Originally posted by wotyzoid
Aviation is just 2% of overall CO2 emissions, what am I missing?
Being charitable, I don't think Trance-MB literally means AWACS generate as much emissions as the entire car-driving Dutch populace. What he probably means is that despite all the efforts invested in making driving more efficient, the environmental benefits a single person makes by driving a more efficient car in a year are immediately wiped out every time someone flies a jet aircraft somewhere.
He's basically moaning that the Green party are taxing him more for what is ultimately a completely insignificant carbon footprint compared to the big boy emitters of industry, commercial transport, agriculture and military.
Yeah I understand what he's saying now. And I would generally side with him in most bullets under this topic I think. Humans have to think bigger picture.
Originally posted by wotyzoid
Yeah I understand what he's saying now. And I would generally side with him in most bullets under this topic I think. Humans have to think bigger picture.
Not really. If you look at the scale of what is required to stand a chance of avoiding worldwide environmental catastrophe, we need to be squeezing every possible source of environmental damage.
I find it's quite a common refutation of environmentalist policies to just point out some ostensible hypocrisy or the grand hopelessness of it all. The real motivation is invariably the desire to carry on being as selfish and consumptive as one wants.
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Hugging Whales And Saving Trees
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Not really. If you look at the scale of what is required to stand a chance of avoiding worldwide environmental catastrophe, we need to be squeezing every possible source of environmental damage.
I find it's quite a common refutation of environmentalist policies to just point out some ostensible hypocrisy or the grand hopelessness of it all. The real motivation is invariably the desire to carry on being as selfish and consumptive as one wants.
Couldn't agree more.
Mar-16-2017 20:23
planetaryplayer
Surpeme traineanddict
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: Pine Tree Valley
I'm trying to invent cars that run on pollution
Mar-16-2017 21:06
wotyzoid
it's not house
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
If you look at the scale of what is required to stand a chance, the main culprits are not regular people living their everyday lives, by a long shot, if I'm reading all this information correctly. If you target them mainly it's just not a good precedent nor a smart one. Its weak policy. That's like putting 3 horse and 4 birds in a cage and putting a shitting tax on the birds.
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Limburg, Netherlands
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
I'm with you that GroenLinks is not an ideal party to be in power, but are you sure about your statistics there? They seem, um, a bit off.
An AWACS Boeing E-3 puts out as much carbon dioxide in one hour as 2 average passenger cars do in a year, but there's only 16 of them, and they're not all in the air all the time...
The Netherlands has 11 million cars. Lets say they're twice as efficient as the average car, but that's still 2.75 million flying hours. There's only 9000 hours in a year...
If the 16 planes were all flying all the time, that's roughly 150,000 flying hours... So, the NATO planes (flying all the time, which is not possible) are only 5% of the total car emissions (optimistically).
Obviously flying is absolutely horrible for the environment, much worse than driving, but driving is still a significant element. Driving, flying, electrical production (all those coal mines aren't helping), and agriculture (all those wonderful Dutch cows...) are all significant elements, and we should work to reduce emissions in each area where possible - including limiting the use of petrol-using cars.
Also, they're trying to upgrade the AWACS engines, hopefully it'll happen soon.
No, none of the 16 Awacs will get new engines. Even complaining about the noise for as long as I can't remember at the town right next to the base didn't make them upgrade. They measured 106db at the schoolyard. I read it takes 54 Boeing 747's to reproduce the noise of a single Awacs during take off.
The base is very close to the Dutch border and actually in Germany in Geilenkirchen, so Groen Links probably doesn't know. I think about 2600 flights a year are allowed, which is average 12 take offs a day.
They also don't fly over the rest of Holland, just over this area in the south.
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Being charitable, I don't think Trance-MB literally means AWACS generate as much emissions as the entire car-driving Dutch populace.
Yeah, that's what I meant Jack. If they want to make things better, or faster better, as things already get better because of improving techniques, they should focus on things which make significant changes. Led lights and solar cells at home are nice, but those are still just a minor changes. Using the car as another cash cow is ridiculous as public transport over here already is at it's maximum capacity in a very developed and dense network.
Driving a car in Holland average costs 49 Euro-cent/km. They want to add 15 cent/km during working hours and 3 cent/km outside on top of that.
Holland already is about the most expensive country to drive a car. To compare, a Ford Mustang 2.3 costs here €55k, in Belgium and Germany €35k. A Mustangs 5.0 costs €112k !!! vs €40k in Belgium and Germany. Look at the US price and you're gonna feel sorry for us...
One liter gasoline costs €1.65 (65%=tax) and road tax about €900 a year for a 1600 kg car.
Looking at the average car here, which is small and light and because of that have small engines, (average 1-1.4 liter I think) I don't think there is a lot to gain compared to the current situation.
For years hybrids got subsidized (low tax when buying, no road tax) but because only business people drove them it was useless, as all hybrids used their petrol engine at the highways instead of the electro motor. Millions of Euro's thrown away for only benefit on paper.
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Hey, isn't South Holland something like Wilders country? What's the reaction in Limburg been?
Well, you mean the south of Holland as South Holland (Zuid-Holland) is the province holding The Hague and Rotterdam
Yes it has become Wilders country over here so I guess many are disappointed. But next to liberals (VVD) also still many are democrats, CDA as we, me included, have a farmers background, which is fading though. The closest city, in which I also work, always was very left (SP) but now like in all bigger cities PVV has taken over the first place. So the national outcome does not reflect the votes from Limburg.
But don't forget, PVV is the second biggest party now and many do agree with their ideas, but like in my case just not enough to vote for them. I bet if Erdogan had shut his mouth PVV even would have gotten more votes in the rest of the country.
The Turkish party DENK (Think) got 3 seats. The only positive thing is that many Muslims still did not vote for them. I don't like it when Turks which are born here and when referring to "My president" or even worse "My country" are referring to Erdogan and Turkey.
Compared to Turkey Holland for sure is a much much much much nicer country to live in, so I'm for a one passport policy which would prevent Turks who are born here to vote for Turkey. Force them to choose, than we will see if they really love Turkey as much as they think they do.
___________________
Longest (classic) Trance playlist on YouTube (5000 tracks released up to and including 1997), click here
Mar-16-2017 21:53
Lews
Platipus And Prog Addict
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Hugging Whales And Saving Trees
quote:
Originally posted by wotyzoid
If you look at the scale of what is required to stand a chance, the main culprits are not regular people living their everyday lives, by a long shot, if I'm reading all this information correctly. If you target them mainly it's just not a good precedent nor a smart one. Its weak policy. That's like putting 3 horse and 4 birds in a cage and putting a shitting tax on the birds.
Yes, because clearly the only policy politicians (and us) are recommending is a tax on personal vehicles, nothing else.
Mar-16-2017 21:53
SYSTEM-J
IDKFA.
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Manchester
quote:
Originally posted by wotyzoid
If you look at the scale of what is required to stand a chance, the main culprits are not regular people living their everyday lives, by a long shot, if I'm reading all this information correctly. If you target them mainly it's just not a good precedent nor a smart one. Its weak policy. That's like putting 3 horse and 4 birds in a cage and putting a shitting tax on the birds.
If you'd done even 30 seconds of research rather than taking as gospel the bullshit that Trance-MB chats, you'd know that the GroenLinks party aren't just foisting all their policies on normal people. They have a whole bunch of policies targeting many different areas. But that does not change the fact that normal people should be targeted by environmentalist policies, because we simply do not have any comfort room on this issue.
More generally, I think it's misguided to mentally separate the behaviour of normal people from all these evil corporations or whoever you think should be targeted. It's normal people who do the bulk of air travel. It's normal people who eat the bulk of industrially farmed food. It's normal people who use much of the electricity created by dirty power stations. And it's normal people who buy most of the mass-produced shit churned out by all those factories.
