Carbon footprint of the UK ghost flights during Covid

What are ghost flights?

Flying empty planes is a complete waste

These are flights that are totally empty. These flights took place because airports demanded that a certain percentage of take-off slots were filled in order for each company to retain ownership.

Why is this problematic?

The Average plane emits about 53 pounds of carbon per mile, and flies on average 500 miles. As a result, the average flight emits roughly 25000 pounds of carbon per flight. Roughly speaking, an empty plane uses 20% less fuel, so we can say that each ghost flight emitted roughly 10 tonnes of carbon. Over the 15,000 flights that flew empty, that is 150,000 tonnes of carbon – with no purpose except allowing airports to keep raking in the profits.

At a time when we are all trying to cut carbon emissions this is horrendous. Is it a large portion of our countries annual emissions? no, it is less than 1%. However, at a time when everyone is being encouraged to reduce their carbon footprint as much as possible this is an absurd waste.

Alarmingly, ghost flights are not only a British thing in many countries around the world they have been a far bigger thing. What is worse, is that this was belatedly recognized by the EU reducing requirements temporarily in the middle of the epidemic.

Things must change – if in the future we have an epidemic which reduces passengers flying to zero, we must also have a reduction in the emissions and flights to zero as well.

Federal resources minister of Australia declares that solar panels dont work in the dark

Australia seems to have a group of politicians that are totally anti renewable. Australia is perfectly situated to use renewable resources for all their power. When Keith Pitt was asked if he still believed renewables didn’t work – he gave this ridiculous statement. The junior partner in the government is demanding they work towards zero carbon by 2050.

The worlds largest solar farm is being built in Australia but to send the power to Singapore, perhaps this huge project will wake up the Australian citizenry to the idiocy of their government
Continue reading “Federal resources minister of Australia declares that solar panels dont work in the dark”

Matt Ridley argues climate change is doing more good than harm in lecture

Chartwell lectures needs to be careful. If it regularly hosts people like Matt Ridley and allows him to argue that there are more good impacts from global warming than bad, they are likely to lose their following.

In his lecture he identified the following positive outcomes of global warming, I will take each one and respond

Fewer winter deaths: it is true, that warmer winters could lead to fewer deaths. Unfortunately what has been shown so far, is that global warming makes the climate more changeable. As such, while as an average winters get milder there are more extreme cold periods. This inconsistency far from reducing deaths as is posited, is likely to increase deaths due to cold weather.

An increase in global plant growth: This is not as simple as made out. The accompanying increase in temperature is often a bigger impact on the plant – and in most tests, it has been shown that increasing carbon levels while initially having a surge of growth do not increase output permanently.

Fewer deaths from extreme weather: this is closely related to the first, and it is not true.

He then has the nerve to suggest that blame mainstream media from cherry picking.

It is alarming that these stupid views are still being given the space to be spouted. I hope that space for views like this are pushed out soon, as they are not true.

Apparently Low-carbon ambitions must not interfere with ‘normal life’

According to Xi Jinping, low-carbon ambitions must not interfere with modern day life! If this is true, then we are unlikely to get the cuts that we need.

Now, it is not unreasonable for a country to want to raise its standard of living. However, China is likely to be hit very hard by climate change. While you do not think of China as a low lying country like Bangladesh, 67,000 square km (about 26,000 square miles) lie 1m or less above sea level – and 67 million people live in this area. It is true that this only accounts for about 5% of Chinas population but given how crowded this country already is, this is likely to cause a lot of issues. More to the point Shanghai is only between 3m and 5m above sea level,

Around the world about 600 million people live close to the sea. Of course we understand that each country must look after its own citizens – but that includes protecting them from global warming. China currently accounts for 26% of global emissions, and the rest of the world cannot cut enough to make their emissions irrelevant.

Now, it is entirely true that the president may be trying to keep his own population on side, but we need the whole world to work on this problem. China accounts for 15% of the worlds GDP, then can not take a back seat.

Carbon footprint of ghost flights during the lockdown

One would think that during the height of lockdown. that no planes would fly. After all, few people wanted to travel, and many destinations were banned.

Unfortunately no such luck. Why do I say this? Well currently 2.1% of emissions come from aviation (in wealthy countries this is far higher as many poor countries have little or no aviation – in the USA aviation accounts for 3-4%).

So what happened in lockdown?

Continue reading “Carbon footprint of ghost flights during the lockdown”

UK makes a lot of noise about its green spending, unfortunately we are spending more on polluting ones

£145 million was earmarked in the March 2021 British budget for environmental spending. Let almost 40 billion is spent on polluting ones. Tax breaks to companies, to encourage investment in projects (that will damage the environment ) along with £4.5 billion lost from the fuel duty freeze (it has been frozen for 11 years).

