Wealthy people with environmental ideals are the biggest emitters

[Ed_]

12 hours ago, JohnMo said:

Why? Required, or choose to?

I think my point is that the amount of work flying someone does is less likely to be affected by their environmental ideals than their personal flying. 

 

For example a company CEO could choose to never fly for personal reasons but is unlikely to be able to do the same regarding work travel regardless of their personal beliefs, so not considering this distinction introduces a source of bias into the analysis.

[saveasteading]

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

How many were on the bus.

Average 8? Probably 20 used it in total.

 

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

bus does about 6MPG, 

It was going that way anyway. So close to zero fuel used for us.

In term time it would have been packed.

 

It is possible some of those people don't have a car and were coming back from hospital. 

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

Solve the local link, e.g with affordable (subsidised) electric taxi'

Exactly. One solution is that your local community has a vehicle and volunteer drivers plus a free parking agreement at the bus stop.

[saveasteading]

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

How many were on the bus.

Average 8? Probably 20 used it in total.

 

5 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

bus does about 6MPG, 

It was going that way anyway. So close to zero fuel used for us.

In term time it would have been packed.

 

It is possible some of those people don't have a car and were coming back from hospital. 

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

Solve the local link, e.g with affordable (subsidised) electric taxi'

Exactly. One solution is that your local community has a vehicle and volunteer drivers plus a free parking agreement at the bus stop.

Stand as a local councillor and you can do this using the huge fund that the wind turbine people will give you.

[Gone West]

We have a bus run through the village three days of the week, once in the morning and returning in the afternoon. Without huge subsidy there is no way public transport could be used for even a fraction of the journeys made locally. Most people live in urban areas and don't have a clue what public transport is like in the countryside.

[SteamyTea]

29 minutes ago, Gone West said:

Without huge subsidy there is no way public transport could be used for even a fraction of the journeys made locally

We have huge subsidies.

https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/transport-parking-and-streets/public-transport/cornwalls-transport-services/enhanced-partnership-and-bus-service-improvement-plan/

 

A new allocation of £10.59m Bus Grant funding for 2025/26 has been awarded to Cornwall Council.  This includes:      

• £9.72m BSIP funding - £5.48m revenue funding will be focused on maintaining the existing bus network. £4.24m capital funding will improve access and deliver upgrades to:
  • bus stations
  • bus stops and
  • real-time passenger information screens
• £0.87m funding to include: Bus Services Operators Grant (BSOG) to support tendered bus services.  As well as an allocation to support BSIP delivery.

 

About £17 quid each.

They may be spending the money on the wrong things.

 

[Gone West]

4 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

They may be spending the money on the wrong things.

 

Well, half on maintenance of existing bus services, half on upgrading bus stops and stations. So at least we shouldn't lose services, but I can't see services being expanded. It would need a lot more than £10m for a rural county like Cornwall.

[Beelbeebub]

Whilst air travel does ha e a carbon footprint it also has massive benefits. 

 

Without it intercontinental travel, especially between the America's, Australia and africa/europe/Asia would become almost impossible for the average person. It would become the preserve of the ultra rich who could afford to take 2 weeks or more to travel each way. 

 

I would point out that the carbon emissions of uk domestic and international air travel (I know attributing carbon to a territory is tough but there are various estimates) is around 40MtCO2e

 

The emissions from passenger cars is about 60MtCO2e and residential heating is about 50MtCO2e

 

So we could decarbonise (electrify) passenger cars and heating (Ev's and heatpumps) and carry on flying. 

[JohnMo]

2 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

Whilst air travel does ha e a carbon footprint it also has massive benefits. 

 

Without it intercontinental travel, especially between the America's, Australia and africa/europe/Asia would become almost impossible for the average person. It would become the preserve of the ultra rich who could afford to take 2 weeks or more to travel each way. 

 

I would point out that the carbon emissions of uk domestic and international air travel (I know attributing carbon to a territory is tough but there are various estimates) is around 40MtCO2e

 

The emissions from passenger cars is about 60MtCO2e and residential heating is about 50MtCO2e

 

So we could decarbonise (electrify) passenger cars and heating (Ev's and heatpumps) and carry on flying. 

Do find this very much goes against everything you seem to preach. It may have massive benefit for ease of travel, but is this travel really needed or just a nice to have?