Air New Zealand Is First Major Airline To Scrap 2030 Emissions Target (theguardian.com) 87
Air New Zealand has become the first major airline to drop its 2030 goal to cut carbon emissions. From a report: The company has blamed difficulties in procuring new planes and sustainable jet fuel. The airline's CEO, Greg Foran said: "In recent months, and more so in the last few weeks, it has also become apparent that potential delays to our fleet renewal plan pose an additional risk to the target's achievability. It is possible the airline may need to retain its existing fleet for longer than planned due to global manufacturing and supply chain issues that could potentially slow the introduction of newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft into the fleet." The industry as a whole has a goal to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. But in 2022, Air New Zealand set itself the target of cutting its emissions by almost 29% by 2030.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is going thought this with EVs and a domestic auto company now owned by the french, putting the US assets on the market for a quick sale. Where
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, fossil fuels are a $500 Billion Dollar a year industry. And that's just in the U.S. The fossil fuel companies are not going to just suddenly give up and go out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Save the planet! (Score:4, Informative)
It is impossible to make a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions without completely destroying your economy. I wish it was possible, but it isn't.
This is an odd claim to make given that many countries have already reduced their CO2 output. For example, the UK has had CO2 go down over the last decade even with offshoring taken into account. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/measuringukgreenhousegasemissions#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20total%20UK%20territorial,a%2052%25%20reduction%20since%201990. [ons.gov.uk]. More generally, CO2 growth/decline and economic growth are now decoupled https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/absolute-decoupling-of-economic-growth-and-emissions-in-32-countries [thebreakthrough.org]. Certain industries, such as airlines, are particularly difficult to deal with. But it is a mistake to think that therefore meaningful CO2 reduction cannot be done.
Re: (Score:1)
Waging no war and taking care of the environment should be no-brainers for anyone. But as for the hope that the selection of president would have an impact on these is suspect, to say the least. The US has been in constant war since 2001, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden - waging war is as bipartisan as apple pie. Since 1945, only Carter, Ford and Trump did not start a new war, and this is no attempt at my part to show the Orange Guy in any good light, he prosecuted the wars he inherited like the good boy he was.
Re:Save the (Score:1)
Did I miss the US being at war with somebody during Bidens term? I usually notice it in the news when US forces are deployed. There a declaration and all.
Or is it just Putin and Hamas/Israel that are at war, which Biden didnt start?
Re: Save the (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be surprised. Putlerbots love claiming that the USA started the war in Ukraine. As absurd this claim is, there are many not that bright people that believe it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
These things are not supporting allies, they're called proxy wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Yemen btw was started by Obama to secure the port of Aden as an alternative for Gulf oil, should the timeline advance to a war with Iran. Too bad the Saudis suck at anything real-world related, like war-making, so the Houthis are still there to be the only ppl to do something about the Gazan genocide.
Re: Save the (Score:4, Informative)
These things are not supporting allies, they're called proxy wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... [wikipedia.org]
Who is the non-state actor in the Ukraine - Russia conflict? Did you read your own link?
Yemen btw was started by Obama to secure the port of Aden as an alternative for Gulf oil
America has not needed Gulf oil for quite some time. It's handy to keep global prices down, but that is all. And Yemen has been at war since long before Obama.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/b... [wilsoncenter.org]
Re: (Score:1)
You read the Wikipedia article, now go and read more. Korean War, Vietnam War, proxy wars with actual countries as proxies. The same for the war in Yemen, with Saudi Arabia acting as the proxy for US, and yes, Ukraine war, with Ukraine acting as the proxy. David Ignatius on the Washington Post a year ago:
Meanwhile, for the United States and its NATO allies, these 18 months of war have been a strategic windfall, at relatively low cost (other than for the Ukrainians). https://archive.is/bnBPy [archive.is]
Cue in the countless talking heads going on and on about the wonderful foreign policy outcomes and genius investment into the US economy, always making an effort not to kill the mood with the hundreds of th
Re: Save the (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile, for the United States and its NATO allies, these 18 months of war have been a strategic windfall, at relatively low cost (other than for the Ukrainians)
The Ukrainians would still rather fight than concede to Russia and they are begging for our weapons, We are not forcing them to fight, they can indeed quit anytime. If helping them kills more Russian soldiers and blows up Russian materiel, it's still all good.
