I was a bit harsh. While I think your argument regarding first class seats is eminently silly.
I have to admit.
You’re right, Al Gore is one of the environmental movement’s worst enemies.
This is just not true. There are airliner configurations that don’t have first class seats. There are also configurations that have very small first-class sections. There are also distinctions between ulta-high quality seating, business class seating, and coach. It wouldn’t take much reduction in demand for first-class seating before airliners would start reconfiguring with smaller first class sections.
And you don’t need first-class to make a profit - if no one had first class seating, the price of coach tickets would go up. That might reduce airline travel overall, which would save even more carbon.
In fact, doesn’t it make environmnental sense to lobby for a form of CAFE for the sky, mandating that airliners improve their passenger miles per gallon by X%? The easiest way to do that would be to eliminate first-class seating, and if everyone was required to do it, they wouldn’t lose competitive advantage. They could raise overall ticket prices to compensate.
This is exactly what we demand of the auto fleet. They have to raise CAFE standards, and the way they do it is to make the vehicles smaller or install expensive equipment like direct injection. The people who buy cars are expected to absorb the cost. Why not do the same thing for airlines?
Where do you get 2.5% more seats from? In fact, in some airplanes the a first-class seat can take the place of three or more coach seats. For example, the ‘World Business Class’ cabin in a NWT Airbus A330 has 34 seats. The same aircraft configured with coach seats in that space can fit 80 seats.
A Boeing 777-300 is available in several configurations. In one, there are 30 first class seats, 84 business class seats, and 254 economy seats, for a total of 368 passengers. The same aircraft is available in an ‘all-economy’ configuration - and it has 500 seats.
In that configuration, a 767-300 is 36% more efficient in terms of passenger miles per gallon of gas burned. Why doesn’t Hollywood march to have first-class banned? A 36% improvement in passenger-miles per gallon is nothing to sneeze about.
Look at it this way - let’s say a carrier has both configurations of the 767 available. If they get 500 economy bookings, they’ll fly that version. If they get a lot of first class bookings, they’ll fly the other. So if you and all your friends going to Cannes for the film festival agree to fly coach, you can book an airplane that will take you there on 36% less fuel.
If you feel really strongly about it, you can all offer to pay first-class fares in order to help the airline out.
You mean like the auto companies having their lucrative SUVs regulated away from them and needing to be bailed out?
An even sillier statement. Do you think that Gore considers breathing immoral? That puts out CO as well. Once again; the problem is not that CO2 is evil; the problem is that we are putting out too much of it. If his actions result in a net lowering of of CO2 output, then they are “CO2 moral”.
Another silly argument. It’s immoral in both cases because most people don’t want to suffer and die. Are you seriously going to pretend that “billions of people suffering and major damage to civilization is a bad thing” is some sort of morally grey claim?
In other words, you’re in denial about where the thrust of your argument leads, as well as in denial about AGW.
First; as said, it is the anti-AGW position that is equivalent to religion, not the ones who acknowledge its reality.
Second, you are operating on the false assumption that Al Gore IS some sort of prophet, and that his personal morality or behavior has some sort of relevance to his claims. You are, again, acting just like the occasional religious believer who bashes Darwin or Dawkins, under the impression that making them look bad will magically invalidate evolution. Al Gore could live in a giant smoke spewing factory that melts down bicycles to make SUVs, and that wouldn’t affect whether his claims are right or wrong.
And what makes you think he’s held in great esteem by the “AGW alarmists” here? I’m fairly indifferent to the fellow. You come across, again, like a religious believer who is used to following prophets and preachers, and can’t really grasp that some other people follow facts instead. People don’t need to like Gore or agree with his personal behavior to agree with his claimed agenda.
Sam Stone Your argument is far more compelling if you drop the comparison to cars. An SUV and a Compact are two separate cars that are not always driven at the same time as opposed to the seats in an airliner which fly regardless of how they are configured.
Do you have some cites regarding those Airbus configurations? I’d like to see them.
