takeoff as early as possible, and to use the best climb-rate to climb above a risk of a sinking wake-turbulence encounter. This is why pilots flying at low-level after takeoff, to gain speed before zoom-climbing out past the end of the runway is discouraged. One day you’ll go down when you want to go up. Basic good airmanship habits were developed to negate the hazard.
When an aircraft is close to the ground on approach the last thing desired (or expected) is to encounter a sudden strong and often tumbling down-draft that upsets stability and crash ‘lands’ the aircraft 1/2 kilometer short of the runway because the sink-rate of the air the aircraft flew into (from that 767 now steering off the runway) is faster than the available climb-rate while configured to maintain a stabilized approach. It’s occurred a lot of times, usually at runways without ATC providing separation-spacing.
Sometimes natural ‘rotor’ rolling-wave turbulence on the downwind side of higher terrain during a stiff wind near to a runway (say within 5 kilometers), can produce similar rotating-air sink rates but it’s usually due to other aircraft, and very unexpected. Standing wave ‘rotors’ get noticed by pilots who tend to warn of their presence, but wake turbulence can break important major bits off an aircraft.
Much of the contrail water-ice (that forms a cirrus cloud layer, if it does not sink far enough to melt or the air is particularly cold) is triggered via having an ice component in the fuel tank. Water in fuel is common and the water usually turns into small icy plates in the tank and fuel lines. It’s usually pre-melted before entering the engine via passing the pressurized fuel line through an engine oil-bath before the fuel goes through a finer fuel filter into the high pressure combustion area.
So if the air which the aircraft is passing through is already on the threshold of water saturation for that altitude’s pressure and temp, having just 1 to 2 % of the fuel in the form of additional water adds enough water to the exhaust gas to push the exhaust beyond H2O saturation and ice Xtals start to form almost instantly behind the engine. Which is why there’s a gap between the engine and the visible contrail. That’s how quickly the temp drops from combustion temperature down to around -35 C. If the jet is smaller and lighter, or else is cruising more ‘slowly’ and lightly for economy, or due to air traffic congestion, so the sinking air sinks slower and may not sink far enough for any ice Xtals formed to melt, so a more lasting layer can form.
But such layers are seasonal, and latitude and geography-specific. Ice usually does not form, but if conditions support ice it forms but usually sinks and melts within about 1/2 and hour. If conditions are too cold to melt it it builds up a regional layer which remains until the air mass changes. But conditions that support such layers growing are much more rare than the conditions which create contrails (which aren’t present on most days due to ambient humidity being too far below the H2O saturation level at the Jet’s altitude pressure and temp).
Regional rising air (from a surface or mid-level low) can push the cirrus layer up and preserve it, while a High’s cold dry sinking air can push cirrus lower enough to melt it and the low humidity easily absorbs it to make the sky go bright blue and clear.
The amount of water in the exhaust is minute. Contrails have usually turned back into vapor within 30 mins. It’s a-typical for lasting cirrus layers to form.
Jet routes are defined by GPS defined narrow corridors, >1 km wide, but they can be as much as 30k feet high, so may appear a lot wider due to the viewer’s perspective effect. But only 5 k feet of that 30 k feet altitude depth of the Jetway may have conditions suitable for supporting contrail formation and sustainment on any given day.
So you can observe jets moving along in the same directions on a jetway, but only one or two produce a prominent contrail, while the others don’t make any. Differing vertical altitude H20 saturation conditions are why.
40
You should patent that!
Surround a hot jet engines exhaust with a vortex of cold air at 10,000 meters and it will cool the exhaust without heating the atmosphere!
Pull the other one!
There are two primary gasses in the jet engine exhaust, Water Vapor and CO2, at 10,000 meters the Water Vapor quickly freezes and can be seen as condensation trails which fall under gravity. How much of the CO2 gets dissolved or escapes upwards, (Hot gas rises don’t you know).The answer of course is no one knows, it is all theory as it is very hard to obtain samples.
