PRESSURE yesterday mounted on the States to get serious about climate change.
The island has failed to commit to an emissions target in its Energy Policy, opting instead in June 2008 to make further investigations.
Carbon emissions in the island have slipped back to around 1990 levels and environmentalists spoke out yesterday as the Copenhagen climate change conference started with negotiators attempting to thrash out a deal to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
A full treaty is not expected until 2010, but hopes for the conference have improved recently with key players such as the USA, China, Brazil and South Africa committing themselves to action.
The European Union is signed up to a 30% reduction in carbon emission on 1990 levels by 2020 if others take tough action.
‘These are the sort of things Guernsey has to be aware of. How can it be part of the developed world without making similar commitments?’ said Professor Nick Day, pictured.
Progress on initiatives outlined in the energy policy has been limited, he said.
A renewable energy commission has been set up, of which Prof. Day is a member. And consultation has also begun on a registration tax for new vehicles to target those with higher emissions and possibly subsidise electric ones.
‘Apart from that it seems to me they have done nothing and there were a whole load of workstreams they should be going forward,’ said Prof. Day.
These would include home improvement subsidies to make properties more energy-efficient and more effective in terms of heating.
Guernsey Electricity was key to reducing the island’s emissions by importing more power from France, he said.
But it is bound by regulation to use the lowest cost option.
This has meant producing more on island using its diesel generators.
It was a policy that had to change if renewables such as tidal power were going to be used, said Prof. Day.
The Office of Utility Regulation is investigating this policy.
Prof. Day also condemned those trying to use illegally hacked emails by scientists at the University of East Anglia to cast doubt on scientific arguments that humans cause climate change.
‘It’s really a last-ditch attempt to try and sabotage what has been described as perhaps the most important conference the world has ever had.’
Guernsey is not represented in Copenhagen.
‘The island should now rethink what it decided last year and should consider very seriously setting proper targets,’ said Prof. Day.
Scientists believe that to have a chance of keeping warming under the dangerous 2C mark, cuts of 25% to 40% relative to 1990 levels are needed, rising to 80% to 95% by 2050.
The Guernsey Climate Action Network has placed an advert in the Guernsey Press to raise awareness of the issue.
Last week, Energy Policy Group chairman Charles Parkinson said the island would expect to play a part in any targets agreed by the UK.
Article posted on 8th December, 2009 - 2.30pm
53 Article Comments
Kind of a smack in the chops for the incinerator then. No doubt this single proposition will outweigh every single saving the island could implement.
Maybe it would have been wise to have asked Professor Nick Day about his opinion on the proposed incinerator in the grand scheme of things.
That would have produced an answer that some officials would not wish to hear though. Absolute madness IMAO!
Report abuse
Paul,
Actually Prof Day did express a view on the incinerator, which was heard by officials, and it’s not as cut and dried as you might imagine:
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/02/19/greenhouse-gases-none-of-our-business/
Report abuse
Those incinerators are linked to hideous health problems.
Report abuse
Question . . . . .
Bearing in mind that a single person on a return flight across the Atlantic generates the same amount of carbon emmissions as generated in 9000 miles of normal driving (2 years local driving)how big are our Chief Ministers Carbon shoes after this years galavanting alone??
Surely this sort of Carbon awareness needs to start at the top?
I didn’t see many States members at the screening of “The Age of Stupid”
Which by the way was an extremely thought provoking film!
Is it just a case of don’t do as I do, do as I say???
Report abuse
As long as they don’t “green” tax us!
Report abuse
Global warming is a con. Stop chopping down the trees and the planet will be a more cleaner planet.
