But the Romans managed to invade and they did not have air travel and the vikings came along to rape and pillage but again no air travel so we just go back to boats or maybe airships but no hydrogen please.
Ban on airtravel
- Thread starter Stigmorgan
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
johna.clements
Established Member
You missed out trains, which are often faster than flying now up to about 500 miles.
Airships are a bit slow but could be good for getting to islands or crossing to France. If they could load passengers whilst attached to the top of a tower they could be used to get directly to a city centre or railway station. Maybe catch an airship from Weymouth railway station to Cherbourg railway station etc.
Yes I forgot about the channel tunnel, direct rail link into europe so yes maybe we don't need planes and getting rid of them would help global warming. They found out that there was a reduction in air temperature following 911 when they grounded all aircraft so imagine the impact if that happened globally.
hmmm That is interesting. The drastic reduction in air travel due to covid apparently had the opposite effect. Click here for details.
Jonm
Established Member
Looking very briefly at the referenced report, it is saying what needs to be done for UK to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 using existing technology. It seems quite lightweight, all I could see about electricity generational was “Electricity sector and infrastructure: Absolute Zero requires a 3x expansion in non-emitting electricity generation, storage, distribution and load balancing“
Given what it’s terms of reference are, it is probably about right. It is more or less what we would have to do to reach the targets we are aiming for using current technology.
As for the original article, it is just sensationalist nonsense.
Given what it’s terms of reference are, it is probably about right. It is more or less what we would have to do to reach the targets we are aiming for using current technology.
As for the original article, it is just sensationalist nonsense.
heimlaga
Established Member
Banning most air travel is the only sensible way to go. We just cannot get away from the fact. Exceptions could maybe be made for places like the Faroes and Shetland and for specialists flown in to sort out oil rig breakdowns or mayor wildfires and specialist doctors flown in to provide certain types of care that local doctors cannot provide.
I just doubt anyone except maybe some foolhardy third world dictator is courageous enough to be the first to do it........ but it has to be done.......
I just doubt anyone except maybe some foolhardy third world dictator is courageous enough to be the first to do it........ but it has to be done.......
Jonm
Established Member
Looking very briefly at the referenced report, it is saying what needs to be done for UK to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 using existing technology. It seems quite lightweight/superficial, all I could see about electricity generation was “Electricity sector and infrastructure: Absolute Zero requires a 3x expansion in non-emitting electricity generation, storage, distribution and load balancing“
Given what it’s terms of reference are, it is probably about right and it has a few universities behind it.
As for the original article, normal sensationalist nonsense.
Here is a link to the original report
Given what it’s terms of reference are, it is probably about right and it has a few universities behind it.
As for the original article, normal sensationalist nonsense.
Here is a link to the original report
Limey Lurker
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Sep 2006
- Messages
- 273
- Reaction score
- 98
The ONLY thing this particular Tory Government is "pro", is their personal wealth, and if they can increase their wealth by destroying Great Bitain, then it's "Good-bye Britain!".
The UK stands as much chance of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 as there is of unicorns in reagents park.
If that clown Borris continues to provoke Putin then it will be good bye britain because no amount of money poured into defence can save us from what he could unleash on us and the money would be better spent on the NHS and other services that benefit the majority but the very best outcome will be another cold war that will drain the finances of the west and impact us all.
Always been a big problem with the torries, many of their policies cannot be implemented because it would impact there rich financial supporters like property developers who themselves are destroying our countryside for the sake of wealth and not looking at building homes fit for the future.
If that clown Borris continues to provoke Putin then it will be good bye britain because no amount of money poured into defence can save us from what he could unleash on us and the money would be better spent on the NHS and other services that benefit the majority but the very best outcome will be another cold war that will drain the finances of the west and impact us all.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Air travel does not need to be banned to be net zero. In 30 years time it may be fuelled by more efficient batteries, hydrogen or plant based crops (ethanol etc). The article is at best superficial selective journalistic babble.
Society needs to be clear on priorities. Currently ££ tends to be the dominating factor. Speed/time usually takes second place. Emissions are often subordinate to traveller convenience and preference.
Taxation on air travel may (and should) increase to reduce demand, but needs international support. Tourism is an obvious beneficiary of air travel. For business investment and activity unimpeded air travel is an enabler which individual countries may use as a policy tool.
So it would be a very courageous government which bans, rather than just taxes, air travel.
Society needs to be clear on priorities. Currently ££ tends to be the dominating factor. Speed/time usually takes second place. Emissions are often subordinate to traveller convenience and preference.
Taxation on air travel may (and should) increase to reduce demand, but needs international support. Tourism is an obvious beneficiary of air travel. For business investment and activity unimpeded air travel is an enabler which individual countries may use as a policy tool.
So it would be a very courageous government which bans, rather than just taxes, air travel.
thetyreman
Established Member
what next shall we ban freedom of speech? and also whilst were at it lets ban all unions, all human rights, all working rights and label anybody who's left leaning as a marxist shall we? if we allow anybody to ban air travel I will be out on the streets protesting, once we allow them to ban one thing it will lead to other abuses of power, this is how fascism started in the 20s and 30s, people need to stand against it in huge numbers.
Jonm
Established Member
“Could” being the operative word. But they would get the same back hence MAD.
History tells us that Dictators/bullies are not appeased by giving them what they say they want, that is just the start. Sweden has been fiercely neutral since the Napoleonic wars, not any more, they obviously see Russia as a dangerous aggressor.
If we (NATO) do not have adequate conventional forces, faced with Russian aggression then I cannot see USA, UK, France going nuclear first, unless their respective homelands are invaded. So we have to be able to stop Russia with conventional forces.should “western” Europe be invaded by Russia.
I agree Boris is a clown, and a lot worse.
But this is something we should have kept our noses out of, there is no reason why the west needs to put it's head on the block for Ukraine knowing that the risk of escalation is just ramping up. Basically Nato has just been pouring fuel on the fire, had it kept out it would be over and we would not be facing the worst financial crisis for many decades that will drag on for some time. Now we are putting Putin into a corner, if faced with bad odds due to Nato weapons what do you think he will do. Just say ok and withdraw, hit Ukraine with something that will stop them in their tracks or deliver a substantial warning to Nato?
Jonm
Established Member
Jonm
Established Member
That and staying in power with lies and misrepresentation. If Johnson told me it was raining I would look out the window to check.
As would I if any PM in the last 30 years told me.
Jonm
Established Member
I do not think we will have any of those.
Spoken like a true lefty. Without wealth there is no growth and fewer jobs with lower wages. Wealth doesn't increase on its own. It needs investment and speculation. Investment in business, technology and people. People taking risks in new ideas and inventions. Without wealth there would be less tax revenue and the economy would weaker for it. It's always easy to attack the rich but it takes a lot more effort to get rich too.
Yes me too and I know that when the Tories are in we have growth, excepting the war years and pandemics, my shares grow faster. When my shares grow, it indicates to me that the economy is doing alright. This isn't about loving or hating a party, it's knowing when you're better off.
I would suggest, Scruples, that this is rather a simplistic view of the right/left, rich/poor debates. Certainly at the moment it can take quite a bit of effort just to stay afloat in this climate without getting rich....or perhaps even needing to. Having enough is good for some folks. Quite a few rich people have merely worked with what they have been given already, either through inheritance or education.... or a leg up.
You mention shares... I appreciate they are needed in this ecconomy, but it disturbs me that quite often in this country the people who actually do the work are not given share options ..or even a share of the profits. Just sayin......
- Status
