Normal Contrails: Some Sanity

[foot_soldier]

Noting and standing up to repeated, deliberate misrepresentation by Jay Reynolds is not the same as "engaging Jay Reynolds in discussion."

You are a freak, Wayne, if you do not see the difference.

I am truly surprised by your continuing lack of insight here.

[foot_soldier]

August 3, 2007
Flying Friendly: Aviation's Environmental Challenge
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070803_environmentally_friendlier2.html

Commercial aviation could be heading for an image problem.

The growing demand for air travel will require so many additional flights that, despite huge improvements in the fuel-efficiency of airliner engines, aircraft and flight routings, aviation could account for a significantly higher percentage of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2050 than it does now.

Last year's Aviation & Environment Summit (A&ES) in Geneva found that aviation accounted for 2 percent of worldwide fossil-fuel CO2 emissions in 2005. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast in 1999 that aviation's global CO2 impact would rise to 3 percent by 2050.

"It's ... fairly inconceivable that we can cap emissions at where they are at the moment," said Peter Morrell, an economist at Cranfield University's Department of Air Transport, in England. "The industry is expected to grow faster than any technology that can reduce emissions."

Yet in the last 30 years airliner manufacturers and airlines have made enormous progress in becoming more environmentally friendly. They continue to do so.

For instance, Lufthansa has reduced the amount of fuel its aircraft burn -- and the amount of CO2 they emit -- by 70 percent per passenger since the 1970s. In the same period, airliner noise levels have fallen by 75 percent. Levels of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from aircraft engines have fallen 50 percent in the last 15 years.

But the aviation industry considers this just a start. The Advisory Council for Aerospace Research in Europe expects airliners in Europe to emit 50 percent less CO2, 80 percent less NOx and 50 percent less noise by 2020 than they did in 2000. NASA has set similar targets for flights in the United States.

An additional problem

However, the burgeoning growth of air travel isn't aviation's only environmental problem. Commercial aircraft fly in the upper atmosphere, and the water-vapor contrails their engines produce may create climate change at a rate disproportionate to aviation's overall greenhouse-gas contribution.

"The effective and overall impact of aviation on climate change is greater than" the 1.6 percent contribution the industry made in 2005 to global greenhouse gas, the Society of British Aerospace Companies' Stern Report noted last October.

This phenomenon is called "radiative forcing," said Morrell. Studies in the United States suggest that contrails can create 30 percent cirrus-cloud cover on days that are otherwise cloudless.

Without a major change in aviation operations, radiative forcing could make "aviation emissions account for ... 5 percent of the total warming effect (of all global CO2 emissions) in 2050," warned the Stern Report. By then, aviation will produce three times the level of CO2 emissions it does now.

The European Union "has grasped the nettle" by including commercial aviation in a major CO2 emissions-trading scheme, said Morrell. The European Commission, the EU's policy-making body, plans to cap CO2 emissions for all flights within the EU by 2011.

If an airline can't operate within its cap, it will have to buy rights to the excess CO2 it creates. "A critical issue," however, is the extent to which the EC can impose on EU nations and other countries its will to make aviation environmentally friendly, said Morrell.

The A&ES reported that 80 percent of aviation's greenhouse gas emissions come from passenger flights of more than 900 miles, "for which there is no practical alternative." So the EC decided that all flights to and from EU nations should be CO2-capped by 2012.

"There was a furious reaction from the U.S.," said Morrell. The U.N. civil aviation governing body, ICAO, forbids carbon-pricing programs.

The U.S. might get its way. The EU nations' transport ministers won't complete their study of the aviation CO2-cap proposal until the end of this year. "It's by no means a fait accompli -- it's more likely that it's going to be diluted," said Morrell.

Misleading fuel taxes

Britain and the Netherlands have started imposing fuel taxes. But both countries are adding these revenues to their general treasuries and there is no evidence they are using the new levies to promote environmental responsibility.

Separately, some airlines are offering voluntary carbon-offsetting plans. These plans ask customers booking flights on the Web to click on special links that result in the customers making donations to environmental programs. Canada's WestJet has done this.

The A&ES concluded that, to become truly environmentally responsible, the aviation industry will need to make progress on a variety of regulatory, technological and operational fronts.

Operational and technological possibilities

Today in Europe, for instance, there are 22 separate air traffic management authorities. Creation of a unified system would simplify air routes and operating procedures, reducing European airlines' CO2 emissions by as much as 12 percent, said Lufthansa. The FAA's Next-Generation air traffic system should create similar savings.

Fuel cells could start replacing airliners' auxiliary power units -- small jet engines -- soon. More efficient jet engines are being developed and new ducted-fan or unducted-fan designs, 15 to 20 percent more efficient than today's engines, could enter service by 2020.

Airliner manufacturers are using advanced materials to make aircraft lighter and are experimenting with new, aerodynamically efficient body shapes. Aviation companies are exploring alternative jet fuel sources such as biomass waste and liquid natural gas.

The International Air Transport Association's goal is to make aviation "a green industry producing zero emissions" by 2050. By then, concluded the A&ES, hydrogen could be a viable, clean fuel source for aircraft.
.

[foot_soldier]

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/070803_contrailclouds_02.jpg

The water-vapor contrails made by jet engines disperse in the upper atmosphere and can form substantial cirrus-cloud cover, as can be seen in this photograph showing contrails over southern Manhattan and the New Jersey shoreline. The contribution that upper-atmosphere water-vapor and CO2 emissions from aircraft engines make to global warming is not yet well understood but scientists believe it is much more significant than the contribution from equal amounts of emissions at or near the ground. The phenomenon is known as "radiative forcing." Credit: Christian Kjelgaard
.

[halva]

Noting and standing up to repeated, deliberate misrepresentation by Jay Reynolds is not the same as "engaging Jay Reynolds in discussion."

You are a freak, Wayne, if you do not see the difference.

I am truly surprised by your continuing lack of insight here.