Report abuse
The thermal treatment plant will probably emit less co2 and no methane than the same waste going to landfill but without a full LCA it would be almost impossible to say for sure. But yes totally agree, I think Guernsey has got to get serious about a lot of things, Climate Change is just one of those things, particular issue for the coast, rainwater management, very much dryer hotter summers, heavy tropical like storms, and very much more wind and rain in the winter, will take its toll. Coastal defences, water management, drinking water management etc etc are all things that should be considered. But it may be that Guernsey actually produces a higher per capita emission than americans! I am not sure of the exact figures. Anyway I am not sure if there is the political will to do this…..they seem to be taking a more global south approach, what will it do to our economy kind of approach. Guernsey should be leading the way on such things, sadly it is likely to once again be a laggard.
Report abuse
Shameful, yet sadly unsurprising.
I love our island, but this, and our questionable position concerning our wheelings and dealings in the name of money, makes us not only appear selfishly oblivious to the rest of the world, but ignorant enough to think that the rules don’t apply to us. AGAIN.
WHEN are we going to have some political leaders who START showing some responsibility, understanding and proper appreciation of the effects of their actions in the long term – not only on us, but to the rest of the world – and STOP thinking of Guernsey as entirely unconnected to anything past Corbiere, intent on nothing but filling up the islands coffers and securing their positions in the short term by keeping their dear friends in the finance industry fat and happy?!
Report abuse
I would urge States members, before embarking on expensive anti-CO2 measures to read Christopher Booker’s recent book “The Real Global Warming Disaster” £9 from Amazon. It is well researched and supported by extensive bibliography and illustrates why the “science” is far from “proven”.
Did you realize, for example, that Russia (totally sceptical of the science)only signed up to Kyoto because Putin realised that, due to the decline since 1990 (the base year for Kyoto) Russia’s industry and hence emmissions had so decline that they could sell their carbon credits to the West for billions of dollars per year!
The book is essential reading. Read it.
Report abuse
Carbonneutral, I would love to know where you “plucked” those figures from. There are various claims and counter claims from pro and anti aviation but I’ve not seen anything quite so ridiculous.
Even some of the “anti aviation” people I’ve had the pleasure of chatting too recently believe that 1 mile in a passenger aircraft is about the same as 1 mile in a small car in terms of CO2, using that rule of thumb your quote is quite astonishing.
Sceptic – I’ve not read that particular book, but have done my own readings and what you say about the content doesn’t surprise me. It’s nice to know I’m not alone in my cautious approach to “Everything Green”. To give you an idea, I’m happy to recycle as much of my waste as I can, but I’m not prepared to take 5kg less on holiday.
Report abuse
Captain Oveur,
Given that a round trip from London to New York is nearly 7000 miles, it doesn’t sound like Carbonneutral’s estimate and your rule of thumb are that far out from each other.
Report abuse
Captain Oveur, what would you estimate the distance of a return flight across the Atlantic to be?
I am in no way anti aviation by a long chalk however I did want to make a point that would be clearly understood.
Having been in the Guernsey motor trade for over 25 years it is widely accepted that an “Average Guernsey mileage” is approx 4500 miles per annum.
As air travel is as Im sure you will know slightly more harmful per mile than car travel due to the fuel type involved and emmissions generated from this fuel I do not think I am that far off the mark??
But I am always open to enlightenment.
Report abuse
I apologise I misread your comment.
I’ll get my coat.
Report abuse
A good start would be to ban all Christmas lights.
And then the incinerator.
Then ban the idiots who put up lights and those who voted for the CO2 chundering monster.
Humbug.
Report abuse
John
I read your link to the other Nick Day story, and I’d say it was pretty damning on the proposed incinerator.
Shame his comments were ignored eh??
As his current ones will no doubt also be
Report abuse
I’m with all you climate change sceptics. All those humourless scientists out there in their laboratories, devoting their working lives running model after model, collecting reams of data, making countless observations spanning the decades, and all they can come up with are ‘empirical facts’ to prove the existance of climate change and the dangers which humanity now faces. Really, these so-called-experts haven’t half got a cheek!
By the way, it’s heartening to know that that small island states are extremely well-represented at the top of the per-capita CO2 emissions rankings. Just think, if we gained independence and the true extent of our emissions were quantified (food/fuel imports, domestic travel etc.) instead of being masked by UK figures, we could be right up there with American Samoa et al. Come on Guernsey, bury your heads, and keep globeTrotting Lyndon. Don’t it make ya proud!
