Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
310 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 139

Trusted

  Reply # 2109854 17-Oct-2018 15:03
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

wellygary:

Batman: But we ban plastic bags and exponentially increase tourism. Tourism surely must incur a massive CO2 cost. How many plastic bags do we need to make disappear to offset CO2 released on one flight between Auckland and London on the most environmentally friendly aircraft? Please add up all the plastic bags used by all the crew and passengers in the entire journey.


Totally agree,


AirNZ are engaged on one of the biggest greenwash exercises NZ has ever experienced,


There own figures


https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/Air_NZ_GHG_Inventory_-Report_2018.pdf


Show their emission have grown every year since they started recording them and were 20% higher than their 2011 base year.


- and they have the gall to host a "sustainability" event promoting personal flying devices that are going to be as cheap as taxis ( that are apparently just around the corner- hah!,) and removing plastic swizzle sticks from their aircraft... talk about focussing on the big issues....



So what should they do? Nothing? Close up shop and go home? Despite being an airline, they fund conservation, have invested in fleet of electric cars that will eventually become cars that individuals own in NZ, and are making an effort to show that they can and will remove plastics as and where they can. I have nothing to do with AirNZ, but bagging them for the efforts they do make won't help.

I'm currently in Asia. If I buy an iced tea, it comes in a plastic cup, with a plastic lid and a plastic straw. They then give you a small plastic bag "carrier" - think plastic bag that the cup sits in with two handles - because apparently putting your hand around the cup is too hard. Buying a coffee? It comes in a small plastic bag, with handles and a straw - perfect for hanging over the handlebars of your bike or indicator stalk of your car (cause that has no other purpose I believe, but that's for another topic!). The sheer amount of plastic used here over that which we use in NZ is astounding! So any reduction made by an NZ company, no matter how small, is a great step in the right direction from my perspective.

Bashing a company for looking for ways to be more environmentally sustainable and responsible will not help.

13348 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6277

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2109856 17-Oct-2018 15:04
Send private message quote this post

Dingbatt:
Batman: But we ban plastic bags and exponentially increase tourism. Tourism surely must incur a massive CO2 cost. How many plastic bags do we need to make disappear to offset CO2 released on one flight between Auckland and London on the most environmentally friendly aircraft? Please add up all the plastic bags used by all the crew and passengers in the entire journey.

I'm hoping you didn't infer any connection between between global warming and plastic bags. My only intention in them both being the same post was to make a point about forcing people to do something, unwashed or not.

 

 

 

Plastic bags do contribute to climate change as a result of the production process however that only part of the reasons to ban them. Other reasons are they do not breakdown and become a very long-term problem, they can travel large distances and make their way into the oceans. They are harmful to human life as the fragments and particles enter the food chain and are ingested in our food. They are hard to recycle, and NZ currently is not recycling plastic shopping bags. Plastic bags are polluting the land and the waterways including the oceans and are very harmful to animal life. They are impacting on the ocean life which is a foundation of our food chain. The plastics are mistaken and food souce and by sealife and birds. Animals also become entangled and die.

 

They are alternatives that are sustainable and reusable.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


Mad Scientist
19108 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2484

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109864 17-Oct-2018 15:17
Send private message quote this post

SaltyNZ:

Batman: But we ban plastic bags and exponentially increase tourism. Tourism surely must incur a massive CO2 cost. How many plastic bags do we need to make disappear to offset CO2 released on one flight between Auckland and London on the most environmentally friendly aircraft? Please add up all the plastic bags used by all the crew and passengers in the entire journey.


 


A couple of different sources both suggest aviation accounts for ~2% of global emissions, so while it's the hardest to decarbonise, it's also one of the smallest at the moment. A 787 uses about 2.4L/100km per passenger, which puts it roughly on par with driving a mid-size car the same distance with 3 or 4 passengers.



Distance between Auckland and London is 18,324 km. And don't forget it's usually at least a two way trip. And i like how they like to say they've calculated the math to a per person number, so let's now multiply that by about 300.




Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.


3444 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 952


  Reply # 2109865 17-Oct-2018 15:17
Send private message quote this post

Ge0rge:
So what should they do? Nothing? Close up shop and go home?

 

The government is doing that to the domestic Oil and Gas industry...

 

If climate change is as dangerous as it is made out to be, I think Air NZ should start by capping its aviation emissions by halting any growth not offset by efficiency....

 

 

 

 


3547 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 651

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109872 17-Oct-2018 15:21
Send private message quote this post

wellygary: ... so when airlines cry how much higher fuel prices are hurting them ask them how much they pay per litre...


