NationStates Jolt Archive

Finally, something we can all do to fight global warming. Tourism is directly responsible for a few percent of the overall CO2 output apparently, meaning non-essential travel is out. So do your part.. stay home, spend that thousand dollars on something eco-friendly, like a bicycle, or some good dope.. whatever eco-friendly people buy, you get the idea.

The actual article:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,9294,2-13-1443_2086930,00.html

That's right, 842 million people vacationed in a foreign country last year.. no small number. Massive CO2, etc. I don't think I need to explain the theory there.

Here's the bit that strikes me as being the probable answer to the question, "this affects me how?":

That could mean higher air fares, but some in the travel industry believe tourists would be ready to pay a little more to protect the places they love.

In other words, more yuppies at the beach.. less of you. :D Hooray yuppies!

So will you stay home? I was going to anyway, but then, I'm not the target market for cruises and package deals to Barbados or Rio. :p

And a poll, why not?

No, my vacation's a little more important than stopping global warming. Besides, I'll just plant a few trees or something if I feel guilty. If anything, commercial airplanes are probably far more environmentally friendly relative to their passenger loads than a comparative number of people driving to their destinations. Jet fuel is a lot cleaner and more efficiently burning than gasoline or diesel, and those engines are very efficient compared to the ICEs in cars and trucks.

I think all the driving people do to work, shop, get to school, etc. is way more than the amount produced by tourism. We'd be better off fighting that problem and reserve the CO2 we do produce for leisure.

No, my vacation's a little more important than stopping global warming. Besides, I'll just plant a few trees or something if I feel guilty.

Ah, but would it be more important if a transatlantic plane ticket had a $300 global warming surcharge? Sorta like the $5 Sept. 11 security fee, mentioned in the small print and automatically figured into the charge? Some people are paying $7 for a pack of cigarettes, remember.. some lawmakers see no problem in forcing 'healthy' decisions through oppressive taxation. :p Eliminating that 3% of emmissions caused by tourists might be seen as 'trimming the fat.'

I don't like to travel anyway.

Finally, something we can all do to fight global warming. Tourism is directly responsible for a few percent of the overall CO2 output apparently, meaning non-essential travel is out. So do your part.. stay home, spend that thousand dollars on something eco-friendly, like a bicycle, or some good dope.. whatever eco-friendly people buy, you get the idea.

The actual article:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,9294,2-13-1443_2086930,00.html

That's right, 842 million people vacationed in a foreign country last year.. no small number. Massive CO2, etc. I don't think I need to explain the theory there.

Here's the bit that strikes me as being the probable answer to the question, "this affects me how?":



In other words, more yuppies at the beach.. less of you. :D Hooray yuppies!

So will you stay home? I was going to anyway, but then, I'm not the target market for cruises and package deals to Barbados or Rio. :p

And a poll, why not?

Your poll fails at myrth.

Your poll fails at myrth.

I blame NCAA. :(

I blame NCAA. :(

I don't get it. :eek:

Ah, but would it be more important if a transatlantic plane ticket had a $300 global warming surcharge? Sorta like the $5 Sept. 11 security fee, mentioned in the small print and automatically figured into the charge? Some people are paying $7 for a pack of cigarettes, remember.. some lawmakers see no problem in forcing 'healthy' decisions through oppressive taxation. :p Eliminating that 3% of emmissions caused by tourists might be seen as 'trimming the fat.'

We'd be a lot better off putting a $3 tax on gasoline than $300 on airlines; that would definitely do a lot more harm than good, whereas a gasoline tax would have some pretty significant benefits (provided it was phased in over 5 years or so to give people time to react).

I mean, cutting emissions is great but what good is it if a lot of people are going to be unemployed because of it? I'd rather spread out the cost of containing emissions across the entire economy than penalize a single industry for a comparatively marginal effect on global CO2 production.

I don't get it. :eek:

Highly distracting national college basketball tournament going on as I was posting the thread.. some close games. AKA "March madness." :p

We'd be a lot better off putting a $3 tax on gasoline than $300 on airlines; that would definitely do a lot more harm than good, whereas a gasoline tax would have some pretty significant benefits (provided it was phased in over 5 years or so to give people time to react).

I mean, cutting emissions is great but what good is it if a lot of people are going to be unemployed because of it? I'd rather spread out the cost of containing emissions across the entire economy than penalize a single industry for a comparatively marginal effect on global CO2 production.