Report abuse
I agree with Realist, Global warming is a con.
These so called greens make me sick, they are only in it to keep themselves in jobs and make as much money from the reasons they want everyone to believe is the cause of global warming, “IT’S ALL US HUMANS FAULT” only the sheep on this planet are gullable enough to keep believing this.
HELLO, There has been plenty other ice ages and warming periods in the planets history. Nobody had cars then or power stations.
All green powers are too expensive and hopeless and probably would not last long before needing replacing due to wearing out. You need a whole forest of wind generators just to power 1,000 homes!!!
If everyone went out and bought electric cars tomarrow and plugged them in all the power stations would go into meltdown. What most people don’t realise with electric cars is they only transfer the pollution to the power station. You need to charge them overnight each day and about every five years you will need a new bank of batteries costing several thousands of £.
We should not do any more, we do plenty as it is with our economical modern cars. if you want to get some countries to cut carbon emmissions to lessen air pollution in cities and towns, then pick on China and the USA first then when they have got their emmissions really low compared to ours or the UK then we could hold up our hands and say ok we will do something now.
The most polluting things on this planet are animals like cows, which a herd of 300 cows produce the same as a average sized car doing 100,000 miles per year which is virtually impossible for most people even the commuters in the UK. The sea gives out tons of carbon through evaporation and volcanos when they erupt spew out more pollution then all the cars in the world do in a day.
I don’t think all the farmers or all the animal conservation groups would be happy if all cows and other animals had to all be killed because they make more pollution then us.
Report abuse
Clever 40 Something?
Not so IMO!
Do some proper research then come back with well researched intelligent answers.
A good start would be with the ice caps and the implications for many areas of the planet!
Report abuse
Whether you are in the Climate Change camp or the sceptic camp surely both can agree that the earth has limited resources. Therefore investigating alternatives to our future energy needs along with reducing our own personal output surely has some merit?
There’s nothing like good or bad science to focus the minds of men.
Report abuse
Reducing our energy needs makes sense anyway as it saves money.
To save money you have to spend money but some energy saving measures are more cost effective than others.
The States should take a lead in this by prioritising the measures which have the fastest pay back time, e.g. loft insulation, and install it in all public property.
They should then publicise costs and projected annual savings to encourage business and individuals to follow suit.
Report abuse
Christopher Booker’s book is just so full of scientific inaccuracies that it has been decimated all over the place by the vast majority of science in nearly all fields. Don’t bother buying it unless you buy the IPCC report, or any of the millions of books that tell a more accurate picture of the truth.
The argument is not black and white.
But there is a fundamental set of truths
Plants and animals have been involved in a complex cycle of life and death involving carbon.
When they die the take the carbon and store it, so that the next lives have balance.
Carbon, in many reactive molecules has been observed, espiacially in the forms of the gases to have qualities that retain heat, which we get from the sun.
If this were not balanced by life and death there is only one conclusion. We would heat up.
There are cycles that operate over millenia, and less, and more, that change the planet’s ecosystem and so its cycles.
In not one of these natural cycles has so much ‘fixed’ carbon been extracted and rereleased into the biosphere as in the last three hundred years.
The known natural cycles have been disrupted by a massive and extremely rapid (300 years against millions, sceptics!) changing of the environment, mainly with compounds, gases and molecules that simply were stored for precisely that reason.
None of that is conspiracy. It’s obvious. Disrupt the carbon cycle and you disrupt nature.
Whether you believe the worldwide governments’ actions to be proper, that’s something else, but disbelieve nature is just idiocy.
The only thing I will agree on is that carbon trading is hugely flawed.
As is the the proposed extortion racket coming from the big logging corps/agric orps and oil corps: pay us to stop cutting trees down.
It is a racket in the big business, one or two of you may have heard me say that before.
