Unbelievable !!!

[SW18]

Talking of national standard approaches, I just had a look at the French Crit’Air system. Not having been since before it was introduced, I didn’t know the details. It does look as though they have managed to introduce a unified national system. Maybe something for us to learn from?

 

[markjay]

Talking of national standard approaches, I just had a look at the French Crit’Air system. Not having been since before it was introduced, I didn’t know the details. It does look as though they have managed to introduce a unified national system. Maybe something for us to learn from?

'Learn from the French'...? Blasphemy

 

[Petrol Pete]

Gilet Jaunes doing their thing for clean air in Paris

 

[markjay]

Ultimately, there's nothing new in ULEZ or the Congestion Charge.

Decades ago the government imposed high duty rates on tobacco, alcohol, and fuel, so that we smoke, drink, and drive less.

The result is that we do smoke, drink, and drive less, while the government has a sizeable income from the duty on these activities.

Win-Win? Or a racketeering government? It's a question of one's point of view. Either way, the ULEZ is no different to all those other activities that the government is trying to reduce in the public's interst by charging a fee for the pleasure.

 

[Bellow]

Ultimately, there's nothing new in ULEZ or the Congestion Charge.

Decades ago the government imposed high duty rates on tobacco, alcohol, and fuel, so that we smoke, drink, and drive less.

The result is that we do smoke, drink, and drive less, while the government has a sizeable income from the duty on these activities.

Win-Win? Or a racketeering government? It's a question of one's point of view. Either way, the ULEZ is no different to all those other activities that the government is trying to reduce in the public's interst by charging a fee for the pleasure.

Beef and lamb next.

 

[markjay]

Beef and lamb next.

Are you in favour or against?

 

[Bellow]

Are you in favour or against?

Against in the first instance as I'd prefer people make the change voluntarily but that won't happen leaving the inevitable move to taxation as a consequence. There'll be much gnashing of teeth - but nothing to chew on!

 

[ChipChop]

Beef and lamb next.

Then concrete production, steel production, aviation, international sea freight and mining/ material supply. All gone by 2050.

 

[m80]

Then concrete production, steel production, aviation, international sea freight and mining/ material supply. All gone by 2050.

I think people may be too pessimistic,
if we pay some tax or plant a tree we are able to use or act pretty much as we want.
Richard Branson said so.
Mr Bozo says the same I assume.
It's no wonder the Queen plants a tree now and again even though she has got rid of that big boat.

 

[ChipChop]

I think people may be too pessimistic,
if we pay some tax or plant a tree we are able to use or act pretty much as we want.
Richard Branson said so.
Mr Bozo says the same I assume.
It's no wonder the Queen plants a tree now and again even though she has got rid of that big boat.

I always thought in Bransons Virgin Galactic case it was not pay to pollute but get paid to pollute due to share offers.

 

[markjay]

From what I read, the actual amount of pollution generated by commercial space flights is miniscule compared to the pollution from civil aviation.

There are, however, two issues here.

The first is that the higher in the atmosphere that the pollutants are released, the longer they linger, and in the case of space flights it could take as long as 2-3 years for the pollutants to drop to the ground. And releasing water vapour at that height, where it isn't normally found, could have an adverse effect of weather systems.

The second issue is the obvious fact that commercial flights were unaffordable and rare (and unsafe) in the early days of civil aviation, and look at it now - so it's not unreasonable to assume that one day commercial space flights will take off (excuse the pun) and become an affordable and common activity enjoyed by all.

So here's a question: were the Wright brothers genius inventers who gave ordinary people affordable, safe, and fast transport across the globe - of foolish people who inadvertently set in motion one of the most polluting industries in the world? Or both?

And equally, how will Musk, Bezos, and Branson be remembered - as trail-blazing pioneers who made space accessible to all, or as spoilt billionaires who set the world on a self-destructive patch?

 

[ChipChop]

From what I read, the actual amount of pollution generated by commercial space flights is miniscule compared to the pollution from civil aviation.

There are, however, two issues here.

The first is that the higher in the atmosphere that the pollutants are released, the longer they linger, and in the case of space flights it could take as long as 2-3 years for the pollutants to drop to the ground. And releasing water vapour at that height, where it isn't normally found, could have an adverse effect of weather systems.

The second issue is the obvious fact that commercial flights were unaffordable and rare (and unsafe) in the early days of civil aviation, and look at it now - so it's not unreasonable to assume that one day commercial space flights will take off (excuse the pun) and become an affordable and common activity enjoyed by all.