Continue reading “UK makes a lot of noise about its green spending, unfortunately we are spending more on polluting ones”

Use it or lose it rules on airport slots are requiring hundreds of thousands of empty planes to fly around Europe

It is thought that at least 100,000 flights with empty planes have been flown during the epidemic. These are referred to as ghost flights.

These flights have had to go ahead for airlines to retain their landing slots in major airports. The issue, is that these empty flights are thought to have emitted at least 2.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. These rules by the EU commission must change. It is absurd to suggest that this emissions could not have been avoided.

Continue reading “Use it or lose it rules on airport slots are requiring hundreds of thousands of empty planes to fly around Europe”

Do 97% of climate change scientists believe in climate change?

While a 97% agreement rate amongst climate change scientists appears to be a very nice figure and reliable enough to base discussion of the future on, it seemed odd to me that 3% of the scientists disagreed. As such in this article I’m going to look at the study that was done which created this figure. I will also look at another study that was done more recently which suggests a far higher figure. Continue reading “Do 97% of climate change scientists believe in climate change?”

The far right is now fear-mongering over extreme climate change, after letting go of climate denialism

Across much of the developed world, far right parties have gradually let go of their stupid climate change denialism and switched smoothly into waving it around as a way to increase peoples fear of immigration.

From Nigel Farage in the UK with a range of parties (so little success he has never managed to get elected to Westminster- though he scared the Conservatives enough to scare them into carrying out his suicidal plans of Brexit, also particularly odd his fear of immigration given his recent ancestry in Europe hence his name) as well as the BNP (who claimed to be the only green party as a result of their focus on immigration (no I dont follow this one either) Germanys Alternative for Germany (they have switched mockery of climate science to warning of harsh climatic conditions in Africa and the Middle east which will lead to a gigantic wave of immigration) Frances National Front (who has switched derisive climate change denial for a pledge to create the worlds “leading ecological civilization”).

This trend is not restricted to Europe but is repeated all over the place (including often in countries that are almost entirely descended from recent immigration in just the last few centuries).

In the UK, while we don’t have one of these far right parties in change Boris Johnson often seems far to comfortable stealing their policies.

Generally concern for the environment is considered a left wing thing, though it isn’t the first time that the far right has tried to appropriate something that is the cause of the left. Now care needs to be taken, as David Cameron is the person who is famous for saying “get rid of all that green crap”.

The changes that have to be made to the global economy will be far reaching. This is something that the extreme right often uses to scare people into voting for them. We need to educate those around us so they are not taken in by the empty words coming from all these parties.

How can California be so stupid?

California is known for its forward thinking views on climate change. They have taken some of the biggest steps towards decarbonising, and being a country that receives a great deal of sun have the potential to make more electricity than they need, completely from green sources.

1.3 million houses already have solar. The California Public Utilities Commission is considering taxing everyone $8 per month per kilowatt of solar installed. Nothing else would change – for people with large arrays, they could have to pay $1000 dollars a year.

This has been a main aim for utilities for years. It is quite understandable. If for 5-10 thousand dollars you can create a solar array on your roof, which means that you become close to self sustaining the utility companies loose their market share. Furthermore, if they are required to pay for exported solar, then that eats into their profits. This of course is despite the fact that this solar exported is clean energy so is good for the planet.

The argument is that this money will go for upkeep of the grid, and that the customers are getting free use of the grid. Now there are several issues with this.

Firstly, this move is likely to push many people with batteries to go further off grid. This will hit utilities hard. Now not only will they not get cheap electricity but they will also not be able to supply night time power. However there is another issue. A connection to the grid once there does not cost a lot to maintain – also, whether exporting 1kw or 10kw the same wires is used. Therefore, the pricing if one was needed should be flat ($8 flat per month seems far more reasonable- $8 per kwh suggests the states are giving utilities the means to squash small energy suppliers.

Are big power companies going to be charged this as well? because if you are going to go to this system they must be. The Diablo Canyon Power Plant is 2256megawatt output, if we were to charge the same thing then they would have to pay slightly over $18 million a year. This is something that even on a large nuclear plant would threaten their future finances.

There is still a coal powered station in California, and 41mw of gas powerplant.

Powerplants which are still using fossil fuels should be forced out of business – this foolish move will likely greatly reduce the rollout of solar in the country, which would lead to problems. Indeed, this state is aiming for 100% green electricity by 2045, which means that they need all the solar they can get.

This is a foolish move and is likely to either damage California’s future, or will be reversed in the future. I feel that it is extremely similar allowing petrol stations to charge electric cars for their lost business.

Another thing that should be recognized, is that as the grid improves more and more power will be consumed locally. For most houses with solar panels, any power they export are used by their neighbours. In other words, Solar panel owners, use a few hundred meters of cabling, while the utility companies are sending power over thousands of miles.

See Animals Wild