But there cannot be any denial that the increased released of greenhouse gases is not warming the planet. The loudest denialist voices are fully paid up to do so. The thousands, many thousands of researchers, of which my lecturer was 20 years ago, independently so, and now forming cooperative strategies – with all the flaws of concensus approaches – are not just right, they are problem.
We will leave our great granchildren a terrible legacy because idiots want to consume more and more because of a society that breeds ’self entitlement’, just like my opponents on the finance threads. It’s all connected.
There are sites out their that take all the arguments from everyone and thrash it all out. There is only one direction this is all going in. As usual our insularity blinds us to the truth. Just as long as we can do what the TV adverts tell us we should be doing, we’re ok, yeah?
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
Report abuse
“There are sites out *there* that take”
someone get me a secretary.
Report abuse
global warming is a very profitable industry and grossly exaggerated.
For trillions of years Earth has undergone many changes and if we are really warming up there is little we can do about it.
It makes more sense for us to conserve energy like switching off unneccessary lights, turning down the heating,saving water etc.
Businesses could for example reduce the ridiculous amount of packaging on goods.
Report abuse
And here is the Guernsey news:I am standing on the airfield where its the only place that I can get my head out of the water and speak on the mike.Don’t worry about it as its only an exceptional high tide,all this rubbarb about glabal warming by the defeatists just because every year we pour billions of tons of hot gases into our atmosphere
is just panic making.Oh by the way theres an iceberg thats come loose from the north pole just passing on my left,hope it does not melt too quickly as I may not be able to finish the news.I really think its time we THOUGHT about saving the planet!
glug!glug!glug!
Report abuse
roberto
global warming is a very profitable industry and grossly exaggerated.
For trillions of years Earth has undergone many changes.
So is your estimate of how long the earth has been here unless it was a previous universe? :)
Report abuse
Donald Remfrey
You forgot to mention in your news bulletin that China is probably pouring more carbon into the atmosphere in 24 hours than all the vehicles in Guernsey will churn out in 24 years
I very much doubt that this fly speck of an Island can possibly show a measurable difference even if we turn the clock back to the mid fifties as some people seem to want
Report abuse
Perhaps we should start with educating people on how much pollution different aircraft unleash on our environment and put it into some kind perspective.
For instance, a Jet-stream 31 burns approximately 40% more fuel than a Britten Norman Trislander, an ATR42 burns approximately double for the same number of passengers carried, that equates to approximately, for an ATR42 half a tonne of fuel an hour. or put another way, enough to heat a modest house for six months.
Blue Island use an ATR42 on their Guernsey/Jersey service mornings and evenings whilst Aurigny have two, by comparison, far more environmentally friendly Trislanders in bits a at the back of their hangar because they have lost so many passengers to these gas gusseling monsters that the cant afford to put them back together.
Even if you don’t believe that global warming is a result of carbon emissions and I’m not convinced, 1 tonne of fuel oil burned by an aircraft is 1 tonne of pollution that lands somewhere over the land or in the sea near you. If you really want to be horrified, check out the pollutants given of when aviation turbine fuel is burned.
Report abuse
the best thing to combat global warming would be to grasp the nettle of population and take some draconian measures to slow the explosion of our population.the planet needs an ebola outbreak to thin the people out, that’ll help our climate problems.
but guensey will never do enough to cut carbon,nobody will, copehhagen etc. are just alot of hot air, it’sd to make politicians feel important.we will continus to burn the fossil fuels until they run out.shell etc will not stop suucking oil out no m,atter how many south sea islands sink.
have less children everyone.
Report abuse
I guess global warming is a con if you live somewhere like Guernsey, at least there is a the opportunity to view it as such, on the other hand if you view it through the eyes of a Ugandan farmer or a Nunavet Eskimo, both of whom I have spoken to as part of my work, the opportunity to play games with the idea have long since vanished. I guess we could also call in a third opinion like my friend in Peru, oh dear once again a conclusive answer. Global warming is NO GAME, it is already killing people, some 50,000 in Europe during the 2003 summer (23 standard dev points outside the norm) (kind of 1 in a million event, which is a bit problimatic as there have been several such events since) and finally whilst natural factors are undoubtedly involved, enhancing or diminshing the full effect year on year, the fact that it is manmade phenomenon is about 99.9999999% statistically proven. GET A LIFE PEOPLE BEFORE NOT ONLY YOU LOSE IT. BUT YOUR KIDS, THEIR KIDS and THIER KIDS.
Report abuse
Roberto
I know my long post previous was full of typos and missing words, but “trillions of years”?
The creationists are nearer with their 4,600 odd.
I suppose it’s a bit like me saying that “criminalty is rife” in Guernsey.
Is it?
Thread jacker :)
No, the earth is estimated at around 4.5 billion years, of which we have ice core data going back a fraction of that. Couple the ice core data with a complex array of other recordable and extrapolatory data and you can start to see trends.
The difficulty is adding the man made records to the natural data. The arguments that sceptics use is that measurable data can be flawed or manipulated, in the main, but that still doesn’t detract from the “now here’s the science bit” of the debate.
Carbon fixing exists for a reason, otherwise it wouldn’t be there.
Un-fixing undoes that reason.
Argue against that and stay fashionable, without massive business lobbyists and right wing greed apologists getting the way.
Incidentally I say right wing, but there are many on the hard left who also deny, just to show some balance. Because they want to mine coal, mainly.
Human developm,ent has to proceed beyond materialism into sustainability. There is no politics in that, mor liberalism or hockey-mum-ism.
Just plain and irrefutable natural fact.
Deal with it.
Report abuse
Ray,
Of course you are right in your comparison with China.But this is just the point,no matter how big or small we are,we all have to do our share.All of us living today are probably going to survive,but what of future generations to come.The experts reckon we have about two million years before the sun heat turns the world into a desert,wiping out all life,so its worth while preserving our planet and maybe when doomsday nears we will have moved to another place in the universe?
Maybe I’ve been watching too many science fiction films?But I remain firmly convinced that we humans are strangling our planet,and only action NOW will save it for the continuation of the human race!And what happened in the past was through natural causes,today its us humans!Sleep well!
Report abuse
I agree with every word you say nikkers. Our only hope and the planet’s only hope is to take radical steps to reduce our human population. Sure, we’ve all got to strive for reduced carbon footprints but our efforts are useless unless we all take responsibility for curbing our numbers as the dominant species.
There are bodies like the Optimum Population Trust. Check out
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
The population clock on their website is horrifying.
I saw the latest programme by Sir David Attenborough (one of the OPT’s most prominent supporters) and his concluding words summed it up: “Can our intelligence save us? I hope so”
Report abuse
I understand the ‘overpopulation’ argument. But what causes it?
Nature and the distribution of resources.
Why is it, does anyone think, that the developed world has a stable if not negative birth/death ratio and the poorer nations have massive explosions?
Hmm?
What has caused that obvious truth?
Report abuse
The truth about global warming / climate change is now out, At the Climate Change Research Unit (CCRU)in East Anglia the professor running the unit admitted they had been juggling the figures to make them fit. How much CO2 do you think is generated by general aviation in the UK per annum. It is the same as generated by London traffic in 1 hour in early morning.
As a 1940s child I was brought up to ”waste not want not”
I try to reduce my travel by thinking about where I want to go before I set out, use 1 tea bag instead of two for two cups of tea.
Walk if you can, create a freecycle set up where one advertises items not wanted to be given away and not sent to land fill.
I dont live in Guernsey but friends do, is anyone suggesting halting visits to Gurnsey and the other CI destinations to save the planet. It is time to wake up people waste not want not
Report abuse
Arnald
In developing countries the main cause of overpopulation is that women do not have access to contraception. Other causes are high infant mortality so people have lots of children in the hope some will survive to work and support them when they age. There are many Catholics who are allowed to use only the rhythm method of contraception. Christian fundamentalists have often blocked aid to any charities which accept abortion as being sometimes unavoidable. Some even try to block contraceptives and condoms being supplied saying that living in chastity is the answer as if most women even have a choice.