The policy I have been arguing for for quite a while now is that discussion should be conducted between those wishing to draw attention to the "chemtrails" phenomenon and those wishing to draw attention to the "anthropogenic global warming" phenomenon. Anthropogenic climate change contrarians are to be sidelined, ignored, excluded. Those who do not recognize the existence of a phenomenon have no claim to participation in discussions as to how the phenomenon is (or is not) to be dealt with.

If you wish to continue talking about aircraft emissions or other related matters at the Greek-European Language Forum (formerly Ama Lahi) where you are already enrolled and where I can presumably exclude disruptive input, that would be acceptable, and possibly welcome.

If you continue to ignore what I say to you here while paying attention to, and interacting with, the Reynolds twins and other people who are hostile towards you and express that hostility in an often barbarous manner, I will continue to perceive you as part of the problem here, and behave towards you accordingly, thus asserting my rights to freedom of speech.

[jayreynolds]

Noting and standing up to repeated, deliberate misrepresentation by Jay Reynolds is not the same as "engaging Jay Reynolds in discussion."

You are a freak, Wayne, if you do not see the difference.

I am truly surprised by your continuing lack of insight here.

Yes, we both agree that Wayne is a chemmie "FREAK", footsoldier, yet time and time again my predictions have come true about you. Indeed, no misrepresentation has taken place, as your current focus on squelching aviation was predicted by me long ago, as was your eventual resignation from the ranks of "chemtrails are real" hoaxing has now given way to a thorough recognition that what people see are merely persistent contrails from ordinary commercial aviation.

Though I do not claim to be an "Oracle", indeed yet another example of my personal predictions has also been confirmed. You have previously stated that your personal "focus" on atmospheric matters is the annual perturbation of ozone levels in the antarctic.

Interesting that your somewhat selective utterances haven't brought forth the recent news that the purported "Ozone Hole" over the southern polar area was found to be 30% lower this year.

I find it fascinationg how your "research" hasn't mentioned this fact, which, given your alleged "focus", should have been warmly received.

Perhaps good news travels slow while rumor flies, eh?

--------------------------------------------------
http://www.theozonehole.com/2007hole.htm
"The ozone hole over Antarctica has shrunk 30 percent as compared to last year's record size. "
----------------------------------------------------------
As far as my personal prediction goes, nearly ten years ago, I noted in "Veritas" that measurements in the Arctic showed:
It appears that natural sources of bromine within the Arctic and Antarctic may indeed be the source of the widely held belief in the "ozone hole" hypothesis.
http://www.junkscience.com/news2/ozhole.html

My prediction has just been confirmed by the British Antarctic Survey, which found:
British scientists have found naturally occurring chemicals in the Antarctic atmosphere deplete most of that atmosphere's ozone from August through May."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070726-17335200-bc-britain-antarcticair.xml
and
"Antarctic ozone depleted naturally, researchers say-
The springtime peak of iodine oxide 20 parts per trillion] is the highest concentration recorded anywhere in the atmosphere," said an abstract of their study, published in the journal Science on Thursday."
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/07/26/ozone-antarctic.html

So, my predictions of ten years ago have been confirmed.

I further predict that eventually even 'Footsoldier' will have a Crisis of Conscience and disavow all her previously held beliefs as Science continues to debunk them so efficiently.

[jayreynolds]

If you continue to ignore what I say to you here while paying attention to, and interacting with, the Reynolds twins and other people who are hostile towards you and express that hostility in an often barbarous manner, I will continue to perceive you as part of the problem here, and behave towards you accordingly, thus asserting my rights to freedom of speech.

Wayne, look yourself in the mirror and repeat to the gander what you wrote above to the goose!

For you to now claim "rights to freedom of speech" is so oxymoronic it is laughable.

Few people can claim to have lobbied harder than you to restrict the rights of others, which you now so hypocritically wish to personally assert.

What blind hypocrisy.

[halva]

Footsoldier, you, not Reynolds, will be the target of my attacks if you respond.

By "attacks" I mean of course aggressive verbal engagement unconnected with any extra-forum considerations of personal identity. What I am doing is drawing your attention to the kind of postings that will inevitably come as an expression of my viewpoint if you persist in re-entering the discussion which Jay Reynolds is seeking to draw you into, whose general parameters, now that for the 2,000th time he is inviting your response, are sufficiently well-known.

[jayreynolds]

Footsoldier, you, not Reynolds, will be the target of my attacks if you respond.

Wayne Hall, ever the little tyrant..................

WH- "SHUT UP OR I WILL ATTACK YOU!!!!"

[halva]

What is your comment, Footsolder?

[jayreynolds]

Footsoldier, you, not Reynolds, will be the target of my attacks if you respond.

By "attacks" I mean of course aggressive verbal engagement unconnected with any extra-forum considerations of personal identity. What I am doing is drawing your attention to the kind of postings that will inevitably come as an expression of my viewpoint if you persist in re-entering the discussion which Jay Reynolds is seeking to draw you into, whose general parameters, now that for the 2,000th time he is inviting your response, are sufficiently well-known.
Interesting how 13 minutes after you wrote the first sentence above, you then felt obliged to expand upon it by adding the next paragraph, Wayne.

I suggest you lay off the Athens happy-hour booze and think about what you are saying before you regret it afterwards and have to make pitiful attempts at redaction by addition of excess verbiage.

You said you would attack her if she dared to speak, plain and simple, then you asked for her comment?

Looks like a 'set-up' to me..

[halva]

What is your comment, Footsolder?

Thank you for your silence, Footsoldier. May it long continue.

[weatherman714]

Interesting that your somewhat selective utterances haven't brought forth the recent news that the purported "Ozone Hole" over the southern polar area was found to be 30% lower this year.

Don't forget Jay, that the SH ice cap was the largest in recorded history going back to 1979...

[foot_soldier]

Under "Files of Interest", click on October 2007: The Threat to the Planet: Dark & Bright Sides of Global Warming for the Powerpoint presentation given by Dr. Hansen at a recent conference.

