Domestic short haul flights tend to be too empty to be environmentally friendly. The only way you're not just as well getting the train is if your doing one of the small internal flights within Scotland (Big City <-> Isolated Island) or on the well travelled Glasgow/Edinburgh <-> London Route. South of the border and the train doesn't really take long enough to justify flying.

 

The only problem is it can be cheaper to fly than get the train.

 

Exactly

 

Only way HS2 will work is if prices are not ridiculous, but i am not confident, rail companies will rip off travellers for every penny they can get

I have never been on a Dreamliner but have been on an A380 27 times, when you are on a A380 it is so quiet you barely know you are on it, compare that with the noisy 747's

 

Given the quietness of the plane I would be surprised if it is not a lot more environmentally friendly than the average plane

What a brilliant scientific analysis. A Nobel Prize can only be a matter of time.

What a brilliant scientific analysis. A Nobel Prize can only be a matter of time.

 

I am not academically qualified to be certain nor am i sober or awake enough to do detailed research but typically through my adult life i have probably been on a plane on average every 4-6 weeks so know the difference in noise between them

What a brilliant scientific analysis. A Nobel Prize can only be a matter of time.

 

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/pas...ment/emissions/

 

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/09...to-cut-fuel-20/

While Craig has poorly back his statement up, the new Boeing 'Dreamliner' 787 is the most environmentally friendly jet aircraft. It's lighter thanks to composite materials that allows it to use less fuel and it's also quieter.

 

The A380 is more fuel efficient, on a per seat basis, than a lot of aircraft because of it's sheer size. Although the new 747-8 is more efficient per seat again.

 

Just like in motor vehicles there has been substantial gains in efficiency but there is a lot of work to do. Earlier this year the first aircraft to be exclusively solar powered made it's maiden voyage. Technology is advancing at such a rate that it is theoretically possible for environmentally friendly air travel in our life time.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/pas...ment/emissions/

 

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/09...to-cut-fuel-20/

Strictly on a per passenger basis, the A380 emits less CO2 than my VED Band A car.

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/pas...ment/emissions/

 

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/09...to-cut-fuel-20/

I'm not denying that these aircraft are less environmentally damaging than older aircraft. But that's the point. They are less environmentally unfriendly but that does not make them environmentally friendly. My remark about your scientific analysis was your conclusion that "It is quieter so it must result in lower emissions".

While Craig has poorly back his statement up, the new Boeing 'Dreamliner' 787 is the most environmentally friendly jet aircraft. It's lighter thanks to composite materials that allows it to use less fuel and it's also quieter.

 

The A380 is more fuel efficient, on a per seat basis, than a lot of aircraft because of it's sheer size. Although the new 747-8 is more efficient per seat again.

 

Just like in motor vehicles there has been substantial gains in efficiency but there is a lot of work to do. Earlier this year the first aircraft to be exclusively solar powered made it's maiden voyage. Technology is advancing at such a rate that it is theoretically possible for environmentally friendly air travel in our life time.

Which is why I qualified my statement by referring to commercial aircraft. At the moment solar powered aircraft are incredibly slow and not commercially viable. Obviously that may change.

at the risk of interrupting a fascination discussion on aircraft (apologies all) :lol:

 

speaking as someone has has always voted Liberal (pre Lib-Dem), I can say quite categorically that there is more chance of UKIP winning the next election than there is of me voting Conservative. While I'm sure a lot of folk are pissed off at them for forming an alliance (eg students) that's what the electorate voted for and as the weaker party at worst they probably reduced the mayhem (a bit) that an overall majority for the Tories might have inflicted. I'm not so sure that come the day Lib Dem voters are as flip-floppy as polls suggest, given the other alternatives. I can, however, see many people who have suffered financially and otherwise over the last 5 years feeling inspired enough to come out an vote for the party most likely to help them. That'll be Labour, by the way (at least in terms of perception).

 

A Labour/Liberal pact is not out of the question, it's a much more natural fit than the current one. Had ego-Brown been prepared to admit his failings as Chancellor and Leader and step down we may not have been inflicted with Cameron and we may have had a different David at the top.

 

just a hypothetical thought...

 

 

Three points:

 

Firstly, in previous elections it may have been different but the 2010 Lib Dem vote undoubtedly swings more Labour than Tory. They picked up a lot of disillusioned trendy lefties but lost a lot of neoliberals who realised that the Tories could actually win and came back to them, hence virtually no change in their vote %. That means that this idea that the major parties will get 6% each is complete balls.

 

Secondly, I question how much support there is in the North over HS2. An electorate being told for the last five years that public spending needs to be cut are hardly likely to back an infrastructure project that sees its costs spiralling beyond its perceived benefits. People near me I'm sure would rather have smaller projects like the Northern Hub, the Metrolink expansion and the electrification of lines between the big Northern cities.

 

Thirdly, I'm assuming what Danny was scaremongering about was the Living Wage, which is around £7.50 nationally and £8.50 in London because it takes into account the cost of (wait for it) living. Whether it makes it onto the Labour manifesto is still up in the air but I can't see how it would cause many problems up North.

A Labour/Liberal pact is not out of the question, it's a much more natural fit than the current one. Had ego-Brown been prepared to admit his failings as Chancellor and Leader and step down we may not have been inflicted with Cameron and we may have had a different David at the top.

 

just a hypothetical thought...

Not quite what happened...in any case, he did step down in order to try and make a Lib-Lab pact possible. There's not much that can be done when you're just being used as leverage in negotiations with the Tories.

 

Three points:

 

Firstly, in previous elections it may have been different but the 2010 Lib Dem vote undoubtedly swings more Labour than Tory. They picked up a lot of disillusioned trendy lefties but lost a lot of neoliberals who realised that the Tories could actually win and came back to them, hence virtually no change in their vote %. That means that this idea that the major parties will get 6% each is complete balls.

