The plane takes the blame 24 May 05

I was once told by a pilot “Glen Stuart” that an aroplaine 747. was the most fuel efficient method of transport available to man. Ie in Gallon of fuel per mile per pasinger.

I know that we use much smaller aroplains for short hall flights, and as a result the per mile per pasinger will be a very different sum.

However, I use trains all the time and they are allways (bar rush hour) empty. I would guess at this time there per gallon, per pasinger per mile is probably far higher that of aroplaine flights.

I dont know which is the worst of the two evils? (Answers on a post card)

All I do know is that the fuel on plains should be taxed very heavily!

source:http://www.boeing.com/commercial/value/green.html

Only a fraction of atmospheric pollution is caused by aviation. According to a 1999 report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, airplanes produce just 3.5 percent of man-made emissions that may contribute to climate change. By far, the biggest producers of emissions are cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, powerplants, home heating systems, and industrial manufacturing.

Since 1970, airplane emissions per passenger-mile have been cut by half. Most emissions are directly related to fuel consumption, and newer airplanes such as the Boeing 777 are twice as fuel efficient as airplanes built 30 years ago. Compared with 1950, the reduction is even more dramatic. In the past 50 years, airplane fuel use per passenger-mile has been reduced by 70 percent.

In fact, per passenger-mile, a Boeing airplane filled 75 percent to capacity is more fuel efficient than an automobile with a driver and single passenger. Only when the average car is carrying a driver and three or more passengers is it as fuel efficient as an airplane 75 percent full.

Ah … so you know how to cut and paste Jimbo. Did you not come across any other information on this issue?

Douglas Coker

Why have you not asked Mark Lynas whether he came across any other information on this issue?

Sauce for the goose . . .

“Jeremy Clarkson: Nuts and dolts of an eco-boycott

When someone from Oxford Brookes University called recently to say its School of Technology wanted to give me an honorary degree — for championing the cause of engineering — I was thrilled. It had been only a couple of years since a similar honour was bestowed by Brunel University. So I would be Jeremy “two doctors” Clarkson, which isn’t bad for someone who barely managed O-levels.

However, much to the delight of the BBC’s fanatically pro-fox, anti-car internet news service, my nomination is being boycotted. Because, in this day and age, it’s preposterous to honour someone who has a four-wheel-drive Volvo and a ride-on lawnmower.”

There is more at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1622006,00.html.

Why have we not asked norb if he demands this of other bloggers??

Mark linked to a story. And commented on it.

I shall look around the Internets and look for evidence of norb’s campaign to ensure all bloggers link to an article that balances the article they link to.

Lots of time on your hands, norb?

D

has anyone asked norb why he hasn’t linked to additional information on this topic?

D

I’ve read his book! In case you haven’t “norbert” I refer you to pages 293 and 294 and footnote 27. Properly researched, referenced and well written. You know I’ve been on this planet for over 50 years and I have developed some analytical skills. When others either don’t have them or don’t use them I can’t help noticing. It’s the way my brain works. How does yours work?

And Mark is not beyond criticism. See my post on his New Statesman article. (Truckers and Miners – below.)

Douglas Coker

I meant to make a statement about the response to many disagreeable items by some of those who post to this forum.

I have noticed that the only posts that receive criticism for lacking balance are those that question the AGW hypothesis or present information that is not consistent with it. I have seen no criticism for a lack of balance of any post that accepts or reinforces the AGW hypothesis. The hypocrisy got to me.

I believe that the forum receives many posts that support Mark’s beliefs. It is my intent to provide some balance to the overwhelming majority of the material that appears here. Usually the contrarian items that appear are in response to a posted item. I feel no compunction to provide additional balance by citing articles that might disagree with my point of view. Nor, in my opinion, should anyone else.

I could have titled my post with something really rude. “Don’t waste our time” or “Laziness!” or “Is this a wind-up?”. While I am prepared to be combative I try to stop short of using insults.

My strong preference for posters is to be transparent, my name and biog are here for all to read, to take some care over posts and not just hit the button after skimming some piece they happen across, to desist from going round in the same loop repeatedly and to move the debate forward. The temperature is rising!

Have you read my post Truckers and Miners? Here’s the link http://www.marklynas.org/wind/message/1387.html

I’m off to do some work on carbon rationing now. Watch this space!

Douglas Coker

Norbert has not added any value to Clarkson’s article. This is just a cut and paste. What follows is a brief comment.

In his article, Clarkson grossly oversimplifies the issue and misses the main point (possibly intentionally) as is his wont. Comparing engineering and environmentalism is a false dichotomy: apples and oranges. Environmentalism is a way of life, an outlook or a philosophy, if you will. Engineering is making things. You can have environmentalist engineering or anti-environmentalist engineering.

What Clarkson’s writings do is hide a whole set of values, unfairly, behind the term engineering: an appeal through Brunel to mythic national greatness, a might-makes-right-polity and scapegoating of the other. These three themes echo loudly through the 20th century and it is very worrying to hear them still. Clarkson also reacts in his writing against anything that would limit his behaviour, e.g. environmentalism, by denigrating or belittling it, often using xenophobic, sexist/homophibic language.

So what were you going to say about the Clarkson article?

From the words of Norbert:

“I feel no compunction to provide additional balance by citing articles that might disagree with my point of view.”

No further comment from me is required!

Dan

Thank you George for a post which explains so well why JC’s behaviour and attitudes are so reprehensible. He swaggers and he bullies but I think he might be quite a sad character in the future when he is no longer bankable or fashionable.

Douglas Coker

a 747 is about twice as efficient as a car. So put 2 people in a car and youre ahead.. the A380 will be 13% better than 747? ........................ Some figures I have seen: 777-300 40 km-person/litter (sic) = 94mpg (JAL figures) 777-200 0.0918 lb/nm = 28km/l = 65mpg Boeing 747-400 8.6 gallons of fuel/passenger.hour (US or Imp??) Lockheed-1011-500 11.05 gallons of fuel/hour/passenger (US or Imp??) Douglas MD-11 9.2 gallons of fuel/hour/passenger. (US or Imp??) 747: 330 people 19 km/litre*person = passenger car with 2 passengers Boeing 747 5 gal/mile (14 liters per kilometer). (Boeings figure) A380 – 95 miles per imperial gallon ................... I would like to see the stas on trains ............... country buses are rather fuel efficient, unfortunately, as they ought to be trains. .................. the QE2 20.2 L/100 pkm (person km) - the worst by far. So cruise liners are out. (the QE2 could take 10 times its 1700 passenger load I guess)