British Blairways

[Gromit]

Asked whether he would give up long-haul flights, Mr Blair said: "I personally think these things are a bit impractical actually to expect people to do that."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6242927 .stm

The new Air Passenger Tax (�40 on long haul fights) is coming into effect on 1st Feb, and it is billed as environmental tax.

Why is Gordon Brown introducing this tax when the Prime Minister says you cannot expect people to stop flying? A mixed message I think.

[JudgeJ]

Of course it�s impractical to suggest that people do not move about. It�s also highly undesirable and unnecessary. It is also by no means certain that curtailing these activities will have any appreciable effect on the climate change that is said to be taking place, as even Mr Blair seems to accept.

However, none of this stops this government from jumping at the chance to screw even more cash out of the taxpayer. It would be interesting to learn just how much of the imminent Air Passenger Tax to be extorted from travellers will find its way towards helping develop the kind of efficiencies the Prime Minister extols. Couple this with the fact that almost all trips that politicians make are funded by the taxpayer (and so the question of a travellers� tax, however big or small, is not an issue for them) and you can see that, once again, it�s a case of �do as I say, not as I do�.

Most people travel out of necessity, many travel for pleasure. If we believe everything we hear about the terrible effects our misbehaviour is having on the �environment� we shall all have to stay at home, sit in the cold and dark, not buy anything in case we create any rubbish, not have a hot bath, flush the toilet only once a month, and feed our animals chemicals to stop them farting. The money we save can then be given to the Local Authorities to set up �Five a Day� schemes, cycle paths, walking routes and pay their ever-increasing armies of �enviro-crime� prevention officers.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world carries on as normal (not having undergone the common sense bypass that seems to have inflicted many people in this country). The Earth will survive. Humans might or might not last a while longer (it�s no great shame if they don�t). The weather may get warmer, it may not. Charging me �40 or �80 or any other amount that pops into a politician's head just because I want to fly to Barbados will not alter the outcome one jot.

[sp1814]

JudgeJ

I'm glad you answered this, because you posted something regarding carbon emissions ages ago which I've been trying to find in order to support a discussion we've been having at work.

I think you wrote something along the lines of "If we all stopped driving our cars, the total amount of emissions cut would be negligible because the vast majority of emissions are naturally occuring.."

Something like that ...can you expand on that?

(Sorry for the thread hijacking)

[Gromit]

sp1814

Call it recycling the thread.

[JudgeJ]

Sorry, I cannot find the question you refer to, but I remember it well.

As I understand it (and I think there is no argument) only about 4% of the world�s carbon emissions originate from the activities of mankind. The remainder (and therefore the vast majority) stem from decomposition of vegetable matter, volcanic activity, reactions that take place in the seas and oceans and, of course, animals farting. These are things over which mankind has no control, although I believe the LibDems have recently taken the last category to heart and suggest that we should do something to stop it. Pity the poor cows. Being unable to pay any increased taxes they will no doubt have to walk around with a cork stuck up their backsides or some other hare-brained idea.

That said, it means that even if man cut his emissions in half (not practical and undesirable if we are to sustain a reasonable lifestyle) it would make only 2% difference to the total carbon emissions. All the percentages that are banded about to do with man�s carbon emissions are all based on the 4% we are said to be responsible for.

I cannot believe that the Earth�s eco-system is so finely balanced that the small percentage increase (of the total) that man may or may not have caused in the recent past is responsible for the effects we are told either already have occurred or are shortly due to take place.

I do not believe that placing punitive taxes upon the activities that are said to cause this harm (even if it is real, and I am not convinced that it is) will do anything significant to curtail them. Having exhausted all the conventional ways of raising tax (as well as bringing in a few unconventional ones) I believe, not for the first time, the population is being conned into thinking they are saving the world by shelling out more cash.

Mr Blair, it seems, has similar thoughts, though he won�t express them quite so simply.

[anotheoldgit]

Global warming, and seasonal changes is a natural phenomenon. The earth and it's climate is constantly changing and has done since the beginning of time. No matter what we do to try to alter or delay these changes, will not make one iota of difference.

The earth was once a ball of fire, then it cooled, then came the ice age, and then the ice melted, then we had rain forests, and then deserts, all these things happened naturally, without any interference from us mere mortals, even if we had been around then, which we weren't.

We have a particular hot summer, or a mild dry winter then suddenly it is all down to global warming caused by us. But then another year we could have a long snowy freezing winter, and a cold wet summer who knows? it happens all the time.

What is a fact the earth is slowly cooling down, as it as done since the beginning and sometime in the distance of time it will all end, so enjoy the planet while it and we are still around.

[Loosehead]

The judge and the oldgit are spot on, mankind has very little to do with climate change, we are but passengers on the Earth, it does it's own thing always has always will. It is of course highly fashionable to blame climate change on mankind and indeed the scientific community find it very difficult to get funding for research unless it's one of the trendy subject areas. There is of course climate change going on constantly has done for 4,500,000,000, the planet does it's own thing, how about Krakatoa?? more emissions in one go than mankinf has so far managed.

It's extremely unusual for me to admit this but I think Blair is correct this time!

[flip-flop]

Have any of you guys read State of Fear by Crichton? I know it is a work of fiction, but Crichton always meticulously researches his subject, the bibliography paying testament to this fact.

Very interesting book - which pretty much states that global warming is a load of old hokum.

[Stu in USA]

Sorry but have to disagree with above posters. Might have had some agreement until I watched "An inconvenient truth" . The problem IS that humans have added extra 4 per cent to carbon emissions. And who do you think is responsible for breeding cattle?

[Loosehead]

I blame the veggies stu, I mean if they did their bit and ate some cattle etc then there would be less of them farting!

[scotchollie]

If all the politicians in the world each held their breath for a minute a day, would the reduction in hot air help lower global temperatures?

[Loosehead]

oh and stu, mankind has not "added" 4% it was already here!

[Stu in USA]

Yes Loosehead, I know that the amount of carbon remains the same. The problem is extra carbon IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Oh and by the way if we were all veggies there would be a lot less farting cattle!!