$US754/tonne according to the IATA website (interestingly 34% higher than this time last year). So at an average density of 0.8 that is $US0.60/l or $NZ0.91/l at today's exchange rate. For a wider cut fuel type than petrol.
Are you suggesting airlines be taxed for the use of the sky? Or should any tax be purely punitive for destroying the earth?
And the higher fuel costs are passed onto the customer, so they are ultimately the ones doing the crying.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

3547 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 651

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109888 17-Oct-2018 15:42
Send private message quote this post

wellygary:

Ge0rge:
So what should they do? Nothing? Close up shop and go home?


The government is doing that to the domestic Oil and Gas industry...


If climate change is as dangerous as it is made out to be, I think Air NZ should start by capping its aviation emissions by halting any growth not offset by efficiency....


 


 



So the B777s that replaced the B747 were reportedly 20% more efficient.
The B787s (when they actually manage to fly) are similarly more efficient than the B767s they replaced.
Likewise the A320s have the same fuel burn as the old B737-300s they replaced while carrying 30 more people.
And the A320Neos due to arrive are up to 25% more fuel efficient than the current ones.
So growth is being offset by efficiency.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

3444 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 952


  Reply # 2109889 17-Oct-2018 15:43
Send private message quote this post

Dingbatt:
wellygary: ... so when airlines cry how much higher fuel prices are hurting them ask them how much they pay per litre...
 
Or should any tax be purely punitive for destroying the earth? .

 

No, but they should pay the same environment (ETS) taxes we pay on petrol now,

 

why should you pay the ETS on a flight from Auckland to Wellington? but not from Auckland to Sydney?

 

 


4646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2154

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2109893 17-Oct-2018 15:51
Send private message quote this post

Dingbatt:
The 'smoke' has proven detrimental health effects due to particulates and NOx it contains, and for that reason should be reduced.

 

 

 

Well, the pickup truck owner will tell you that it's your fault for not wearing a face mask, so maybe you should just move somewhere else...





iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


4646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2154

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2109895 17-Oct-2018 15:53
Send private message quote this post

Dingbatt:
Are you suggesting airlines be taxed for the use of the sky?

 

 

 

 

Image result for old man yells at cloud

 

 

 

Sorry, I had to.





iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


3547 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 651

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109899 17-Oct-2018 16:00
Send private message quote this post

Too much effort involved in posting a picture of King Cnut. But you get the idea.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

3547 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 651

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109900 17-Oct-2018 16:02
Send private message quote this post

SaltyNZ:

Dingbatt:
The 'smoke' has proven detrimental health effects due to particulates and NOx it contains, and for that reason should be reduced.


 


Well, the pickup truck owner will tell you that it's your fault for not wearing a face mask, so maybe you should just move somewhere else...



But he lives by you, not me. I am at least 30m above sea level at the moment, so don't need to move anywhere.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

3444 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 952


  Reply # 2109901 17-Oct-2018 16:02
Send private message quote this post

Dingbatt:
So the B777s that replaced the B747 were reportedly 20% more efficient.
The B787s (when they actually manage to fly) are similarly more efficient than the B767s they replaced.
Likewise the A320s have the same fuel burn as the old B737-300s they replaced while carrying 30 more people.
And the A320Neos due to arrive are up to 25% more fuel efficient than the current ones.
So growth is being offset by efficiency.

 

only partially not fully offset,

 

Yes the new planes are more efficient, but they have more of them and are flying to more places,  so overall their emissions continue to grow....

 

If they were prepared to cap their emissions and only expand based on what they can offset by newer better aircraft that would be a real step...

 

 


5216 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2122


  Reply # 2109904 17-Oct-2018 16:13
Send private message quote this post

Dingbatt: Too much effort involved in posting a picture of King Cnut. But you get the idea.

 

You do realise that Cnut supposedly sat on the beach to show his followers that he couldn't control the tide?

 

I.e. he was proving he was just a man.





Mike

3547 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 651

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109911 17-Oct-2018 16:19
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Expansion is driven by demand. Limiting capability is a wonderful environmental plan but a disastrous fiscal one.
I'm sure you have forgone any sort of air travel in your life given your posts, but for those continue to travel, the environmental ethics of any particular company would rank way behind cost, safety and convenience.
I'm growing tired of people shouting "Quick, everybody else do something!".




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

3547 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 651

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2109917 17-Oct-2018 16:26
Send private message quote this post

MikeAqua:

Dingbatt: Too much effort involved in posting a picture of King Cnut. But you get the idea.


You do realise that Cnut supposedly sat on the beach to show his followers that he couldn't control the tide?


I.e. he was proving he was just a man.



Yes. He proved he did not rule or control nature (in fact he ascribed that to a higher power). Particularly true from an insignificant country in the South Pacific.




Areas of Geek interest: Home Theatre, HTPC, Android Tablets & Phones, iProducts.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.