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/

The last six slides in particular are worth some attention.

[Lou]

Under "Files of Interest", click on October 2007: The Threat to the Planet: Dark & Bright Sides of Global Warming for the Powerpoint presentation given by Dr. Hansen at a recent conference.

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/

The last six slides in particular are worth some attention.

FS, I once stood at the base of a glacier wall that was upwards of 90 or more feet high and it dawned on me that at any moment the section that I was standing in front of could break free and cascade down onto me at any moment, I can not explain the sinking feeling that I had in my stomach at the moment of realization but in looking at and reading Dr. Hansons material I can tell you that I have that feeling once again_BIG TIME.

Same wilh "Lovelock".

It's not what I fear for myself but rather for my grandchildren, your grandchildren, all of our grandchildren, the evils of the world that they are about to inherit will no doubt be of Biblical proportions with dreams of prosperity repealed by the reality of merely suriveing.

[foot_soldier]

.....with dreams of prosperity repealed by the reality of merely surviving.....
Please forgive the slight edit, Lou.

That is a profound comment you have made.

This is my granddaughter:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1420/1479683805_48806508e4.jpg

She and her peers deserve better than lives consigned to
merely surviving that which they will surely inherit if their
elders do not come to their senses and fast.

Take care,

Deborah

[jayreynolds]

Well, it looks like despite years of research into the subject, 'Footsoldier has got it all wrong!

It's not aviation that pollutes the atmosphere most, IT'S THE SHIPS, STUPID!

Shipping pollution 'far more damaging than flying'
"New research suggests that the impact of shipping on climate change has been seriously underestimated and that the industry is currently churning out greenhouse gases at nearly twice the rate of aviation.

Shipping, although traditionally thought of as environmentally friendly, is growing so fast that the pollution it creates is at least 50 per cent higher than previously thought. Maritime emissions are also set to leap by 75 per cent by 2020.

The International Maritime Organisation, the UN body set up to regulate shipping, has set up a working group due to report this year. Research seen by the group suggests previous calculations, which put the total at about 600 million tonnes per year, are signifi-cantly short. The true figure is set to be more than one billion tonnes, according to a confidential report produced for the IMO by Intertanko, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners.

In comparison, aviation produces an estimated 650 million tonnes. The old figures were based on 2001 estimates, but shipping has grown by 4.5 per cent on average annually."
(continued at link)
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3043734.ece

[halva]

Any ideas, Footsoldier?

[jayreynolds]

Any ideas, Footsoldier?

Sailboats?

[weatherman714]

Well, it looks like despite years of research into the subject, 'Footsoldier has got it all wrong!

Today Jay Reynolds has "unoffically" become "Bitch de la Weatherman714". I've had strings pulled and have "unoffical confirmation" that there are materials being sprayed in the atmosphere.

[weatherman714]

...And by the way, Under water SST Anomalies have now fallen to -3C in many places in the Eastern and Central Pacific with an ever growing pocket of -3 to -4.5C anomalies. The La Nina still has some more room to strengthen.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/jsdisplay/plots/gif/Dep_Sec_EQ_5d.gif

[halva]

Please forgive the slight edit, Lou.

That is a profound comment you have made.

This is my granddaughter:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1420/1479683805_48806508e4.jpg

She and her peers deserve better than lives consigned to
merely surviving that which they will surely inherit if their
elders do not come to their senses and fast.

Take care,

Deborah

See the Climate Camp slogan, Footsoldier
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/

"We are armed only with peer-reviewed science".

Because that is no "arm" at all, and there is little at this forum that will provide you with any basis for defending your granddaughter, as you were asking Lou to do, let me just share with you some thoughts about on-the-ground strategy we are beginning to apply in Greece.

For a start, more and more "chemmies" are coming out, many of them, as in the U.S., right-wing populists and climate change contrarians.

I think it is a good idea to unleash them against the Climate Camp people. It is better to have them directing their fire against ecologists than vainly petitioning governments, forever..

But at the same time one has to have a strategy for people who can think a little more. The anti-nuclear movement proves a possible base. Mainstream political strategy seems to be that the anti-nuclear movement should now be displaced by the climate change movement. At Indymedia UK people were calling the Climate Camp the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) of the 21st century. And the idea is to instrumentalise the climate change movement so that it will provide a lever for reintroduction of nuclear energy, just as the nuclear disarmament movement was used as an assistant to smash (and then not totally denuclearise) the Soviet Union.

Do you think these ideas may provide some basis for hope of leaving to your grand-daughter a world in which there can be hope?

[halva]

By the way, I assume that you don't and that you will continue to want to hold that Climate Change Camp banner that we are armed only with peer-reviewed science.

[siegmund]

I've had strings pulled and have "unoffical confirmation" that there are materials being sprayed in the atmosphere.
WOW, "unofficial confirmation" from a deep insider or stasi IM (informal member)? Are they going public?

[weatherman714]

WOW, "unofficial confirmation" from a deep insider or stasi IM (informal member)? Are they going public?

...It's "unoffical" for a reason. It's worth it to spend the $5k in equipment to test for these particles in the atmosphere... and note to self, you don't see me promoting this in any one thread...

[siegmund]

It's worth it to spend the $5k in equipment to test for these particles in the atmosphere...
If you had pulled the right strings, equipment would be free of costs.

[Lou]

Please forgive the slight edit, Lou.

That is a profound comment you have made.

This is my granddaughter:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1420/1479683805_48806508e4.jpg

She and her peers deserve better than lives consigned to
merely surviving that which they will surely inherit if their
elders do not come to their senses and fast.

Take care,

Deborah

Thank you FS.

Your Granddaughter is beautiful.

I do not believe that my comment was as you say "profound", it is just by reading the work of climate scientist like Doctors 'Hanson' and 'Lovelock' and listening to them rather than our politicians who obviously have other agendas that I have come to the logical conclusions that,....

