Sorry but if you fly 40 times per year then you have no right to be pointing your finger at smokers ! You say that smoking only gratifies those who do it - well the same could be said for private cars - the law does at least offer some protection against second hand smoke but not against your car fumes.
I believe in first of all asking if a journey is necessary at all and then asking which is the least harmfull way of doing it.
Au contraire my friend! It's called an emissions test that stops unduly polluting cars from being used. Add in the ever tightening emissions regulations on new vehicles and the obligatory catalytic converters and you'll find that the protection provided to the public is far greater than that provided against cancer sticks which smokers are allowed to burn in any open public space without any thought or control on the emissions. Anybody trying to justify smoking whilst criticizing vehicles is on a very sticky wicket!!! Flying is a tool used to get from a to b as part of my work as well as the few leisure activities. I minimize my flying for security, cost and efficiency reasons and make full use of modern tools such as video conferencing and telephones to effectively communicate. Every journey I make has a distinct objective in terms of business outcome which has a positive effect on employment and business efficiency so its very easy to justify using the plane as a tool. Add in that the aviation industry has massively increased aircraft fuel efficiency and I have no qualms about flying whereas smoking as I say is a completely foolish and unnecessary luxury that causes significant environmental damage all in the interest of feeding large corporate purses something I thought you'd be against before even going to the exploitation of workers and poor use of land associated with the industry or even further back its roots in slavery.
I'm not justifying smoking in public places (I myself am an ex smoker who still finds it difficult to cope with second hand smoke) however there are some laws to protect non smokers - the same does not exist for non car drivers, or why would it be necessary for some cyclists to wear masks over their nose and mouth while cycling. For a pedestrian your car stinks - particularly if you are going up a hill, although you yourself may not notice it because you are inside.
Efficiency, time management, comfort all have elements to play as well. With three score year and ten to live and get so much done in then the luxury of sitting back in a train sometimes is beyond the time budget!! Efficiency and preparedness to work at the far end of a journey is also a necessary factor to consider along with the reliability of the chosen transport.
My cars don't! You can put your nose close to the ground close to the exhaust and you'll not smell anything, believe me I've done it, a well maintained car is fine. You need to read my post, of course there are laws that protect the population from car emissions, they are the vehicle MOT test which controls the amount of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons emitted, the new vehicle emissions regulations which control the amount of all polutants emitted and compulsory use of catalytic converters which convert harmful emissions to benign. These are laws that are specifically designed to protect the public. The only smoking laws are control of locations not in any way reducing the harmful emissions.... In cities as I say above I believe in mass transit systems, the car is not suited to that environment in the volumes we have. The problem in cities is actually not the car for emissions but more associated with diesel mass transit (buses) have you ever breathed in after a bus passes? Not worth debating for the sake of it, one has to see reason across the spectrum and I see reason in electrifying urban areas with out of town transfer points between private and public mass transit (for now in the future I'd like to see the possibility of private electric transportation pods for in city transport). Your arguments appear to be anti car, anti capitalist anti fossil fuel whatever the case.
This is a very interesting presentation for Ontario which could easily be translated to the UK. Comes with the same conclusion as I have and I think Amber agrees, Nuclear is the way we must go and with small modular units to be pushed forward in the UK its the area to invest in.... http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.ospe.o...DOC_advocacy/2015_Presentation_Elec_Dilem.pdf
If there are so many laws protecting pedestrians from car drivers then why does London still have smog alarms even though it's not a manufacturing city ?
Why the unhealthy disrespect for cars? The regulations speak for themselves. The fact that London and many European cities were designed for pedestrians and horse and cart therefore do not have sufficient street width to flow traffic effectively and have high building densities trapping emissions.
This debate on cars versus smoking is a bit weird isn't it? People smoke because they like it; people drive cars because they like it (or see a need to) and in a free society who is to forbid either? However anything that harms another person (or maybe the environment ) needs to have controls attached. Really the debate is simply are the controls effective and sufficient. Unless you believe in dictating another person's habits.
I think there are many cities which have very high pollution levels which are exacerbated by cars? Athens, Beijing spring to mind immediately I don't see the problem as personal. More efficient energy systems need developing across the board to 1) reduce pollution 2) protect our natural resources Personally I love steam trains......
