English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

Mr Gore would definately NOT approve.
Gore, Kerry, Clintoon, think the rules don't apply to them.

2007-05-09 03:35:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You'll clean up more CO2 if you re-route
commercial flights to make better use of shorter
paths.

I'm not willing to put words in Mr. Gore's mouth.
Generally, however, I've seen far more talk
about incentivizing and far less talk about "banning".

For instance, increasing the taxes on fuel so that
they pay for highway maintenance and cease paying
federal highway maintenance from the general
tax fund (income tax) incentivizes people to drive
less.

You may think that $3.00 a gallon is bad, but in
some European prices, it costs FOUR TIMES as much.
Needless to say, those countries all have far more
efficient, far more used public transportation.

Similarly, if we didn't subsidize people to use fuel
in the airline industry, there were would be a far
bigger push to use it more efficiently. That is, tax
airline fuel to pay for the FAA tower/approach
control systems, etc.

I can easily imagine some general aviation fliers
no longer being able to justify the cost of flying
and that would be too bad (I was a GA pilot), but
it wouldn't be banned.

And I am not saying that drivers or GA pilots are
"free loaders" - but they are taking advantage of
a federal benefit (infrastructure) that everybody
is paying for but far fewer people are using.

2007-05-09 09:43:15 · answer #2 · answered by Elana 7 · 0 0

Al Gore is spreading the message and hence kinda needs a private plane!

2007-05-09 09:38:19 · answer #3 · answered by Mr Davo Sir 1 · 0 0

Maybe while we're at it, we can cancel all space shuttle launches and rocket launches. Each one destroys MILLIONS of tons of ozone. But why stop there?

Maybe we could also put a cork in every single volcano on the planet, starting with Mt. Pinatubo. When it errupted in 1991 it ejected roughly 10 billion metric tons of magma, and 20 million tons of SO2, bringing vast quantities of minerals and metals to the surface environment. It injected large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere—more than any eruption since that of Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F), and ozone destruction increased substantially.

And here we're worried about airplanes????

2007-05-09 09:53:23 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

absolutely not. To fight carbon dioxide we should ban all petroleum and use some other fuels instead. Enough private stuff has been banned as it is, and I am sick of it.

2007-05-09 09:40:13 · answer #5 · answered by AuntTater 4 · 0 0

Al Gore would never give up HIS private jet.
He wants you to cut down so he can indulge!
First he has to prove his plan will actually help the environment.
Second, he has to "STOP PLAYING ON YOUR FEARS"!
(Just to quote Al Gore.)

2007-05-09 09:40:08 · answer #6 · answered by Philip H 7 · 0 0

No, you should ask whether the Commander-In Chief would like to share the planes with us.
No more Airforce 1.
That would really solve the CO2 emission.

Hey, since you can come up with stupid questions, I can come up with stupid answers for you too.

2007-05-09 09:37:36 · answer #7 · answered by Magma H 6 · 0 0

We just need a massive World War and wipe out 75% of the world's population.

2007-05-09 09:39:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

All Gore is a Tennessee idiot, politicizing cyclical global warming and blaming it on humans.

2007-05-09 09:44:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Nope. Just tax the air we breathe since every time we exhale we are polluting Algore's environment.

2007-05-09 09:39:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers