Crash Watcher: Major chance Europeans will starve after 2030

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 18 Jan 2013, 18:07

So, the premise that to fly to warmer climes is more environmentally friendly, emits less carbon, saves mature trees from being cut down, than staying at home and burning fuel, stands?

Michael O'leary climate hero. Who would have thought.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 18 Jan 2013, 18:27

stumuzz wrote:So, the premise that to fly to warmer climes is more environmentally friendly, emits less carbon, saves mature trees from being cut down, than staying at home and burning fuel, stands?

Put some numbers into one of the ecological footprint calculators I linked to a couple of pages ago, and find out.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 18 Jan 2013, 18:44

So, the premise that to fly to warmer climes is more environmentally friendly, emits less carbon, saves mature trees from being cut down, than staying at home and burning fuel, stands?

Michael O'leary climate hero. Who would have thought.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 18 Jan 2013, 22:03

RenewableMaman used to fly to Italy for the duration of February every year. Let us assume that the return flight "cost" 1 tonne of CO_2 per person, that the heating needed in Italy is minimal, and that also the heating needed in the empy house is minimal.

The house she left behind is heated by oil, which I think comes in at about 270gCO_2 per kWh (http://www.carbontrust.com/media/18223/ ... actors.pdf). I know the house uses about twice as much heating energy as Chateau Renewable, which, last Feb, used a total of 2,800 kWh.

So we have 2800 * 2 * .27kg or about 1,500 kg CO_2.

Looks as if Stumuzz has it...

BUT RenewableMaman doesn't live alone in that house: there are 2 of them flying out to Italy together, so 2 tonnes CO_2 to fly. In addition, some Italian has either lost the use of their house for a month, or has to build another one.

However, this could work: it is possible, for example, to drive to Italy and stay with friends, leaving your own house on minimal heating while bribing a neighbour to look in fttt. If the said friends could tolerate guests for the 6 coldest weeks of a British winter, and the guests aren't needed back in Blighty, this might be a fuel-saver.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 19 Jan 2013, 09:10

RC, thanks for taking the time for a considered reply.

The 1 tonne cost you mention is that for the whole flight or per passenger?

The carbon independent link I gave estimates that a 1000Km flight on a 737 produces 3610Kg of Co2 divided by 165 passengers gives 19.18 Kg of Co2 per passenger. Double that for the return journey gives 38.36 Kg of Co2 for the flight per passenger.

Compare this 38.6Kg of Co2 to the 1490Kg used to heat the house plus the 500+ used in extra energy use e.g. tumble dryer etc. during the heating season and flying to the sun seems, at first glance, to be a good idea.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 19 Jan 2013, 09:27

RenewableCandy wrote: The house she left behind is heated by oil,

It's probably still heated, a little bit, when empty, to stop the pipes freezing.

Anyway, whatever the sums, this is only a possible strategy for a tiny number of people as there aren't enough spare houses for us all to have a northern and southern one and the UK economy would need a bit of transforming if everyone left in the winter.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 19 Jan 2013, 10:06

biffvernon wrote: Anyway, whatever the sums,

You have no issues with the sums? The premise that it saves Co2 to fly to the sun stands?

biffvernon wrote: this is only a possible strategy for a tiny number of people as there aren't enough spare houses for us all to have a northern and southern one and .

This is not the case. All of the resorts which have been built since the 60's in North Africa, Canaries, southern Europe are practically empty during the winter. There are millions of accommodation units available.
The obverse of this exodus every winter is our houses would be available to people from extreme northern Europe, thus reducing the need for them to cut down their mature trees.

biffvernon wrote:the UK economy would need a bit of transforming if everyone left in the winter

Yes, it does need transforming. You have always said that. You have always stated to work a bit less, be a bit more self reliant. What could be a better transition to the Post PO future than working nine months then flying away to the sun for the winter.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 19 Jan 2013, 11:27

The people from extreme northern Europe could go all the way to the Canaries, cutting out the middle man (us). I'm not sure what the accompanying reindeer will make of it.

I suppose the sensible thing is to ensure that all people not constructively employed, children, housewives/husbands, pensioners, unemployed, students etc must live in countries that don't require heating or air conditioning. These locations may change with global warming as well as seasonally.