Iran has little redeeming value to the world either (to be fair neither does Saudi Arabia), so I can't really say I care what happens to them either.
Re: (Score:2)
If Russia has no value at all, would you sign this petition to gas every single one of them?
Whether the Ukrainians would still rather fight is up for debate at this point. Voicing opinion against the war in Ukraine lands you in jail, so it's not easy to measure public opinion; many a fighting age men have fled the country, and videos of recuiters kidnapping people on the streets to send them on the front, or of the recruiters getting beaten by the people to avoid that fate are plenty. My own brother, who wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Save the (Score:4, Insightful)
If Russia has no value at all, would you sign this petition to gas every single one of them?
Of course not. I feel bad for the typical Russian unable to flee, and without a free press to even know what is happening. I even feel bad for the conscripts, but we still have to kill them all. I feel bad for people living in dictatorships everywhere. Except for the ones who are actual instruments of the state. You could gas those, that is fine.
Whether the Ukrainians would still rather fight is up for debate at this point. Voicing opinion against the war in Ukraine lands you in jail, so it's not easy to measure public opinion; many a fighting age men have fled the country, and videos of recuiters kidnapping people on the streets to send them on the front, or of the recruiters getting beaten by the people to avoid that fate are plenty. My own brother, who was visiting Ukraine in the spring in solidarity and curiousity was nabbed up to be sent to the front, and had great difficulty to prove that he, in fact, was not Ukrainian. In any case, I do not even try to figure this one out, there is no visibility into the actual situation on the ground, as is usual with most matters of war.
I live in Canada. we have the second largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world (after only Russia). My province has a particularly large population of Ukrainian descent, and I have close friends with family still there. I'm pretty comfortable saying they would rather still fight than be Russian. I like living in a free country myself and would gladly rather fight than be Russian. I would absolutely learn to build IEDs if anyone ever invades my homeland.
Any officer worth their salt will tell you, war is a competition of logistics. Who puts more materiel, supplies and men on the front wins, barring total incompetence, or mismatch in technology level.
That did not work in Afghanistan. Or Iraq, or Vietnam. Taking territory is relatively easier than permanently occupying a hostile population. As I said before, Ukraine is going to make Russian time in Afghanistan seem quaint. That is all but guaranteed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, what are you smoking? There is only one russia and you cannot gas a country. It is physically impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No I don't confuse it. What you talk about is why I say that the mechanisms of our non-free press are different from the mechanisms of Russian non-free press.
In the West the press if free to publish whatever it wants, it's just that it chooses not to do so, lest it lose its access to the government and ad revenue. This is why we have all the bull going on that I wrote about; this is why social media buried top level corruption stories like Hillary's emails, or Hunter Biden's laptop, this is why the media hi
Re: (Score:2)
No I don't confuse it.
and follow up with this:
free to publish whatever it wants, it's just that it chooses not to do so, lest it lose its access to the government and ad revenue.
You're actually repeating my point. Which is, the press is free to write whatever they want about whatever they want, there are no repercussions such as getting incarcerated, hurt or killed, or having that happen to your loved ones. Your confusion is in that you think a free press should be free to do th
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like we have free press either. The particular mechanisms of our particular non-freedom are different than what the Russians have, but the end result is still the same.
I can freely read both sides of an issue and decide for myself which is bullshit or not. Russia only gets bullshit, no choice. For some people that may be the same thing, but certainly not everyone. You seem to have done so. I think you are a bit deep into the conspiracy theories but at least it is by choice and not what you were fed.
As to the diaspora rather fighting, the thing is, the farther you are from the fight, the easier it is for you to support it and think of yourself as a hero.
Did I mention they have family still in Ukraine? Including people in the fight.
Statistically, so will you and me. This is why armies are made up of young people - they have nothing to lose but their lives, and these they have not learned to appreciate much yet.
On the contrary, I'm old. I've already had a good life and have less to lose. Now I'm not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we have different definitions of a free press. Somewhat in the lines of positive vs. negative freedom, but no quite.
I argue that something called "free press" is not just "free" + "press" - a notion is more than the sum of the parts, that's why it's a notion and not just words put together. Like a pineapple is more than pine + apple. If we get stuck on the separate words we are led astray.
