A study of passengers at Stansted airport revealed that 93% of those questioned did not offset their flights. Ignorance cannot be blamed: 56% of those questioned by the Civil Aviation Authority knew what the practice meant.
Asked if they had taken fewer flights over the previous year on environmental grounds, only 9% of those asked said yes. Most of this 9% took one or two fewer flights. When asked if their choice of airline had been affected by how environmentally friendly they were, only 3% replied in the affirmative.
In total 318 travellers were surveyed in September last year, the most recently available figures. British Airways and easyJet, which both allow passengers to offset their flights directly on their websites, said that the number who chose to do so this year was “static” compared to last year, without giving more details.
I bet they didn’t. It’s been a flop has it not?
Carbon offsetting was first practised by individuals on a meaningful scale about five years ago in response to mounting concern over global warming. It fostered a new industry which set up green energy projects, mostly in the developing world, which consumers could fund to offset their emissions.
Can my nostrils detect the Dame Judi of epic corruption…
Initially, regulation of the new industry was lax and some projects were not properly audited to make sure that the claimed carbon emission savings were actually taking place.
Well knock me sideways with a wet haddock! If I am allowed to be cynical here then might I suggest that sounds to me like they these schemes were once run by shysters and are now run by different shysters with spurious qualifications. I have been on the receiving end of a “green audit” and it was 20% monkey bollocks and 80% non-disclosed filler. Wider still and wider shall thy Green be set!
Even though the carbon offsetting industry is now more professional, some environmentalists believe the principle is misguided.
Friends of the Earth said: “Carbon offsetting is a con – it encourages businesses and individuals to carry on polluting when we urgently need to reduce our carbon emissions. It allows people to develop the mindset that it’s OK to carry on polluting if green schemes in far-off locations make up for it.
Or, I suspect don’t. Comes to something when Johnnie Porritt’s Barmy Army of head-cases are disagreeing with how the Goreacle is funding his retirement. Anyway, at what point did CO2 become a “pollutant”. I issue a challenge. Open a bottle of Coke and inhale deeply over the top. Just do it and let me know if you drop dead suffering from violent convulsions. Or get your next of kin to do it. I’m waiting.
“The greenest thing holidaymakers can do is choose a location that is closer to home, that can be reached by coach or by train. The travel industry must do more to promote nearby towns, coasts and countryside, and the government must ensure rail is a fast, convenient and affordable alternative to flying.”
Oh, what evil rot! This is the real agenda. Keep the plebs on the bus trip to Bangor rather than let them go abroad and mess it up for the chattering classes in Tuscany. Also note the invocation of government – the cause and alas not the solution to most of our problems. Orville and Wilbur must be turning in their graves.
Fuel consumption. The combination of new materials, increased electrification, design and engines all lead to the expected reduction in operation fuel consumption of 20% compared to current aircraft of a comparable size.
Boeing calculates that the 787 will deliver fuel consumption of approximately 2.4 l/100 passenger-kilometers, assuming average modal load factors.
That I would suggest is pretty good. The aircraft business has generation upon generation relentlessly ratcheted down fuel consumption magnificently and I suspect the bus and train businesses can’t honestly say the same. That of course is one of the major reasons us proles can now get on planes and go places and don’t the Greens just hate that? They just hate aviation because they are luddites, snobs and evil control-freaks.
One of the concerns voiced about the advent of the new, more fuel-efficient aircraft (as well as its apparent popularity, as orders are outpacing analysts’ earlier projections) is the potential for a “rebound effect” similar to that seen with increases in fuel efficiency in light-duty vehicles—i.e., the decrease in fuel consumption (and thus, operating costs) leads to an increase in vehicle miles travelled.
You can’t win with these fuckers can you? You just can’t win. Boeing spent billions of dollars developing their new jet and now it’s too good so more people will be able to fly. You see the utter miserablist negativity at play here? It’s foul. Much of the aviation business is now seriously looking into even more efficient flying wing designs and presumably that is bad too. The Greens essentially do not want us to travel. Travel has, since time immemorial been a marker of and a requirement for progress and the Greens want that halted.
Truly they are inhuman.
They won’t take the skies away from me. Or it would appear 93% of all of us. The Greens can go fuck off and live in a yurt and worship Gaia or windmills or something. The world will get on fine without them. And what with the economic development of places like China, India and Brazil… Oh, bring it on!