"It's not what I fear for myself but rather for my grandchildren, your grandchildren, all of our grandchildren, the evils of the world that they are about to inherit will no doubt be of Biblical proportions with dreams of prosperity repealed by the reality of merely surviving."

There has now been set in motion by both nature and humankind a cascade of events that will not be resolved or equalized until the earth itself regains it's natural process of self governance and "We" humankind that are left act accordingly in response to the laws of nature, not the laws imposed by man protecting pollution over the protection of our planet and our very existence.

Our mindless charge into the use and abuse of our planet, driven by greed, with no regard of future consequences until it was to late is a testament to our irresponsibility on a grand scale, we are now set on a course that no amount of hasty correction can or will overcome the damage wrought.

We "humankind" only have the limited option of adaptation for as many generations as it takes for the earth itself to reach an equalization in it's self correction process, it is I feel both arrogant and ignorant of "Us" to believe that it is through our quick reactions only now that we might somehow equalize or even reverse our contributing bad behavior over time that has now led us to the undeniably reality that we now face, that being only to try and survive into the future as a species.

Was my statement profound, no, I do not think so, it was only perceptive opinion based on others hard work.

Health and wellness to you.

Lou.
_____________________________________

Indigenous peoples respected and lived with nature in harmony for a reason_They realized that there lives and the lives of there grandchildren depended on it.

---------------------------------- "StoneHand"

[halva]

...It's "unoffical" for a reason. It's worth it to spend the $5k in equipment to test for these particles in the atmosphere... and note to self, you don't see me promoting this in any one thread...

It is better for each side to talk to itself for there is nothing to be said between the sides.

[jayreynolds]

I do not believe that my comment was as you say "profound", it is just by reading the work of climate scientist like Doctors 'Hanson' and 'Lovelock' and listening to them

If you think that James Lovelock was a "climate scientist", you probably haven't read any of his work, Lou.

And likely you are referring to James HANSEN, not 'HANSON'.

And you run around calling others "dumbasses"?

You're a joke, "Loopy" Lou.

[halva]

Lou knows how to talk to Footsoldier and make her feel good. That is more than you know how to do.

[weatherman714]

It is better for each side to talk to itself for there is nothing to be said between the sides.

:rolleyes: No wonder there's so much hostility here...

[Lou]

'Jay', why do you have to be such an ASS all of the time, can't you take just one day off?:rolleyes:

Don't pay any attention to that idiot onion farmer Wayne, he is just being himself, a complete ASS as usual.

He obviously doesn't consider 'Lovelock' to be a "REAL" climate scientist because he isn't a "yes" man to the politicians or industry, big oil and takes an independent, free thinking approach to all things science, etc.

Where were all of those "REAL" scientist that you believe in 'Jay' when 'Lovelock' was discovering CFC's in the atmosphere where destroying the Ozone layer, how about his "Gaia hypothesis", for someone you do not consider a REAL CLIMATE scientist 'Jay', Dr. Lovelock has amassed some impressive credentials and what's more impressive, most REAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST today rely on "HIS" findings as a base for there own Climate research.

As usual ' Jay' is once again just placating his own agenda, same old, same old 'Jay', pretentious, obnoxious, overbearing and thoroughly Narcissistic.... how very boring. :rolleyes:

[halva]

Not paying attention to him is no solution. I would like to help J-Vitum deal with him more effectively.

[halva]

Reynolds has not managed to get a foothold at some of the European boards because they are not tolerant of climate change contrarians. Why can't a policy like that gain acceptance among posters here?

Of course there are enough climate change contrarians at this forum currently on both sides of the "Chemtrails are a hoax" discussion for them to be able to argue as much as they like about it between themselves without bothering the rest of us. That is what we should encourage, if they insist on being here.

[halva]

And the idea is to instrumentalise the climate change movement so that it will provide a lever for reintroduction of nuclear energy, just as the nuclear disarmament movement was used as an assistant to smash (and then not totally denuclearise) the Soviet Union.


And the news today is that Berisha is thinking of taking up Sarkozy's offer for the French to build a nuclear reactor at Durres in Albania, one hundred kilometres to the north of the Greek borders.

On the subject of Lovelock, he seems to be on the wrong side on the nuclear issue.

[Lou]

Not paying attention to him is no solution. I would like to help J-Vitum deal with him more effectively.

"J-Vitum" is banned from posting here Wayne, someone finaly got the mod's to compair our IP addresses_Hello.;)

[halva]

Well, what about if "J-Vitem" starts posting??

[Lou]

On the subject of Lovelock, he seems to be on the wrong side on the nuclear issue.

I don't like it anymore that most but I understand his position on nuclear energy, what other form of energy is there that could replace it, create as much energy and meet the demand for it?

I'll give you a hint.,,,,,,,,,,,NONE at present.

[Lou]

Well, what about if "J-Vitem" starts posting??

Any new posters that confront 'Jay' will be accused of being me because he is so paranoid, you know how he gets.

I have no interest in getting involved with him again, it's pointless because of his NPD. :rolleyes:

[halva]

I don't like it anymore that most but I understand his position on nuclear energy, what other form of energy is there that could replace it, create as much energy and meet the demand for it?

I'll give you a hint.,,,,,,,,,,,NONE at present.

Well, if we disagree on this subject I don't think there is any point in giving solace to our enemies by arguing about it here.

[halva]

There is no point conducting a serious discussion on any subject in a forum that is open to malicious disruptors protesting their right to freedom of speech.

[jayreynolds]

There is no point conducting a serious discussion on any subject in a forum that is open to malicious disruptors protesting their right to freedom of speech.

You are speaking of yourself, right, Wayne?



If you continue to ignore what I say to you here while paying attention to, and interacting with, the Reynolds twins and other people who are hostile towards you and express that hostility in an often barbarous manner, I will continue to perceive you as part of the problem here, and behave towards you accordingly, thus asserting my rights to freedom of speech.

Wayne, look yourself in the mirror and repeat to the gander what you wrote above to the goose!

