Air travel will destroy the world
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
Southampton University in England has published a hilarious study, which calls for the implementation of a global strongman authority with “teeth” to stop us from travelling by air. According to the study;
“The analysis shows that forecasts for strong growth in air-traffic will result in civil aviation becoming an increasingly significant contributor to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Some mitigation-measures can be left to market-forces as the key-driver for implementation because they directly reduce airlines’ fuel consumption, and their impact on reducing fuel-costs will be welcomed by the industry. Other mitigation-measures cannot be left to market-forces. … A global regulator with ‘teeth’ needs to be established, but investing such a body with the appropriate level of authority requires securing an international agreement which history would suggest is going to be very difficult. … the ticket price-increases necessary to induce the required reduction in traffic growth-rates place a monetary-value on CO2 emissions of approximately 7–100 times greater than other common valuations. It is clear that, whilst aviation must remain one piece of the transport-jigsaw, environmentally a global regulator with ‘teeth’ is urgently required.”
Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231014004889
One thing for sure, this has got to be one of the most bizarre calls for totalitarianism I have ever read. If our civilisation acts upon this advice, one thing we can be certain of is that puzzled historians in future ages will devote entire chapters to strange circumstances surrounding the “Southampton Solution”.
“Maybe it’s just me, but it seems as though it is increasingly normal for academia to be bizarre these days and spit out bizarre pieces like this one.”
Academia these days is mostly just a way for the government to give fat pay checks to lefties who couldn’t possibly make a living in the real world. It’s just another scam that needs to be completely defunded.
“Air travel will destroy the world”
That too huh?
If someone wanted to put restrictions on travel for people who have been to those African countries with ebola problems they would probably be considered racists but saving the world from CO2 is acceptable.
Who was it who said:
“We can’t have the masses moving about too much” ?
Life is fatal Eric, please enjoy the ride.
PS: Whomever it was that at some point suggested or else insinuated that you were entitled to or else able to have some control input, sorry, they weren’t being entirely honest. Console yourself mate, screaming and waving arms around just unsettles the wildlife and annoys mothers.
Since strike breaking in the early 20th century, persons from Southampton have earned the subriquet Scummers, a tradition kept very much alive on the terraces of Portsmouth football club.
This latest manifestation seems very much in character.
What? The Academia Nuts are at it again.
beng says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:55 am
Guess it’s time to go back to coal-burning trans-oceanic steamers. Oh wait, I mean clippers, since they’re “renewable”.
http://thecruisepeople.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/a-new-concept-in-cruising-stx-europe%E2%80%99s-eoseas-%E2%80%93-other-cruise-news-cruising%E2%80%99s-economic-impact-in-the-us-%E2%80%93-canadian-and-us-reaction-to-north-american-eca-%E2%80%93-disn/
joelobryan said:
August 12, 2014 at 7:06 am
“What were we thinking, letting these Progressives be in charge?”
————
The left accuse Conservatives of fighting change and of clinging to quaint ideas such as the Constitution and Rule of Law, but these damnable progressives want to progress us back to the stone age.
“a monetary-value on CO2 emissions of approximately 7–100 times greater than other common valuations”
A nice, narrow range there guys. Obviously, you’ve thought this out very well.
Prices being what they are, it’s mostly 5%ers and above doing air travel. Air travel is not in a growth mode any more.
The two dimensional reactionary and ill-informed stance of so many climate extremists is annoying. Why is it that modern extremists nearly always end up taking from others in order to have their way? If the climate obsessed would withdraw from the world and live in cliamte monestaries and nunneries, we could see their wonderful example and be inspired. Instead they seem to always come to this: Tkae from others the things that bother the extremists, while the extremists seldom if ever apply those standards to themselves.
CD (@CD153) says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:10 am
“As long as the bizarre and radical thinkers are confined solely to academia, I don’t think that we need be too concerned about them. However, when they start successfully asserting their influence in government at all levels, then it is time to worry–a lot.”
________________________________________________________
The former is the wellspring of the latter.
The time to worry is right now.
It appears that their main recommendation is to increase ticket prices. Of course, that doesn’t affect the authors, as they fly on taxpayer’s dime. It also doesn’t affect the wealthy (who the authors are pandering to) because even a huge rate hike will have minimal impact on them. This is designed to hit the middle class, the masses. Push us back to the periphery were we “belong”.
Now with formatting:
That seems right to me. And analytically justified.
The problem comes when you ask if the behaviour change is worth the reduction in CO2 emissions. Then you hit questions of the price of liberty, the cost of coercion and the benefits of a reduction in CO2 emissions.
The last point may be a scientific question (although it isn’t easy to answer). The other two are ethical and political. Yet the paper says,
That is opinion. It is not justified, except as assertion.
The University of Southampton is mis-using science to provide a cloak for politics.
A global conference must be held about this important subject. The Maldives has a nice new airport. Maybe they can supply some shark teeth too.
Comment of the day! Let’s add an academic regulator as well. Lord knows they need it.
A single generation separates these academics from the last great battle against totalitarianism, yet that short timespan is long enough to erase their etch-a-sketch brains. They merely need to step outside and look to their own skies which were once filled with the conflict that kept these pinheads free enough to sit around on their spoiled fat arses and submit papers calling for voluntary submission to international totalitarianism.
All my life I have made fun of those kooks who warn of one-world order Bilderbegr types, yet their instincts are at least partially correct because we clearly have an embedded cabal of traitors that long for and actively campaign for an elite international ruling class of bureaucrats. This is more philosophical than scientific now, and the AGW hoax is only but the latest manifestation of a peculiarity of freedom itself. I believe that it is a genetic flaw in humans that mirrors bees and ants which causes a natural propensity to submitting to authority, servicing the queen, and acting as obedient workers. It appears often in human history from Egypt to Rome to feudalism and onward.
So The question is, how can free people really survive if they allow their traitors to destroy them from the inside? Can we really develop democracies and not expect traitors from time to time to gather working majority or plurality consensus that undermines that very ‘democracy’? The freedom to plot against your very freedom? This is the most important question I think.
Lords and Serfs. Only the enlightened and privileged are worthy…
When will we English wake up to the fact that the rest of the world is sick of missionaries from old blighty with green petticoats coming to tell them how to live their lives. This Victorian attitude of moral superiority and mission to “natives” is profoundly embarrassing and has no place in the 21st century.
In the post-apocalytic world that will develop almost immediately after the one world government tries to take hold (triggering global rebellion and universal civil disobedience), the major CO2 emissions will likely come from cooking fires and slash-and-burn agriculture.
Southampton University should stop paying its employees for air travel. They should drive (drive? – bad, too) or swim to their conferences. That would be a neat practical test of the proposed measures. I wonder if authors do already lead by example?
It seems as if Professor Ian Williams is no stranger to the joys of travel himself:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/469417587122905088
And not averse to fellow academics enjoying them:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/469417587122905088
Also seems to be a bit of a green activist:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/488804299225722880 ……..quelle surprise
It’s a tough life being a scientactivist grant seeker:-
https://twitter.com/EnviroTaff/status/488804299225722880
Mods – can you delete last post – links got mixed up
CD (@CD153) says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:31 am
“……of course, we could always go back to the dirigible, couldn’t we?”
The passengers who didn’t jump out of the cabin actually survived – as the cabin sank to the ground rather slowly, not in freefall.
Compare that to MH-17 or MH-370.