But again you are just looking at it as ‘per passenger’ rather than thinking about all the cargo space that is freed up for shipping parcels for UPS/Fed Ex/DHL/USPS or whomever buys such space. As I understand it the shipping of parcels is a huge portion of the money made on airline flights. If you are correct that 1st class seats can be replaced by almost 2.25 seats per unit, then you are ignoring the fact that this means that there are also 30 or so fewer people checking luggage, thus leaving space open for shipping.
Never got around to seeing the “Inconvenient…” film, and I am not very interested in gossip so I don’t know what Gores private life is like but…
What the hell does it have to do with climate changes? If you can’t accept that humans affect the climate how the hell can you think that mr Gores travel habits influence the validity of what he says. If the most deranged and immoral retard in history were to say that two plus two equals four, it would not be less true because of him saying it.
I’m also interested in knowing if you hold people who you agree with to the same standards. Rush Limbaugh said that drugs were bad, but he did drugs, so drugs are good… right? God said it was wrong to kill people, but he killed a bunch of people, so killing is good… right?
If I were to tell you climate changes aren’t caused by man, but then go and buy low energy lamps, then obviously climate changes would be caused by man!
[ Moderating ]
This has not gotten way off the rails, yet, but several of you need to dial it back a bit. Lobohan, you, in particular, have caught my eye in several posts, although you are not the only one.
Leave the personal comments for the BBQ Pit.
**
[ /Moderating ]**
Only if you can be moral by proxy. You’re arguing that Al Gore’s personal actions are mitigated by his ability to influence others. This is completely outside of the mainstream of moral understanding in our society.
If I reduce my carbon footprint it doesn’t make Al Gore a more moral person than he is. It only makes ME a more moral person. But I am the kind of person that already shut off lights when I wasn’t in the room and turned down plastic bags at the deli whenever I didn’t need them.
You’re still missing the point. The same aircraft is available in multiple configurations. If the demand for first-class declines, then airlines will order more aircraft configured for economy, and fleet fuel economy will increase.
If the demand for SUVs goes down, the auto makers will build fewer of them, and the fleet fuel economy will increase.
You’re looking at it from the standpoint of individual aircraft already flying. But new airplanes are built and delivered all the time, and the current demand for first-class seating determines how they will be configured.
But changing behavior in cars and airplanes is all about future production, not the current fleet. Every SUV that’s currently sitting on car lots will eventually be sold, but that’s not an argument to buy an SUV, because if it takes longer to sell them or they have to be discounted becaue demand has dropped off, eventually the auto makers will make fewer SUVs. Likewise, if airplanes start flying with empty first-class seats, or with seats that had to be discounted heavily or given to economy passengers as promotions, then eventually the carriers will opt for fewer first class seats.
Here’s an image of the seat map for the NWT Airbus A330: Airbus Seat Map. Just looking at it, you can see how incredibly wasteful first class is. You can measure it yourself and figure out how many economy seats would fit in the first-class section.
Here’s a cite for the Boeing 777-300: [Boeing 777-300 Stats](http://zap16.com/civ fact/civ Boeing 777-300.htm).
From the cite:
I’m not sure it works that way. Cargo and passenger freight may be stored differently, or may be limited by other factors. But it is a potential mitigating point.
Of course, that assumes the loss of revenue from first-class (and presumably business-class) seat sales doesn’t cause the airline to fail. There are several no-frills airlines in operation, but they don’t look poised to seize the entire industry to me.
Maybe this question will clear the air a little: how much does the OP, and those who agree with him, think Gore’s actions (assuming their interpretation of such is correct) reflect on Al Gore vs. the very concept of AGW? Give a percentage.
I don’t recall the environmental movement ever worrying about the health of the auto companies as they pushed for more emissions regulation and higher cafe standards. I certainly don’t recall Al Gore making a stand for the profitability of auto companies against CAFE standards.
You seem to be setting up a fasle dilemma: either it reflects on Gore’s actions, it it reflects on the very concept of AGW. Why are those the only two choices? Why can’t it reflect on Gore’s beliefs? Or Gore’s credibility? Or Gore’s motivations? Or upon the motivations of those who espouse the dangers of global warming? Or upon the motivations of those who legislate RT global warming? Or upon the morality of responses to global warming? Or about a million other issues.