For you to now claim "rights to freedom of speech" is so oxymoronic it is laughable.

Few people can claim to have lobbied harder than you to restrict the rights of others, which you now so hypocritically wish to personally assert.

What blind hypocrisy.
http://debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=864900&postcount=2756

[halva]

Footsoldier do you object to the way I address you in extracts such as the one quoted above?

[foot_soldier]

October 16, 2007
Execs skip air delays, pilot themselves
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/10/16/execs_skip_air_delays_pilot_themselves/

NEW YORK --When a meeting with clients runs late, Andy Davidson doesn't have to worry that his plane will leave without him.

Instead of impatiently waiting in mile-long security lines or silently waging war over a shared airplane armrest, Davidson can walk straight to his own six-seater, climb into the cockpit and take off.

Davidson, the owner of a New York-based financial consulting business, is a member of a small but growing group of businessmen who have taken their passion for flying and turned it into a more convenient -- if less economical -- form of transportation.

Most of these executives either buy or lease small planes, called single-engine pistons, with seating room equivalent to a family sedan and the ability to fly up to about 1,000 miles. With many airlines cutting back flights to smaller destinations, small business owners and midlevel executives are realizing that flying themselves might actually be feasible.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the number of hours single-engine piston planes are flown each year is expected to rise 17 percent by 2020, with growth of about 1 percent per year. Although some of that increase may be due to pilots who fly for recreation, FAA spokesman Hank Price said the government anticipates that business use of private aircraft will grow faster than leisure use.

Anecdotal evidence seems to confirm that more businessmen are seeing personal aviation as a transportation option. Flying clubs, where pilots can share ownership of a plane or receive additional training, are filling up with executives. One Atlanta-based club called Airshares Elite, founded in 1999, caters specifically to businessmen.

Airports have also started to recognize the importance of the businessman pilot. Clark County, Nev. recently spent $30 million remodeling Henderson Executive Airport, outside of Las Vegas, to appeal to executives.

Flying smaller planes -- either by the executives themselves or the pilots they sometimes hire -- has become so popular that it has begun to contribute to the nation's air traffic and congestion..... (continued)

[foot_soldier]

Yes, it's all about "image", isn't it. To hell with the facts of the matter, which are readily accessible to anyone who wants them.

By the way, it's not exclusively CO2 emissions that are of concern, much as the PR arm of the airline industry is currently pushing for people to believe that.

October 19, 2007
Airlines losing image war with climate change activists, say industry strategists
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/19/europe/EU-GEN-Greece-Embattled-Airlines.php

ATHENS, Greece: The airline industry risks losing an image battle with environmentalists concerned about aircraft CO2 emissions and should fight back by highlighting the steps airlines are taking to limit pollution, a leading strategist said Friday.

"The aviation industry is just not representing itself properly or effectively to put the lobbying efforts of the eco-warriors into some kind of perspective," said Steve Dunne, director of The Brighter Group in Britain, which advises the aviation industry on communications strategy.

The industry risks sinking to pariah status akin to cigarette manufacturers in the U.S., Dunne told The Associated Press at a European airlines conference in Athens.

Tom Ambrose, director general of the European Regional Airlines Association, said airlines produce 2 percent of the world's carbon dioxide output. Yet most people think the figure is up to three times that figure, he said.

"If you were to shut down Europe's entire air transport system tomorrow, the world would not notice the change in CO2 levels," said Ambrose, who also addressed the conference in Athens.

A study by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change says that CO2 emissions per passenger kilometer have decreased, but have been more than offset by a continued rise in overall traffic. It says aviation takes about 2-3 percent of total fossil fuel used worldwide, compared with 20-25 percent for the transport sector as a whole.

The World Wide Fund for nature says that, if current growth patterns continue, airlines could account for up to 15 percent of all global carbon emissions by 2041.

Richard Dyer, of Friends of the Earth UK, has called aviation the fastest-growing source of carbon dioxide emissions in Britain.

However, the International Air Transport Association says the industry saved 6 million tons of CO2 by shortening 350 routes worldwide.

Dunne said environmental groups were getting attention for their views through what he called "PR stunt-like strategies." He gave the example of the Camp for Climate Action — activists who drew attention to aviation pollution by camping out at London's Heathrow Airport over the summer.

Dunne said the aviation industry should admit it pollutes while insisting it does its share to confront a shared problem — and arguing that it helps move goods and people around, creates jobs and shrinks the world.

"The next generation will be unbelievably green ... (and will) end up hating us if we don't do something about it," he said.

[halva]

Yes, it's all about "image", isn't it. To hell with the facts of the matter, which are readily accessible to anyone who wants them.

By the way, it's not exclusively CO2 emissions that are of concern, much as the PR arm of the airline industry is currently pushing for people to believe that.


Footsoldier, is the above addresed to me, and is it a response to
http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=865903&postcount=2771
??

[foot_soldier]

Utilize aircraft emissions constituents (in this case, soot particles) to modify heat-transfer processes in the upper troposphere?

Oh, no, they wouldn't do that, would they?

Of course not!

October 21, 2007
Scientists a step closer to steering hurricanes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/21/wstorm121.xml

Scientists have made a breakthrough in man's desire to control the forces of nature – unveiling plans to weaken hurricanes and steer them off course, to prevent tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina.

The damage done to New Orleans in 2005 has spurred two rival teams of climate experts, in America and Israel, to redouble their efforts to enable people to play God with the weather.

Under one scheme, aircraft would drop soot into the near-freezing cloud at the top of a hurricane, causing it to warm up and so reduce wind speeds. Computer simulations of the forces at work in the most violent storms have shown that even small changes can affect their paths – enabling them to be diverted from major cities.

But the hurricane modifiers are fighting more than the weather. Lawyers warn that diverting a hurricane from one city to save life and property could result in multi-billion dollar lawsuits from towns that bear the brunt instead. Hurricane Katrina caused about $41 billion in damage to New Orleans.

