I’ve been using a vip forum which seems to have been an add on to the old vip (VIP = a virtual irish pub which i’ve been a member of since before time began… well, 11 years n counting!). Someone raised the issue of aeroplanes and frequent fliers damaging the atmosphere / environment.
Of the 39 comments relating to that, only I questioned if this has any effect whatsoever. My objections did raise a few eyebrows however, including one comment claiming that the idea of "global warming is a myth is wrong" cos they have evidence! I gently pointed out that I never said global warming was a myth, but i disagree with the idea that frequent fliers have any affect on this! It annoys me. People read what they want to see. Not what’s there!
My initial response was this :
"Chuckles. I cant help but notice that no one has said that our part
in global warming is a myth! No one has mentioned that the idea to
curtail our travelling has more to do with controlling us as a populous
than saving our environment.
The Earth’s temperature goes through cycles. It always has, always
will. Curiously, Mars’s surface temperature has increased in almost the
same increment as Earth’s temperature has. Must be all the planes and
similar up there.
There’s loads of science which proclaims that global warming is our
fault. Loads more that states it isn’t! Our planet is evolving. There
have been ice ages, and they’ve come and gone. Naturally. Its warmed
up, and cooled down again.
Frankly, if governments wanted us to be more planet friendly, they
could replace everyone’s old cars with eco fuelled cars, and just ban
the making of new petrol based cars altogether, but that of course
would mean they lose billions on tax from oil based fuels.
So, what’s it to be? 1 : Scaremongery and instil fear into people to
attempt to get a result, (or at least attempt to give an impression of
trying while at the same time knowing it’ll never actually stop
people), or 2 : Lose a great source of income from petrol taxes, expend
money on exchanging old cars for new Eco friendly transport and
actually make a difference because they believe this expenditure is
actually a long term investment that will reap rewards in our future?
Deforestation still continues at an alarming rate. This IS the planets
way of recycling our air, yet we still destroy it. Oddly, and
humourously too, it was just discovered that Cows are the highest cause
of supposed Green house Gases!
"The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation,
entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by
sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world’s
1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18
per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than
cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."
Another curiousity…. "Through the 1990s, the average weight of
Americans increased by 10 pounds, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. The extra weight caused airlines to spend $275
million to burn 350 million more gallons of fuel in 2000 just to carry
the additional weight of Americans, the federal agency estimated in a
recent issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine".
The above isn’t a dig at Americans, it’s just a working example.
Somehow i doubt any rules will be imposed on bigger people paying more
for their seat.
I personally don’t believe for a second that air travel makes a
difference to our environment. I do however, believe that, if
governments did believe it, and wanted to make a difference, they
The business of world governments is to secure economic stability and
growth for their countries. Anyone knowing about business knows that
this means initial expenditure. However, they also know that its unwise
to cut off something which is vastly profitable, which is why until the
situation is finally proven to be critical, or oil suddenly becomes
devalued, the usage of flights, cars, and indeed cows, (which are
turned into beef, which is turned into burgers (beef in burger?? Ok so
I’m being overly optimistic) which help turn Americans into bigger
Americans), will continue to be on the increase. And because of the
money makers knowledge of people themselves, no amount of attempted
emotional blackmail about what we’re doing to the environment, will
One response to this was "I don’t agree that planes have no effect on the atmosphere whatsoever- I think that’s a little far fetched" to which i replied… :
when it comes down to it that all the science agree, that cows create
more green house gasses than all the other supposed transport
orientated causes put together, that its far fetched to suggest that
air travel has no effect?
Maybe its me… but the maths in there suggests that its far fetched to
suggest the impact of air travel is anything other than negligible.
Requote : "Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse
gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other
forms of transport put together".
That means that, assuming air transport constitutes say a maximum of
half of the now maximum 17.9% available to us… that equates to 9%.
Then assume that probably a good 50% of those flights would be done
irrespective of cheep flight deals, (in actuality probably closer to
75% would, but I’m being gentle with the figures), that brings us to a
max of 4.5%
Then redo those figures to the minimum, eg a max of 17.9% available,
say that aeroplane causes constitute perhaps 20% of all transport
orientated problems… rather than 50%, which then leaves us with 3.6%,
then knock out the 75% of the 3.6% which would fly anyway, nothing to
do with people flying "cos they can", that then leaves 0.9% of the
overall effect is to blame by air travel.
Then.. pick the average of the two figures, roughly 1.85%…. and cull
the equivalent in cattle! Then the numbers balance, and we eat
healthier (personally I’d recommend Horse instead of Beef..!).
But hey.. don’t apologise for disagreeing. If we all thought the same, communism would work!
A side note… perhaps if all the nations who are at peace and who fly
military craft halved their daily flights…just a thought! 🙂
The whole thing makes me chuckle because its an example of how we get told things and accept them because they are repeated and bashed into our brains day after day. I watched a program not that long ago about an experiment where strangers had to administer shocks to people, at the request of person conducting the experiment, the voltage increasing if the person receiving the shocks got some answers to questions asked. The person being shocked wasn’t actually, he was an actor behind a screen so as no to be visable. Each time the experiment was played out the people giving the shocks continued to do so even though they could hear the "agonised screams" of the other simply because the person who was the control figure told them to do so, even though it was obviously going against their conscience. 80% of people told to do so, administered fatal voltage levels, and all gave out shocks capable of rendering the receiver serious harm. (The experiments name is The Milgram experiment… and can be read about HERE )
To me, the whole global warming / tell us we are responsible thing is just another measure of trying to instil a psychological hold over us as a populous! I added this to the debate :
First, create the problem, (tell us that global warming exists and is
affecting our planet), second, the reaction, (research says that global
warming is caused by X, Y and Z, all of which we as a population are
contributing to, nay.. even responsible for), and then finally the
solution, stop being selfish and flying to places and everything will
This instigates a pscyological state where people can be controlled.
Its easy. Infact, its a standard sales technique, create the desire,
match the desire, and then get you to give up something to have that
which you now desire and have been shown is available to you, albeit at
Curiously.. someone chuckled and suggested reading Gridlock, a Ben Elton book, something i’ve owned for years. The idea behind that is that yes there are solutions available to the pollution aspect but to implement them is just not economically viable (from a governmental point of view). Maybe its me, but i can’t help but smile at the irony of that word starting with "eco", if all the scaremongering does actually turn out to be true.