Crash Watcher: Major chance Europeans will starve after 2030

[stumuzz]

Right. Just had a quick google.

It seems that the Co2 emissions for heating a home is 1.49te per season.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 27664.html

The C02 emission for a 2K flight is approx 63kg per passenger.

http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_aviation.htm

Therefore it may well be a transition idea to fly to the sun for the winter as a way of saving the planet. Maybe the birds were right after all.

[Little John]

Right. Just had a quick google.

It seems that the Co2 emissions for heating a home is 1.49te per season.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 27664.html

The C02 emission for a 2K flight is approx 63kg per passenger.

http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_aviation.htm

Therefore it may well be a transition idea to fly to the sun for the winter as a way of saving the planet. Maybe the birds were right after all.

Nice

Reminds me of another counter intuitive snippet I picked up recently;

Apparently, owning a pet dog is the equivalent, in carbon emission terms, of half a Ford Prius and a pet hamster is worth one plasma TV.

This carbon-footprint thing can be a bit of a bugger to work out when it comes down to it.

[boisdevie]

It would help to not fly and try to cut down all our CO2 emissions. But it's not going to happen is it?

[Little John]

It would help to not fly and try to cut down all our CO2 emissions. But it's not going to happen is it?

Yes it is.

Just not voluntarily.

And almost certainly not in time to avoid collapse.

[JohnB]

Here's an ecological footprint calculator for you to play with. It's intended for low-impact developments. Or a more mainstream one using the same underlying data.

[stumuzz]

It would help to not fly and try to cut down all our CO2 emissions. But it's not going to happen is it?

Well would it? At a cursory glance it may be better to Not burn the fuel at home and fly somewhere sunnier and warmer.

[Catweazle]

Wood is a renewable fuel, kerosene isn't.

That depends entirely on how many people need wood.
I would argue that the UK is entirely incapable of supplying all it's heating needs on just wood.

I would agree with you.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

It would help to not fly and try to cut down all our CO2 emissions. But it's not going to happen is it?

Well would it? At a cursory glance it may be better to Not burn the fuel at home and fly somewhere sunnier and warmer.

On a Boeing 787 Dreamliner?

[stumuzz]

On a Boeing 787 Dreamliner?

Dreamliner.... big windows mmmmm

[stumuzz]

On a Boeing 787 Dreamliner?

Dreamliner.... big windows mmmmm

[emordnilap]

So we choose to live in such inefficient dwellings, heating-wise, that flying to a place where air-conditioning may be needed becomes, perversely, 'viable.'

Stay at home, save the money and get the fecking house insulated.

[woodburner]

Sorry for the blasphemy, but what about, er...., appropriate clothes?

We use about 1 1/2 cu m of split logs over the winter.

[emordnilap]

Sorry for the blasphemy, but what about, er...., appropriate clothes?

There's that - as well as insulation - that you could spend your money on, instead of giving it to Arabs and Michael O'Learys.

We use about 1 1/2 cu m of split logs over the winter.

That sounds more like it - pretty frugal in fact, well done. We use more than that, but I'm working on reducing our need. Each year I don't use aircraft, the money I save goes towards a better house.

[stumuzz]

So we choose to live in such inefficient dwellings, heating-wise, that flying to a place where air-conditioning may be needed becomes, perversely, 'viable.'

No AC needed in winter.

[emordnilap]

So we choose to live in such inefficient dwellings, heating-wise, that flying to a place where air-conditioning may be needed becomes, perversely, 'viable.'

No AC needed in winter.

Sorry, I thought you were flying to summer.