spen666
Active Member
Really? So whether it is flying from Stansted to Manchester or London to Kuala Lumpa it uses 330,000 litres of aviation fuel?
Or is this one of those 97% of statistics that is made up
Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?
- Thread starter Banderill
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Really? So whether it is flying from Stansted to Manchester or London to Kuala Lumpa it uses 330,000 litres of aviation fuel?
Or is this one of those 97% of statistics that is made up
matticus
Guru
So why don't you try educating them? The true activists (and the scientists ...) have told you what needs doing. And you've STATED EXPLICITLY IN THIS VERY FORUM that you know what is right and sensible.
So just do it! Don't keep looking for excuses!!!
What if Mudsticks told you that senior church figures had been covering up kiddy-fiddling, so she was going to try it herself - would that be reasonable?!?
mudsticks
Squire
So why don't you try educating them? The true activists (and the scientists ...) have told you what needs doing. And you've STATED EXPLICITLY IN THIS VERY FORUM that you know what is right and sensible.
So just do it! Don't keep looking for excuses!!!
What if Mudsticks told you that senior church figures had been covering up kiddy-fiddling, so she was going to try it herself - would that be reasonable?!?
I'm not entirely comfortable with the analogy, but agree the sentiment.
It seems that many people will immediately accuse 'hypocrisy' of others, in an attempt to deflect attention from the reality of the situation.
The climate crisis is a whole world issue, and it's coming hardest for those already living in deprivation.
You'd have thought that tackling it would be well up the agenda for anyone with a claimed attachment to a caring and sharing spiritual ethos..
But no, instead distract and dissemble by wibbling on about business as usual being disrupted.
Yes it's very difficult to live a 'normal' 'low carbon' lifestyle - particularly in the west, that's the point, it really shouldn't be, it needn't be, if concerted intelligent political action was taken .
matticus
Guru
It was intended as hyperbolic satire. (not everything is deserving or conducive to a simple analogy)
mudsticks
Squire
Yup I got that .
Hence I'm not currently chasing you down with a blazing pitchfork, for your impertinence.
albion
Guru
Let us hope the message has got through to everyone that we are now on that cliff edge that politicians are pushing.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-lead-returns-poll-taken-rishi-sunak-policies-2663290
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/labour-lead-returns-poll-taken-rishi-sunak-policies-2663290
albion
Guru
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ists-stunned-by-planets-record-september-heat
"The hottest September on record follows the hottest August and hottest July, with the latter being the hottest month ever recorded. The high temperatures have driven heatwaves and wildfires across the world.
September 2023 beat the previous record for that month by 0.5C, the largest jump in temperature ever seen. September was about 1.8C warmer than pre-industrial levels. Datasets from European and Japanese scientists confirm the leap."
Total disaster just a short drive away then. We are in the fast lane.
"The hottest September on record follows the hottest August and hottest July, with the latter being the hottest month ever recorded. The high temperatures have driven heatwaves and wildfires across the world.
September 2023 beat the previous record for that month by 0.5C, the largest jump in temperature ever seen. September was about 1.8C warmer than pre-industrial levels. Datasets from European and Japanese scientists confirm the leap."
Total disaster just a short drive away then. We are in the fast lane.
cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
According to Boeing, a 747 uses approx. 150,000 litres of fuel on a 10 hour flight. A 13 hour flight will burn approx. 187,200 litres.
They are relevant because they are real life and not the internet, and are saying one thing and doing another.
You, on the other hand, are not like them. You claim to believe in reducing fossil fuel use - and then actually do it!
Business as usual comprises supply and demand. The oil companies keep up the supply, but this is only to meet demand. The profligate activists and hangers-on are keeping business as usual going themselves by keeping up demand.
I haven't read Watts up with that for ages - I got to a point of a plague on both your houses on this subject, but he features the activist hypocrisy on occasions. A recent one was Khan, mayor of London and his deputies managing 430 000 air miles since he was elected in 2016. Maybe some of this is necesssary, but doesn't sit well with his low emissions for London policy. Another example was iirc a full-time activist taking two months off to fly to Mexico for a tour. You get the point.
My figure of 330 000 litres of fuel per flight came from wandering around the jumbo on the roof of the Technical Museum, Speyer. Going by cookiemonster's figures this must mean a round trip there and back for a long-haul flight.
What exactly do you have in mind that the individual should do?
If you mean just because others aren't doing right its no reason for you not to, I agree.
Using your senior church figures, what if they get in the pulpit and preach for instance Matthew 19 on marriage including sex being between a man and a woman and the arrangement being for life. If they or members of the congregation are ever divorced, they cannot be taking the for life bit very seriously. If they won't deal with same-sex behaviour or the abuse of children, they are not taking the ethic they are supposed to believe seriously either. My point is faith without works or actions is dead. Their mouths say they believe, their lives say they don't. Why should anyone take them seriously?
Now when it comes to climate activists and the claims of fairly imminent crisis and catastrophe, when they act like my holiday in Bali friends my view is that they don't actually believe in a crisis at all. It's self deception. If they don't really believe it, why should Joe Public?
mudsticks
Squire
@Unkraut
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/19/big-oil-climate-crisis-lobby-group-api
There's plenty of evidence of oil corps lobbying to stop the development of renewable resources, and deflect attention from action on climate change.
It's been going on for decades.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/19/big-oil-climate-crisis-lobby-group-api
There's plenty of evidence of oil corps lobbying to stop the development of renewable resources, and deflect attention from action on climate change.
It's been going on for decades.
Last edited:
spen666
Active Member
You answer is dishonest. You claimed a jumbo jet uses 330,000 litres of fuel per flight. Quite clearly it does not. A jumbo jet does not uses 330,000 litres of fuel per flight. The amount of fuel used will for example vary according to the length of the flight. Your figure you now claim is for TWO of the longest flights a jumbo jet could make.
You would have more credibility if you accepted you 330,000 litres of fuel claim per flight is false.
Interestingly Boeing's website claims a Boeing 747 has a fuel capacity of under 240,000 litres. Presumably the passengers carry the remaining 90,000 litres in their hand luggage on every flight as you tell us the 747 uses 330,000 per flight irrespective of length of flight
https://web.archive.org/web/2014072...ets/pdf/commercial/startup/pdf/747-8_perf.pdf
albion
Guru
Strange. You even get info on how the return flight data came about.
Label is facetious.
spen666
Active Member
The claim is a jumbo jet flight uses 330,000 litres of fuel.
The facts are
1. A jumbo jet does not hold that much fuel
2. The amount of furl used by a jumbo jet varies according to the distance travelled.
To repeatedly claim jumbo jets use 2m330,000 litres of fuel per flight is demobstratably dishonest
This was the statement made for the Jumbo in the museum. I'm going by memory, but having checked this is not unreasonable for a long-haul flight so I don't think my memory is playing tricks with me. The usage for a return flight would be about 300 000 litres, and the plane in the museum is old presumably was less efficient.
Which is not the point - it needs to refuel. It was the usage the museum displayed, not the capacity.
That is so obvious it doesn't need stating. I added the sentence about fuel usage in the context of the large number of climate activists doing long-haul flights to get to the annual circus. You are right that claiming 300 000 litres just to get there is wrong, but there and back this is a realistic figure for usage for your 10 hour of more flight from say Frankfurt to Durban and back to base.
If I ever visit the Museum again I will check the wording of their information, together with its often naff English translation. The point though is the hypocrisy of those claiming to save the planet who far from setting a good example, do positive harm.