A free press is something that fulfills the purpose of a free press, that is, to be the guard dog of the society
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine isn't an American ally. In fact part of the argument is over whether it will become one by joining NATO.
You think only NATO members are US allies? Guess that leaves out Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Its quite clear they intend to prevent Ukraine from becoming a permanent base for a hostile military presence.
Finland say hi. Also, if Russia ever did manage to take Ukraine, they will have even more NATO right next door. Very smart your boss LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me start out with what I think is an important disclaimer. I set here out to analyze what Russia is doing in Ukraine. There is no value judgements in my analysis, just cold facts, the ignoring of which has brought us the clusterfuck that is Ukraine right now. I come from East Europe, from a country that has suffered under Russia for centuries. I harbor no friendly feelings, nor illusions towards them. So it pains me doubly to draw the value judgement that I do from the analysis, and that is that the US
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear weapons, particularly tactical ones, make the whole idea of buffer zones moot in the modern age. This is no
Re: (Score:2)
Which influence one would take is, first, the question of to which gang you offer your ass in prison for protection, and before I find myself in such a situation, I will not be making a choice.
But which influence a country would prefer is also a question of location and history. South America usually welcomes Russia and China, because they have been subject to the Monroe doctrine US influence for too long. India welcomes Russia to fend of China and US. Africa welcomes Russia and China to lighten their load
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah. The nukes of Ukraine. Everything promised to them was signed by not only Russia, but also UK and USA. UK was still worth something back then, but still obviously not punching the same weight as the other two, so could be considered as a poors man neutral arbitrer at best. And while the idea that if one of the big ones would invade, the other one would help out, sounds good on paper, I can not fault anyone but the Ukrainians themselves for not looking up what happens if the US and Russia end up figh
Re: (Score:2)
Everything promised to them was signed by not only Russia, but also UK and USA.
Yes, we even encouraged them to give up their nukes. And it was a dumb idea and what happened is indeed partly our fault from that perspective. So the ethical response is now we owe them to at least help correct that mistake as best as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ukrainians definitely would not think so.
Re: (Score:2)
So far, every country that gave up nukes or their nuke program got destroyed.
False [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Ukraine isn't an American ally. In fact part of the argument is over whether it will become one by joining NATO.
Would you be surprised to know:
A. Japan is an American ally
B. Japan is not a NATO member
Now replace Japan with other large countries that we have strategic alliances with, such as South Korea, Australia, Israel...
Re: (Score:2)
If the US were waging war in Ukraine, I would expect them to be spending a lot more money on it. Consider that the actual annual expenditure on weapons/etc. for Ukraine is only 1/6th of what the US spent per year for all the years of the Iraq war and that war was not even remotely as hot as the war in Ukraine. That's not even considering the fact that a large amount of the money being spent on Ukraine is fictional. As in, they take stockpiled US weapons that were technically, until that point, just a liabil
Re: (Score:2)
The US is waging a war all right, it's just that they are doing a crap job about it. They don't have the industrial capacity to supply enough material. And they are not building any new factories either, because in DC, foreign lives don't cost jack. But the war aid that goes straight to government cronies, that's the bee's knees all right.
As to the US guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity in exchange for giving up the nukes, let's hear it from Kissinger: 'It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, b
Re: Save the (Score:4, Informative)
Your own link is pretty clear that, for a proxy war, the proxy has to be acting on behalf of a third party. I think it's pretty clear that Ukraine is acting on its own behalf. Having support from Allies does not make it a proxy war. Now, there seem to be plenty of people in the US government and media and public who are confused and think that this is a proxy war and that Ukraine is somehow under US command. Which leads to all kinds of nonsense statements about how Biden needs to end the war or do this or do that, when those decisions are actually the decisions of a different sovereign nation.
As for industrial capacity to supply enough material, the US clearly has everything they would need to crush Russia in Ukraine. Consider, once again, the Iraq war. That went on for about 8 years, but the US crushed the Iraqi army in the first month. If the US threw the kind of budget and resources at the war in Ukraine that it did in that war, Russia would have been purged from all of Ukraine in a month or two as well. Unlike Iraq, there would have been no need for a long occupation after.