Interact Worldwide formerly Population Concern have recently merged with Plan UK and are trying to address this problem. We should support this charity as access to family planning is necessary to break the cycle of poverty and to save the lives of the huge number of teenage girls who die in childbirth every year.
Report abuse
Sheila Cataroche
You are right if you take that narrow view of humanity.
My question was: why is it that rich nations decide to have less children and so keep the birth rate sustainable, but the poor ones don’t.
It is nothing to do with contraception, but about poverty.
Let’s think about some of those countries.
Say, Angola, or more pertinently, India, whose population while surpass China’s soon.
How is it they are so poor, when wealthy individuals have accounts in the channel islands, and other secrecy jurisdictions, and yet so many are uneducated, poor beyond our imagination, and have no reason to not behave naturally, as you rightly pointed out, and produce as many future bread winners as possible?
This is the 21st century but all I hear are 19th century solutions.
These countries supply our natural resources that give us comfort and arrogance, yet we are happy to talk about ‘culling’ like they were animals.
Perhaps if the methodology behind the global industries that fuel our false aspirational desires paid a fair wage, or did not exploit the uneducated, we could get somewhere?
It’s easy to rubbish Roman Catholicism, and African male proclivity, not quite so to question how come they have not been more developed, when they hold the key to the world’s long term survival.
Wrong windmills, wrong tilt.
Report abuse
nikkers thinks that population needs to reduce – that’s a fair enough point of view. However she then continues by rather flippantly suggesting that we need an ebola outbreak to help us along the way.
She’s evidently happy to see millions die however I wonder whether as part of her draconian measures to curb population she will volunteer herself and her family/friends to contract ebola to help thin the global population?
Report abuse
CM (from 12 December)
Just one point with the Trislanders at the back of the hanger. They are possibly ones that are out of hours and can’t be used again for commercial use as my Dad used to work there.
Further to my post further up, I would also like to say that, all this money that governments take from us (and I include other countries as well as our states) for “enviromental” taxes, what amount of money will stop any natural increase in temperature unless the states are planning to build a large parasol over the whole island in years to come to keep us cool.
Or with the lack of intelligence that some states members show, are they going to stand outside with all the money they have stolen from us in “enviromental” taxes and roll them into balls and throw them into the sky and shout “GO AWAY NASTY GLOBAL WARMING”.
What possible practical solution could the states come up with that would stop a natural temperature rise?
Nothing is the answer.
No-one could stop the wind or the rain, so temperature is no different and as I do an outdoor job I have found Guernsey has got colder in the last 5 or so summers, not hotter as the scientists seem to think.
Report abuse
Having thought about this,I am firmly now of the belief that NOTHING is going to happen to stop the climate change.First of all,every nation wants to contribute less than the next,no-one is prepared to take cuts in their standard of living,and any government that tries to force this on their voters will be out of office.So all this talk is only a contribution to the “hot air” we pour into the envirement,and as the millions and millions of people with flooded or desert countries head towards us only then will we know what we have done,but by then its too late.So carry on buying your 4X4s,turn up the heating instead of putting a pullover on,keep trying to be the top industrial producer in our world,let the farm animals breed like flies to keep our bellies full,while their gases pollute the air we inhale,no,remember that old song “Enjoy yourself,its later than you think”!That sums it up just right,don’t you think?
Report abuse
Clever 40 Something
Tidal & wave power would be a huge step towards the overall solution. It will happen in the not too distant future.
Guernsey has everything going for it to lead the way with reference to being green. So much so that others will be green with envy.
Huge profits are likely to be gained once we have made the leap in the right direction.
The only downfall is that will leave us with a disgraced monster that we have been unfortunate enough to be suckered into by our present elect.