Well, we already have some pretty significant gas taxes in many states, but it needn't be either/or.. some people have apparently proposed scrapping the incandescent lightbulb, after all.. seems that every little bit counts. So steep gas taxes *and* steep airfare taxes might co-exist. At least the hypothetical $300 for tickets to Hawaii dents the yuppie's pocket slightly, rather than the working stiff on the freeway every morning. But it'll probably be both, as it already is to a large degree.

Well, we already have some pretty significant gas taxes in many states, but it needn't be either/or.. some people have apparently proposed scrapping the incandescent lightbulb, after all.. seems that every little bit counts. So steep gas taxes *and* steep airfare taxes might co-exist. At least the hypothetical $300 for tickets to Hawaii dents the yuppie's pocket slightly, rather than the working stiff on the freeway every morning. But it'll probably be both, as it already is to a large degree.

I don't know, though; a lot of air traffic is business related so there would be some major knock-on effects in many companies.

Of course, if that $300 went to developing efficient, affordable ultra-rapid rail or maglev transit between cities, it might be money well spent. Everyone could benefit from that, both commuters as well as business travellers and tourists.

If you think I'm going to stop my rec. flying and stop doing cross country trips to the mountains and fly-ins, forgetta bout it! I am a selfish bastard who will keep on flying his Piper Cherokee 180 to wherever the hell he likes. If the tree huggers don't like it, then well, go hug a tree!

*flies out of the thread* :D

If you think I'm going to stop my rec. flying and stop doing cross country trips to the mountains and fly-ins, forgetta bout it! I am a selfish bastard who will keep on flying his Piper Cherokee 180 to wherever the hell he likes. If the tree huggers don't like it, then well, go hug a tree!

You have a plane!? Damn, that's pretty cool.

You have a plane!? Damn, that's pretty cool.

Actually I don't own it myself (Hell I'm 23 years old and holding down a min. wage job while waiting for grad school to start) but it's part of a Flying Club I belong to and I rent it from the club.

I still stand by my statement though.

If you think I'm going to stop my rec. flying and stop doing cross country trips to the mountains and fly-ins, forgetta bout it! I am a selfish bastard who will keep on flying his Piper Cherokee 180 to wherever the hell he likes.

And we should tax the hell out of you for it.

Driving places is great. Townshend said it best:

I don't care about pollution
I'm an air-conditioned gypsy
That's my solution
Watch the police and the taxman miss me!
I'm mobile!
Mobile, mobile, mobile, yeah!

And we should tax the hell out of you for it.

Trust me, I pay more than enough of my fair share of taxes and fees.

Trust me, I pay more than enough of my fair share of taxes and fees.

Probably true. It seems like I fell into a little loophole being a company driver for a large trucking firm.. I had the privilege of burning 750 gallons of diesel per week, without paying from my own pocket..

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see whether airlines begin charging extra for airfare based on CO2.. I can see it happening.

Probably true. It seems like I fell into a little loophole being a company driver for a large trucking firm.. I had the privilege of burning 750 gallons of diesel per week, without paying from my own pocket..

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see whether airlines begin charging extra for airfare based on CO2.. I can see it happening.

Actually right now, there's a battle in Congress about user's fee, Which is basically you get charged every time you request flight following, or use the Flight Service Station, ATC, etc. It's going to add on to the taxes and fees we already pay, but so far it looks like it's going to die in the house mainly because of Phil Boyer and the AOPA, plus a few good reps. on our side.

Finally, something we can all do to fight global warming. Tourism is directly responsible for a few percent of the overall CO2 output apparently, meaning non-essential travel is out. So do your part.. stay home.

No.

I'll go where I feel like, thanks.

No.

I'll go where I feel like, thanks.

Where you can afford to go, that is. ;) We'll see where people go when that tax kicks in.

Where you can afford to go, that is. ;)

Not much of anywhere at the moment, I'm afraid.

We'll see where people go when that tax kicks in.

Great...so only the rich will travel.

Sounds like a step backwards to me.

Sounds like a step backwards to me.

Yea, but comon, think about it man, we'll be saving the Earth! We may not be able to travel or do anything because it's not Earth friendly, but HEY Who the hell are you compared to the Earth?!

/sarcasm

Not much of anywhere at the moment, I'm afraid.

Great...so only the rich will travel.

Sounds like a step backwards to me.

That's already how most of the world is.. substitute homeownership, carownership, etc. As a friend of mine writing from Europe once gushed, "there's so few cars on the road! You'd hardly know there were 80 million people in this country!" :p We're pretty lucky to live in a country where even those below the poverty line own homes, cars, televisions, computers, etc.

