Empty skies proved that airports cause pollution.
- Thread starter trekkiedane
- Start date
That costs money. You can't just ask for a new house because you don't like the pollution levels.
As if takes anything other than common sense to deduce that thousands of massive metal machines burning fuel along with the countless to-ing and fro-ing of cars, buses etc contributes heavily to pollution.
Duh, no doubt. I myself am an environmentalist and wholeheartedly believe this.
But there's no way they can get concrete numbers and prove those numbers are caused strictly by the airports in such a short amount of time. There'll be plenty of cross correlations and weather mapping and plenty of other things they'll have to do before they have cold hard facts.
Reporting things like this before the real science is done just to capitalize on a buzz story in the media doesn't do the truth any justice. If anything, it helps out the deniers.
This assumption would be incorrect. Up until just a very few years ago, you still had one of the world's major powers running predominantly steam locomotives. Most trains these days are powered by locomotives burning some form of heavy fuel oil or diesel fuel. Guess what? Quite a number of these still don't even have the most basic emissions controls installed.
Maybe most trains where you live are run on electricity. Not so for the rest of the world.
The government could always just force them to add emissions control devices to their jet engines....
No you don't. Instead, you get a realtor, sell the house, and move to protect your health. Your health isn't worth a few bucks to you?
Or do you just want to be able to have someone else to blame when your health fails?
Last edited:
No you don't. Instead, you get a realtor, sell the house, and move to protect your health. Your health isn't worth a few bucks to you?
Or do you just want to be able to have someone else to blame when your health fails?
Yeah, if it's genuinely that much of a concern for you, then surely moving to a new house or apartment would seem to be the answer. And certainly worth the cost.
As was pointed out somewhere above, this exact same thing was demonstrated in the week following the terrorist attacks of 2001. On the plus side, it was amazing how quickly the environment began to recover once the source of pollution was removed.
Anyway, we all already know the solution: Airships!
Anyway, we all already know the solution: Airships!
No you don't. Instead, you get a realtor, sell the house, and move to protect your health. Your health isn't worth a few bucks to you?
Or do you just want to be able to have someone else to blame when your health fails?
Yeah, if it's genuinely that much of a concern for you, then surely moving to a new house or apartment would seem to be the answer. And certainly worth the cost.
It's a council house. We can't sell it. And we were lucky to get it- we were squeezed into a flat for years before it became available.
But I am moaning a lot tonight, it's true, so I'll stop now.
Anyway, we all already know the solution: Airships!
Sorry, the pollutants from burning passengers would clog my lungs.
In fact, today's turbofan engines are far more efficient, less polluting and less noisy than the engines installed on the first-generation Boeing 707s and DC-8s of fifty years ago.
Try telling that to the millions of business executives whose livelihoods depend on regular and frequent air travel between cities and between continents. You think "spoiled rich people" are the only ones who fly? You need to get out more often.
If I should move, they should get new jobs
And, no, I never said some people didn't have need for flight regularly, only that we don't need the amount we do, and that I believe we should take steps to cut down on it. If it's for important business reasons, then those cases clearly do not fall under the "spoiled rich people and beaches" category, do they? So therefore my complaint does not extend to them.
Oh, the humanity!Anyway, we all already know the solution: Airships!
Sorry, the pollutants from burning passengers would clog my lungs.
No you don't. Instead, you get a realtor, sell the house, and move to protect your health. Your health isn't worth a few bucks to you?
Or do you just want to be able to have someone else to blame when your health fails?
Yeah, if it's genuinely that much of a concern for you, then surely moving to a new house or apartment would seem to be the answer. And certainly worth the cost.
It's a council house. We can't sell it. And we were lucky to get it- we were squeezed into a flat for years before it became available.
My apologies, I didn't realize you were in public housing.
Seriously, though, any significant reduction in air travel worldwide would have some pretty devastating economic effects, I'd wager. In addition to all the business travellers that rely on it, there's the simple fact that tourism is the world's largest industry. There are few places in the world where it doesn't make for a significant chunk of the overall economy, so if air travel were to disappear, I think the effects would be pretty far-reaching.
True, but it wouldn't be in your back yard and the pollution created by getting people to and from airports can be managed as trains usually run on electricity which can be generated in a great umber of ways ranging form the enviromentally friendly to ones where you have technology in place to clean the smoke. It would be a great thing if you could put long term parking facilities close to where people live/work and have trains transporting people from there to the airports
All i gotta say is that it's a lot more convenient to have the airport in my backyard than out in the country. Also, i like planes so it wouldn't bother me.
If I should move, they should get new jobs
And, no, I never said some people didn't have need for flight regularly, only that we don't need the amount we do, and that I believe we should take steps to cut down on it. If it's for important business reasons, then those cases clearly do not fall under the "spoiled rich people and beaches" category, do they? So therefore my complaint does not extend to them.
My wife and I saved for nearly 5 years to take our honeymoon in Europe. Who do you think would suffer more if your ideas were enacted, "rich spoiled people" or normal middle class people like us?
Seems to me that your scheme would result in ONLY the rich, spoiled people having access to air travel.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Anyway, we all already know the solution: Airships!
I'll see your airships and raise you a Planetran.
SLR
No problem!
And you're no doubt right about the economic problems. I just want someone to come up with a solution and cut pollutants somehow, because people's health is too important to dismiss. Put another way, this is just my "moan" thread for the time being
. I would hope some of my other posts demonstrate I'm not taking myself too seriously here...
Listen if the air quality was that bad, the government would quarantine the area. That being said, I have no sympathy for you. You moved there at your own risk. It's called "coming to the nuisance."
Similar threads