As to the US guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity in exchange for giving up the nukes, let's hear it from Kissinger: 'It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.'
A significant aspect to the security guarantees is that, currently, there seem to be a lot of people pushing for Ukraine to cede the territories that Russia has occupied. What is proposed that they get in return? Security guarantees. Now, Ukraine needs to be really diplomatic right now but, if I were Zelensky, I would make some very sarcastic public comments along the lines of "Oh, like the security guarantees we already have? Really useful!"
Re: (Score:2)
My link was for an introduction to the concept, and as I mentioned in another post, check out e.g. Korea and Vietnam as proxy wars that had actual countries as proxies. Now the exact amount of control the US excercises over Ukraine is not important, because if the US threw in the towel, the war would be over instantly. Europe is in it against it's own interests only because of US pressure, and everyone else has only paid lip service to begin with.
The US crushed the Iraqi army in a month not because the US w
Re: (Score:2)
My link was for an introduction to the concept, and as I mentioned in another post, check out e.g. Korea and Vietnam as proxy wars that had actual countries as proxies. Now the exact amount of control the US excercises over Ukraine is not important, because if the US threw in the towel, the war would be over instantly. Europe is in it against it's own interests only because of US pressure, and everyone else has only paid lip service to begin with.
Well, your link does not seem to agree with your own personal definition. It seems like it takes more than just providing material support for a war to be a proxy war.
The US crushed the Iraqi army in a month not because the US was an military-industrial powerhouse, but because the Iraqi army was a paper army. And then they got stuck for years, because they had ran out of town everyone who had any idea how to run the country, and because nobody had any idea what the plan was.
The US used a wave of 270 Apache helicopters, 1900 Abrams tanks along with similar numbers of Bradleys and about a 1000 jets of various kinds in Iraq. Ukraine has received about 20 mi-8 helicopters (notably not gunships), 31 Abrams tanks and around 200 Bradleys. They also have not been given any US jets yet. If you look at how well Ukraine has
Re: (Score:2)
Like I already said, if the concept of a proxy war causes difficulties to you, I encourage you to read more about the topic.
Now for your arguments about the progress of the war. It's a list of could have, should have, would have things on the part of the West, failures on every step, yet we are supposed to draw the conclusion that somehow these failures will add up to a victory? Quite the hard sell, it is. Let's go over one by one:
For the army numbers, take a look here https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] . Uk
Re: (Score:2)
Like I already said, if the concept of a proxy war causes difficulties to you, I encourage you to read more about the topic.
It causes me no difficulty, but you and I clearly have different opinions on exactly what the line is between a proxy war and simply assisting an ally. For example, in your opinion, was the US War of Independence a proxy war between France and England?
For the army numbers, take a look here https://www.statista.com/stati [statista.com]... [statista.com] . Ukraine still has more tanks than US used in Iraq, yet they are falling short in results. Even if the US provided the total army they used in Iraq to Ukraine, Russia would still lead in numbers. But they haven't provided almost anything, compared to what Russia has, and whatever the answer the question 'why?' is, this is a failure.
The number of tanks is not really as relevant as the quality. Most of Ukraine's tanks are still crappy old Soviet ones. They have relatively small numbers of Leopard's, Challengers, and Abrams. Also, the versions they have of those more modern tanks are typica
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you did miss it. No, you don't usually notice it in the news, it's not usually in the news. The US has military presence in most of the countries in the world, e.g. as of 2022 in 178 countries https://globalaffairs.org/blue... [globalaffairs.org], and they don't really bother to tell anyone about most any of that, nor about most any of what they are doing or how many places are hot at any given point of time.
Or are you looking for an official declaration of war as the sole defining feature of a war? In that case you will a
Question of Priorities (Score:4, Informative)
Waging no war and taking care of the environment should be no-brainers for anyone.
Well they are "no-brainers" in that everyone wants both but, to actually achieve both you have to give up things. In the case of war we could stop supporting Ukraine but the cost of that is that Russia takes it over and then starts to look for its next conquest. So, ultimately, unless you are willing to learn Russian and do whatever Putin says the cost is supporting a war to stop Putin and may be even help Russia.