Of course we'd have to abandon national border controls, so there's a gain.

Hang on, the people from extreme northern Europe live in reindeer skin tents and thick furry clothes so don't actually use much heating. Maybe it's our lifestyles that need changing rather than our locations.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 19 Jan 2013, 12:42

biffvernon wrote:Hang on, the people from extreme northern Europe live in reindeer skin tents and thick furry clothes so don't actually use much heating.

I thought they'd been living in far better insulated houses than us for many decades!

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 19 Jan 2013, 13:19

Stumuzz, the flight CO_2 I quoted is per passenger. Most people don't realise that.

A single-occupant car driven the same distance emits about 2/3 as much CO_2, and of course if you fill it full of a family living in a large house and send them south for 6 weeks, then the savings really start to stack up. Trains are also possible in theory but I'm not sure I'd care to haul 6 weeks' worth of kit round station platforms.

The friends they're staying with at the other end of the trip, might not want their summer heat (and having to use aircon), so perhaps they could come to the UK for the school holidays. That way, no extra house is needed.

D'you know, this could actually work?..In older times it wasn't unusual for people to move uphill/out-of-town for the summer.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 19 Jan 2013, 16:40

biffvernon wrote:The people from extreme northern Europe could go all the way to the Canaries, cutting out the middle man (us). I'm not sure what the accompanying reindeer will make of it.

I suppose the sensible thing is to ensure that all people not constructively employed, children, housewives/husbands, pensioners, unemployed, students etc must live in countries that don't require heating or air conditioning. These locations may change with global warming as well as seasonally.

Of course we'd have to abandon national border controls, so there's a gain.

Hang on, the people from extreme northern Europe live in reindeer skin tents and thick furry clothes so don't actually use much heating. Maybe it's our lifestyles that need changing rather than our locations.

I haven't a clue what you said.

If you do not want to reply. Fine.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 19 Jan 2013, 16:41

JohnB wrote: I thought they'd been living in far better insulated houses than us for many decades!

S o when they come south they can teach us a thing or two.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 19 Jan 2013, 16:44

RenewableCandy wrote:Stumuzz, the flight CO_2 I quoted is per passenger. Most people don't realise that.

Sorry to be a bit dim, but why do the calculators put per passenger Co2 in the <100 Kg but you say it's a >1ton?

I'm one of the peeps who don't realise!!

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 19 Jan 2013, 17:29

The ecological footprint calculator I linked to some days ago, as used by the Welsh Government, and local authorities all over Britain, calculates the ecological footprint of air travel by price rather than mileage, but there's all sorts of clever calculations they've used to come up with it, so it's probably a reasonable average. The Welsh Government work on 1.88 global hectares being a fair share for all the consumption of one person, and the actual average achieved is over 5 at the moment, so there's a way to go. So for air travel it works out as:

£100 - 0.09 gHa
£500 - 0.44 gHa
£1000 - 0.88 gHa
£2130 - 1.88 gHa

So if you spend £2k a year on air travel, you use your entire share of global resources on flying, with nothing left for food, shelter and all that other stuff, and need to walk (bare foot) to the airport.

stumuzz · Post by **stumuzz** » 19 Jan 2013, 17:43

JohnB wrote:The ecological footprint calculator I linked to some days ago, as used by the Welsh Government, and local authorities all over Britain, calculates the ecological footprint of air travel by price rather than mileage, but there's all sorts of clever calculations they've used to come up with it, so it's probably a reasonable average. The Welsh Government work on 1.88 global hectares being a fair share for all the consumption of one person, and the actual average achieved is over 5 at the moment, so there's a way to go. So for air travel it works out as:

£100 - 0.09 gHa
£500 - 0.44 gHa
£1000 - 0.88 gHa
£2130 - 1.88 gHa

So if you spend £2k a year on air travel, you use your entire share of global resources on flying, with nothing left for food, shelter and all that other stuff, and need to walk (bare foot) to the airport.

Sorry John, that does not really help.

I,m trying to do a simple calculation of trees being left to grow and fuel not being burnt V burning fuel to fly.
If, as i'm starting to believe that it is better to fly, then uncomfortably for some, thats a good.