Global Warming and UK, Europe Travelers

Jul 24th, 2007, 08:08 PM
  #41  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 677

In which post in this thread does Ira deny a warming climate?

The reason that I don't support "all efforts" to combat warming is that I believe such efforts would be wasted. All pain and no gain.

By the way, forest fires are, by definition, "out of control."
smueller is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 08:13 PM
  #42  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 65,800
no one "denied" the climate is warming. Merely that the climate has been hotter before and will be hotter then colder again . . . . . (just like it has forever)
janisj is online now  
Jul 24th, 2007, 08:19 PM
  #43  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,458
With the slight difference, janisj, that this time a billion people or more are going to die.

It's not about "warming". It's about worldwide climate upheaval. When the oceans go -- as they are well on the way to going -- then life on earth will start to go. Agriculture will go.

If you're comfortable with a prehistorical life, a few hundred thousand people pounding rocks together, then I guess you'll be quite satisfied. The rest of us, not so much.
fnarf999 is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 09:05 PM
  #44  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,008
What are we suppose to do? Go back to the horse and buggy days? Whale oil lamps? Of course, that would decimate the whale population (at least the ones not already decimated by Japan and Norway) and then there's all that awful horse pooh all over the place. That can't be good.

BTW, how many of the presidential candidates have given up traveling in their private planes to help save the planet?
bettyk is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 09:34 PM
  #45  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,803
I was back in the UK for 3 weeks May/June this year and was surprised to read so much in the newspapers about Carbon Footprints and recycling.

Here in the US, I can recycle curbside which is collected the same day as the trash- all paper and cardboard (“If you can tear it we will take it”), Plastics 1-7, glass (except cookware/glassware), metal including foil and empty aerosol cans and polystyrene.

Any carbonated beverage has a 5c extra charge and you can take it back to the liquor store and get a refund on the cans/bottles - hey, you’re there anyway, stocking up again!!!

In the UK my Mother can recycle some paper but no cardboard, no plastics, glass but the only metal she can recycle are food cans.

My friend 10 miles away can recycle all paper, thin cardboard (not large packing boxes), no plastics, glass and food cans.

While the local tip/dump would allow my Mother to recycle her cardboard and any metal other than food cans – She doesn’t drive! She doesn’t even know how to!

I was suprised to discover how much easier it was to recycle in the US.
alya is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 09:40 PM
  #46  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,803
<< My friend 10 miles away can recycle all paper, thin cardboard (not large packing boxes), no plastics, glass and food cans. >>

To clarify - My friend lives 10 miles from my Mother in the UK, not from me in the US.
alya is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 10:01 PM
  #47  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,352
I recently reread East of Eden. Toward the end there is mention of an unusually wet summer in the Salinas Valley.
He attributes the increased rainfall to the big guns going off in Europe.
This was WWI.

Global warming had started.......
icithecat is offline  
Jul 24th, 2007, 10:56 PM
  #48  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,907
In the early 1980s, just after I had become qualified, a mysterious illness had just been uncovered by French and American scientists.

There were quite alarming stories coming out about a sexually transmitted disease that attacked the human immune system and some fairly serious predictions were made regarding the potential impact.

My father, a very intelligent man with scientific training was one of many people who dismissed these stories as simple scare mongering and an attempt to get grant money.

Twenty five years on nobody doubts the severity of HIV. Like global warming it is something that the vast majority of the West can ignore, while the third world suffers the consequences.

Scientific theory changes to reflect new theories and new evidence. There will always be dissenting views (There are Nobel prize winning scientists who still deny a connection between HIV and AIDS).
Single incidences such as the fact that Vikings could grow grapes on Greenland neither proves nor disproves a theory.

To me, if 95% of the people who stuudy climatologists believe in global warming, and think that it is influenced by human intervention, then that is good enogh for me. if 95% of mechanics thought I should get my brakes fixed on my car, I think I would do something about it.

This doesn't mean I am not a hypocrit. I like air travel and taking holidays. I enjoy using my car. I am just not going to grasp a "it's not happening" theory just so I continue to feel guilt free about doing so.
willit is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 05:49 AM
  #49  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,322
<In which post in this thread does Ira deny a warming climate?>

1
>there is no parallel in today's rate of increase ...

I respectfully rise to disagree.