What is known is that Jet Engines burn fuel, lots of fuel, basically JP5. Most of that fuel is BURNT at 10,000 meters.
Sarc/on
Some virtue signaling by the CAGW mob is required.
Sarc/off
00
Interesting. Emissions from the airline industry contribute 2.5% of global emissions. The total emissions from the Australian economy contribute about 1.3% to global emissions.
So shutting down the entire Australian economy would not even offset the emissions produced by 1 industry. Puts all this anti CO2 crap into perspective I think.
60
***Seth is out and about; must be time for another COP:
27 Nov: ABC America: UN: ‘Quick wins’ needed to keep climate goals within reach
Top U.N. environment officials say countries have procrastinated for too long and should start making steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions immediately, or risk missing agreed targets for limiting global warming
By JAMEY KEATEN and FRANK JORDANS Associated Press; ***Seth Borenstein contributed to this report from Washington.
A report by the U.N. Environment Program, published days before governments gather in Madrid for an annual meeting on climate change, showed the amount of planet-heating gases being pumped into the atmosphere hitting a new high last year, despite a near-global pledge to reduce them…
Man-made greenhouse gas emissions rose in 2018 to 55.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to the U.N.’s annual ‘emissions gap’ report…
To stop average global temperatures from increasing by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) this century compared with pre-industrial times, worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases will have to drop by 7.6% each year in the coming decade, the agency said…
“What we are looking at is really that emissions need to go down by 55 percent by 2030,” said John Christensen, lead author and director of the UNEP-Danish Technology Institute Partnership.
Even the less ambitious goal of capping global warming at 2C (3.6 F) would require annual emissions cuts of 2.7% between 2020 and 2030, UNEP said.
That currently seems unlikely…
Last week, UNEP published a separate report, which found that countries are planning to extract more than twice the amount of fossil fuels from the ground than can be burned in 2030 if the 1.5C target is to be met.
This includes countries such as Norway, which touts its green credentials while it continues to drill for oil in the North Sea…
A $60-billion package of measures agreed by the German government recently has been criticized as a further burden on businesses…
German Environment Minister Svenja Schulze: “There are other countries which are quitting climate accords,” she added, without explicitly naming the United States, which under President Donald Trump announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement…
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/quick-wins-needed-climate-goals-reach-67312465
20
where to put this? here
11-26-19 Frustrations at boiling point as farmers reject ‘climate sinners’ and ‘animal abusers’ labels
Over 10,000 German farmers used around 5,000 tractors to bring central Berlin to a standstill on Tuesday. https://www.theepochtimes.com/massive-protests-as-german-farmers-decry-stringent-regulations_3157567.html
60
Good news to see people reacting against stupidity, arrogance and irresponsible domination by Wokers.
We are brothers.
KK
50
“There is major social pressure to “be green” and yet still they fly”
To cope with this feeling, a new word has entered the Dutch vocabulary: “vliegschaamte”. Translated into English, this means something like “flight shame” or “feeling ashamed to fly”.
20
The way language evolves is always interesting.
For example last year the words ‘how dare you’ would not be taken as anything outside their original context.
Today however they are universally accepted to translate as ‘I say young Eco-green, I hear what you are saying but feel your idea is Darwin Award Level stupid and I are now going to mock you mercilessly, you Snowflake Tonk!’.
Amazing what you can do with words. 🙂
70
25 Nov: Breitbart: Jeff Bezos: ‘Move All Heavy Industry into Space’ to Save Earth
by David Ng
Bezos appeared at the San Diego Air & Space Museum on Saturday to be inducted into the International Air & Space Hall of Fame for his work on Blue Origin, the space flight company he founded in 2000. The Times of San Diego reported that Bezos addressed a crowd of about 600 invitees at the private event.
