From a punter/man on the street-angle- its good to be seen to be doing something for consumer confidence. I think this is what 'obvious' measures to the common man are being taken.
From a punter/man on the street-angle- its good to be seen to be doing something for consumer confidence
isn't this very patronising ? So it doesn't matter if the measures are pointless and ineffective so long as the witless hordes are mollified ?
So it doesn't matter if the measures are pointless and ineffective so long as the witless hordes are mollified ?
Absolutely SFB.
Do you not remember the "tanks at Heathrow" ?
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
And the very visibly armed police ?
[img] 
[/img]
Of course everyone knew that terrorism in Britain isn't fought with tanks patrolling the streets, or coppers armed with sub-machine guns walking around looking for terrorists to shoot.
But that didn't matter.............because it was......
"Hooray for Tony Blair for doing whatever was necessary to defend the British people"!
No wonder he won a third term in 2005.
Of course everyone knew that terrorism in Britain isn't fought with tanks patrolling the streets, or coppers armed with sub-machine guns walking around looking for terrorists to shoot.
Surely if that really was the case they wouldn't have bothered. Apologies if I'm missing some subtle irony in your post, GG, and I know you dislike the sneering "never underestimate the stupidity of the average member of the population", but you have to assume that an awfully large proportion of the population don't actually realise that (if it makes you any happier, I'll include many politicians of all flavours in that list).
I know you dislike the sneering "never underestimate the stupidity of the average member of the population"
Yep, you're right - I don't think most people are "stupid". They are however, imo, overwhelmingly lazy. They would much rather politicians and the media do their thinking for them - and save themselves the bother. As a consequence, they generally tend to think 'correctly' and can't be arsed to challenge the official line. It doesn't mean that most people are stupid enough to believe that tanks can realistically be used to thwart a terrorist plan to board a plane with a bomb at Heathrow Airport.
Ah, what you're saying is that they don't actually think at all?
Not when it comes to issues like how to deal with supposedly "terrorist threats". As I said, most people are too lazy to challenge what the media/politicians tells them - challenging what we are constantly being fed everyday, can be hard work. So much easier to rely on knee-jerk reactions and what Rupert Murdoch tells you. Specially when there's something worth watching on the telly.
We're probably in agreement again then. I still reckon there's a significant proportion who'd reckon the tanks and armed police a useful means to combat terrorism even if they did think about it though (admittedly that may just be because the brainwashing is working).
PETN is difficult to detonate using either of the two methods of shock or heat, but is more difficult to trigger a replicable catastrophic reaction using the heat addition as ignition is less precise.
The bomb failed to ignite due to inadequate heat and pressure (possibly caused by the climatic conditions in the cabin/underwear) and thus succeeded only in turning him into a human candle.
[b][u]....Sic Sempur Terrorists!....[/u][/b]
.
Just stop folk flying. Reduces the opportunity for this kind of terrorism and reduces carbon emissions at the same time.
[b]I AM SICK OF PEOPLE BANGING ON ABOUT EMISSIONS FROM AIRCRAFT![/b]
[b] 2% FFS! [/b] and if they'd allow more runways to accomodate an integrated air traffic control system allowing multiple landings and continuous approach vectors, that would drop by half!
[url] http://www.sascargo.com/CargoNewsCenter/Previous-CNC/Issue-6/Environmental-challenge.aspx [/url]
Just stop folk flying.
Or............just accept that occasionally planes might blow up killing all their occupants.
After all, the thought of people dying everyday on British roads doesn't stop me getting into a car. Or riding a bike.
2% FFS!
2% ? ..........I didn't realise it was that much 😕
It seems a lot - considering how few planes there are in the world.
According to your link, "industrial processes" only account for 3%. And the total for "roads" is 13%. When you think of how many vehicles there are on the roads throughout the world, it shows just what a dirty form of transport flying is - I simply had no idea 😐
I reckon we should do more to cut back on it.
It seems a lot - considering how few planes there are in the world.
Of course it all depends how you interpret* the stats - if you calculate CO2 emitted per vehicle, then an A380 is always going to look rather worse compared to a Ford Focus than if you calculate emissions per passenger mile. Would you really think it better if there were a lot more smaller planes flying around?
