Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

Make credence recognised that on 3 Apr 2007 09:09:23 -0700, "ocelot"
has scripted:

On Apr 3, 4:11 pm, Martin wrote:
On 03 Apr 2007 13:47:39 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

I was simply asking whether you want to make similar
adjustments when talking about air travel.

I was asking for clarification of the article that our nerd in Belgium cut and
pasted. The same nerd flew to and from Holland weekly, when he could have made
the same trip by train.
--

Martin

what r u talking about ??

Are you denying you made the journey?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Apr 3, 10:47 pm, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:30:09 +0200,
Martin has scripted:



On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:02:24 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:04:17 +0200, Martin
wrote:

On 3 Apr 2007 06:52:27 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

Martin is just being argumentative......again

I was wondering why you cut and paste these articles to rte.

It certainly seems appropriate to travel in Europe.

Do you believe all this crap?

First you need to demonstrate it really is crap instead of doing
all that arm waving.

What arm waving? Somebody cuts and pastes an article which has no references to
how or by whom the figures were obtained and I am supposed to accept it?
Until I see a scientific basis for such articles I treat them as crap.

I treat them as crap until they have circulated a bit, and there has
been some consensus reached by the professional community. It's a pity
the rest of the world hasn't figured out that it works like this.
--
---
DFM -http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

simply put - to get off the ground requires more energy than moving
along it

Make credence recognised that on 3 Apr 2007 08:48:05 -0700, "Iceman"
has scripted:

On Apr 3, 10:32 am, Markku Grönroos wrote:
"Iceman" kirjoitti
legroups.com...

Travelling by bus, except you can't travel to India by bus any more
because
the USA has turned a reasonable proportion of the intervening terrain
into a
war zone.

Believe it or not, that was a popular road trip in the 1970's. From
Western Europe to Istanbul, and then to Kathmandu passing through
Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.

I guess it is rather popular even today.


It was possible at least until a few years ago if you skipped
Afghanistan and if you could get an Iranian transit visa (I don't know
whether Americans can). The Australian travel writer Peter Moore did
it around 2000, and almost got himself killed in Afghanistan.
Virtually no one does it anymore though. I doubt the Iranian
government wants Westerners wandering around right now, and I'm not
even sure if you can still pass through Pakistan safely.

Both Iran and Pakistan welcome visitors, but suspect the passage would
be hard and hazardous. Not one for the faint hearted.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:06:09 +0100, "Miss
L. Toe" has scripted:

and whilst we are at it - the biggest contibution to the human causes of
global warming must be the growing population - we need a plan to reduce the
population by 75%

Countries like Italy and Japan are suffering greatly from their
attempts at breeding less. How the hell are we gonna tackle something
that we know is the truth, but doesn't have a nice solution?

(and yes I have emptied my sin bin for a final attempt before I give up NG's
forever).

Oh come on, don't give up yet!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:18:05 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On 3 Apr 2007 09:13:12 -0700, "Iceman"
wrote:

On Apr 3, 11:08 am, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:52:57 +0100, "Miss L. Toe"
wrote:

As far as carbondioxide is concerned,
exhalation naturally emits it. Which way conserves nature better: walking
or
running. Man also farts around 300 milliliters of gas per day. In order to
maintain decent digestion we must leak a bit. This should be an excellent
opportunity for tax collection: more energy flows through man's system,
more
he pollutes and pays for the "keep the environment tidy" tax.

On a serious note, cows produce more greenhouse gases than air travel, maybe
we should all be forced to become veggies, and put the cows on a train to
India.

Veggies produce more green house gasses than carnivores.


That's not true at all. Factory farming of beef and pork in
particular is tremendously polluting.

Frankly, I don't see how raising one thousand cows at a central
location results in more total pollution than raising one
thousand cows at one thousand places.

Because mass raising results in lower prices, and thus higher
consumption. But I guess you knew that.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Apr 3, 11:01 pm, Martin wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 13:52:55 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:



On Apr 3, 10:47 pm, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:30:09 +0200,
Martin has scripted:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:02:24 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:04:17 +0200, Martin
wrote:

On 3 Apr 2007 06:52:27 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

Martin is just being argumentative......again

I was wondering why you cut and paste these articles to rte.

It certainly seems appropriate to travel in Europe.

Do you believe all this crap?

First you need to demonstrate it really is crap instead of doing
all that arm waving.

What arm waving? Somebody cuts and pastes an article which has no references to
how or by whom the figures were obtained and I am supposed to accept it?
Until I see a scientific basis for such articles I treat them as crap.

