Because in those instances it might be better in business terms to have a face to face meeting, whilst not being absolutely essential. I always prefer speaking to someone in person than on the phone/over the internet, as I believe any right-minded person would. My point is that something has to give and if we don't all start making some sacrifices sooner rather than later, it'll be too late. If the cost of air travel suddenly increased, maybe businesses would consider a little more carefully whether the trip was absolutely essential. There's also the issue of the massive increase in domestic flights in this country - there's certainly no way they can be said to be essential in the vast, vast majority of cases.



Not really. From your link:

IATA’s Steele pointed to the recent study carried by consultants E4tech on behalf of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change that showed a best case scenario for a full replacement of jet kerosene by biofuels by 2035 and a worse case of 40% replacement by 2050. “In reality, I think it will be somewhere between the two, and we in the industry will be trying to move things forward as quickly as we can.”

So the best case scenario highlighted above means another 20+ years of rising carbon emissions, and even the industry accept that this scenario is unlikely to be achieved. The worst case scenario will put barely a dent in current CO2 emissions levels if air travel continues to rise as expected.

It's worth noting, too, that your link comes from the industry itself. Others may take a slightly different view on how committed the aviation industry is to tackling climate change.Greenpeace, for example.



My apologies. What I meant was that we can't yet produce an alternative fuel car that is universally accepted, without serious compromises in performance, and where fuel is readily available in the same way as petrol is. There are loads of different ideas about what the best alternative fuel for cars will be, but until the industry and its consumers agree on what that fuel is, and a range of cars are produced that will run on this fuel and perform as well as current petrol/diesel cars, we're really no nearer to significantly reducing emissions from motoring.



I'd dispute that, certainly the 'clearly' part. Environmental scientists agree that climate change will eventually reach a 'tipping point', a point of no return from which warming will continue (and accelerate) no matter what measures we subsequently take. I don't think there is universal agreement on what point this will be - I don't think anyone really knows - but the worst case scenario described in your first link (or even the 'likely' middle scenario) wouldn't necessarily mean we had acted soon enough.

Because in those instances it might be better in business terms to have a face to face meeting, whilst not being absolutely essential. I always prefer speaking to someone in person than on the phone/over the internet, as I believe any right-minded person would. My point is that something has to give and if we don't all start making some sacrifices sooner rather than later, it'll be too late. If the cost of air travel suddenly increased, maybe businesses would consider a little more carefully whether the trip was absolutely essential. There's also the issue of the massive increase in domestic flights in this country - there's certainly no way they can be said to be essential in the vast, vast majority of cases.



Not really. From your link:

IATA’s Steele pointed to the recent study carried by consultants E4tech on behalf of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change that showed a best case scenario for a full replacement of jet kerosene by biofuels by 2035 and a worse case of 40% replacement by 2050. “In reality, I think it will be somewhere between the two, and we in the industry will be trying to move things forward as quickly as we can.”

So the best case scenario highlighted above means another 20+ years of rising carbon emissions, and even the industry accept that this scenario is unlikely to be achieved. The worst case scenario will put barely a dent in current CO2 emissions levels if air travel continues to rise as expected.

It's worth noting, too, that your link comes from the industry itself. Others may take a slightly different view on how committed the aviation industry is to tackling climate change.Greenpeace, for example.



My apologies. What I meant was that we can't yet produce an alternative fuel car that is universally accepted, without serious compromises in performance, and where fuel is readily available in the same way as petrol is. There are loads of different ideas about what the best alternative fuel for cars will be, but until the industry and its consumers agree on what that fuel is, and a range of cars are produced that will run on this fuel and perform as well as current petrol/diesel cars, we're really no nearer to significantly reducing emissions from motoring.



I'd dispute that, certainly the 'clearly' part. Environmental scientists agree that climate change will eventually reach a 'tipping point', a point of no return from which warming will continue (and accelerate) no matter what measures we subsequently take. I don't think there is universal agreement on what point this will be - I don't think anyone really knows - but the worst case scenario described in your first link (or even the 'likely' middle scenario) wouldn't necessarily mean we had acted soon enough.

I shouldn't think that the percentage of businesses that would just voluntarily make sacrifices would be statistically significant. Only stuff that's imposed could ever work. And that's irrelevant anyway unless you can find a way to halt the vast rise in greenhouse gases from China and the east anyway.


Doubt that. Business class costs about a squillion times what I would pay, and it's seemingly always pretty full.


Not essential, no, but not pleasure flights in the vast majority of cases. Of course if there were better alternatives then folk would use them. Would that we hadn't wrecked our railway system.


I'd say a 40% dent is some big dent. But I'm curious as to why air travel is expected to continue to rise, is that necessarily true? Are there so many wanton, unthinking extra potential customers, who don't fly now and really have no need to, but will proliferate into air travel in their millions regardless? I'm not convinced.


Indeed, but I didn't argue the aviation industry is committed to tackling climate change, I would accept entirely that anything they do is going to be more for reasons of public image and/or compulsion, indeed making the biggest profit they can is of course what they are in business to do. It's just that in the coming decades the two do seem to increasingly converge - if not co-incide.


I would largely agree, but here again, compulsion is the only alternative. For a radical example, what if you could only ever enter London's congestion charge zone if you were an electric car? I also don't think people will be keen to give up "performance" voluntarily and I think the only way forward (and that's speaking as a petrolhead) is not MAKE cars that can shoot along at 100 all day guzzling fuel from huge engines. I would hate to see the day but certainly if all there was in terms of cars on the motorways was models limited to (say) 50 mph then it would also very greatly ease congestion too (less space between cars, no point in lane hogging as everyone is going similar speeds).

Really? Oh., well. If we're all doomed, we may as well just crack on then. Where's me Scooby keys?

I shouldn't think that the percentage of businesses that would just voluntarily make sacrifices would be statistically significant. Only stuff that's imposed could ever work. And that's irrelevant anyway unless you can find a way to halt the vast rise in greenhouse gases from China and the east anyway.


Doubt that. Business class costs about a squillion times what I would pay, and it's seemingly always pretty full.


Not essential, no, but not pleasure flights in the vast majority of cases. Of course if there were better alternatives then folk would use them. Would that we hadn't wrecked our railway system.


I'd say a 40% dent is some big dent. But I'm curious as to why air travel is expected to continue to rise, is that necessarily true? Are there so many wanton, unthinking extra potential customers, who don't fly now and really have no need to, but will proliferate into air travel in their millions regardless? I'm not convinced.


Indeed, but I didn't argue the aviation industry is committed to tackling climate change, I would accept entirely that anything they do is going to be more for reasons of public image and/or compulsion, indeed making the biggest profit they can is of course what they are in business to do. It's just that in the coming decades the two do seem to increasingly converge - if not co-incide.


I would largely agree, but here again, compulsion is the only alternative. For a radical example, what if you could only ever enter London's congestion charge zone if you were an electric car? I also don't think people will be keen to give up "performance" voluntarily and I think the only way forward (and that's speaking as a petrolhead) is not MAKE cars that can shoot along at 100 all day guzzling fuel from huge engines. I would hate to see the day but certainly if all there was in terms of cars on the motorways was models limited to (say) 50 mph then it would also very greatly ease congestion too (less space between cars, no point in lane hogging as everyone is going similar speeds).

Really? Oh., well. If we're all doomed, we may as well just crack on then. Where's me Scooby keys?