Why are we only given te choice between Gore’s actions,and the very concept of AGW? Seems like a classic false dilemma tome, and no more worth addressing than “Do you still beat your wife?”.
Wow, a point that was already explained and not as big as the deniers thought it was 3 years ago.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/cei_exaggerates_by_a_factor_of.php
As another cite I like mentioned:
I think this is ridiculous concern trolling. From a pure economic perspective there isn’t much difference between believing that no one should ride in first class and believing that everyone making anything over $50,000 should have a %100 marginal tax rate because having more leads to using more resources. In case you didn’t notice environmentalists don’t believe that either but that doesn’t stop some people from wondering why they aren’t flaming socialists.
Being a capitalist who believes that something should be available for a price is not incompatible with believing that sometimes we should make sure the actual price includes environmental effects that affect us in common. I wouldn’t be surprised if some environmentalists want to add an environmental surcharge to first class seats.
Instead we have people rending out their hair because someone who holds an opposing view does not take a ridiculous stand that would hurt them in order to be “consistent” with some arbitary definition imposed on them from outside the movement.
The point is that the global warming movement has a problem when its biggest advocates also happen to be some of the worst CO2 emitters among the citizenry.
Or let me ask you - do you think it hurts the religious right when someone like Jim Bakker gets caught having an affair, or a ‘morals crusader’ gets caught doing other men in a public bathroom?
My point is simply that I have to question the motives of someone who demands that everyone else make personal sacrifices while he pollutes as much as ten of the people he wants to cut back. It harms the movement when its spokesmen fly from conference to conference in private jets and have grotesque hand-wringing meetings in the world’s nicest resort areas, where they all stay in gigantic rooms and eat lavish meals and party the night away.
I’ll take Al Gore seriously when he sells his mansion and his Gulfstream, donates the billion he’s made in the carbon racket, and lives in a modest home or apartment like Ed Begley or Ralph Nader do. Just like I expect religious leaders who preach a life of sacrifice and austerity to actually live in austerity themselves. Lots of them do. The televangelists don’t, and that’s one of the biggest reasons I cannot take them seriously.
Or put more simply - if you’re out there advocating that others endure sacrifice, and even that government enforce that sacrifice, then the least I would ask is, “You first.”
That pretty much the least of the problems that the global warming “movement” has. The biggest problem it/we have is that any possible solution to GW means that some people who make a buttload of money right now will have to stop. That can be a very diffcult proposition to sell, especially when those people have a lot of money, and would like to have a lot more.
And these people are very, very civic minded, they contribute money generously to legislators with the correct attitude towards maintaing a healthy climate for business to flourish. And, of course, to political organizations who share their skepticism about government regulation and red tape interfering with the wondrous workings of the free market.
Before long, tourists will take luxury cruise ships over the north pole to Russia and back. Maybe they’ll catch a few bears in the Rockies and paint them white. Hey, gotta have polar bears, take pictures of, right? So what if they can’t swim…
Like I said, it also works with taxes. The same argument when it comes to taxes is “you shouldn’t support raising taxes on other people unless you donate most of your money to the government out of your own free will.” Mandatory governmental regulations can create changes where free will cannot, in the environment as well as social programs.
If you simply enjoy the benefit of flying first class (of course, given the argument that it is worse for the enviroment, which is hardly proven today in a practical sense as other posters have shown,) you may prefer that the government create a program that disincentivises it and uses the proceeds from this to support environmental causes. If you purchase carbon credits for this luxury this can be the equivalent of an involuntary governmental program.
The analogy to religion fails because religious hypocrites fail on moral causes, which are not fungible. While many accuse environmentalism of being a religion, many in the movement are deeply practical and realize that there might be sweet spots where classical economics and environmental economics can together be maximized.
Uh, why can’t all that be part of “reflect on Al Gore”?
It’s arguable that if Al Gore is on a plane, ANY plane, it is filled to capacity.
Of course not - he was ensuring the destruction of American automakers and making China’s economic domination inevitable.
But that’s a side-issue.