* fiddle
Of course, the best way to get 250 people to the south of Spain is to pack them into 60 cars and drive for 2 days.
That's waaay more efficient.
Or accept the fact that there's no actual [i]need[/i] for them to go to Spain in the first place?
[b]REDUCE[/b], Reuse, Recycle
Why can't the US just shut their borders like the majority of Murcans would like to do and let us get on with the rest of our lives? I still can't see me travelling there in the near future with these ridiculous restrictions in place.
On the other hand I do wonder how it is that airplanes on final approach into heathrow are still allowed to dump fuel over a heavily populated area? Any suggestions?
People travel, goods are traded, they have always been. You're not going to reduce emissions by attempting to curtail flights. You might as well try to stop people refridgerating food or heating their homes. Pandoras box is open and there are far worse things to come out of it than air travel.
Air travel transports more goods and people, more miles per year than ALL other forms of transport combined and produces 1/6th of the emissions.
Use a car for only 5 journeys out of 6 and you've paid for air travel. It'll be 11 out of 12 within 15 years.
Of course it all depends how you interpret* the stats* fiddle
Well I was only referring to the "stats" in Daffy's link.
Since those stats have been provided by a company in the 'air transport' business, I had assumed that the weren't "fiddled" in favour of road transport.
I am genuinely surprised that road transport only accounts for 13% of CO2 emissions - when you consider the millions of cars and commercial vehicle there are in the world. I had expected it to be greater than lighting and heating.
And although I realised that an aircraft kicks out a lot of pollution, I couldn't understand why all the fuss. As I had assumed that because their relatively small numbers, the total would be insignificant. Clearly I was wrong, and I now see the importance of reducing air transport.
Ernie, car emissions have already been pretty effectively cut, euro 3 was a pretty effective move. Course, CO2 is only a minor part of overall emissions. But watch out, soon someone'll be along to tell you that it's not CO2 or emissions at all, it's peak oil that's the problem 😉
car emissions have already been pretty effectively cut, euro 3 was a pretty effective move.
Haven't they just....... I hadn't realises that emissions controls had been [b]so[/b] effective.
So the environmentalists were right all along - we didn't have to be defeatist and fatalistic.......we [i]could[/i] do something, and we [i]didn't[/i] have to put up with the existing situation.
It all sounds very hopeful.......perhaps we should listen to a bit more often to environmentalists ? 💡
Ernie, car emissions have already been pretty effectively cut, euro 3 was a pretty effective move. Course, CO2 is only a minor part of overall emissions.
Well you're talking apples and oranges there. If "emissions" are what you're worried about then euro 3 has indeed done a pretty good job. Not done anything at all for CO2 though - if anything CO2 output is actually increased by meeting euro 3, and it's only the improving efficiency of cars which has enabled CO2 output from cars to be less (on a vehicle mile basis) than it used to be. Just in case anybody reading this hasn't got the point from that, euro 3 (or any other number) doesn't measure the CO2 output of cars and does nothing to reduce it.
I now see the importance of reducing air transport.
Really? So cutting air transport in half will be of more benefit than getting rid of 10% of road journeys?
So cutting air transport in half will be of more benefit than getting rid of 10% of road journeys?
Who said that then ?
I had always been convinced of the need to cut road journeys. However, I had never quite understood why reducing air transport was so important.
But now, thanks to Daffy's link, I see that air transport does indeed make a significant contribution to CO2 emissions.
Ernie, I'm not sure you could find your arse using both hands and a full length mirror. Talk about getting the wrong end of an argument.
2% reducing to 1% doesn't seem so significant to me, though perhaps you're more pernickety than I...
...I'll reiterate; Aircraft transport more people and goods across more miles than ALL other forms of transport combined. Aircraft manage to do all of that while producing 1/6th of the emissions of ALL other transport combined.
How is this a bad thing?
2% reducing to 1% doesn't seem so significant to me
Well I have always believed that we should try and reduce [i]all[/i] our CO2 emissions - "Every little helps" ....as they say. I had just thought that air travel probably contributed too little to warrant too much effort. I now see from your chart that air transport, relative to other human activities, contributes a small, but nevertheless significant amount of CO2.
