Current Affairs Environmental Stuff

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Wayne said:
My folks lifestyle during the pandemic barely changed at all, so I'm sure they, like you, would not bat an eyelid if they were asked to stop doing something they never did anyway (and forced those who did to stop doing so), but I think I can speak on behalf of my wife when I say that all of the Skype calls with the family aren't the same as actually seeing them face-to-face. As it is, air travel accounts for 16% of passenger travel emissions, so the cynic in me might question whether it's being targeted because it's perceived as something done by frivolous business tossers and frivolous package holiday tossers and therefore can be done away with without changing the world for the worse.
Click to expand...
So, people who've already reduced their carbon footprint won't bat an eyelid when asked to reduce carbon footprint shocker?
 
Bruce Wayne said:
So you'd presumably want to ban meat, seeing as meat production generates nearly 20% of all emissions?
Click to expand...
No, because it's not true. You're presumably using J.Poore's botched reasoning?
Besides, even accepting the false conclusions of his report, it's like banning a sail yacht because of the diesel used by a destroyer.
 
orchard said:
No, because it's not true. You're presumably using J.Poore's botched reasoning?
Besides, even accepting the false conclusions of his report, it's like banning a sail yacht because of the diesel used by a destroyer.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the precise figure, it's almost certainly considerably higher than the 2% that comes from flight emissions.

orchard said:
So, people who've already reduced their carbon footprint won't bat an eyelid when asked to reduce carbon footprint shocker?
Click to expand...
No, it's you suggesting to stop something that you don't do and clearly wouldn't miss.

I don't eat meat so could easily suggest it should be banned as it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Someone with no Bitcoin could easily argue that cryptocurrencies should be banned as they have no skin in the game. I don't drive a car so sure, lets ban all cars while we're at it. Heck, we don't have kids so lets also introduce a 1-child policy to have some kind of addled over-population mania.

I'm realistic enough to accept that pre-Covid 4.5 billion people flew per year so expecting the industry to vanish isn't likely to happen. I'm also realistic enough to know that moving people about is enormously advantageous to humanity. It's perhaps not a great approach to this issue to want things banned simply because you personally don't do them and stuff those who do.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Wayne said:
Regardless of the precise figure, it's almost certainly considerably higher than the 2% that comes from flight emissions.


No, it's you suggesting to stop something that you don't do and clearly wouldn't miss.

I don't eat meat so could easily suggest it should be banned as it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Someone with no Bitcoin could easily argue that cryptocurrencies should be banned as they have no skin in the game. I don't drive a car so sure, lets ban all cars while we're at it. Heck, we don't have kids so lets also introduce a 1-child policy to have some kind of addled over-population mania.

I'm realistic enough to accept that pre-Covid 4.5 billion people flew per year so expecting the industry to vanish isn't likely to happen. I'm also realistic enough to know that moving people about is enormously advantageous to humanity. It's perhaps not a great approach to this issue to want things banned simply because you personally don't do them and stuff those who do.
Click to expand...
Where have I said ban any of th
se things? It's quite obvious people will carry on regardless until they can't any more. All i have done is relay the advice to keep it on the ground.

However, going back to your examples, maybe people like your parents ought to have special dispensation for contributing little thus far.
 
Last edited:
orchard said:
Where have I said ban any of th
se things? It's quite obvious people will carry on regardless until they can't any more. All i have done is relay the advice to keep it on the ground.

However, going back to your examples, maybe people like your parents ought to have special dispensation for contributing little thus far.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying it's not a straightforward matter, which is probably why securing any meaningful movement is so hard.
 
I had been thinking it was time to come up to Goodison from Plymouth again, but the price of a train ticket (one way) is £190, while I could get the train to Exeter, then fly to Liverpool for about £45.
I get that a train can't go in a straight line like a plane, but why is our rail system in such an unusable state? You'd think something that can be fully electrified, quite fast and can carry a lot of passengers would be at the forefront of plans to reduce emissions.
 
Zezti said:
I had been thinking it was time to come up to Goodison from Plymouth again, but the price of a train ticket (one way) is £190, while I could get the train to Exeter, then fly to Liverpool for about £45.
I get that a train can't go in a straight line like a plane, but why is our rail system in such an unusable state? You'd think something that can be fully electrified, quite fast and can carry a lot of passengers would be at the forefront of plans to reduce emissions.
Click to expand...
Think about the poor shareholder of said train ticket won't ya.
 
I’ve posted something similar recently on the Electric Cars thread, but where exactly is all this ‘cheap’ electricity going to come from?
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Unlike the shareholders of the airline companies? Maybe think instead of the late Bob Crow and his cronies for why our trains are so expensive.

As per the pre-Covid figures, franchise operators had income of £14.5bn and costs of £14.4bn.

Click to expand...

Those costs are almost entirely down to Government policy though, firstly by the way they privatised the railway and secondly by trying to prop up a failed franchise model for twenty plus years.

If they’d not fragmented it in the way they did - which amongst other things resulted in a shortage of drivers being trained causing many firms willing to poach drivers - wages wouldn’t be anywhere near as high as they are now.
 
tsubaki said:
Those costs are almost entirely down to Government policy though, firstly by the way they privatised the railway and secondly by trying to prop up a failed franchise model for twenty plus years.

If they’d not fragmented it in the way they did - which amongst other things resulted in a shortage of drivers being trained causing many firms willing to poach drivers - wages wouldn’t be anywhere near as high as they are now.
Click to expand...
They could do away with the drivers entirely too like, but that seems unlikely to ever happen.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
They could do away with the drivers entirely too like, but that seems unlikely to ever happen.
Click to expand...

It would be better to get rid of the government people who’ve done all this TBF.

The railway could employ more people, cost less and be much more efficient, safer and convenient to use than it is now.

As a starter for ten, there really shouldn’t be any unstaffed stations anywhere on the network.
 
tsubaki said:
It would be better to get rid of the government people who’ve done all this TBF.

The railway could employ more people, cost less and be much more efficient, safer and convenient to use than it is now.

As a starter for ten, there really shouldn’t be any unstaffed stations anywhere on the network.
Click to expand...

How exactly ?…….
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top