I treat them as crap until they have circulated a bit, and there has
been some consensus reached by the professional community. It's a pity
the rest of the world hasn't figured out that it works like this.
--
---
DFM -http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

simply put - to get off the ground requires more energy than moving
along it

That would be true if the only energy consumed on the trip is in getting off the
ground, however once airborne how does energy consumption compare, bearing in
mind that a plane uses energy for a much shorter time and that some of the
energy used to get airborne is recovered during the descent phase of the flight.

Hint: Less energy is used per passenger to fly to Stuttgart from UK than to go
by car.
--

Martin

crap...

On Apr 3, 11:06 pm, Martin wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 14:04:10 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:



On Apr 3, 11:01 pm, Martin wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 13:52:55 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

On Apr 3, 10:47 pm, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:30:09 +0200,
Martin has scripted:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:02:24 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:04:17 +0200, Martin
wrote:

On 3 Apr 2007 06:52:27 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

Martin is just being argumentative......again

I was wondering why you cut and paste these articles to rte.

It certainly seems appropriate to travel in Europe.

Do you believe all this crap?

First you need to demonstrate it really is crap instead of doing
all that arm waving.

What arm waving? Somebody cuts and pastes an article which has no references to
how or by whom the figures were obtained and I am supposed to accept it?
Until I see a scientific basis for such articles I treat them as crap.

I treat them as crap until they have circulated a bit, and there has
been some consensus reached by the professional community. It's a pity
the rest of the world hasn't figured out that it works like this.
--
---
DFM -http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

simply put - to get off the ground requires more energy than moving
along it

That would be true if the only energy consumed on the trip is in getting off the
ground, however once airborne how does energy consumption compare, bearing in
mind that a plane uses energy for a much shorter time and that some of the
energy used to get airborne is recovered during the descent phase of the flight.

Hint: Less energy is used per passenger to fly to Stuttgart from UK than to go
by car.
--

Martin

crap...

Now you are getting somewhere.

Would you believe it if I referred you to the newspaper where it was reported?
--

Martin

how about a reputable source, such as the one I gave.....??

The research was carried out by a consortium of Paul Watkiss
Associates and AEA Technology Environment.

On Apr 3, 11:19 pm, Martin wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 14:10:34 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:



On Apr 3, 11:06 pm, Martin wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 14:04:10 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

On Apr 3, 11:01 pm, Martin wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 13:52:55 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

On Apr 3, 10:47 pm, Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
Make credence recognised that on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:30:09 +0200,
Martin has scripted:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:02:24 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:04:17 +0200, Martin
wrote:

On 3 Apr 2007 06:52:27 -0700, "ocelot" wrote:

Martin is just being argumentative......again

I was wondering why you cut and paste these articles to rte.

It certainly seems appropriate to travel in Europe.

Do you believe all this crap?

First you need to demonstrate it really is crap instead of doing
all that arm waving.

What arm waving? Somebody cuts and pastes an article which has no references to
how or by whom the figures were obtained and I am supposed to accept it?
Until I see a scientific basis for such articles I treat them as crap.

I treat them as crap until they have circulated a bit, and there has
been some consensus reached by the professional community. It's a pity
the rest of the world hasn't figured out that it works like this.
--
---
DFM -http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

simply put - to get off the ground requires more energy than moving
along it

That would be true if the only energy consumed on the trip is in getting off the
ground, however once airborne how does energy consumption compare, bearing in
mind that a plane uses energy for a much shorter time and that some of the
energy used to get airborne is recovered during the descent phase of the flight.

Hint: Less energy is used per passenger to fly to Stuttgart from UK than to go
by car.
--

Martin

crap...

Now you are getting somewhere.

Would you believe it if I referred you to the newspaper where it was reported?
--

Martin

how about a reputable source, such as the one I gave.....??

The research was carried out by a consortium of Paul Watkiss
Associates and AEA Technology Environment.

Vested interests?
--

Martin

prove them wrong !!

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:51:24 +0100, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname
here.uk.com wrote:


"ocelot" wrote in message
roups.com...
Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

Having used Eurostar once, I intend to fly in future.

Haven't got your own plane(s) Colin?

Not since I failed the pilot's medical :-(

Colin Bignell

"ocelot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 3, 6:51 pm, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname
here.uk.com wrote:
"ocelot" wrote in message

ups.com...

Eurostar generates ten times less CO2 than flying the same routes

Having used Eurostar once, I intend to fly in future.

Colin Bignell

and the reason is .....

I didn't like the train journey.

Colin Bignell