Furthermore I assume that as air transport is constantly [i]increasing[/i], that unless steps are taken to halt the increase, it's contribution to CO2 will also increase. Presumably if left unchecked, it will eventually overtake "industrial processes". Sounds like it's time to do something about it to me.
.
I'll reiterate; Aircraft transport more people and goods across more miles than ALL other forms of transport combined.
So you are saying that more goods and people are transported for more miles, everyday in Britain, than are transported by road and rail ? How the f##k did we become so dependant on air transport 😯
No, really .......it's time we did something about it 😐
Do planes really transport more goods than shipping and lorries and 3rd world cyclists and rail combined? I'm impressed - why is it that there's a new container terminus being planned in Essex then?
When I can fly from Exeter to Leeds for £30 at fairly short notice when an equivalent train ticket might be in the region of £200, it's not exactly bloody difficult to see which option I'm going to pick.
superstar_opponents - MemberWhy the funk can't these total nutjobs grow the **** up, calm down and leave us alone? Their religion is not better than anyone else's, they are not right, we've done nothing to them (well, we hadn't...) and they should just leave it out. Somehow I doubt their "god" would agree that mindlessly killing people is a one way ticket to heavan.
Stoopid middle eastern/african muslim crackpots.
But waging war in Afghanistan is preventing stuff like this because this is where all the trouble originates, or so our government keep saying! I still don't know why our men are dying out there, perhaps we just went along with what George Bush Junior wanted and now his repalacement's.
Did this known suspect come from Afghanistan? No! Did he have anything to do with Afghanistan whatsoever? No! Were there warnings about him before he flew? Yes - even from the boy's father! Was he on numerous security authorities' databases? Yes!
The problem here is that airports in places like Africa don't have the same level of security as we do here in Britain. In Europe (outside the UK), security is far more lax (it's always been that way in my experience).
The current security levels we have here are adequate, we just need to get the rest of the world to toe the line and do the same.
This flight didn't even stop in this country, so why are our politicians coming up with suggestions for pointless changes to aircraft security?
The only thing Britain needs to do is ensure that there are no publicly, or privately funded establishments that condone radical religious teachings! If they find any, shut then down and prosecute the owners. Force them to sell up and the proceeds can go toward Victims of Crime compensation schemes!
Personally, I think any religious belief is a load of irrational nonsense anyway.
Bloody Hell, I am in agreement with Ernie all the way here!
Daffy, got a link to the stats on transport by planes? I VERY much doubt that it eclipsed all others in volume of people/goods moved. Having worked on carbon footprints, air travel is a hideously inefficient form of moving goods in terms o CO2 per kilometer per kilo of stuff moved (whether that be people or kenyan trimmed beans).
We need less air travel
[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/02/havens-of-hate-115875-21936213/ ]article by my brother[/url]
If I can join this slight thread hijack I have to say I dont care whether planes belch out the purest of mountain meadow air- I just think the encouragement of air travel ruins the world in more important ways, such as the fact that some of my customers are going to lose their homes/farms and greenbelt to make way for the commercial interests of a local airport. It just adds one more way that the world is becoming a seamless expanse of tarmac and 'development'.
Totally agree west kipper.
I just want naked airline to come true.
😆
Having worked on carbon footprints, air travel is a hideously inefficient form of moving goods in terms o CO2 per kilometer per kilo of stuff moved (whether that be people or kenyan trimmed beans).
Compared to what? The numbers I've seen suggest moving people in cars is no more efficient in terms of carbon footprint than moving them in planes - likely to be less.
Leaving aside the fact that the WAY* we use our cars is usually more inefficient than it should be, I suspect that planes might not be a practical option for the shorter journeys thet are more common, no matter how efficient the paper numbers look.
* I mean I'm sure there probably ARE a few school run mums looking at buying the Range Rover re-fit of a 777 in order to safely transport their little darlings, Thomas and Emily, between school and the out of town shopping centre. 🙄
car emissions have already been pretty effectively cut, euro 3 was a pretty effective move
Unfortunately it's not a simple as that is it?
Making individual cars more efficient is obviously a good thing, but when at the same time you have more cars being used to do more miles, then we're still in a mess.
