Global warming and "convenience"

thescouselander

mute_posting wrote: »

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)

At all depends on your point of view. For example, I sometimes fly as often as a couple of times per month because of work but it has been over a year since I have been on a bus. So to me, a plane is more day to day transport than a bus.

I agree that BA probably wouldn't describe themselves as a public transport provider but that doesn't mean they arent.

mute_posting wrote: »

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..



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"

Whichever form of transport you consider - in this country the fares are generally "set" by the transport provider. In the case of air travel the fares are usually published on the internet - they are subject to constant fluctuations but the same could be said about the likes of Megabus etc.

Quasar

I believe that global warming per se is a recurring phenomenon that we cannot avoid, HOWEVER our activities are helping speed up the process, which lessens our chances of preparing for the full effects of climate change.

That said, the problem which we must address very urgently (and which has a bearing on our impact on global warming), is the indiscriminate use of finite resources. That the Moscow game could not be changed at short notice I can accept, but the choice in the first place of such far away location smacks of stupidity, as most of the teams are centered in Western Europe anyway.

The unnecessary use of fuel depletes oil reserves, and we do not yet have anywhere near satisfactory alternatives to fossil fuel - ie. oil, coal and gas. This depletion is idiotically hastened by the injudicious use of cars for many unnecessary short trips, flights galore, heating and other energcy requirements etc.

Singly, each of us don't make any impact whatsoever, but educate the world masses until a significant number change habits, and we will be conserving energy sources that little bit longer that may buy us the necessary time to develop some alternative (god knows what that may be).

Maybe I sound too idealistic, but oil and all the other goodies will not materialise in ever greater quantities just because we want ever more of them.

ceridwen

Nope...you defo dont sound too idealistic to me Quasar...very realistic in fact. Oil is a finite resource and it was just plain stupid the way we all based our societies on this ....and now its starting to decline in availability. But then...I guess you've read some of the Peak Oil stuff that is my definition of bedtime reading too.

Dustykitten

Quasar I agree completely. I 'care' about global warning but don't beleive we can stop it. It is the mass consumption of just about everything which I cannot understand. With oil prices rising daily why do we still 'waste' oil on packaging to thow it away

With regard to football matches it astounds me the amount of money fans will spend to see a game.

Sport and travel - the number of journalists from the BBC alone going to the olympics this summer is staggering - I can't remember the figure but it is huge.

Quasar

Thank you ceridwen and Dustykitten.

The society "we" have built was based on reckless consumption and short-term concerns. Until now, presidents and prime ministers have only cared about winning the next election, and if big business funds them or otherwise help them gain or stay in power, the greater good of humanity will take a back seat.

Energy sources were seen as bottmless wells that could power our economies indefinitely. Now we are beginning to see the bottom of this well but we have nothing to make up for the wanton waste of past decades. Meanwhile we travel ever more, and emerging large economies such as China (1.5bn people) and India (1bn) people, greedily demand oil, gas and coal to power their miracle. They want the goodies we in the west have had for decades, and can we blame them?

Unfortunately all of this will hasten the day when only the emergency services will be able to have petrol at will, and limited public services will run.

And don't start me on overpopulation - this is the crux of the matter: the more of us vying for limited resources, the more limited the resources become, not only in terms of energy requirement, but also in terms of food production (deforestation to provide intensive farming), habitations (deforestation to provide timber), space, and all sorts of goods and services.

The more we multiply, the closer we are getting to meltdown, and that includes the spread of ever harder to cure bugs - which may well be how mother nature will deal with us before we destroy more of this planet. Incidentally, I read in a paper the other day that 15,000 (yes 15,000) species of insects, fish, mammals etc have become either estinct or close to extinction in the past THIRTYFIVE years alone, due to human activity.

Cardew

The football authorities knew several weeks ago that there were only two possibilities for the final; 2 English teams or an English team against a Spanish team.

It would surely have been possible to set up 2 alternative venues, Wembley and, say Paris.

Leaving out the environmental considerations, to have 40,000 fans travelling to Moscow at great expense cannot be sensible.

In fact there must be a case in future years to have a flexible approach to where the final will be played - depending on who reaches the final.

It is pretty certain that the finalists will be normally be from GB, Iberia, Italy or Germany.
In the unlikely event Glasgow Rangers get to the final, Helmund Province, Afghanistan would make a suitable venue.

Quasar

Cardew wrote: »

The football authorities knew several weeks ago that there were only two possibilities for the final; 2 English teams or an English team against a Spanish team.

It would surely have been possible to set up 2 alternative venues, Wembley and, say Paris.

Leaving out the environmental considerations, to have 40,000 fans travelling to Moscow at great expense cannot be sensible.

In fact there must be a case in future years to have a flexible approach to where the final will be played - depending on who reaches the final.

It is pretty certain that the finalists will be normally be from GB, Iberia, Italy or Germany.

In the unlikely event Glasgow Rangers get to the final, Helmund Province, Afghanistan would make a suitable venue.

:eek: :eek: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Good job I'm from Italy.... :whistle:

geordie_joe

Cardew wrote: »

Leaving out the environmental considerations, to have 40,000 fans travelling to Moscow at great expense cannot be sensible.

Just wait until 2012, it won't be 40,000 unnecessary journeys you (and me) will be worried about!

Cardew wrote: »

In fact there must be a case in future years to have a flexible approach to where the final will be played - depending on who reaches the final.

Personally I think there is a case for holding such games behind closed doors. The number of people who watched the game live may be counted in 10's of 1000's, but they were still the minority. Most people watched it via TV, so why can't everyone watch via TV?

Surely they can increase the cost to the TV companies to make up for the lost gate money?

Ben84

Quasar wrote: »

...emerging large economies such as China (1.5bn people) and India (1bn) people, greedily demand oil, gas and coal to power their miracle. They want the goodies we in the west have had for decades, and can we blame them?

It's very true that China and developing countries are consuming more and more energy/resources, but a lot of it is being used to produce the goods being sold in developed countries. I don't believe it's entirely China's pollution when most the products are being bought and consumed here.

Making products in China has the significant disadvantage that China is generally much less energy and resource efficient than other countries, and that the goods have to come further to their markets. The only reason why so much is now produced there is the economic advantage that labour is so much cheaper. It's ethically dubious and creates a lot of pollution. Consumers might be getting cheaper goods for now, but I think we will greatly disadvantaged in the end by this trend.

The only solution I can see to this problem is for people to consume things differently. Buy less things (so much stuff is never used or needed), and to buy better quality items that will last. Also avoiding disposable items if possible. Buying second hand is helpful too, and can be money saving. Buying more locally made items, even if it means made in Europe rather than China makes a difference too.

magyar

geordie_joe wrote: »

Personally I think there is a case for holding such games behind closed doors. The number of people who watched the game live may be counted in 10's of 1000's, but they were still the minority. Most people watched it via TV, so why can't everyone watch via TV?

Because it would have no atmosphere.