Why are so many people screaming about how the common person should be the one altering there lives to reduce carbon outputs? I would bet that reducing Airline travel would signifigantely reduce carbons so the the coomon citizen would not even have to change their lifestyle. Am I wrong here? I mean, God forbid that Britney Spears wouldn't be able to fly somewhere to get her coffee in the morning.
2007-09-12 20:25:12 · 13 answers · asked by haterade 3 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
why not boycott global warming?
think about it.....
the airlines provide a valuable service to mankind.
man made global warming, on the other hand, is a lie designed to raise taxes and reduce personal freedom.
it's really a no-brainer.
sorry to offend you that "believe".
2007-09-13 02:34:40 · answer #1 · answered by afratta437 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I'm taking the train as much as possible. The airline industry has become insolent and abusive. We need to have a national dialog on transportation and the way to move into the future. We need to do this skillfully and with much aforethought. I don't think it makes much sense for someone to fly 150 to 200 miles by air when they can take a train for much less cost and emissions. This it the debate of the future.
2015-07-05 12:12:37 · answer #2 · answered by JAMES 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aviation is a minor contributor compared to electricity from fossil fuels and other transportation.
It's rather easy to deal with the problem with electricity production (switch to nuclear power) so I think that's where we need to focus the most attention in the near term at (it's also the biggest cause) and then solve the transportation fuels problem (hydrogen or synthetic hydrocarbons should be able to do the job for essentially everything including cars, trucks and planes (we'll electrify trains and switch ships over to nuclear power)).
2007-09-12 21:40:28 · answer #3 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually air travel only presently accounts for 1.6% of human greenhouse gas emissions:
http://cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=World-FlowChart&view=100
However, because the emissions are released high up in the atmosphere, they actually have a factor of 2.7 greater effect on global warming than ground emissions. So it's more like 4%. Additionally, many airports are expanding and this number is set to increase. We should certainly be making efforts to decrease our air travel rather than increasing it, though boycotting the airline industry isn't really practical because some people need to travel by air for their jobs.
2007-09-13 05:32:01 · answer #4 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The MAJOR cause of CO2 in the upper atmosphere is from jet engines. Nature has no efficient method of clearing 'greenhouse gasses' from the upper atmosphere. Jet engines burn 2000 to 5000 lbs of kerosene per hour. Each lb burned produces 3.66 lbs of CO2 and 1.57 lbs of water. There are thousands of hours of jet traffic over the Earth each day. These tens of thousands of tons of CO2 produced daily will gradually sink to the oceans below, but it takes time. Al Gores 'hockey stick' rise in CO2 over the last 50 years correlates very closely with the increase in Jet traffic over the same time period.
However, the hockey stick rise on the 'charts' has actually been discarded in the latest report.
As per satellite pictures there is a brown haze over China and India. It appears this haze could have more effect on GW than anything from the rest of the world. The haze is from several billion people burning cow dung for heating their houses and cooking their food.
2007-09-13 15:08:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, I am what you would consider a "common person". But I moved to NZ and it only takes 26 hours to fly back to the UK. I think a ship would take several weeks and to swim- well the odds are in the sharks favour.
2007-09-13 11:36:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the airline industry should not be the first recepient of a boycott, American products should. As far as I know America is the biggest single emitter of carbon dioxide and they have consistently refused to ratify the Kyoto Protol on climate change which seeks to make nations commit to measurable reductions in greenhouse gases. Certainly the American politicians need to realize how urgent the matter of saving the the planet is.
2007-09-12 20:42:34 · answer #7 · answered by mq2 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Sorry, I need to fly frequently to do my job. But, I think it would be a good idea to prohibit Al Gore, liberal politicans, Hollywood celebrities and anybody else who insist we change our lives to stop global warming from using private jets or limos. If coach class airline travel and mass transit are good enough for me, they are certainly good enough for these tools.
2007-09-13 10:16:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, because it's the most convenient way to travel.. I think a better way to solve that problem would be to find a better, less poluting fuel... Because like all food and packages are delivered by plane.
Plus MILLIONS of people would lose there jobs.. including my dad.
2007-09-13 04:44:31 · answer #9 · answered by thethinker678 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Which burns more fuel, driving one airliner 500 miles or 50 cars 500 miles?
Cars burn more fuel per passenger.
2007-09-13 04:44:39 · answer #10 · answered by Larry 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