“I believe that, one day, Earth will be zoned residential and light industry. We’ll move all heavy industry into space. That’s the only way, really, to save this planet,” the world’s richest man reportedly told the crowd…
“You want a dynamic civilization that continues to use more and more energy and more and more resources and build amazing things,” he reportedly said. “And to do that, you have to move out into the solar system.”…
Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, previously invoked the idea of a post-Earth civilization in May at an event for Blue Origin in Washington, DC.
“If we move out into the solar system, for all practical purposes, we have unlimited resources,” he said in May…
Amazon’s so-called Climate Pledge also involves transitioning Amazon to zero emissions by 2030, and adding 100,000 electric delivery vehicles to its fleet by 2024…
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/11/25/jeff-bezos-move-all-heavy-industry-into-space-to-save-earth/
00
In Germany, the Green Party has suggested banning domestic air travel altogether to force Germans to travel by train, which pollutes less.
And what will that force in the real world? Frankfurt Om Main to Berlin via Warsaw?
Greens are a danger to society because they are so focused on their singular obsessions that are reinforced by groupthink that they fail to understand that the rest of the world has so much open minded creative ability.
Also, on the topic of offsetting let us offer this comparison – if you murder someone, but then rush out and have a solid night of unprotected hetro sex, does that count as offsetting the murder?
Of course not. You still murdered a person and under the ethical and legal standards of our society you have committed the unforgivable. New baby does not cancel out the ending of an existing life. Those are the rules of our society.
So, what about offsetting ‘carbon’? First there are three camps: ‘Carbon is EVIL!!!’ and ‘Carbon Dioxide is a natural building block for all life on earth that is no threat’ and ‘Huh? Ummm… yeah… What was the question?’.
Now if you are in the ‘CO2 is good’ camp you are not going to pay for offsets in the first place, so we will ignore those people for the rest of the discussion.
This leaves the people who either strongly believe in the end of the world and the people who don’t really care cause they are sure the government will deal with it or something. The second group have been shown not to pay, cause they think the government will deal with it or something and only Big Oil(tm) are to blame. Or something. The ABC had a show on it. Sure they were watching Netflix at the time and never saw it, but it was on the ABC and probably really good.
So we can remove the second group as well.
Which leave the true 12 Years Left types, who also have been shown not to pay.
So the only conclusion is that either they are not flying – which given the amount of people who are still flying suggests the percentage of the population who TRULY believes enough to change travel habits is pretty small – or they do not truly believe. If you TRULY believed then EVERY little bit would count. We are not talking about those who are clearly Watermelons riding the coat tails of gaia towards the next revolution, we are talking about the people who HONESTLY DEEPLY believe.
And if we talk about those people then the only conclusion from the observed is that statistically they don’t really exist.
00
What exactly is the offset that the airlines offer? I mean if the money (less tax because it is income)is invested in plantation timber as a carbon sink do I get a refund if a fire burns it down or it is used as biomass for electricity generation? Or does the airline buy dodgy carbon credits and then tear off the appropriate amount of the certificate and forward it to me? It is the same ridiculous scam as when power retailers offered green electricity for a premium. How they distinguished between those gorgeous green renewable wiggly amps and those horrible black fossil fuel ones I will never know. Emissions reduction has become a religion and regardless of personal belief everyone is forced to contribute as State and Federal governments borrow money to provide as subsidies to the power cartels. It is the secular government equivalent to the old practice of Catholics buying indulgences. Absolutely meaningless, but a nice little earner.
40
” … Search your feelings Luke, you know it to be a brazen scam operating in the open. … “
20
I do have a suggestion for reducing air travel. It’s an elitist idea of my own, not without its puritanical touches.
NO MORE SCHOOL GROUPS TO EUROPE.
If bored kids really need to chase each other around art galleries they can do that in their home cities. We can even make safe courses for them. Start at the Margaret Olleys and finish at the Tom Roberts. No first prizes, everybody a star etc. Bus in, bus out…but walking encouraged.
Sorry Qantas, sorry teach. The planet can’t take it any longer. Neither can the Villa Borghese.
