[News] Climate change: Tax frequent fliers and get rid of SUVs, + California on fire.

[Stat Brother]

A frequent flyer tax, phasing out polluting SUVs and restricting cars in city centres are among climate change solutions suggested by members of the public.

A citizens' assembly of 108 people from all walks of life published its report after weeks of debate.

They proposed curbing road building and using the pandemic to cut emissions.

MPs said the report offered a "unique insight", but activists Extinction Rebellion said it didn't go far enough.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54087176


It pains me to include the full headline as this thread will be:-

'But Tubthumper flies everywhere'.
'Yes but I don't have any children'
'Here's a graph showing the damage you do in a plane'.
'But I travel by carbon neutral airlines and here's graph about children'.
'But...'
'But...'


Although in other considerably less dull news here's California :-

[tweet]1303909838376722432[/tweet]


.

 

[Motogull]

I'm not disagreeing. However, science is moving quickly. Some clean power is inevitable at some point.

Those fires though. Pretty disturbing.

 

[beorhthelm]

SUV's can do one, frivolous class of vehicle.

tax on frequent fliers is a selfish attitude, people want air travel to reduce but still want their holiday abroad.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

4x4xbye

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Make air travel costs reflect the real environmental cost and make tickets expensive enough to 100% carbon offset each flight. If you want to fly - you pay the right price.

 

[zefarelly]

Yeah science is moving quickly and has done clean power ages ago. It is a shame the politicians and general public are a few decades behind the science though.

Quite . . . Or . . . The business interests pulling the strings of politicians are at least 2 to 3 decades behind the technology.

 

[studio150]

Yes let's turn the clock back 200 years or so.

Your distance of travel will be determined by how far you can walk in one day.

 

[zefarelly]

Appropriate tax, on appropriate travel

Raise tax on fuel, flying, cars, everything, BUT, a written guarantee from gov.**** that income goes into renewables or anything sensible!

A vast majority of people chose to travel in an inappropriate form of transport.

My guit is a 25 journey Each way for work in an estate car . . . . On my own, In my defence y'r 'onour . . . .I do said journey on a 50-60 year old Lambretta most of the time, 50-60 MPG. No winners until I find a job in Shoreham, if only there was one!

 

[Stat Brother]

Yes let's turn the clock back 200 years or so.

Your distance of travel will be determined by how far you can walk in one day.

Upstairs and back down again as I attempt to remember what I went upstairs for in the first place.





repeat ad infinitum

 

[Swansman]

Just letting those fires do their job would probably solve a lot of the environmental issues.

Yes let's turn the clock back 200 years or so.

Your distance of travel will be determined by how far you can walk in one day.

Yes please

 

[zefarelly]

Yes let's turn the clock back 200 years or so.

Your distance of travel will be determined by how far you can walk in one day.

I'll be the last to curb travel, its a wonderful enlightening experience. However, a vast majority of travel is unnecessary. A simple example being driving 4 miles to and from a supermarket on the edge of town , when those doing it, would have walked maybe 1/4 mile with their parents, to do the same as children.

 

[Jim in the West]

Did anyone mention giving up meat and dairy? Livestock produce nearly 20% of greenhouse gasses....it's not that difficult to give up meat and dairy products (or even just cut down a bit).

 

[larus]

Yes let's turn the clock back 200 years or so.

Your distance of travel will be determined by how far you can walk in one day.

California has a history of mega-droughts. These can be forty odd years and in very extreme cases, have been calculated as a couple of centuries. So, if we accept that California has a history of prolonged dry spells, why would Californians (who are meant to be enlightened, climate aware people) think it sensible to live in such vast numbers in an area which is virtually a desert?

Also, from what I’ve read, there are concerns that the restrictions on controlled burning leads to an accumulation of tinder, which means that the fires, when they get started, are more intense. Same problem happens in Australia - the law of unintended consequences.

It XR want to control CO2 emissions, they’ll need to ask those nice Chinese and Indian governments to stop building their coal powered generation plants - good luck with that.

If you look at the Paris accord and see the impact it has on projected CO2 growth (that’s assuming that countries stick to it - yeah, right....), it’s insignificant.

 

[beorhthelm]

Reducing business travel would be a great start. Remember most of those work for companies that can afford it... and also would be the best placed to look to make such savings through innovation.

business travel is a small portion, if we want to cut air travel it means cutting the majority or tourist trips.

 

[portlock seagull]

Too many humans. That’s all there is to it. But don’t worry, Mother Nature always wins. One day, a major pandemic will kill hundreds of millions, like the 1918-20 Spanish influenza.

 

[Swansman]

Too many humans. That’s all there is to it. But don’t worry, Mother Nature always wins. One day, a major pandemic will kill hundreds of millions, like the 1918-20 Spanish influenza.

There will be less humans in the not too distant future... either something solves this issue, or someone is.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yes, them as well. Far too many people looking out for only themselves is the essence of the problem, the solutions to climate change have been collecting dust unused for quite a while. Unfortunately, it may well be too late to use them.

are you sharing them?

 

[portlock seagull]

California has a history of mega-droughts. These can be forty odd years and in very extreme cases, have been calculated as a couple of centuries. So, if we accept that California has a history of prolonged dry spells, why would Californians (who are meant to be enlightened, climate aware people) think it sensible to live in such vast numbers in an area which is virtually a desert?

Also, from what I’ve read, there are concerns that the restrictions on controlled burning leads to an accumulation of tinder, which means that the fires, when they get started, are more intense. Same problem happens in Australia - the law of unintended consequences.

It XR want to control CO2 emissions, they’ll need to ask those nice Chinese and Indian governments to stop building their coal powered generation plants - good luck with that.

If you look at the Paris accord and see the impact it has on projected CO2 growth (that’s assuming that countries stick to it - yeah, right....), it’s insignificant.

Major contributory problem is because they’ve sucked out all the water from the entire state ecosystem for agricultural purposes. California generates a huge proportion of their food including extraordinarily thirsty (but profitable) crops. Great areas of land have literally collapsed (wtf?!) because of this. Some are left without any water to even drink. Bused in bottles as a solution. It’s an astonishing situation. Human impact has devastated the natural, and once plentiful, environment and it’s hard to feel sorry for the richest people on the planet when they’ve sowed their own destruction. They won’t learn, not whilst there’s profit to be made. So put up they must. Only wish they’d shut up too. Because they could do something about it. But won’t.

 

[vegster]

A frequent flyer tax, phasing out polluting SUVs and restricting cars in city centres are among climate change solutions suggested by members of the public.

A citizens' assembly of 108 people from all walks of life published its report after weeks of debate.

They proposed curbing road building and using the pandemic to cut emissions.

MPs said the report offered a "unique insight", but activists Extinction Rebellion said it didn't go far enough.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54087176


It pains me to include the full headline as this thread will be:-

'But Tubthumper flies everywhere'.
'Yes but I don't have any children'
'Here's a graph showing the damage you do in a plane'.
'But I travel by carbon neutral airlines and here's graph about children'.
'But...'
'But...'


Although in other considerably less dull news here's California :-

[tweet]1303909838376722432[/tweet]

View attachment 128197
.

Perfectly logical, selfishness IS killing the planet.

 

[portlock seagull]

Perfectly logical, selfishness IS killing the planet.

Which is completely unstoppable, it’s genetic really. Only way to reduce selfishness therefore is reduce population. Yep, no chance of that either!