Ecologic urgency : Air traffic excess

timothy leary wrote: Yes lets all excuse ourselves because its just a roll of the dice and its all in our heads

I'm not very worried about this. I will bet anyone a hundred dollars that air travel doesn't lead to the extinction of the human race.

Alls I'm sayin' is:
Doomsday Theorists: 0 Sane People: A million

JJLehto wrote: Yup, surprise of the century... we are ruining the planet.

Nah, we're making it better. here are a lot more roller coasters and water slides than there were a hundred years ago.

Blacksword wrote: I guess an alternative source of clean renewable energy needs to be found, and quick, because we are not going to change our travel habits. Unless, of course, the cost of fuel goes through the roof and stays there, and carbon taxes are imposed on all nations making air travel only the preserve of the uber rich. It's interesting that technology allows us to telecon more and more at work, and yet business air travel seems to increase year on year. The company I work for spent over £1.3 million on travel last year, and that's just our one UK site.

harmonium.ro wrote: @T: Uh no, your question implies that Oliver asks for people not to fly at all. And he doesn't.

Exactly. I'm only against air traffic excess. Especially when you consider that all these flights are totally useless (travelling people and goods carriage). The T talked about families being separated if there was no traffic anymore. That's not an excuse because we took bad habits. Anyway, within 30, 40 years there will be no traffic at all anymore because of oil shortage. The problem is that it seems that there's enough oil to triple the current traffic's volume and so to suicide before the oil (complete) shortage.
The smart thing to do would be to anticipate that situation and save oil stocks to make planes fly for really important things.
And not to enable people flying to the other side of the world because
it's the trend, to impress the neighbour or simply because they are bored. And think of all the countries basing their economy on tourism
and so air traffic.

But you don't imagine yet all the consequences of the phenomenon...























Edited by oliverstoned - February 26 2011 at 07:00

oliverstoned wrote:

thellama73 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Yup, surprise of the century... we are ruining the planet.  Nah, we're making it better. here are a lot more roller coasters and water slides than there were a hundred years ago.

Hmmmm I do love roller coasters. I guess I'll accept the environmental destruction!

oliverstoned wrote: The smart thing to do would be to anticipate that situation and save oil stocks to make planes fly for really important things.

I'm not sure why this is the smart thing to do.  "Really important things" is a pretty subjective judgment to make.  But assuming some government or governmental conglomerate did make such a judgment, all it would do is cripple the economy.  A plane ticket would cost triple or more what it does now (since airlines would otherwise lose a significant portion of their revenue).  The cost of goods will increase beyond what people can pay.  Then someone on this forum will start a thread and demand that the government or some governmental conglomerate step in to either force companies to pay workers more so workers can afford goods or force companies to lower the cost of their goods regardless of overhead.  As businesses collapse because they are no longer profitable to run, someone on this forum will start a thread and demand that the government or some governmental conglomerate step in to either create jobs so people can work and support themselves or increase unemployment benefits and welfare.  For this to happen, there must be significant tax increases, thereby stifling existing businesses.  Never mind that the initial increase in air travel costs will have placed a burden on the governments' budgets and taxes will have already likely increased.  Never mind that the initial increase in air travel costs will have already crippled any small businesses that ship internationally.  Then someone on this forum will start a thread and demand that the government or some governmental conglomerate step in and do something to make airlines lower their prices.  The only way to do this without forcing airlines out of business is to nationalize (or internationalize) airlines.  Now governments lose any tax revenue they had on airlines, and are instead completely funding air travel.  In order to provide air travel at lower costs, governments must again increase taxes, thereby stifling existing businesses.  Desperate for money, someone will create a new global problem to scare people into buying a solution for it.  Privately funded scientists will back up the alarming claim with "science."  Those who refused to be fazed by alarmist tactics will be labeled as ignorant and hateful.  Then someone on this forum will start a thread and demand that the government or some governmental conglomerate step in and do something about the problem.  And they will.  You've got the money; they've got the time.

oliverstoned wrote: And not to enable people flying to the other side of the world because it's the trend, to impress the neighbour or simply because they are bored.

I get bored a lot and really want to impress my neighbor.  Are you saying flying in an airplane will solve both of these? 

harmonium.ro wrote: You overestimate the power of threads in this forum, Rob.