Global warming and "convenience"

kaya

Rant time, im not a believer in man made global warming/cooling or whatever but dismayed at the fact that 40,000 fans have just flown for 5 hours each way to watch two english football teams kick a ball about, say 500 people per plane thats 80 planes flying for 10 hours and not a mention of the enviroment at all, i wonder how long you would have to drive a big gas guzzler for to emit the same co2?-funny how this has been "conveniently" not mentioned in the mainstream press

moonrakerz

Look here - stop complaining ! just make sure that you haven't left your TV in "standby".

:rotfl:;):rotfl:

thescouselander

kaya wrote: »

Rant time, im not a believer in man made global warming/cooling or whatever but dismayed at the fact that 40,000 fans have just flown for 5 hours each way to watch two english football teams kick a ball about, say 500 people per plane thats 80 planes flying for 10 hours and not a mention of the enviroment at all, i wonder how long you would have to drive a big gas guzzler for to emit the same co2?-funny how this has been "conveniently" not mentioned in the mainstream press

What people convieniently forget is that commercial passenger planes are in fact public transport. Also, the fuel used per passenger mile on a fully occupied plane is comparible with ground transport such as cars and busses.

mute_posting

kaya wrote: »

Rant time, im not a believer in man made global warming/cooling or whatever but dismayed at the fact that 40,000 fans have just flown for 5 hours each way to watch two english football teams kick a ball about, say 500 people per plane thats 80 planes flying for 10 hours and not a mention of the enviroment at all, i wonder how long you would have to drive a big gas guzzler for to emit the same co2?-funny how this has been "conveniently" not mentioned in the mainstream press

Personally I don't really watch the game, but it did surprise me a few months ago when there were talks of playing extra (UK premiership?) games at international locations that there wasn't a louder backlash from an environmental angle IIRC it was rejected on a "not enough time" argument rather than a "don't needlessly cause more pollution by chartering multiple flights across the globe" argument.

<adopts (recycled) asbestos jacket>

But if we want to make a BIGGER impact, why not ban the game all together?
No daft fans travelling needlessly all over the country/world. Less mindless football violence and less litter (did you see the state of Manchester the other week!)

Which reminds me - why did they need to come to Manchester to play it? - what is wrong with the football pitches in Scotland?

MP

mute_posting

thescouselander wrote: »

What people convieniently forget is that commercial passenger planes are in fact public transport. Also, the fuel used per passenger mile on a fully occupied plane is comparible with ground transport such as cars and busses.

"Public" is stretching it IMHO - especialy if the flight has been specially chartered (as I believe many had - though could be wrong)

thescouselander

mute_posting wrote: »

"Public" is stretching it IMHO - especialy if the flight has been specially chartered (as I believe many had - though could be wrong)

Really? I cant see the difference between planes, busses, trains etc. There are many definitions of public transport but they all go along the same line - here is an example from wikipedia:

"Public transport, public transportation, public transit or mass transit comprise all transport systems that transport members of the general public, usually charging set fares......."

Getting a charter flight is just like hiring a coach or taxi - both of which are public transport IMO.

kaya

it makes me sound like a bit of a stiff but i would ban alcohol first, that would make a massive difference to the world we live in, its the nastiest drug ever made, but that's a different topic altogether

magyar

Whilst it seems a little mad to fly two UK teams out to Moscow to play a football match, it's not as simple as saying 'two English teams are in the final, we'll move it to Wembly then'.

Wembley's probably booked, the Russians won the contract to provide the stadium for the final at least two years ago (clearly not knowing who it was going to be) and you can't make arrangements like this in three weeks.

I have to say thought that I have heard the environmental point made several times in the media, however you don't get far because of the above point.

In any case, planes to go to a football match once a year are nothing. If we want to worry about the emissions, there are far more important things to worry about.

magyar

PS - out of interest if you 'don't believe in man-made global warming' why do you give a stuff how much CO2 is emitted.

kaya

i don't give a stuff about co2 emissions, its just interesting to see how the media demonise people with luxury cars continually as well as tax them to death, but almost ignore things like the above football saga-talk about spoon fed news

mute_posting

thescouselander wrote: »

Really? I cant see the difference between planes, busses, trains etc. There are many definitions of public transport but they all go along the same line - here is an example from wikipedia:

"Public transport, public transportation, public transit or mass transit comprise all transport systems that transport members of the general public, usually charging set fares......."

Getting a charter flight is just like hiring a coach or taxi - both of which are public transport IMO.

Accepted, I'm not saying flying isn't "public" transport in the strict sense of the word.

My point is that most people would accept "public transport" as being that they use in their day-to-day lives (such as getting the bus/train to work etc) not simply transport available for the public to travel on. (I doubt BA et al would describe themselves as a public transport provider - again, I could be wrong)

The extreme example I suppose, will be Mr Branson's Virgin Galactic (?) - the public can buy a ticket but it is hardly what we mean when we are talking about people using public transport more!

Also part of that quote from wikipedia highlights it beautifully..

usually charging set fares

you get on a bus, and you pay your fare for how far your going, same in a taxi. On a train, you might upgrade to first class (and/or get a discount for advance purchase) but the fares are essentially set - i.e. the fares are published.

However, is the same true (generally) for air travel? Probably not IMHO - is there a published fare from Manchester to Moscow with BA? There are lots of fares available but none (that I am aware) are "set"