An outdated environmentally unfriendly piece of junk that takes care of our rubbish!
Report abuse
Paul Le Page
I’m not sure nikkers is female?
Report abuse
Sorry I meant zillions of years.
Report abuse
Arnald – there is factual inaccuracy in your post on this.
The population explosion is not happening in “poor” countries its happening in developing countries (India, far east, south america). Poor countries populations are, by and large, static.
The unfortunate thing regarding this debate is that the population issue is not considered an issue.
It is and it must be – common sense says that it is better to have 1 billion people driving cars that 6 billion. It really is as simple as that.
To really tackle the issues that face the planet the only good thing to come out of Copenhagen would be a directive for the worlds polulation to have only one child (per couple).
Failure to comply with this would invoke punitive taxes – which I’m sure Arnald would be very happy with.
Report abuse
Paul – if that’s true, please remove the “s” from every “she” and accept my apologies ;-)
Report abuse
“To really tackle the issues that face the planet the only good thing to come out of Copenhagen would be a directive for the worlds polulation to have only one child (per couple).”
Interesting concept although I think we are more likely to see pigs fly! Nevertheless, before advocating such a global law, take one look at the “orphanages” in China. This shows the less savoury side of population control legislation. Now imagine this mistreatment of our fellow human beings on a global scale.
Incidentally, what would happen to couples who had twins/triplets etc?
Report abuse
As we are constantly being told about our carbon footprint,reference the fuel tax to subsidise the buses. This is in a bid to persuade car drivers to leave the car at home I believe,in a bid to cut down on pollution and save the planet etc. Please tell me what exactly the bus company are doing to spare impact on the environment? Since this levy has gone onto fuel, I have noted that when school buses arrive to collect children at the many schools they service, one of them being the school I am employed ,the drivers leave the engine running for up to fifteen minutes when waiting for the children to come out and board. It cannot be to keep the heater running to ensure a warm bus as the doors are wide open! As the latest advert that’s currently on TV says ‘drive 5 miles less’ in the 15 mins the vehicles are waiting with engines running they would have driven more than 5 miles!!!! Thus harming the environment more not less…..So to reiterate the question…what is the bus company doing to minimise the impact on the environment? If the drivers were to turn off the engine whilst waiting, they would reduce carbon footprint,reduce fuel consumption, saving the company money and therefore would less subsidisation from Joe Public.
Report abuse
Not wrong at all Greg, is India not poor?
The difference is that developing nations are developing better health, your ‘poor’ nations would experience the same problems if disease and malnutrition were mitigated.
Why would I want punitive taxes? Where have I ever said this?
Report abuse
Arnald, I didn’t realise i’d posted anything on this thread!
Report abuse
Arnald
How do you define “poor”? Do tell, I’m intrigued as to your definition. Is it merely based on financial circumstances?
Report abuse
Apologies Greg
It was directed at someone else.
I find the ieda of forcing sterilisation and children to be culled, as would such a directive on population reduction would entail frankly sickening, just so that we can continue consuming the earth’s resources at our leisure.
Phil
Oh dear, oh dear.
Report abuse
“I find the ieda of forcing sterilisation and children to be culled, as would such a directive on population reduction would entail frankly sickening, just so that we can continue consuming the earth’s resources at our leisure.”
So do I. Blimey, we agree on something!
Report abuse
Seems most comments are either from believers or sceptics – wonder how many of us are agnostics? The truth is out there, somewhere.
Report abuse
Don’t be confused between general and commercial aviation. general aviation as I understand it includes all private none revenue flying, mostly light aircraft, where as commercial aviation is just what it says and includes all commercial airliners. Check those figures out I think you will find them quite different.
As for Aurigny’s Trislanders, I think I am right in saying the have all been recently re winged as they are unpressurised their life is determined by wing spar life so therefore all Aurigny’s Trilanders are just about zero time. that is to say the probably have twenty five plus years in them including the ones at the back of the hangar.
Report abuse