Did you know: Aircraft are a proven cause of climate change and significant public health problems?

Question

Air travel is one of the most significant contributors to environmental and public health problems. As many know, it is unsustainable, based on artificially cheap fuel prices and massive public subsidies.

In particular, air travel is the only proven source of human caused climate change, a fact that is based on actual analysis from removal of the source.

The removal of aircraft from our atmosphere created an immediate and measurable impact on temperature in the three to four days following 9/11; atmospheric temperatures reverted back to 1950’s, pre-jet age levels.

For more information:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/support-candidates-pledge-on-health-our-environment

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/852329349

Note: that the "letter" is the white paper.

Please also support our pledge.

Thank you.

Answer 1

Did you know: Al Gore will never give up flying, but he will tell you believers and non believers, you better give up flying. Lets all bow to the all mighty Al Gore.

Answer 2

They're also the only way I can get to the other side of the world in less than a day. Sorry, I ain't signing, I like planes.  ;-)

I don't buy the "only proven source of climate change", or the atmospheric temperature things either... they both sound unlikely.

Answer 3

sounds like more liberal global warming propaganda to me....

the figures are suspect and the premise that the entire world temperature adjusted itself over a 4 day period is just a load of BS......Dumbas*s Al Gore would be proud of you for trying to perpetuate his myth though.....

where do you get the idea that it is "unsustainable" and that fuel prices are "artificially cheap"? public subsidies? i haven't seen any coming my way....we pay a more than $1 premium over what the buying public pays to fuel our operations, but even at that, i posted a 45% profit margin each year for the last 5 years running.....that's pretty sustainable, don't you think?

you're going to have to do better than trumped up and blatently false "evidence".....most people are smart enough to see this for the bought and paid for propaganda that it is...

EDIT:  with your additional comments, you're even more full of it. do you really think that only one country, grounding it's aircraft for 4 days, had that much of an impact on global temperatures? every other country in the world operated it's aircraft during that period, so your point and your figures are irrelevant. as an industry insider for many years, we have studied this "problem" and have found all of the arguments to be pointless and worthless, "bought and paid for" "science" from "experts" who wrote papers that relfected the opinions they were paid to reflect.  Just who do you think is paying NASA to do research? the very governments and entrepeneurs that would have you buy into their global warming agenda, buy our "green" products BS....none of your arguments hold any wieght with me, and I for one, am making VERY informed comments from someone who has studied the issue from a perspective and with actual information from the source, not from some bought and paid for "expert" who wouldn't know a nose gear from a nose ring......

Answer 4

Sooo next time you need to get a billion dollars worth of AIDS medicine to Africa, are you going to SWIM it over? Or take a slow, wooden sailboat?

Tree huggers, I apologize. Gotta be a plastic boat- no that uses oil, BAMBOO RAFT!

Answer 5

The arguments for and against Heathrow's runway 3The growth of aviation will become a fierce battleground between environmentalists and big business. It is a struggle which will shape Britain's eco future for generations to come

The Observer, Sunday January 27 2008 Article history · Contact us Contact usClose Contact the Environment editor

[e-mail] Report errors or inaccuracies: [e-mail] Letters for publication should be sent to: [e-mail] If you need help using the site: [e-mail] Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:

[phone]

Advertising guide License/buy our content About this articleClose This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday January 27 2008 on p32 of the Focus section. It was last updated at 23:10 on January 26 2008. The arguments against runway 3

The runway will cost £12bn and bring a return of about £17bn: a £5bn profit over 70 years, scarcely a great return. Then there is the fact that the people who fly out of Heathrow to other countries spend more in these destinations than foreign tourists spend in the UK. We are encouraging people to take money out of Britain.

I don't oppose an expansion in air travel itself, but it is questionable that Heathrow is the proper focus for that increase. People who live around the West Midlands spend more than £400m a year travelling to Heathrow because many long-haul flights leave from there. Building a third runway is not the proper way to expand aviation.

There is also the transport issue. A further 40 million people a year will travel to Heathrow once the new runway is built, doubling the current number. Yet roads are already badly congested and the Tube is bursting at the seams. But there is no indication that anyone seems to have thought about how people will get to Heathrow in future. A third runway would only be acceptable if it was compatible with our climate change policy, if it was accompanied by an increase in investment in high-speed trains, and if noise and other pollution were to be controlled. There is no sign of any of that happening.

· Justine Greening is Tory MP for Putney and a shadow Treasury minister

The arguments for runway 3

It is not a foregone conclusion that a third Heathrow runway will seriously damage the environment. Aeroplanes have become the new villains of the climate change debate, and in many ways that is unfair. The aviation industry is responsible for only 1.6 per cent of global carbon emissions. That may rise, but it is unlikely to do so significantly. So if we use planes for intercontinental travel and move short-haul passengers to high-speed trains that would be a fair split of resources. A third runway could still be important in such a scheme.

The real issue is the need to make sure proper fiscal policies are introduced to aviation. These would ensure airlines pay tax on aviation fuel, which is now exempt from it, as well as carbon taxes likely to be introduced in future. Then we will have some kind of level playing field in transport. The factors that give the industry an unfair advantage over road and rail will have been removed.

There would then be no reason to block major aviation projects such as the third runway. It would be up to the private sector, which would provide the investment, to decide if it was worth investing or not. If it believes there is a need for a new runway, it may choose to put the necessary billions into its construction. It would be their risk - and their loss if it turned out there was no real need for the project. However, it could easily be to their benefit, and the nation's, if the runway helps to boost business and the economy. In other words, if the runway meets its environmental costs, there is no need to oppose it.

Answer 6

Not true, the contrails in day vs. night cancel each other out.

Answer 7

Seems to me that your ideas are weak at best... where does all of this evidence come from? You sited one website to support all of this supposed information?

Edit: Even worse, this website is just to have people sign up for your particular cause, which means that you opted to not support any of your claims... good call.

I looked at your supporting sites and it seems to be one site in particular that is doing as p**s poor of a job of backing their **** as you are here... the same one you listed here again, surprise surprise... much as it was a surprise that you add additional info and suddenly everyone has one thumbs down.

The NASA report says it's possible but not proven and also found evidence to the contrary as well... and also noted that even if it was true it would raise the temp at a rate of around .3 degrees a decade... once again, good call...

Answer 8

you forgot to mention that air travel causes an effect which reverses global warming - global dimming.

Answer 9

The lefties who propogate this stupidity are not open to debate.  Proof is seen in the following words, copied from the question:

"Note that the study is not conjecture, but factual empirical evidence."

This means that anybody who doesn't  subscribe to their way of thinking must stay silent.  A typical view of the political-left who support this c**p.  Air travel has no effect on climate, and I challenge anyone to prove that it does.  People have to learn the difference between the words weather and climate.

Global warming or climate change is not real.  The only people who preach it are extreme leftists, and we shouldn't take them seriously.  If everyone stopped donating money to their cause, it would end very soon.

.

.