So here's a question: were the Wright brothers genius inventers who gave ordinary people affordable, safe, and fast transport across the globe - of foolish people who inadvertently set in motion one of the most polluting industries in the world? Or both?

And equally, how will Musk, Bezos, and Branson be remembered - as trail-blazing pioneers who made space accessible to all, or as spoilt billionaires who set the world on a self-destructive patch?

I find the timing of these 'space' flights by first Branson then Bezos intriguing. While a large proportion of the world have travel restrictions placed on them some are free as birds.

 

[markjay]

I find the timing of these 'space' flights by first Branson then Bezos intriguing. While a large proportion of the world have travel restrictions placed on them some are free as birds.

The wealthy do fair better than the rest of us. There, I said it.

 

[Dryce]

From what I read, the actual amount of pollution generated by commercial space flights is miniscule compared to the pollution from civil aviation.

Not many rocket launches. Large ones are pesumably fueled with ecofriendly hydrogen and oxygen.

Hmmmmmmmm ..... I'm beginning to think we could make an argument that modernising the Saturn V design (add some USB ports for charging crew personal gadgets) and going to the moon is ecofriendly.

 

[Bellow]

From what I read, the actual amount of pollution generated by commercial space flights is miniscule compared to the pollution from civil aviation.

There are, however, two issues here.

The first is that the higher in the atmosphere that the pollutants are released, the longer they linger, and in the case of space flights it could take as long as 2-3 years for the pollutants to drop to the ground. And releasing water vapour at that height, where it isn't normally found, could have an adverse effect of weather systems.

The second issue is the obvious fact that commercial flights were unaffordable and rare (and unsafe) in the early days of civil aviation, and look at it now - so it's not unreasonable to assume that one day commercial space flights will take off (excuse the pun) and become an affordable and common activity enjoyed by all.

So here's a question: were the Wright brothers genius inventers who gave ordinary people affordable, safe, and fast transport across the globe - of foolish people who inadvertently set in motion one of the most polluting industries in the world? Or both?

And equally, how will Musk, Bezos, and Branson be remembered - as trail-blazing pioneers who made space accessible to all, or as spoilt billionaires who set the world on a self-destructive patch?

The Wright brothers created all sorts of opportunities. Planes rarely land in the same place they took off from. All these space flights are just gravity free jollies that are rich men's bungee jumps. They serve no purpose other than the instant gratification for the narcissistic. If a zero carbon future is pursued energy will be at such a premium that bare necessities for ordinary people will be hard to achieve let alone spaceflight. In such a world planes don't fly either. The signs are already here that spaceflight will only be a perk for the richest. As the changes required to reduce carbon related emissions start to bite, the last thing needed will be a world further polarising into the haves (who can pollute as they please) and have-nots (who will be hardest hit by climate change and the changes required to reduce it). The challenge starts here and now. And it isn't to have a floating d!ck 60 miles high.

 

[markjay]

The Wright brothers created all sorts of opportunities. Planes rarely land in the same place they took off from. All these space flights are just gravity free jollies that are rich men's bungee jumps. They serve no purpose other than the instant gratification for the narcissistic. If a zero carbon future is pursued energy will be at such a premium that bare necessities for ordinary people will be hard to achieve let alone spaceflight. In such a world planes don't fly either. The signs are already here that spaceflight will only be a perk for the richest. As the changes required to reduce carbon related emissions start to bite, the last thing needed will be a world further polarising into the haves (who can pollute as they please) and have-nots (who will be hardest hit by climate change and the changes required to reduce it). The challenge starts here and now. And it isn't to have a floating d!ck 60 miles high.

You seem to be making two assumptions here.

The first is that when Kitty Hawk took off on 17th December 1903, it was obvious to spectators that it's only a matter of time before hundreds of no-frill flights packed with holidaymakers will take off daily from almost every International airport. My own personal view however is that they most likely thought at the time that it was jolly good fun but totally pointless, because you could get anywhere quicker on a horse.

The second is that the endeavours of Musk, Bezos, and Branson will never amount to more than Billionaires' space bungee jumping. This means that humankind will never colonise any stellar object, and any attempt at developing new means of space transport are therefore pointless. That assumption may be true, but only time will tell (to our grandchildren).

 

[Bellow]

You seem to be making two assumptions here.

The first is that when Kitty Hawk took off on 17th December 1903, it was obvious to spectators that it's only a matter of time before hundreds of no-frill flights packed with holidaymakers will take off daily from almost every International airport. My own personal view however is that they most likely thought at the time that it was jolly good fun but totally pointless, because you could get anywhere quicker on a horse.

