shamanic miner
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 13:46
|
Ah, missed the word "annual". Ignore me, Monday...
:-)
|
Cleira
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 14:32
|
Well they will have to eventually , unless someone quickly invents some ort of poo powered jet pack or summat.
No, of course its unrealistic for all to stop flying, it wont happen. I just think that it would be sensible to attempt to curb the rate at which flying is increasing, especially by not biulding any more effing runways/airports etc in this country. And why not have people thinking a bit more about it? If everyone made one less flying journey that would help - I haven't flown for several years now, mainly for environmental reasons. I'm sure I will fly again, but its not difficult to find good holidays that don't involve massive quantities of aviation fuel.
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 16:26
|
|
Welcome back! Haven't seen you here in ages. Whatsupp?
|
Merrick
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 16:29
|
Work that necessitates long haul flying is extremely new. Even a generation ago, it just didn't happen.
When oil prices hit the big increase - as they will do within two decades, probably within one - flying will be priced out of the reach of most who presently do it.
In the meantime, we have to appeal to people's sense of responsibility. There's little point in building wind farms as an way out of burning fossil fuels when, as has been said earlier on this thread, it takes 3 to 'counter' one jumbo jet crossing the Atlantic.
Much of the value of a 'switch something off' campaign is undermined by the fact that a kettle set to boil for tyour whole life will not consume as much as a seat on a single flight from Europe to the USA.
Yes, I sadly concede that expecting people to all stop flying now out of a sense of responsibility to future generations is hopelessly optimistic. But anything less is living well beyond our means, it's a monstrous exacerbator of climate change and a declaration that the passenger's immediate convenience means more than the lives of people yet to come.
|
Rolling Ronnie
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 16:34
|
|
But such increases in living standards as there are in the third world depend greatly on flying and especially air freight.
|
joudicaa
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 17:03
|
you mean you give a shit?
do you only care about something when it affects you? don't bother answering me with a juvenile retort, i was just curious,not shit stirring.
|
joudicaa
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 17:29
|
|
no
|
joudicaa
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 31, 2005, 17:54
|
|
you're such a cutey. are you married, i think i'm in love!!
|
Zastrozzi
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Nov 01, 2005, 07:41
|
Quote from article: "I would still buy nuclear stations in the lovelier parts of Britain if they really can make an impact on global warming. If the planet is at issue, I would bear the cost of building and decommissioning them, hoping that science can make them more efficient and less expensive. That is a proper argument between today's environment and tomorrow's."
No, it's nothing of the kind. That's blind optimism, and it's exactly the kind of short-term 'everything-will-be-alright' thinking which was going on when the first nuclear power stations were built, and the thinking that got us into all this trouble in the first place.
|
Cleira
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Nov 01, 2005, 12:44
|
Well obviously its your company, Hongamn, you make the decisions, and its entirely up to you how you carry out your business. At least you do put mentsal energy into thinking about it, which is far more than can be said of the vast majority of businesses.
For instance, my hubby works for a German company who insist that he fly over there regularly for meetings. This is so unnecessary - they have video conference facilities, they have access to an array of computer communication systems and they even have those telephone things. About 90% of the meetings could be quickly and efficiently carried out using these resources, but the company wont hear of it, and insist he fly out at a huge cost to the company and the environment. Silly buggers.
There must be gazillions of such business flights taken every day.
|
