I was listening to Official State radio (aka BBC) this morning, and they were discussing whether short haul flights should be banned or taxed more, to discourage people from using them, because of 'climate change'.
(Plane Stupid logo)Predictably, on the one side, there was your common quasi-militant environmentalist, from (I think I recall correctly) the group 'Plane Stupid' that opposes, amongst other things, proposed expansion of London Heathrow airport.
And the talking points he put forward were the usual carbon-guilt environmental style. We all like to fly but perhaps we have got used to this privilege a little too much, and we should make sacrifices to save the Earth. All of our short haul flights are the most polluting and we should take the train instead. More taxation is needed on the polluting airlines.
On the other side, the laypersons had varying reactions, but of course carefully staying within politically correct boundaries. One said he liked the convenience and speed of flying from one end of the country to the other, and said trains take too long. Another said that shutting down short haul flying would worsen overcrowding on the train system.
Everybody in the discussion carefully and dutifully remained within the accepted discussion area - idealistic environmentalists versus ordinary people who say saving the planet is too much of a sacrifice. No questioning of the fundamentals of the debate - that manmade carbon dioxide is adversely affecting the world's climate and weather systems, and the only way to solve that problem is to deindustrialise. There was a vigorous debate, yet at the same time there was no debate. Propaganda.
Nobody mentioned the new technology that could change the way we travel forever: magnetic levitation trains ('maglev' trains). See here for more info
These would, of course, render the entire debate irrelevant. They are faster than short-haul flying (if you count the check-in time), if co2 is a concern then these would be a fantastic solution, and since they are incredibly efficient both in terms of energy and time, they would surely be chosen by people in the free market without requiring government financial cattle prods in the form of subsidies, or taxes on other means of transport.To be fair, plans are underway to build 'high speed rail' in Britain, but this is conventional rail, not maglev which, let's face it, would be more awesome. The Germans, Japanese and Chinese all have their own (for now, small) maglev tracks - the Japanese and Chinese projects actually operate commercially.
I suspect the future of long distance transportation lies in the maglev train. Perhaps even the (as of yet hypothetical) vactrain.
Whether you consider yourself an environmentalist or not, these developments would certainly constitute a great advancement for humanity. A new, cleaner, bigger, better, industrial age. (There Is Life After Oil)
(Can you imagine the potential of this combined with geothermal and concentrated solar energy?)
But if the elites are allowed to strangle us all to death over the very life gas we breathe out, then that future is irrelevant.
Posts
.jpg)
4 comments:
So it takes hours to board a plane in Great Britain? Six of the eight airports that serve the busiest air corridor in the western world, Los Angeles-San Francisco require <20 minutes to pass through security. Multiple airports and frequent schedules wipe out any time disadvantage to high speed ground transportation (HSGT). The time loss at SFO and LAX is due to inadequate personnel and facilities. If HSGT threatened to divert a substantial fraction of air passengers, it would not be long before this situation was corrected. Maglev and rail's main long term advantage over air travel is the possibility of being free from petroleum supply and cost.
Well...I'm not a frequent flyer, so I'll trust you on that one.
Can we settle on the times at least being comparable? It depends on how far you're travelling. Obviously if you're going 3000 miles across the States the plane wins. But say London to Manchester, maybe 300 or 400 miles? Perhaps that's an even contest? People do fly those kind of journeys.
The fastest maglev train in operation (in China) acheives 260+ mph - add to that the time saved by being able to stop in a station in the middle of a city rather than having to travel from airports typically located further away, and it is at least a fair contest.
If someone develops a functioning vaccuum train, now that just might get you anywhere faster than a plane.
Hooray, talk of life after oil regardless of whether global warming may or may not be unfolding.
The agenda for that group of tards meeting in Denmark should be completely about maglev trains, geothermal power stations, concentrated solar energy etc.
Alas we have on the contrary Carbonhagen, an evil plot to blame consumers and punish them whilst taking no action at all against the actual producers of the emissions, the corporate fat f*cks, cause we all know they are just an innocent party forced to supply a demand.
And true the sheeple do demand it, we will all lose our jobs, the economy will crash if you take away oil consumption, bleat, bleat, and bleat. Again this wouldn’t have anything to do with the kind and caring fat f*cks who own the oil, having programmed the flock.
It is probably treasonous or something to suggest this, but if viable clean sustainable energy sources were to be used; there would be infinitely more jobs. If you look into the ratios of profit v employment rate in the oil industry, it turns out, very favorable indeed for the fat f*cks, who would have thought?
But it only remains profitable if we limit oil output, eh Fred? And as we all know the best way to limit output is to carve out a monopoly by force. And that brings us to PNACIraq. Alas we have come full circle. The Peak Oil War people are IMO wrong about Peak Oil but right about Oil War...the oil is not some kind of treasure to be loooted (if only it were that rare) - rather, it's a fountain to be controlled and channeled through Rothshell and Rockerfexxon.
While I am against commercialism/comsumerism as a lifestyle choice, there is also an anti-human element to that which is why I do not put too much emphasis on reduction of consumption etc. You know, the whole 'people are a cancer on the Earth' stuff. We ought not to feel guilty for existing, which I think is very important in the face of the guilt-inducing Malthusian propaganda out there.
Post a Comment