Hurricanes form when air warmed over the ocean rises to meet the cool upper atmosphere. The heat turns to kinetic energy, producing a spiral of wind and rain. The greater the temperature differences between top and bottom, and the narrower the eye of the hurricane, the faster it blows.

Moshe Alamaro, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told The Sunday Telegraph of his plans to "paint" the tops of hurricanes black by scattering carbon particles – either soot or black particles from the manufacture of tyres – from aircraft flying above the storms. The particles would absorb heat from the sun, leading to changes in the airflows within the storm. Satellites could also heat the cloud tops by beaming microwaves from space.

"If they're done in the right place at the right time they can affect the strength of the hurricane," Mr Alamaro said.

The theory has so far been tested only in computer simulation by Mr Alamaro's colleague, Ross Hoffman. Mr Alamaro said: "With small changes to this side or that side of the hurricane we can nudge it and change its track. We're starting with computer simulations, then will hopefully experiment on a small weather system."

Last month scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem announced that they had simulated the effect of sowing clouds with microscopic dust to cool the hurricane's base, also weakening it. The dust would attract water but would form droplets too small to fall as rain. Instead, they would rise and evaporate, cooling hot air at the hurricane base.

In findings presented at a conference in Trieste, Italy, the team led by Daniel Rosenfeld demonstrated that dust dropped into the lower part of Hurricane Katrina would have reduced wind speeds and diverted its course.

The MIT team has now hired a professor of risk management to advise on steps necessary to protect themselves from legal action by communities affected if a hurricane is diverted. It is pressing for changes to US law and for an international treaty to settle possible disputes between neighbouring countries.

Mr Alamaro said: "The social and legal issues are daunting. If a hurricane were coming towards Miami with the potential to cause damage and kill people, and we diverted it, another town or village hit by it would sue us. They'll say the hurricane is no longer an act of God, but that we caused it."

[halva]

What are you doing, Footsoldier, to bring it home to anti-aviation activists and members of the climate change movement that the point is not whether climate change, global warming, extreme meteorological phenomena, etc. are natural or "man-made" but whether they are the inadvertent effect of human activity or the result of deliberate "human" policy?

The best base I can find from which to launch such a message is the anti-nuclear movement, given that there are clearly forces who wish to see the climate change movement take the place once occupied by the anti-nuclear movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICjSHgnGS8U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CelxrMo93eU

[foot_soldier]

October 22, 2007
An aviation global warming tax could prove very useful
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=86607

(Originally published in the Bangkok Post.)

The Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) have joined hands in ''condemning'' the Dutch Government's plan to tax outbound passengers by as much as 45 as part of an effort to reduce air travel and combat global warming.

However, the knee-jerk condemnations are flawed, self-serving and indicative of an intellectual myopia not very different from that plaguing the bureaucrats these travel industry organisations claim to criticise.

IATA director-general and CEO Giovanni Bisignani called the passenger tax ''ineffective, inappropriate and a breach of international obligations.''

Referring to it as ''a thinly disguised tax grab that does nothing for the environment,'' he recommended that the Dutch Government look at tax credits to incentivise innovation and bring more efficiencies into the air traffic control system to reduce congestion.

Jumping in with a me-too statement, PATA president and CEO Peter de Jong claimed that innovation, not taxation, is the way forward.

He said the travel and tourism industry should not bear ''a disproportionate burden of the fight against global warming simply because it is an easy target'' and claimed that ''innovative, self-funding, energy-saving initiatives will always be a more effective way of reducing emissions.''

Both those arguments are imperfect and unsound, designed more to protect the interests of the industry that these so-called ''visionary leaders'' and ''strategic thinkers'' claim to represent, rather than the environment.

There no evidence to indicate that an aviation tax will have any impact on travel volumes. On the contrary, if well used, a tax can be extremely beneficial for the purpose it is intended to serve.

Air travel's only advantage over rail and road transport is the ability to cover longer distances faster. In the process, it emits far more greenhouse gasses (GHG) measured on a per-capita per-kilometre basis.

According to the president of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Mr Roberto Gonz?lez, ''ICAO's latest forecast for the next 20 years calls for average annual increases of 4.6% for passenger traffic and 6.6% for cargo traffic. Under present operating conditions, air transport will definitely pollute more than today, in spite of the remarkable fuel efficiency gains of the past 40 years.''

If the massive GHG emissions by airports, as well as by cars and buses making millions of pick-up and drop-off trips, are factored into the overall emissions by air transport, it begins to look far more deadly than surface transport.

Although travel organisations cry foul at the mere mention of the word ''tax'', they never shake a fist at the oil companies, speculators, traders and brokers who are primarily responsible for nearly tripling the price of fuel in the last two years.

Mr Bisignani once thundered that airline bottom lines would be severely affected by each cent added to the cost of fuel. That warning has flopped big time. The airlines ruthlessly cut costs elsewhere and passed on the higher fuel costs to the consumers via surcharges. At the same time, low-cost airlines continue to offer cheap deals and seat-giveaway campaigns.

Airlines also shout much too loudly about increases in airport charges even though these are an infinitesimal portion of their overall costs.

Moreover, institutions such as the Asian Development Bank are constantly pushing for ''realistic pricing'' strategies for other resources like water because they say it makes consumers less wasteful. That argument should be just as applicable in the case of oil, a resource equally important to water.

What organisations like IATA and PATA fail to do is to convert calls for a fuel tax on aviation into an advantage. Indeed, the cheapest and most cost-effective way is to offset the GHG emissions via mitigation measures. Prudently applied, an aviation tax could be phenomenally useful.

If imposed globally in smaller amounts on a pro-rated basis, an aviation tax may well generate enough funds in a week to put solar-powered electricity panels on the roofs of every Indonesian village.

That in turn could help bring down the cost of solar-panels so that African villages could afford them, especially if developed countries could subsidise the costs instead of subsidising their own farmers.

