Reply to: Why didn't the emergency budget.....

[doodab]

It's inefficient on brain evolution. Higher orders of the animal kingdom don't fly.

Yeah, WHS, birdbrain

[Doggy Styles]

I'd agree with you.

I look at it this way: if flying was inefficient then why are there so many birds, bats, and buzzing insects?

It's inefficient on brain evolution. Higher orders of the animal kingdom don't fly.

[TimberWolf]

I'd agree with you.

I look at it this way: if flying was inefficient then why are there so many birds, bats, and buzzing insects?

It is curious that it's cheaper (in monetary terms) to fly long distances than it is to drive, take the train or go by boat. I doubt you could even cycle long distances for the same cost, even if excluding the cost of the infrastructure you use and don't pay for.

[BlasterBates]

Yup with the Arctic in a death spiral, we really need to do something.

[doodab]

if flying was inefficient then why are there so many birds, bats, and buzzing insects?

Then why are there so many more plants and trees? And bacteria, there are squillions of them. We should all stand still, or squelch around.

[threaded]

It would be interesting to see a complete breakdown of costs of travel in various forms, including the cost of maintaining the infrastructure, i.e the real cost. Perhaps roads and rail would start to look less favourable than air, which doesn't need repaving/relaying every few years and isn't subsidised.

I'd agree with you.

I look at it this way: if flying was inefficient then why are there so many birds, bats, and buzzing insects?

[TimberWolf]

It would be interesting to see a complete breakdown of costs of travel in various forms, including the cost of maintaining the infrastructure, i.e the real cost. Perhaps roads and rail would start to look less favourable than air, which doesn't need repaving/relaying every few years and isn't subsidised.

[shaunbhoy]

Even a fully loaded train is more environmentally damaging than if each person just drove a small car.

Once you factor in the infrastructure costs, the trains lose big style.

Most statistics I see, such as on the gov. environment website, compare a moving train to a complete car journey, i.e. totally bogus.

Government statistics?..................Totally Bogus??

This would never have happened under New Liebour!!!

[threaded]

As with most things - it depends on how the numbers are crunched.

At one extreme, the CO2 used by a peak time commuter on the train they travel on is quite a big gap compared to a car journey. But when you factor in all the off-peak trains which are virtually empty, the gap is smaller. So far, not many arguments.

Where it starts to get fuzy is when you start to factor in the infrastructure costs (i.e. the CO2 footprint of the train crew, the ticketing staff, the maintenance staff) - and whether eqivalent considerations are made for road infrastructure costs.

Using the same considerations, nuclear power does have a meaningful CO2 footprint, such as the security staff that need to drive to work every day for 200 years after the plant has been decomissioned to guard the nuclear waste.

Even a fully loaded train is more environmentally damaging than if each person just drove a small car.

Once you factor in the infrastructure costs, the trains lose big style.

Most statistics I see, such as on the gov. environment website, compare a moving train to a complete car journey, i.e. totally bogus.

[centurian]

It has been proven by several methods that railways are more environmentally damaging than cars. Yet they still run trains and these environmentalists bang on about how we should all use public transport and not cars.

As with most things - it depends on how the numbers are crunched.

At one extreme, the CO2 used by a peak time commuter on the train they travel on is quite a big gap compared to a car journey. But when you factor in all the off-peak trains which are virtually empty, the gap is smaller. So far, not many arguments.

Where it starts to get fuzy is when you start to factor in the infrastructure costs (i.e. the CO2 footprint of the train crew, the ticketing staff, the maintenance staff) - and whether eqivalent considerations are made for road infrastructure costs.

Using the same considerations, nuclear power does have a meaningful CO2 footprint, such as the security staff that need to drive to work every day for 200 years after the plant has been decomissioned to guard the nuclear waste.

[threaded]

It has been proven by several methods that railways are more environmentally damaging than cars. Yet they still run trains and these environmentalists bang on about how we should all use public transport and not cars.

It's about time they ripped up the tracks and tarmacadamed the whole lot.

Save the Earth and provide employment for ex-civil savants. Instead of using road-rollers y'know they could have them in lines, each with one of them pounding sticks, to level the tarmac.

[suityou01]

...talk about the most important threat to the human race for a million years?


Man Made Climate Change.

What's the point in wasting time and money tackling a £1 Trillion deficit when we should be spending everything we have banning CO2?

Or has the hysteria died down a bit now?

Maybe not quite yet

The Japanese government has launched a campaign encouraging people to go to bed and get up extra early in order to reduce household carbon dioxide emissions.

[DimPrawn]

you have to admit there must be something wrong when the environment is producing prawns that look like yours

You mean big and rather frightening.

Grrrrr.

[TimberWolf]

Cameron is due to tackle climate change this weekend. He's due to talk with Obama about BP and how they can pump that black gold out of the ground as fast as humanly possible and share the proceeds amicably.

[Boudica]

you have to admit there must be something wrong when the environment is producing prawns that look like yours