Kitty Hawk landed in a different place and it's problem as such was that it didn't gain enough altitude to travel further. This current crop of space travel is the opposite in that altitude is all that is achieved. There is no practical gain. Sitting on a stationary horse would get you just as far.

The second is that the endeavours of Musk, Bezos, and Branson will never amount to more than Billionaires' space bungee jumping. This means that humankind will never colonise any stellar object, and any attempt at developing new means of space transport are therefore pointless. That assumption may be true, but only time will tell (to our grandchildren).

When Kitty Hawk first flew there was an abundance of energy and no understanding of the harms of fossil fuel use. We now know differently and as a consequence we face energy shortages such that wasting any on this frippery is completely the wrong signal regarding our need to reduce our consumption of it. You have seen the opposition to LEZs - how does this help promote acceptance of them? And LEZ's are mere fraction of what's to come.

As for colonising other 'stellar objects' - can we confine ourselves to ****ing up one planet at a time please? At least until we know how and have the will to repair broken ones without searching for another to destroy?

And don't forget, MAD with regard to nuclear weapons only works when we all have to inhabit the same planet - including those with red buttons under their fingertips.

 

[m80]

When Kitty Hawk first flew there was an abundance of energy and no understanding of the harms of fossil fuel use.

Both statements true.
They assume that energy resources, namely fossil fuels and their use, would have depleted due to the development of passenger flight and cars and.....
clearly as the fossil fuels deplete those fuels are converted into, as well as a range of whatevers, polluting materials.

What the statements ignore is that in 1903 there were approx 1.6 billion selfish humans habitating this planet, now there are close to 5 times that many demanding so much of everything.
I see no strategy to attempt long term population reduction, the root cause of so many of earth problems is so far missed or ignored.

The root cause remedy is both too difficult for short term politicians to consider addressing. So they build various band wagons for the righteous to jump on.
And also contradictory to most countries absolute need (sarcasm) to increase their world presence in competition to t'others.

We're f'k'd and all this bs is doing is making life for the underdog more difficult.
As we are discussing the well heeled can pay to do pretty much as they desire.
This is just my repeated bleat as also is,
until the financial incentives are removed from the onslaught of political strategies the politicians have no interest in creating strategies to address the root cause.

We pay these self important pr cks to enjoy luxury to attend meeting after meeting,
many are given powers to award lucrative contracts with little question of additional rewards they receive,
why would they want to change that?

 

[markjay]

Kitty Hawk landed in a different place and it's problem as such was that it didn't gain enough altitude to travel further. This current crop of space travel is the opposite in that altitude is all that is achieved. There is no practical gain. Sitting on a stationary horse would get you just as far.

When Kitty Hawk first flew there was an abundance of energy and no understanding of the harms of fossil fuel use. We now know differently and as a consequence we face energy shortages such that wasting any on this frippery is completely the wrong signal regarding our need to reduce our consumption of it. You have seen the opposition to LEZs - how does this help promote acceptance of them? And LEZ's are mere fraction of what's to come.

As for colonising other 'stellar objects' - can we confine ourselves to ****ing up one planet at a time please? At least until we know how and have the will to repair broken ones without searching for another to destroy?

And don't forget, MAD with regard to nuclear weapons only works when we all have to inhabit the same planet - including those with red buttons under their fingertips.

a. Equally, F1 cars go in circles, but the technology developed trickles-down to cars that we see on the road getting people from A to B. Clearly the idea behind all these commercial space flight is to eventually find practical means of lifting people and cargo off the planet.

b. Theoretical question 1: Had you lived in 1903 and known then what we know now about pollution caused by aviation, would have you have campaigned for the Right bothers' enterprise to be shut-down and for government to legislate against any form of carbon-powered flight?

c. I am not sure that the majority of humanity share your view that mankind is destined to live and die on planet Earth.

d. If you what you are suggesting about MAD is correct, that it is very depressing, and I would argue that it produced more harm than a nuclear war would. It means that as a precondition of our coexisting on this planet, we must never ever leave it. Perhaps in the same way that a truce with Germany in 1940 would have condemned most of Europe to living under Nazism for the next thousand years - an actual nuclear war would have been horrific (WW2 was) but at the same time it would have ended MAD and allowed us to travel to the starts.

 

[SW18]

I’m LOVING that this thread got to here from a letter about the London ULEZ...