60
Climate emergency, even the untouched by fire rainforests are burning, according to ABC sources.
I understand that the climate zone changed around 130,000 years ago, rainforests retreated as the conditions became drier, replaced by vegetation that thrives on fire from time to time for regeneration.
Here we are in one of the worst droughts, but not the only severe drought experienced since white settlement in January, 1788. And the Greens’ alarmists were out in force as the latest bushfires commenced and expanded with ABC/MSM support. Then the water shortages were highlighted with no mention of the substantial increase in population and no significant new water storage dams built. Environmental river flows continue to deplete already dangerously low dams. But it’s all climate change emergency, apparently.
Get scared people, really scared and accept the leftist hoax and related impositions. Too bad about future national prosperity. And too bad about increasing food supply for export via an extended WA Ord River Irrigation Area into NT and NQ, not sustainable, the UN knows best.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-27/bushfires-devastate-ancient-forests-and-rare-wildlife/11733956
50
I see that the ABC is now getting its information on things like this from the World authority on this subject …..
Pixie Anne WheatleyPeter Fitzroy.Tony.
100
But it’s true about rainforest burning, Tony. Happened in the Illawarra in 1968. (Better not tell the Pixie.)
40
Apparently rainforest is just three per cent of all Australian forests, and there are different types of rainforests.
40
Maybe they should use you instead? As an electrical expert you would know all about fire, fire ecology and rainforests, seems obvious really.
14
JNB SRI OO4a.
DKK.
10
Forget carbon offsets for air flight. It is not the major driver of CO2 emissions.
I have studied the main cause of CO2 emissions. In my research and modeling, After taking out natural causes, I have found that the greatest increase in CO2 emissions is due to a species, known widely as the homosapien.
This species breaths out 0.5 to 1kg of CO2 per day.
Approximately 7 billion homosapiens are living on this planet.
I have created a model to demonstrate the total CO2 emissions, in tons, created by homosapien respiration over a period that is 365 days.
I will call that period a “year”
I will call my model “mathematics”
I will input the Co2 weight of 1 days respiration by a homosapien as 1kg.
I will input the number of homosapiens as 7 billion.
Surprisingly, I have found that by using my model, the results are that 7 million tons of CO2 per day are emitted by the homosapien species by their breathing/respiration.
Over a year, my model shows that 2555 million tons of CO2 will be added to the atmosphere due to the said respiration of homosapiens.
This is shocking, how do we offset that?
Homosapiens have a lot to answer for.
If you are unlucky to meet one, be careful. They can be at their worst, ignorant, belligerent, aggressive, self centered and have an ideologue that results in that what they believe is infallible. Some have a belief that they are part of on elite. Some believe they are entitled. Some believe that they know everything. In my experience those homosapiens are the ones that hate to debate fairly and lack most in common sense.
I am willing to have my model that created the results above peer reviewed. I have studied my multiplication tables since I was four years old. I believe I have the calculations right.
Stay well my friends, just keep away from those homosapien, climate vandals. Our childrens lives are at stake.
20
It seems that we humans Will just have to eat more of a high carbon diet to “offset” this uncontrolled exhalation by this Sapiens thing.
KK
20
Want to fly Long Haul to exotic places? Check out the Guardian: https://holidays.theguardian.com/?
But, but…
“As the climate crisis escalates…… the Guardian will not stay quiet. This is our pledge: we will continue to give global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution the urgent attention and prominence they demand. The Guardian recognises the climate emergency as the defining issue of our times.”
You can also check out The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel
But, but….
This massive growth spurt in air travel has led to the industry becoming one of the fastest-growing contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, and that needs to be recognised and tackled. If the UK is to hit its 2050 target, we need to stop flying so much.
https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/climate-crisis
How about New Scientist? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2215495-new-scientist-joins-the-covering-climate-now-initiative/
Fly New Scientist to faraway places.
https://www.newscientist.com/tours/
So much cant and hypocrisy surrounds the whole daily farrago of nonsense on climate.
40