Politics of vanity
A great post at Depleted Cranium concerning environmentalist misconceptions.
I particularly liked this point.
Go after pollution sources with the highest cost/benefit ratio, not those whichThis sums up everything that is wrong with the environmentalists' campaigns. They're just so damn superficial! It's all about be seen to care more than actually doing stuff that is genuinely worthwhile.
are most noticeable
Aviation generates 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions, half that of shipping, and yet it is their favourite whipping boy. Why? Why is there a climate camp at Heathrow but not one in Southampton? The reason is because aviation is a more high profile target. It's closer to lot more people than shipping. Airports are located across land masses, whereas ports are confined to the coast. Planes are the primary mode of long distance travel, whereas relatively few people take boats these days. Aviation is something that will confront most people directly in the face whereas, despite the real effect it has on all our lives, for most of us, it isn't in full view.
For something as prominent as aviation, environmentalists can suddenly pop their heads in like a zealous salesman, tell us all that is evil about it, and then invite our adulation for their dedication to the fight against this highly visible thing. If they tried the same thing with the shipping, most of the land lubbers of the West Midlands and Greater London would say, "Nothing to do with me."
Attacking aviation is a simple strategy for simple minds. Perfect if all you're concerned about is self-agrandisement.
Today of all days is a reminder as Brussels has just banned patio heaters (can politicians say "law of unintended consequences"?). Though patio heaters are not a particularly effective contributor to carbon dioxide emissions (they'd be even less so if they were nuclear powered), (il)Liberal Democrats delight in banning them because they can be seen to be "doing something".
Environmentalism has been turned from politics of saving the whales (being fair to Greenpeace as much as I loathe it, they having been honouring their original commitments are fair bit lately) into politics for the terminally vain.
BTW, on the anniversary of Guy Fawkes' gunpowder plot, MPs remind us that he was right all along.
6 comments:
Interestingly, environmental protests against aviation are unheard of in the US.
I seriously wonder why--would you hazard a guess?
No clue. Over here, they're endemic.
The thing I find insane about protesting aircraft polution is what the hell do they expect for an alternative. That was one of the posts in the top ten. You need to provide an alternative. Aircraft need high energy liquid fuels which provide good jet engine usage. That means hydrocarbons.
And the fuel cost is a major portion of the cost of flying so they are already very fuel effecient.
The bottom line: There's no alternative and they are small. Forget about it. Power generation - many many times larger and alternatives exist. Industrial processes - HUGE co2 producer which there are methods of controlling. Other forms of transport - HUGE.
Coal fires, flaring of gasses, petroleum refining - much more realistic chance of improving and much larger overall effect.
Aviation is a classic example of something that is too small and too inherent to things to bother with.
Curiously, this article has been accused of again favouring economics over empiricism.
This thread might shine some light on some of its flaws: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=118345
It's not really valid to imply that shipping is a bigger problem than aviation just because the absolute amount of emissions from shipping are larger. Shipping is used to transport far, far more material than aviation. The relative emissions of shipping per tonne per km are about 40 to 50 times lower than aviation. (This hasn't stopped the Guardian having a pop at shipping though.)
If half the airfreight was carried instead by ship it would be a huge help.
The main problem with aviation is there is really no current alternative to using hydrocarbons for fuel. Cars can use electricity; ships can be nuclear powered; but aircraft fuel options are limited. One day they might use hydrogen I suppose.
Colin.
The thing I find insane about protesting aircraft pollution is what the hell do they expect for an alternative?
You're assuming that Greenpeace's concern is pollution. If their real concern is changing people's lifestyles, then going after an activity with few or no alternatives is a GOOD thing...
Post a Comment