Oh CHARLES love, nobody self-identifies as a neoliberal! I suppose the best way of putting it would be economic conservative/social liberal.

Not quite what happened...in any case, he did step down in order to try and make a Lib-Lab pact possible. There's not much that can be done when you're just being used as leverage in negotiations with the Tories.

I think he was suggesting that Brown should have stepped down before the election with David Miliband replacing him. After all, the election result made a Lab - LibDem coalition almost impossible. With Miliband D at the helm, Labour's defeat may not have been as bad but that is pure speculation.

Thirdly, I'm assuming what Danny was scaremongering about was the Living Wage, which is around £7.50 nationally and £8.50 in London because it takes into account the cost of (wait for it) living. Whether it makes it onto the Labour manifesto is still up in the air but I can't see how it would cause many problems up North.

 

It might make sense on paper given the higher cost of living in London and the south, but I'm not really sure it's a good idea to encourage yet more intelligent/qualified people to get sucked away from the north, which would probably be the result of having an even bigger wage gap.

 

Anyway, whether it's a sensible idea in reality, is a different issue to whether it's sensible politically.

I think he was suggesting that Brown should have stepped down before the election with David Miliband replacing him. After all, the election result made a Lab - LibDem coalition almost impossible. With Miliband D at the helm, Labour's defeat may not have been as bad but that is pure speculation.

 

David Miliband would've done even worse than Brown imo :lol: He's everything people hate about Labour over the past 15 years wrapped into one (arrogant, robotic and un-human, unprincipled and cynical, can never give straight answers to questions). I'll never understand what so many senior people in the Labour party see in him.

Edited November 2, 201311 yr by Danny

I think David Miliband is one of the most overrated politicians Labour has ever had but I don't imagine he'd have done much worse than Brown. I think he might have managed to get another few seats to make a coalition viable, but it is all conjecture really.

David Miliband would've done even worse than Brown imo :lol: He's everything people hate about Labour over the past 15 years wrapped into one (arrogant, robotic and un-human, unprincipled and cynical, can never give straight answers to questions). I'll never understand what so many senior people in the Labour party see in him.

 

People never warmed to Brown, especially after it became clear his Iron Chancellor image was somewhat off the mark, to say the least. DM had certain advantages, young, pretty, good on camera, a bit of experience and continuity, and he didn't remind one of Beaker from the Muppets (EM), and neither did he make you wince when he smiled (GB). Shallow reasons, yes, but polished image never hurt Blair or Thatcher. Seems to me he should have been a bit more politically ruthless earlier to the 2 culprits that did for him, Smiley and Bruv.

People never warmed to Brown, especially after it became clear his Iron Chancellor image was somewhat off the mark, to say the least. DM had certain advantages, young, pretty, good on camera, a bit of experience and continuity, and he didn't remind one of Beaker from the Muppets (EM), and neither did he make you wince when he smiled (GB). Shallow reasons, yes, but polished image never hurt Blair or Thatcher. Seems to me he should have been a bit more politically ruthless earlier to the 2 culprits that did for him, Smiley and Bruv.

 

I've just never really seen that he's good on camera/in interviews or is charismatic, tbh. I've always thought that was actually the main reason he didn't win the Labour leadership - the media usually assumes that Ed won because he was more leftwing (tbh I didn't personally feel he actually said too many things that were particularly more leftwing than David did during the campaign), but I've always thought the real reason was that Ed in the debates and interviews was warmer and held people's attention more than David did. Obviously Ed is not exactly a hugely charismatic figure himself, but that shows just how bad David was.

Edited November 2, 201311 yr by Danny

The extent to which image is so important has always dismayed me. If they had been subjected to the same scrutiny then war leaders David Lloyd George (a womaniser) and Churchill (borderline alcoholic) would never have got the job. Our greatest post-war PM, Clement Attlee (boring) would also have missed out.

Oh CHARLES love, nobody self-identifies as a neoliberal! I suppose the best way of putting it would be economic conservative/social liberal.

I know, I never said anything about self-identification! It was just the first term that came to mind.

 

It might make sense on paper given the higher cost of living in London and the south, but I'm not really sure it's a good idea to encourage yet more intelligent/qualified people to get sucked away from the north, which would probably be the result of having an even bigger wage gap.

 

Anyway, whether it's a sensible idea in reality, is a different issue to whether it's sensible politically.

Possibly if the only reason people are currently staying up north is because it's not financially viable to live in London, but in my mind that's vastly outweighed by the potential benefits to Londoners struggling to get by.

 

I don't really see how the Living Wage could be used against Labour up north anyway. It's hardly like people will say "oh well they're clearly biased towards the south, I'll vote Conservative instead!".

The extent to which image is so important has always dismayed me. If they had been subjected to the same scrutiny then war leaders David Lloyd George (a womaniser) and Churchill (borderline alcoholic) would never have got the job. Our greatest post-war PM, Clement Attlee (boring) would also have missed out.

 

In an ideal world everyone would use logic and base choice on ability and policy. In the real world we all are totally biased by how others appear to us and frequently make our minds up about others within seconds of meeting. With politicians it would help if they actually made great speeches spelling out clearly what they stand for, rather than being careful not to alienate everyone with the same "hard-working family" soundbites. I look on it as desperately trying not to lose elections/voters rather than positively trying to win them. In the modern world, I admire Obama for attempting to change the status quo and fix the messes of others - even if he's failed so far largely. I'll ignore the apparent World Watergateisms popping up now, as I'm just as convinced they are all at it and in on it, albeit possibly to lesser degrees. Maybe.