Alternately, the organisations could insist that money only be used to fund the planting of millions of trees near global airports, especially alongside or between the many miles of access roads.

If consumers have no qualms about paying huge fuel surcharges that only contribute to oil industry profits, they should have no problem paying a small tax as an environmental protection measure.

There is no shortage of simple and innovative solutions. Unfortunately, these organisations suffer from tunnel-vision and prefer to organise big-ticket conferences on climate change that are really designed to fill the coffers of the organisers and promote the profiles of their chief executives rather than reduce GHG emissions.

Imtiaz Muqbil is executive editor of Travel Impact Newswire, an e-mailed feature and analysis service focusing on the Asia-Pacific travel industry.

[halva]

There are at least some ideas in this article, but what is being done to get ideas like this off the ground? Footsoldier, have you heard of any discussion within the activist movement about what should be done with the revenue from an aviation tax?

[halva]

Also, can we get any evidence that airlines are being paid subsidies for "geoengineering" services. That would strengthen our hand considerably, notwithstanding all the noise by some people that "All Aircraft are Not Involved".

[halva]

Also, Footsoldier, any comments on this??
http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=869076&postcount=8581

Maltezos and I are both members of the Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature, which has good relations with Dimas.

[foot_soldier]

Please leave references to "spraying" out of this thread.

You have several other more appropriate threads to which you can submit that category of information.

Thank you.

[halva]

Why should I humour your particular orientation to this subject, especially when you are never prepared to spell it out or defend it?

[foot_soldier]

You are not obligated to "humour" me.

Likewise, I am not obligated to defer to your continued co-optation of this thread to suit your political agenda.

Your obvious contempt for my "orientation" is uncalled-for.

[halva]

So neither of us is obligated to do what the other wishes, and evidently will not.

[halva]

Why is my contempt for your orientation uncalled for?

[halva]

If you make this assertion and then do not elaborate, is my contempt uncalled for?

By the way last night the mass-circulation ALTER television channel in Greece ran a three-hour programme on chemtrails, with a panel including many in our group, plus a few - to me - unknown faces, and with out-of-studio interviews with a lot of us. They didn't use most of what they took from me (an explanation on the connection between illegality and secrecy) but they did use a bit of it.

Though the general tone was the usual mass-media vulgarity, the attitude of the programme makers was not condescending. They were much friendlier than you are, for example.

[foot_soldier]

If you make this assertion and then do not elaborate, is my contempt uncalled for?

By the way last night the mass-circulation ALTER television channel in Greece ran a three-hour programme on chemtrails, with a panel including many in our group, plus a few - to me - unknown faces, and with out-of-studio interviews with a lot of us. They didn't use most of what they took from me (an explanation on the connection between illegality and secrecy) but they did use a bit of it.

Though the general tone was the usual mass-media vulgarity, the attitude of the programme makers was not condescending. They were much friendlier than you are, for example.
Take it to the CHEMTRAILS section, Wayne.

That would be considered COMMON COURTESY where I come from.

I have repeatedly made very clear my reason for starting and maintaining this particular thread. That you don't care to acknowledge this is not my problem.

[foot_soldier]

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/070803_contrailclouds_02.jpg

The water-vapor contrails made by jet engines disperse in the upper atmosphere and can form substantial cirrus-cloud cover, as can be seen in this photograph showing contrails over southern Manhattan and the New Jersey shoreline. The contribution that upper-atmosphere water-vapor and CO2 emissions from aircraft engines make to global warming is not yet well understood but scientists believe it is much more significant than the contribution from equal amounts of emissions at or near the ground. The phenomenon is known as "radiative forcing." Credit: Christian Kjelgaard
.

[halva]

It is your problem. If I do not make it your problem there are, or at least have been, numerous others ready to take my place remind you of this fact in a much less polite way than I do.

[foot_soldier]

No, it isn't my problem.

I am, thankfully, very confident of that.

[foot_soldier]

http://a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/070803_contrailclouds_02.jpg

The water-vapor contrails made by jet engines disperse in the upper atmosphere and can form substantial cirrus-cloud cover, as can be seen in this photograph showing contrails over southern Manhattan and the New Jersey shoreline. The contribution that upper-atmosphere water-vapor and CO2 emissions from aircraft engines make to global warming is not yet well understood but scientists believe it is much more significant than the contribution from equal amounts of emissions at or near the ground. The phenomenon is known as "radiative forcing." Credit: Christian Kjelgaard
.

[halva]

I am not going to react to your provocation and I hope that none of the squad that were wanting previously to tell you what they think about you and your ideas will revise their view that posting here is a waste of time.

If you are lucky you will have triumphed and succeeded in imposing your autistic conceptions on this thread (even if nowhere else in the universe), and with me as your only critic.

[foot_soldier]

Air Traffic Management
http://128.102.216.35/factsheets/view.php?id=15

The nation's air transportation system is nearing the limit of its ability to accommodate steadily increasing traffic levels. NASA Ames is developing nextgeneration air traffic management technologies to better serve the traveling public today and in the future.

The Traffic Management Advisor has had significant positive impact on the NAS (National Air Space.)

TMA was extensively tested by NASA Ames researchers, culminating in a several month field evaluation demonstration at the Ft. Worth Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), Texas, in 1996.

Traffic to the Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) airport, frequently the busiest airport in the United States, was efficiently scheduled and managed by TMA under routinely heavy traffic conditions. These evaluations demonstrated a 5% increase in number of arrivals at DFW, along with an average reduction of 2-3 minutes of delay per aircraft.

With nearly 100 A-120 aircraft landing per hour at DFW during their peak operational times, this also represented a significant savings to the airlines.

Based on these impressive results, NASA transferred the TMA software to the FAA, which has since implemented the system at 7 other ARTCCs across the NAS.

TMA is now aiding air traffic managers and controllers on a daily basis. Any flight you have taken in the past five years is likely to have been guided by TMA to arrive with minimum delay. These installations have resulted in an FAA-estimated savings of $400M per year to the airlines.