There is the same issue with the environment. There are lots of rich people happy to buy high-end Tesla's because all they have to give up is $100k and they have lots more in their bank account. However, to most of us even a cheap EV would mean giving up something very significant, like activities for their kids or holidays - or if you are in the US important medical treatment. It's not that people don't care about the environment it is that they care about their families and lives more and are not willing to sacrifice those for the environment.
That's why we need better, and hence cheaper, technology and a slow but steady approach to help the environment. Excepf for a few nutjobs everyone accepts that climate change is a serious issue but neither is it the existential crisis nutjobs on the other end of the spectrum are claiming. We should be trying to figure out the solution that minimizes human suffering: too slow and we get major societal disruption as agriculture and cities have to relocate; too fast and we risk major economic damage and political unrest leading to a backlash that also puts us into the "too slow" lane. Given that those on both the right and the left seem roughly equally unhappy - for very different reasons - about our progress on climate change so far I'd guess we seem to be getting it about right.
Being a warmongering tape-recording is easy. (Score:2)
Being anti-war consistently takes political courage and enough savvy to deb
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing th
Re: (Score:2)
How about we ditch Biden
Alright guys, who's gonna tell him...
We all just need to pay more. To them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every solution to the environment requires I pay more tax. To the elite. And pay more for products and pay more for food. To them. I must not eat meat because cows fart. I must not fart myself because that bothers the elite, a lot, and makes everything so hot. And smells bad.
I am an environmentalist so I am all for it. I am happy to work harder for the elite and give everything I have to the elite and go deeply into debt to the elite and die leaving any meager thing I might have left, when I die, to them. To save the planet.
Good thing there are ZERO solutions to the environment that are beneficial to me, only to them. Our elite are ordained by God to rule over us from the skies in their jets, from the seas on their yachts.
I am all for it, because I don't want to be thought of as a bad person. If I don't give everything I have to the elites to save the planet I am a bad person.
Hey Slashdot censors, just ban me already you fucking shits!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's great being able to externalise your costs and then blame them on some faceless boogeyman when you get caught out.
Yeah you should be paying for the damage your activities cause. That's the reality of it. Unfortunately we've set the wrong expectations in the race to the bottom at the expense of literally everything else. Quality? Don't need it. Environment? What's it ever done for you!. Slavery? It's okay, they are Asians, we wouldn't do it to westerners, just as long as you get your product for cheap c
"You pay more" to elites. Yes. Always-Always. (Score:2)
Until then us normal folks will wait for technical solutions that are better than what they replace (and there already are quite a f
Re:We all just need to pay more. To them. (Score:4, Interesting)
There are loads of solutions that are beneficial to you. Financially beneficial, not just for your health and property.
You used to have to pay big oil to fuel your car. Now you can make your own energy at home and charge your EV up with it.
The best you used to be able to do was to buy some shares in a fossil fuel energy company. Now you can buy a share of a solar or wind far, and get a much better return.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Slashdot censors, just ban me already you fucking shits!
Paranoid much?
Every solution to the environment requires I pay more tax.
That is because your money is wanted. It has nothing to do with actually solving anything. If they wanted to solve issues, they would work on transportation and power generation, but no, all of that MUST use fossil fuels. Wind and solar is being rolled out, so, hurray I guess...
Re: (Score:2)
Every solution to the environment requires I pay more tax.
It might surprise you to learn that building new shit costs money.
Someone at IPCC should hit the Easy button (Score:2)
What does it even mean for a business whose only product is the burning of fossil fuel to overcome inertia and move mass from A to B, to have made a claim they were going to be "net zero"? If a transportation company whose entire existence is burning fossil, has come up with a way to scrub/sequester the exact same amount of AGW chemicals back out of the atmosphere, then it must be a very very easy problem to solve. So let's all just deploy it. Mission accomplished.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Someone at IPCC should hit the Easy button (Score:4, Insightful)
It IS easy, but it's significantly more expensive. You can make synthetic fuel from air, water, and 'green' electricity. It just costs more.
Of course, it's also a bad idea environmentally because the power you used to create your synthetic fuel could have gone elsewhere to stop someone else from burning hydrocarbons in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
You can make synthetic fuel from air, water, and 'green' electricity. It just costs more.