It was once possible to walk on dry land from the north of England to Denmark. In less than 100 years the North Sea intruded.

2
>Climate is changing. It's happened before and it's happening again.

Remember the Sahara Forest?
the change in climate over the Earth's history has always taken a few thousand years...<

3
The mini ice age lasted for about 300 years - 1500+ to about 1850. It's why the Vikings abandoned Greenland.

the change in climate over the Earth's history has always taken a few thousand years...<

The mini ice age lasted for about 300 years - 1500+ to about 1850. It's why the Vikings abandoned Greenland.

smueller - no he does not come out and say it but in each of the above posts he certainly casts doubts on it and never says it's for real. His attitude is clear and his science is simply wrong

such as in this:
>there is no parallel in today's rate of increase ...

I respectfully rise to disagree.

It was once possible to walk on dry land from the north of England to Denmark. In less than 100 years the North Sea intruded.

this was recently shown to have been caused by a flood - not temperature change.

I will stand by the term most climatologists say - the rate of warmth is totally unparalleled in Earth's history - and by CO samples or whatever they can chart it back eons.

This should alarm everyone and by pecking at it as untrue belies the many things i've read. But i don't know i'm just mouthing what most climatologists say.
PalenQ is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 06:28 AM
  #50  
twk
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,225
PalenQ: For all your argument about what is or is not happening, you have not advanced a single solution to the problem. Why is that?

This is a travel forum. Perhaps you have some empirical evidence to back up your assertions that we are on the brink of having climate change travel habits? That might be relevant. Otherwise, it seems that this is just another climate warming sermon with no real point other than to make you feel superior.
twk is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 06:41 AM
  #51  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,322
<Perhaps you have some empirical evidence to back up your assertions that we are on the brink of having climate change travel habits>

cool summer in northern/western Europe, floods in England - record temps in Romania - glaciers and snow caps in Alps rapidly declining - Kitzbuhel is seriously planning an alternative to winter sports since it's at a low altitude... and on and on.

it is just a possibility that travel could be effected by human-caused climate change - i'm not sure but the indications are there.
PalenQ is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 07:00 AM
  #52  
ira
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,414
>Mile for mile, air travel carbon emissions, on a per passenger basis, are comparable (within a factor of two)..<

In other words, about 1/2 that of autos.

I ran through the numbers on another thread a while ago. I think that it is closer to 1/4.

>One roundtrip flight from Denver to Paris can counteract an entire year of riding your bike to work.<

hmmmmmmmmmm.

It is 4860 air miles from DEN to CDG. For someone going to/from work 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year that would be a commute of 10 miles each way.

In the US, the average commute is 15 miles each way.

When I was part of the rat race, my commute was 30 mi each way.

By not working, I can fly ATL/CDG RT 3 times a year and contribute less CO2 than I used to.

As an aside, wouldn't the tree huggers contribute a lot more to saving the environment if they went after the real culprit - declining mass transit and increasing automobile use?

ira is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 07:19 AM
  #53  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,844
Sermon?

Why is it that these days, there's such zest for shooting the messenger?

I think there are a lot of proposals to limit emissions. Earlier this year, a high minister in the UK govt. issued a report that the world govts. could reduce emissions with a very modest impact to long-term GDP. The alternative, of not acting, would have much greater negative consequences to GDP.

Yet in the US, those calls to action are met with this energy-industry funded efforts to obfuscate the science or with "so what" responses exemplified in this thread. You know, we can't do anything about it so let's not change anything.

There was a piece in the WSJ the other day saying that even Bush is contemplating making changes, due in part to pressure from the business community of all things. He's talked about looking for a successor to Kyoto, even though he's rejected Kyoto.

Well at this point, I'd prefer he leave things alone and let his successor deal with it because if he bungles this like he did the war, then we won't see any improvement. Or more likely, it would be a watered-down thing, crafted mostly by energy industry lobbyists like a lot of other Bush admin. policies have been.

Last thing we need is another faux environmental policy from the Bush admin., like the Clear Skies initiative or his Healthy forest policy which calls for more logging in order to preserve forests.
scrb is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 07:53 AM
  #54  
MaureenB
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Ira, it makes sense for each of us to do what we can. Think Global, Act Local.