That's already how most of the world is.. substitute homeownership, carownership, etc. As a friend of mine writing from Europe once gushed, "there's so few cars on the road! You'd hardly know there were 80 million people in this country!" :p We're pretty lucky to live in a country where even those below the poverty line own homes, cars, televisions, computers, etc.

The answer is not taxing travelers...it's offering incentives to companies that make car and airplane engines more efficient...and punishing the companies that fail to live up to effective standards.

...if we start taxing everyone who travels based on the environmental impact of their travel, then soon only the rich will be able to travel. It will tie people to the land they live on more effectively than serfdom ever did, even the middle class.

The answer is not taxing travelers...it's offering incentives to companies that make car and airplane engines more efficient...and punishing the companies that fail to live up to effective standards.

...if we start taxing everyone who travels based on the environmental impact of their travel, then soon only the rich will be able to travel. It will tie people to the land they live on more effectively than serfdom ever did, even the middle class.

There may be a good number of people who want exactly that.. a form of modern serfdom. Political extremists on either side, different aristocrats around the world, etc. There's no question that, in terms of travel, we already put the burden on the poor or average working person. One of the reasons we have Schwarzenegger in California was the proposed "car tax" that would've magnified that effect by several hundred dollars per person. Gas may be $3/gal in the U.S., but it's often $10+ in Europe.. I know a guy who just got back from Turkey where it was well over $10 at one station. The rich are among the few who have the right to travel in many places.

There may be a good number of people who want exactly that...a form of modern serfdom.

Well I certainly hope you're not one of them.

Gas may be $3/gal in the U.S., but it's often $10+ in Europe.. I know a guy who just got back from Turkey where it was well over $10 at one station.

Most of Europe has established distance lines for rail travel between cities. Such does not exist in the U.S. except for in portions of the Northeast...hence, lower gas prices. We need them just to get the hell around.

Whether it's low gas prices, or good rail lines, the U.S. and Europe make it possible for nearly anyone to travel if they want to.

The rich are among the few who have the right to travel in many places.

True enough...which is more than enough of a reason to not be making backwards steps in developed nations by taxing people based on the environemental impact of their travel.

They didn't build the shitty engines in the plane or car they are using, so why should they foot the bill?

i already AM "doing that". i'd like to get back up to my boonies though; to LIVE there!

small form factor guideway based public transportation powered ultimately from wind, solar and hydro is the only environmentaly harmonious alternative to sore feet that i know of. that and living close to where you work and shop and play and playing, shopping and working close to where you live, preferably in smaller communities that larger communities could become clusters of physicly and not just conceptualy.

that is the real future if we want there to be one. super sizing government and industry is something we're just going to have to get over sooner or later.

=^^=
.../\...

Actually, a good way to fight global warming would be to radically reduce the world's population, destroy most of the industrial infrastructure in the world, and throw massive amounts of debris into the stratosphere to cause long-term winter-like conditions.

If the US were to (without warning of course), use its nuclear arsenal to decimate the industrial areas of Europe, Russia, China, and even its own industrial corridors, that would probably go a long way towards immediately achieving Gore's goals.

No, my vacation's a little more important than stopping global warming. Besides, I'll just plant a few trees or something if I feel guilty. If anything, commercial airplanes are probably far more environmentally friendly relative to their passenger loads than a comparative number of people driving to their destinations. Jet fuel is a lot cleaner and more efficiently burning than gasoline or diesel, and those engines are very efficient compared to the ICEs in cars and trucks.

I think all the driving people do to work, shop, get to school, etc. is way more than the amount produced by tourism. We'd be better off fighting that problem and reserve the CO2 we do produce for leisure.

Lazy people sitting in their cars,idling at drive through windows probably produces the most pollution that could be remedied the quickest.

Park your car and walk in. Its likely you need the excercise.

Probably true. It seems like I fell into a little loophole being a company driver for a large trucking firm.. I had the privilege of burning 750 gallons of diesel per week, without paying from my own pocket..

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see whether airlines begin charging extra for airfare based on CO2.. I can see it happening.

Believe me the company is paying for it. Fuel taxes, road use tax, property taxes (some states charge you property tax if your truck even went through them).

Believe me the company is paying for it. Fuel taxes, road use tax, property taxes (some states charge you property tax if your truck even went through them).

Yeah, I know.. I just meant that I didn't have to pay for it personally, meaning I could burn lots of fuel with no consequences to myself. I suppose California's anti-idle policy affected me in some way, but I doubt I spent even 5% of my time in California, and wouldn't have followed the law anyway.

If anyone's interested, another article from today suggests how you can live without fuel or toilet paper.. :p Gotta love the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/garden/22impact.html?ex=1332216000&en=e77725051fe1a853&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss