Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Plane Sense

Only 7% of flyers are funding green energy projects to offset the carbon emitted on their flights, according to a survey.

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!


  1. PaulH says:

    You’ve hit the nail on the head there Nick. The Green movement was always about anti-freedom, anti-wealth, anti-capitalism and above all anti-Americanism dressed up as piety and self-rightousness.

    The Greens are un-reconstructed champagne socialists who want to keep the rest of us as supine recipients of income and orders from an omnipotent state…Run by, guess who, them.

    The left have never loved the poor anywhere near as much as the hate the rich.

    Fuck em. They’re in full retreat on this issue. 93% eh? just goes to show how much more sense the general public have than the control freak left would ever give them credit for.

  2. Lynne says:

    I have always wondered about warmist statistics. There is an awful lot of them about and they form graphs that are always rising steeply like Priapus on Viagra. I have this theory these figures are nothing more than encoded green porn to which the likes of Porridge blithely wank off to. Maybe that’s why he talks total wank…

  3. Angry Exile says:

    I blogged similar thoughts about green attitudes to nuclear power. Not all but most of them slam the door at the mention of the n-word even if you’re talking about researching fusion which would be clean and safe, or LFTRs which would be clean, safe and could eat old waste and warheads – you’d think the tree huggers would be all over it like flies on shit. To be fair some of the more rational ones are but not the most vocal. They don’t want solutions to the world’s problems (real or imagined). They don’t want power and long distance travel to become cheap enough for all. They don’t actually want answers, they just want austerity.

    Well, fine. I’m a libertarian so if travelling as far as a horse and cart can get you in half a day, going grey and losing all your teeth in your 30s, and having to burn your own shit to keep warm gets them off then I’m happy to let them. What I hope the future holds for the rest of us is abundant cheap power with lots left over for synthesising hydrocarbons. Sadly that will mean the poor toothless greenies will occasionally find their yurts shaking to the early morning thunder of the synthetic diesel burning V8 six wheeled off road ute I hope will be available in my golden years. C’est la vie, fellas.

  4. Chalcedon says:

    Does having a garden count? The trees and plants lock up loads of carbon. Of course soil bacteria produce carbon dioxide and some methane but they do that the world over.

  5. John B says:

    Yes, the champagne socialists have been trying to get the peasants out of their favourite destinations for some years.
    The worst thing that happened to them was Freddie Laker (who cashed in on the concept opened up by “bucket shops”. Good for him and good for Mrs T giving him a knighthood.) My Marxist ex-brother-in-law was good at sneering the words “bucket shops” when I opted for cheaper travel.
    I’ve noticed that while the poor get poorer (and the previously-well-off get poorer) the super rich get richer every day.
    The “resort hotel” used by Mrs Obama near Marbella recently is a nice little example of how the increasing-wealthy choose to live and vacation. You can smell the money, the luxury and the conspicuous consumption.
    I don’t mind whoever can afford it enjoying it (too much) but before Mr Gore ever tries to get me to think his version of going green, I would insist he brings his lifestyle in line with my budget. (Luxury is energy intensive.)
    The same goes for Sting, Bono, or any of the others who lecture one from the steps of their private jets and/or designer mud decorated SUV’s.

  6. RAB says:

    Fuck ‘em. I’m flying to Crete next month and nothing is going to stop me. The last thing I am likely to do is to pay some twat company money to plant a fuckin tree to salve my guilt for me. Cos I dont have any bloody guilt!

    I’d sooner put an eternal flame on my dear old daddies grave. He loved driving big gas guzzling cars. He drove a Rover 90, it had a chassis that could put a dent a Sherman tank.

    The wheels have well and truly come of this particular scam. People have seen through it for the utter nonsense it is. Like adopting a Polar Bear for five quid a month? I should fuckin coco! Besides they can no longer afford such indulgence in a ressession.

    But if any of the gullible 7% are out there and wish to get in contact, I still have a few shares left in my North Sea Olive trees company.

  7. El Draque says:

    How about this?
    A 747 burns 2.5 gallons a mile. Terrible waste, eh?
    No, because it carries 500 people. So that’s more fuel efficient per person-mile than a Ford Fiesta.
    So there!

  8. Kinuachdrach says:

    Step back for a moment, folks. As many as 7% of passengers are voluntarily paying extra — for what we all (including them) know is codswallop.

    1 person in 13 at a London airport is a divorced from reality?

    Shouldn’t the Authorities be weeding these people out at Security? They are a danger to themselves, if not to others.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: