Carbon quotas - road and air travel - cheddar
There is much talk of personal carbon allowances, to quote BBC News:

>>
The "domestic tradable quotas" scheme could help the UK comply with the Kyoto Protocol, think tank the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research suggested. The plan would see people issued carbon units - each equivalent to 1kg of greenhouse gases - to use when buying products such as flights and petrol. >>
>>

I have been considering this in line with previous discssions on here about the relative efficienecy of air travel versus road travel, I have calculated previously that the average contemporary airliner compares well on a miles-per-gallon-per-passenger basis with a car carrying only the driver however I have come across the following quote on Wikepedia which supports this:

>>
Concorde burnt a reasonably large amount of fuel, but perhaps not as much might be expected; per passenger it works out at about 14 miles to the gallon. This is almost comparable to a Gulfstream G550 business jet (~16 passenger miles per gallon), but much larger than, say a Boeing 747-400 (about 66 mpg per passenger).
>>

Discussion points:

Do you agree with carbon quotas? To ensure a motoring theme - should business mileage come out of a personal quota or an employers quota? Lets say we are all given a carbon quota equal to 20,000 miles in a car, we then do an 8000 mile round business trip to the US, should this reduce our personal quota to 12,000 miles or would it be our employers burden? If the latter it will be an additional cost to business. How about a family trip to the US, two parents and three kids would cover a combined total of around 40,000 miles, would they have to buy a carbon quota to cover this? One assumes so, perhaps not a bad thing beacuse it drives home the cost and effect of energy use. Is paying for a carbon quota fairer than fuel tax, variable RFL and BiK etc? If so is a 10 mile commute in a 10mpg V12 Jagcedes as acceptable as a 50 mile commute in a 50mpg Skogeot or should we have a responsibility to reduce our need to travel as well as the means of travel?

Regards.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - teabelly
It's a joke. BP have an offset scheme where each ton is £5 for a year. That's it, a fiver. My entire carbon output (not that it has anything to do with climate change at all and will not make a any difference at all if we all stopped breathing tomorrow) is £55 a year. I pay 10X that in so called environmental taxes so the whole polluter pays is a con just to extract more money out of the motorist and air traveller.

The climate has always changed and always will. We're heading towards another ice age as a whole new climate cycle is due to start in 2022 I think it is. King Canute all over again :-)

Bigger worries are for flooding due to stupid construction and lack of drainage. Those are real issues which need to be concentrated on ditto the lack of energy production. There are still people in the world without access to fresh water.

There was an article in the paper saying it was too late anyway as they have obviously realised the small changes they have made so far have done nothing. This way scientists will avoid having to admit they're wrong. I suspect the whole CO2 climate change hiatus will die down in the next couple of years while the next scare to keep up funding is discovered....
teabelly
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - cheddar
I tend to agree Teabelly, however I think it is important to understand the proposals in full so anything that is totally unjust can be countered. The positive aspects are the possibility of more equitable environmental taxation for motorists than the current combination of fuel duty, RFL, BiK etc and the emphasis on personal responsibility, i.e. it is not BA's 747 that is polluting, it is you and I, our desire to travel, i.e. the demand for travel that is the culprit.

Dont get me wrong, I am not anti air travel rather I think it important that indivduals understand the consequences of their actions. What I am is anti hypocrisy whether intentional or via ignorance, for instance the organic buying, 90% recycling, Prius driving lets-go-to-NYC-for-the-weekend brigade.

The hybrid car thing also really gets my goat and the fact that they have so much bigger an impact on the environment in manufacture and disposal than a conventional vehicle though are at best little better at the point of use. To claim environmental credentials the manufacturers should tell the whole story as it is rather than simply sell on the vehicle's impact from the day of delivery to the day it is sold on. Yes, new technology needs to be tried and tested however it is clear that if Toyota sold as many Prius's as Corolla D4Ds so the ecomomies of scale were comparable the Prius would still cost much more to manufacture in carbon terms, would probaly have a shorter usable life (without environmentally and financially expensive new batteries) and be much harder to dispose of at the end of its life.


Regards.

Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Statistical outlier
Teabelly, I'm fascinated. What's your background? Presumably you are an academic working in climate studies or similar, or do you work for BAS?

Either way, you appear to be a leading expert on this highly complex subject. I didn't realise that there was such a definitive answer to the climate change question, indeed, I thought that the majority of scientific opinion was going the other way. Modelling, ice core studies and other work have all, I apparently incorreectly thought, pointed to humans being the culprit behind increasingly unstable weather systems and the like.

Please do expand - it's a subject that interests all of us, and if I can indeed sell my car for a 6l V12 and then jet off to Oz without any guilt, then that would be a wonderful thing.

Gord.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - daveyjp
Saying a 747 is less fuel efficient than Concorde in terms of passenger miles per gallon is twaddle. On the Heathrow to JFK route the 747 will carry four times as many passengers as Concorde and use less fuel, so how can the 747 be less efficient?
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Statistical outlier
I read it the other way round.

Concorde: 14 pmpg
747 66: pmpg

so per passenger mile, 747 is more than 4 times as efficient.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - tr7v8
So did I but then the tree huggers very often get it wrong!
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - cheddar
Saying a 747 is less fuel efficient than Concorde in terms
of passenger miles per gallon is twaddle. On the Heathrow
to JFK route the 747 will carry four times as many
passengers as Concorde and use less fuel, so how can the
747 be less efficient?


I think you misunderstood, Concorde does (or sadly did) about 14mpg per passenger where as a 747-400 does about 66mpg per passenger.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - TheOilBurner
My thoughts exactly Gord.

In our heavily urbanized lives, insulated as we are from the immediate effects of what we do, it is no wonder that many of us laugh and scoff at the idea of climate change. It is, after all, true that the climate is always and has always been changing.
The difference is this time is that we are the primary cause of that change, not part of the normal variations in climate.
It is also true that the affects of that change, although not fully understand yet, do not look good for us as a civilisation.

Even if we have crossed a threshold where some form of climate disaster is inevitable, it is no excuse for us to carry on as if it doesn't matter. You don't put out a kitchen fire by pouring more fat on the flames!! ;)

Let's enjoy our motoring, but not forget that we are all responsible for the consequences of our actions. Any system which brings that point home to us, such as carbon trading is a good first step.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Adam {P}
What's to say we're not meant to wipe ourselves out through climate change and usher in a new era of dinosaurs?
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - TheOilBurner
I assume that was tongue in cheek? ;)
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Adam {P}
Yes and no ;-)

What if I'm right though?
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - TheOilBurner
I don't think anything is "meant" to happen. We do what we do and try to clean the mess up afterwards!

Could we have dinosaurs walking the Earth again? Why not, they couldn't make a bigger mess of it than us, could they? :)

Although, if they became industralised and built cars, I'd love to see what size of car you'd need to punt a Brontosaurus around! It would make todays SUVs look like toy cars...

Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Waino
What's to say we're not meant to wipe ourselves out through
climate change and usher in a new era of dinosaurs?


Sorry, Adam it'll be insects next time........ants with webbed feet!
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - cheddar
>>What's to say we're not meant to wipe ourselves out through climate change and usher in a new era of dinosaurs?>>

What Marinas, Itals and Ambassadors?
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - NowWheels
>>What's to say we're not meant to wipe ourselves out through
climate change and usher in a new era of dinosaurs?>>
What Marinas, Itals and Ambassadors?


That was the previous era of dinosaurs.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - cheddar
That was the previous era of dinosaurs.


Yup and the ICE age was caused by Alpine and Kenwood.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - madf
I'll be quite blunt. Carbon quotas are unlikely to work given the numbers of our population and its density.

Why?

Well consider that around 25% of all carbon usage in UK is home heating.. and another substantial amount is transporting food/producing it/packaging it and distributing it.

In the US, air conditioning is essential in many States in the summer.


Try reducing those consuptions by say hald in order to have any meaningful impact.

Where will we all live? And work? Huddled like bees in a hive to conserve warmth?

And how will we grow food? The carbon input into food production through transport and fertilisers is huge. No doubt someone has done a study.

Bring back the horse and cart, coal fires in every home and halve the population and exchange car emissions for horse manure.

Our current way of life is predicated on high energy usage. The Greens and others are hypocrites imo by not spelling out the real logic of their proposals : reduce the population as there are too many humans in the world.

No doubt we will do it either through ageing poulations/war disease or famine..

We're all doomed!:-)

Seriously, the US is the world's food basket. They are proposing to convert corn to biofuels to replace oil. The unintended consequence is that corn prices will rise as surpluses diminish and many areas of the world will go hungry. About 2015 if they do as they propose..

Solar powered energy generation and storage is a way out. That means Britain becomes uninhabitable and static in winter:-)


madf
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Waino
True, the ways around global warming are all rather unpalatable. The even more unpalatable alternative struck home again last week when I was working in Norfolk and a farmer, 17 km inland, pointed out that we were standing below sea level.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Nsar
Carbon quotas are the only sensible approach in that they help to close the gap between a person's decision to consume energy in whatever form and the carbon emissions which arise. It is only when we learn to hesitate before turning the key/light switch on/thermostat up that we have any hope of arresting emissions.

Blighting the countryside with windmills certainly won't do any good.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - cheddar
Try reducing those consuptions by say hald (half) in order to have
any meaningful impact.


The question that raises is what % reduction would be meaningful, perhaps 50% or perhaps 5 to 10%, if somewhere near the latter then it is surely achievable.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - sgreenwood
>>

> The question that raises is what % reduction would be meaningful,
perhaps 50% or perhaps 5 to 10%, if somewhere near the
latter then it is surely achievable.

>>

California has got a lot of publicity for stating that it will cut it's emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. From memory that was around 20%. The trouble is that it was the 1990's when the problems of climate change (and its causes) became apparant. The whole issue stems back from when civilisation became dependent on carbon emissions to live and to take emissions back to those levels would mean a *serious* change in the way we all live.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - TheOilBurner
For those in doubt about our situation, from today?s Independent:

"The rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core which highlights the reality of climate change"

I don't really mind whether population reduction (through birth control and economic incentives) or voluntary reductions in energy consumption is the answer, but the evidence for climate change is very real. Only the eventual outcome is up for debate.

Carbon quotas - road and air travel - teabelly
There is no majority agreement either way. The IPCC has already been lambasted for using rubbish data. Latest consensus (what there is of it) suggests a humungous 0.6C degree of warming that the hysterical greenies were claiming was going to be 'up to 6C' of warming. Whenever someone uses 'up to' in stats you know they're talking out of the wrong orifice.

In the seventies scientists believed CO2 cooled the climate, not warmed it so why the sudden change? There is plenty of evidence to suggest we're in for another ice age. The polar ice caps are also melting on mars. No cars there, or humans. Oddly enough the warming and cooling follow changes in solar activity too. There are plenty of ice core studies that show completely different things. It depends on where you take the ice from.

After reading the envirospin blogspot which mentioned numerous different factors affecting the way climate works, one of which was CO2, it is hard to become hysterical about it.

Besides methane from termites is doing far more harm than CO2 produced by humans. Ditto methane from cows and all sorts of other natural sources.

There is a lot of rubbish written by academics. I can say that because I work in a university! An awful lot of studies have poor use of statistical data and often cherry pick to show whatever they want. The greenies have a socialist agenda and really want everyone back to walking around bare foot and grateful if they're allowed heating. What upsets them is the proles have now got complete freedom of movement which they don't like. As usual socialists want everyone the same apart from themselves when they should be free to do what they want. Petrol companies and pro motor groups aren't unbiased either. Unfortunately hysterics is what gets funding - say there is a massive problem and you want to go find the solution and bingo you get loads of money. How would climate scientists get funding if they said ' don't worry, everything is tickety boo'?

The most likely outcome is there will be a few extra floods, a load of doom mongers will shout the end is nigh. Then nothing happens. World carries on turning and a few people in norfolk, bangladesh and the netherlands get wet feet. A few more people will get blown away during hurricane season as usual. Meanwhile many more will die of malnutrition and dirty water as the western world wastes billions on faffing around reducing a few carbon emissions that will make little if no difference. Time after time these hysterical outbursts about disasters prove to be unfounded. Meanwhile smoking kills 100,000 a year and booze 30,000 a year in this country alone and no-one notices.



teabelly
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Adam {P}
Teabelly for PM.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - turbo11
Carbon quotas?.Personally I couldn't give a monkeys.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Armitage Shanks {p}
If an aircraft flies across the Atlantic with 300 passengers it emits 10 tons of CO2, or whatever the figure is. If everybody on board pays a dotty 'Green' tax to fly it still emits the same amount of CO2 so it is another Government way to charge us money for doing nothing about the problem, if there even is a problem!
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - madf
"The most likely outcome is there will be a few extra floods"

Personally I don't care if London is flooded, or Holland or Florida or Bangladesh...
madf
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - drbe
What is the point of us - you, me, ordinary members of the public recycling cardboard tubes or tiptoeing round the streets trying to save 1 mpg, when other members of the population believe they have a right to fly around in private helicopters.

Wessex helicopters in some cases. Now tell me that is a fuel-efficient way of getting around? What about the greenhouses gases emitted by one of those things.

I know of one individual who flys to golf lessons in a Wessex.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Dalglish
doomed, we are all doomed.

britain is not the solution to the problem. as i ahve said time and again in these pages, you can wipe britian off the face of the earth and it will amke zero, zilch, nada, difference to the global climate equation.

just think, india adds 30million to its population every year !

just think, the biggest contributor to greenhous gases is the effect of depletion of rainforest and replacing it with the massive beef industry. beef production ( from the gases given off by cattle) is the worst offender.

i can't be bothered to look up the figures, but the number of cattle on this earth has grown exponentially. the best solution would be "beef quotas" and/or everyone going vegetarian.

cars and vehicles are an infinitely tiny tiny tiny tiny dot in the worldwide greenhouse problem.

just live your life, and enjoy today. for tomorrow brings, who knows or cares ?

Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Number_Cruncher
>>britain is not the solution to the problem

In terms of numerics, you may be right.

But, as a member of the first world we cannot ask developing countries to reduce their environmental impact, or reduce their beef herds, if we are not doing our best, and being seen to do our best to reduce our own damaging activities.

I don't know if there is environmetal catastrophe around the corner, but the supposed consequences are awful enough to warrant avoiding action being considered - this little island is crowded enough already without losing more area if the sea level rises.

Number_Cruncher
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Altea Ego
just live your life, and enjoy today. for tomorrow brings, who knows or cares ?


Yup yup yup

I will be dead in 20 years. I want to enjoy some home grown mediteranean climate at home in that time thank you, The young RF will live till 2066ish, the UK will not have turned to fagash by then either,

Frankly who gives a rats botty,
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - cheddar
I give a rats botty, I give a rats botty about hypocrisy and I give a rats botty about future taxation and legislation rather more so than an annual 0.whatever% increase in mean temp.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Adam {P}
Dalglish,

That is the first, (and probably only!) time I have ever agreed entirely with one of your posts.

Now we really are doomed!
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - yorkiebar
probably the wrong way to tackle this !!!! certainly not pc!

But if a lot of our recent immigrants returned would not our emissions and waste and cost and food needs (cattle) decrease?

Easy to sort then if so ?
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Robin Reliant
Global warming is like satanic child abuse or institutionalised racism. If your living depends on it you must go on proving it exists even though you know it doesn't, otherwise you lose your very well paid job.

I've got more important things to worry about. One of the mudflaps is hanging off on the back of the Mondeo, and the screw has rusted solid. Ah well, a few more squirts of WD40 into the athmosphere then.
--
Robin Reliant, formerly known as Tom Shaw
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Dynamic Dave
One of the mudflaps is hanging off on the back of the Mondeo,


Hooray! A motoring link at long last.

DD.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Blue {P}
I asked why the university car parking charges have more than doubled since last year, and they claim it's for environmental reasons and to discourage car use.

My backside. It's a money raising scheme, pure and simple and they have the nerve to use the environmental argument to cover it up. If it weren't so late at night I think I'd go sit in the car park and pointlessly rev my 6 cylinder engine just to chuck out a few kilos of CO2 to spite them. :-)

Blue
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - TheOilBurner
I think people need to actually go and study the evidence for and against climate change before doing a lot of hand waving and generally being dismissive of the whole thing.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Sticking your heads in the sand or claiming it's somebody else?s problem is no help to anyone.

My sons is nearly two years old, he could well be still around until the year 2080 or so. I for one can't just dismiss climate change because it may not be a problem in my lifetime, nor can I just hope it is all wrong and it quietly goes away. I think I owe him more than that.

I love driving and I love cars, but there is still a place to give a damn about what happens to the greater world around us.

Current atmospheric CO2 levels are 380ppm (parts per million). Typically in an interglacial period (such as we are experiencing now), CO2 levels do not exceed 330ppm.

Something is wrong. Positive feedback mechanisms are starting to kick in and shove the CO2 levels rapidly higher. Once we get to 500ppm (China doing very well in helping us get there) then the temperature will rise enough to kill off vast amounts of CO2 absorbing sea algae, resulting in a sudden massive upswing in temperature, causing melting of remaining glaciers and major rises in sea level. All this will result in huge areas of irreplaceable agricultural and urban land being lost across the world. Even on the off chance that scenario is correct, then we really ought to do something about it, shouldn't we?

{Motoring link:} It's time we invested heavily in nuclear power and started building cars that can charge off the grid. A sure fire way of reducing CO2 output. This will help us to get rid of coal and gas fired power stations, also reducing CO2. If this example was followed across the world then we can still hope for a positive outcome. Even if climate change is bunk, I don't see how it could hurt us going down this route. Our reliance on imported coal, gas and oil is bad news for this country. It would be far better economically and from an energy security point of view to go nuclear. Wouldn't you rather depend on small amounts of Uranium imported from Oz, than massive amounts of Oil imported from Iran?

End of rant, think about it guys.
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - yorkiebar
probably becuase the downside of the nuclear industry is more frightening than the current power industry?

Right or wrong I prefer co2 emissions that are measurable to burying nuclear waste in time bombs !

The only cure for the co2 emissions from cars (small in scale of the actual problem) is an effective public transport system and less aeroplanes not more !

The car owner is always guilty of every sin in the world; but could you actually live without a car?

i couldn't! Most of the people I know couldnt even get to work, let alone organise food, transport issues of the family etc etc etc.

Their is only 1 cure of co2 emissions and that is less reliance on their need and that is what should be coming from government; not seat belt regs and similar!
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - madf
I agree with Oil Burner: IF we are serious about CO2 emissions, tackle the worst offender: power generation. First.
Then tackle transport..
If we believe in a free choice society, the only way is carrot (reduced taxes for low CO2 emissions ) and stick (huge taxes for big emissions).
And remove obvious and glaring exceptions like air transport/ Tax aviation fuel.

Encourage people to live in cities close to jobs. Renovate old property: less energy used. Reduce the need to travel vast distances.

And Government to offer a clear lead in personal transport choice...


madf
Carbon quotas - road and air travel - Dalglish
the oilburner:

i am one of those who believes that climate change is real and is happening now and is due to a multitude of factors, with carbon being one of the major contributors. i also believe that the world has already gone beyond the tipping point on this issue.

however, as i keep saying: changing motoring or flying habits or going nuclear for electricity, or anything else in the uk has an infinitesimally insignificant impact on the global equation. the uk can be wiped off the map today and it will not have any effect on what happens to the climate of the world. it is a global problem requiring global solutions. { while nuclear may be a very good path to go down in the uk, unfortunately the general public has an irrational fear of it as it is linked in their minds to nuclear bombs. and inaccurate reporting of events such as chenobyl and three-mile-island do not help. )

for a real impact and for any real effect on reducing or reversing the trend is going to take massive humongous global effort and change in global behaviour. just try telling the indians that their population growth (equivalent to adding a whole uk population every two years ! ! ) has to stopped and reversed. just try telling the worl's poorest countries which are mainly catholic and muslim that they must use birth control. just try telling people that destroying forest to convert them to farms - for cattle, soya, palm oil, or whatever is bad for the planet.

it just ain't gonna happen.

i am not being defeatist, just being realistic. the world that you and i will leave behind for our children and grandchildren is going to be a pretty unpleasant place. however, rather than being negative and pessimistic and depressive about these things which nothing you or i can do change one iota, it is far better to live our lives to the full and teach our children to do so. if they aspire to drive a ferrari or a hummer or fly in personal helicopters or whatever, encourage them to try to do so in the most environmentally friendly way that they can.
i feel sure that most human beings who have got beyond their basic food/water/shelter needs want to do their best for planet earth, and do not wilfully seek to damage it.

reply to number-cruncher: there is vast amount of unused land in the uk that will be ideal for populations to relocate to when the south-east gets flooded.

happy motoring, while you still can.


Carbon quotas - road and air travel - TheOilBurner
I understand what you're saying Dalglish, but if we cannot directly change the whole world, then we should at least set the right example?

I do not agree that Britain makes no difference, we as part of the First world produce far more greenhouse gases than third world countries with populations many times our own. It is our responsibility (as a country) to do the right thing. We can, at least, do that much.

Just to compare:

Britain - population approx 60 million, CO2 pollution estimated to be around 750 million tonnes
India - population approx 1 billion, CO2 pollution estimated to be around 1,000 million tonnes

See: tinyurl.com/zc3ec for world map showing worst culprits

So yes, India is worse than us. But our contribution is hardly insignificant, IMO. The USA is clearly one of the worst, arguably what we say and do will have some effect on them, once our current puppet, er Prime Minister is removed.

The Drax power station alone (the one that was in the news, for "tree-huggers" trying to shut it down), produces more CO2 than the combined total of 103 of the worlds countries. Insignificant? Hardly.

See: tinyurl.com/nv9k8

Carbon quotas - road and air travel - TheOilBurner
As a footnote, the EU as a whole produces 4,500 million tonnes of CO2 from just 456 million people. 4.5 times the pollution of India from half the number of people.

Even if Britain alone isn't enough to make a difference, surely the EU can? We are an important member of the EU and do get a lot of influence, despite what some daily rags like to suggest...
 

Ask Honest John

Value my car