Oh for a return of the days of standing on a railway bridge to have the steam cloud engulf you..... wonderful times!!! All these cities were designed before cars or certainly not with cars in mind. We need to redesign the transit systems in our cities to facilitate fast A to B, for example in London I always use the tube or walk not because of any environmental consideration but because its the most effective, thats what we need if we want to make the "right" choices for emissions make the selection naturally the best for the function required. Prohibiting is a bad way to effect change....
I live north Leeds.... case in point..... the traffic queues in and out of town at rush hours 7.15 -9.15 3.45 - 6.45 can be an hour regularly for about 5 miles... sometimes 90 minutes. Govts turned down investment schemes for trams... and now trolley buses..... crazy really. I have often walked home and beat the cars and buses.
It seems to be generally agreed that the effect that mankind is having on the planet is negative - I include all the issues that have been raised here - global warming, car pollution, smoking pollution, many other forms of pollution, poor farming habits and on and on. The important question to me is what should we do about it. I will start out with 4 options - I am sure there are many more. 1 Nothing. The Earth will take care of itself. It has for over 4 billion years and a little flea like us is irrelevant to it. Tornadoes, rising, falling sea levels, heating, cooling, volcanoes, population explosions or extinctions are part of the natural history of the Earth and it is arrogant of us as a species to consider ourselves important. If 65 million years ago 90 odd % of life was wiped out but here we are now as we are then let's trust the Earth to look after itself. A species dies out - so another takes its place. Who cares about pandas anyway? Don't like this option? - then it is probable that it is not the Earth we are worried about but mankind. Our children and our children's children. 2 Crash and burn our current civilisation - and make sure you denigrate the term civilisation itself. We are greedy and uncaring because we like modern comforts so we should all wear hair shirts and go back to living as our forefathers did before the Industrial Revolution. 3 Make plans to decimate the human population. A total ban on any couple having more than one child. In three generations the child-bearing population base would be one eighth (although it would take longer than this for total population to reduce to that figure). Thereafter you could revert to 2 children per family for a long term stable population. 4 Go eco-light. Look for the areas where we do most harm and try to ameliorate them. Stop making gas guzzler cars, promote better public transport, encourage alternative ways of communicating and working which do not involve travel, use taxes and subsidies to encourage environmentally positive and discourage environmentally negative activities. Protect species in danger and work to reduce pollution levels worldwide. Do all this within the constarints of a modern industrial society and without forcing people to give up things they enjoy and without destroying modern corporations - rather by regulating them.
A politician had the idea that if housing estates were built without any parking spaces then the people living there would be forced to use public transport. Planning permission was granted and 700 houses were built. People started to move in bringing their cars with them which they parked on the streets. The bus companies didn't provide a service because there were not enough people who needed it. The emergency services couldn't get down the roads because of all the parked cars. It turned out to be an all round disaster with the few unable to get to town because they didn't have a car isolated and trying to move, but found that no one was happy with the arrangement so the value of the property had dropped. Build more cycle tracks was suggested, but it was found that some of those without transport were too elderly to use them. This did happen. John Prescott was the politician and the housing estate was on the edge of Northampton.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb Some good clear inforgraphics here on the BBC website... worth a read.... Basically it is all very honourable of us as individuals to do our bit. But aberdeens love of cars or colognes of bikes unlikely to make much of a dent. Greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide Scientists believe that gases released from industry and agriculture (known as emissions) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect, the way the Earth's atmosphere traps some of the energy from the Sun. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming. Carbon-absorbing forests are also being cut down. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years and reached a record high in May this year World’s top ten greenhouse gas emitters The top 10 greenhouse gas emitters make up over 70% of total emissions CHINA 24% USA 12% EU 9% INDIA 6% BRAZIL 6% RUSSIA 5% JAPAN 3% CANADA 2% DR CONGO 1.5% INDONESIA 1.5% Source: Carbon Brief, figures are for 2012 I favour Leo's 4 Go eco-light option. It needs to be tackled globally at a macro level Of course USA and China need to play ball..... otherwise we are building up problems for our children.....