There are many ways we can each do our share, including using more mass transit and using our vehicles less. The "real culprit" is us, and we each need to step up and do our share, and elect officials who will create policies on a more global scale.

P.S. The term "tree hugger" is so inappropriate. More importantly, it's beneath your intellect, which most Fodorites respect from your usually insightful travel recommendations.
 
Jul 25th, 2007, 07:54 AM
  #55  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 677
I have yet to see any travel-sacrificing commitments from those concerned with climate change. If it puts humanity at such peril, a trip to Europe must be a decadent luxury.

Also, the rhetoric in this thread is instructive. One poster stated that - "a billion people or more are going to die." Is this what passes as "fact" among those concerned with climate change? My standards are a bit higher.

Regarding the relative emissions of air versus automobile travel. From the TerraPass website I determined the following: A roundtrip flight from Denver to Paris (9727 miles) produces 3793 lbs of CO2 emissions per passenger. A 2002 Camaro that is driven 12,000 miles in a year produces 9586 lbs of CO2 annualy. So a Camaro-owning passenger traveling from Colorado to France produces about 40% of their annual automobile emissions. If the passenger owns a 2002 Honda Civic, the inflight emissions are 60% of thier annual automobile emissions.

My point is that most people demanding that we "do something" about climate change ultimately expect someone else to make the sacrifices. They buy a few energy-efficient light bulbs and keep flying to Europe every summer. They then return to the US and self-righteously proclaim their concern about climate issues.

Don't feel guilty. The Earth would continue to warm even if you did sacrifice your environmentally unfriendly addiction to overseas travel.
smueller is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 08:04 AM
  #56  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,322
Yes 'tree hugger' is perjorative and is only used it seems by folks who think the whole environmental movement is run by tree huggers

using it is a canard that is meant to taint those who are doing a lot to change the habits of other folk who waste energy.

PalenQ is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 08:20 AM
  #57  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,844
Anyone ever consider buying carbon credits to offset their trips?

I priced it at one sight and I think it ran up to about $50-60 for a trip from the West Coast to Western Europe. That was for both ways.
scrb is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 08:28 AM
  #58  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,458
Flight emissions are worse than car emissions, because they are so much closer to the higher parts of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is happening.

A billion people ARE going to die. It's going to happen whether you recycle your cardboard or not. Most of them are going to be in poor places close to the ocean, or in areas where agriculture and fishing are already collapsing, but some will be in relatively rich places like southern Europe.

What happens in England, for example, if 5 million Serbs, Macedonians, Greeks, and Bulgarians all attempt to immigrate, legally or otherwise, next summer? Are you going to shoot them in the water?

What happens when the water in most of Australia becomes too alkaline to grow crops? What happens when people in the southwestern US finally tap out the Oglalla reservoir, and the once-bountiful topsoil in Iowa is finally gone, putting an end to corn growing?

What happens when a billion people in Africa starve in front of TV cameras? A thousand Darfurs. Darfur is about ecological collapse more than it is race or religion or politics.

What happens when the Thames Flood Barrier is overtaken? Or the dikes in Holland fail like the ones in New Orleans?

What are the consequences of the cessation of the cold water cycling up from the deep in the Pacific on global weather and agriculture?

Remember too that in this modern age people don't just stay put to die; they emigrate. How does the US feel about having a mountain of corpses piled up on the other side of their famous wall? How many wars are going to start over famine?

Impacts on tourism: ask Australians if the death of the Great Barrier Reef would have an effect on visitors. Or a tenfold increase in poisonous jellyfish. Ask a Hungarian or an Italian if routine 45 degree summers would hurt. How would Venice do if Venice was under water?

There seem to be a lot of people in America who are professional WWII-rememberers. How many people remember the Dust Bowl? The population of the Dust Bowl is up tenfold or more since the 30s.
fnarf999 is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 08:33 AM
  #59  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,244
Anyone ever consider buying carbon credits to offset their trips?

LOL. Yes, I've got some carbon credits I'm willing to sell.
Budman is offline  
Jul 25th, 2007, 08:37 AM
  #60  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,844
Few individuals here and there deciding not to fly isn't going to matter.

Those flights are still going to happen because there's a huge demand for travel right now.

It would have to be a mass movement, enough to really hurt tourism globally.

Well at least Boeing is positioning the 787 as a "green" airliner.
scrb is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:40 PM.