It's also the only way my gas powered car, and those long range jetliners, have any possibility of ever being green. Or you can let the perfect be the enemy of the good, that's OK too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for it, but it only makes sense once we have an excess of green power to make the synthetic fuel. Before that it is economically nonviable and ecologically damaging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>We should not use green power to displace hydrocarbons because that green power could otherwise be used to displace hydrocarbons?
Yes.
Every time you move energy, there are inefficiencies. The universe won't let you create or destroy, but you don't get the same thing at the end of a process that you had at the start. Some of it gets lost in other forms.
So if you burn gas, let's say you get 100% of the energy out of it (you don't, but we're just going with it for the sake of ease of explanation). Now i
Re: (Score:2)
instead of using electricity in that device, you use the power to make gas for it.
The only way my car can use electricity instead is via efuels. No matter how often I plug it in it is just never going to fill the tank. This true for all the existing ICE vehicles in the world, and millions more continuing to be sold today and for years to come. And no people will not be converting existing ICE to BEVs more than a small token number.
You basically ignored the second part of my comment. If you build a plant dedicated to efuels with its own green power (as Porsche has done with their d
Re: (Score:2)
"Build a plant dedicated to e-fuels" is the same as "don't build a plant putting electricity into the grid".
There is conflict, energy is fungible.
Re: (Score:2)
"Build a plant dedicated to e-fuels" is the same as "don't build a plant putting electricity into the grid".
No, it is not. I can just buy gas instead of spending more for efuels so they can build a plant to make them. If we just buy gas instead, no plant gets built, and hey that looks like exactly what I and millions of others are indeed going to do for many years to come. The grid does not notice either way, my entirely discretionary spending was never going there in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just so dedicated to your point you can't understand why it's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your entire argument is centered on the idea that you will never replace your gasoline-powered car.
Yes.
Or that you will stubbornly replace it with another gasoline-powered car when it's time to replace it
Yes.
Why would you choose to be stubbornly inefficient and wasteful when you're going to have to replace that durable good?
Because I'm an enthusiast. I like shifting gears and the (not fake) sound of a highly tuned engine. There are some very fast EVs to be sure, but outside of exotics most of them are completely soulless. Numbers are not everything.
EVs are already as good or better than most other cars you can buy for the majority of use cases
Absolutely. For most people for whom a car is just another appliance and provided you can charge at home they are great. Have at it. There will still always be an not insignificant number of people for whom an EV is unlikely to ever fit their use case.
If your current car has 10 years of life left on it, then why are you worried about solutions for it that take longer than 10 years to develop, scale, and deploy when you will have the chance to replace the car and moot the entire question by getting an EV?
If my government
mice (Score:2)
Apparently, there were not enough mice in NZ available to run on the treadmills that would power the airplanes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't power the dirty aircraft. Switch to something cleaner, like the Airlander 10 [hybridairvehicles.com]. Not fully electric yet, but still a lot cleaner than jet aircraft.
You need 75% less mice for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't power the dirty aircraft. Switch to something cleaner, like the Airlander 10 [hybridairvehicles.com]. Not fully electric yet, but still a lot cleaner than jet aircraft.
You need 75% less mice for that.
It only does 130 km/h. Marginally faster than driving (over land), but that is almost 2 days New York to London. You could give people staterooms like on a cruise ship I suppose, but that would limit the passenger count a lot.
easy (Score:2)
cut the number of flights over air in NZ, raise ticket price for available seats.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been doing that since Covid.
Currently flights are lower frequency but higher cost to anywhere within NZ or internationally from NZ than they were before Covid. My flight back to the UK next week currently costs me around 60% more than it did before Covid and with fewer flights happening.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe 60% is not enough?
But not the last (Score:2)
Face it, they are all liars and "pledges" and the like are entirely worthless.
Ban private jetsl (Score:2)
Obligatory Quote (Score:2)
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself because it wasn’t cost-effective.”
Kurt Vonnegut
Except that those left afterwards won't care about history that much, only survival.
In Other News (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The technology is there, they just don't want to pay for it. They blame supply issues, what they are really saying is that the cost is too high.
The pandemic screwed things up for airlines. Not just the shutdown of their businesses for months, but the used aircraft market got flooded too. Airlines like this one would normally replace their fleets and sell the old aircraft on.
Russia screwed things up by invading Ukraine too. Russia used to be a major customer for used aircraft.