During the recent economic downturn following the events of September 11, 2001, the airline industry struggled and traffic levels decreased.

But at the beginning of 2004, it was becoming clear that traffic demand is now approaching the peaks experienced in 2001. The amount of traffic is projected to further increase threefold by 2020, and new operating and business models are expected to evolve in the airline industry.....

...

Every day in the United States, about 60,000 commercial flights take off and land, carrying over 2 million passengers. On an annual basis, this represents over 500 million passengers flying some 600 billion miles.....

July 2, 2007
U.S., Europe strive to mesh air-traffic control setups
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=200001495

Le Bourget, France -- With transatlantic air-traffic congestion growing, Europe and the United States are attempting to coordinate efforts to upgrade traffic-management systems, improve safety and increase traffic capacity. While a U.S. effort overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration appears to be on track, a parallel European effort is lagging.

The effort to harmonize the U.S. NextGen air-traffic-management system with the Single European Sky ATM Research system (Sesar) got a boost at the recent Paris Air Show here when officials pledged to cooperate on a comprehensive transatlantic system. But collaboration agreements must still be completed before the harmonization effort takes flight. And time is growing short. According to the Eurocontrol Statistics and Forecast Service, there will be as many as 18.9 million commercial flights throughout Europe by 2025, or as much as 2.1 times the traffic in 2005..... (continued)

[halva]

Is there anyone here who would like to put in a good word for Footsoldier's posting activity on this thread?

[foot_soldier]

Federal Aviation Administration
http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?print=go&newsId=7390

"Meeting the Challenge of Growth"
Russell G. Chew, Washington, DC
September 18, 2006

U.S.-China Aviation Summit

Good morning. I’m honored to be here with the leaders in aviation from China. Welcome to the United States.

I’m here to talk about the problem of air traffic congestion, and what we’re doing to address it, both now, and in the long-run.

By 2016, the FAA projects that domestic flights in the United States will increase by 27 percent over 2005 levels. Passenger traffic between the U.S. and international destinations is expected to grow by 70 percent, and worldwide traffic is projected to increase by as much as 80 percent.

It’s the same story for China as well. Between 1994 and 2003, total flights served by China’s Air Traffic Management system grew by an annual average of 15.5 percent..... (continued)

[halva]

Here at the local level I have had to start approaching conservative politicians on the chemtrails issue given the way that the ecologists and leftists are stuck in the Footsoldier mode of focusing attention on climate change and accidental side effects of "human activity" rather than deliberate pollution as an act of "geoengineering" policy.

Will this encroachment into the party of Mr. Dimas lead anywhere?

[halva]

Footsoldier do you think commercial aviation is being used to assist with geoengineering?

[halva]

CAN CHEMTRAILS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?

http://www.rense.com/general69/chemd.htm

Chemtrails And Aluminum
Harm Heart, Lungs And Plants

By Ted Twietmeyer
1-13-6

Chemtrails which are known to contain heavy metals such as barium oxide and aluminum oxide, are known to be a bigger problem than once thought. Others have researched chemtrails at great length, but may not have known about the negative effects on ecology, the environment and human beings which have recently been discovered. This essay is meant to create awareness, not panic.

Have you ever been standing at a gas station pump, waiting for your vehicle to fill up out in the country in what you thought was clean, fresh air? Did you also notice the top surface of the pump housing may have been covered with rough grey dust? Much of that material can be from chemtrail fallout from aluminum and barium oxide. What goes up, must come down. And all of us are breathing it. Sickness almost always visits communities within a 1-3 days after the spraying has taken place. Headaches, coughs that won’t go away, sore throats and head and upper chest congestion are not uncommon. Your body does not want this metal embedding itself in your respiratory tract. It becomes an irritant.

Recent research shows that aluminum oxide which is a heavy metal, can do far more damage to human beings than once thought. The metal can also affect plants, and is far more insidious than once thought.

EFFECTS OF ALUMINUM OXIDE ON HEART AND LUNGS

A paper written by Wardle, Lee, Akester and Braithwaite at Thiokol Corp. warns of hazards from aluminum oxide nanoparticles. In their paper they express concern that epidemiological studies suggest an association between inhaled ambient particulate material and adverse cardiopulmonary (heart and lungs) effects. The mechanisms related to this toxicity are still unclear. Their paper shows methods to control ultra-fine particles, to limit inhaled nanoparticles in humans.[1]

EFFECTS OF ALUMINUM ON ECOLOGY

Is the government silent about the negative effects of aluminum? From the EPA website we read the following about acid effects and aluminum. The 22 page paper contains numerous references to scientific papers which are available at the EPA website:

“Acid deposition can occur in the wet or dry form and can adversely affect aquatic resources through the acidification of water bodies and watersheds. Acidification of aquatic ecosystems is of primary concern because of the adverse effects of low pH and associated high aluminum concentrations on fish and other aquatic organisms.”

“Aluminum which can be toxic to organisms, is soluble at low pH and is leached from watershed soils by acidic deposition. Acidification may affect fish in several ways. The direct physiological effects of low pH and high aluminum include increased fish mortality, decreased growth, and decreased reproductive potential. The mechanism of toxicity involves impaired ion regulation at the gill. Population losses occur frequently because of recruitment failure, specifically due to increased mortality of early life stages. Changes at other trophic levels may affect fish populations by altering food availability.”

“By combining information on relevant water chemistry parameters (pH, aluminum, calcium), fish toxicity models, and historical and current distributions of fish populations in the lakes and streams included dominant source of acidity in 100 percent of the acidic lakes studied. This is in stark contrast to the West region, where none of the acidic lakes studied were dominated by acid deposition (notably, the sample size of lakes for this region was small to begin with).

For acidic streams, the Mid-Atlantic Highland region contains the greatest proportion of streams whose acidic inputs are dominated by acid deposition (56 percent). This contrasts with acidic streams of Florida, where the vast majority (79 percent) are acidic primarily due to organic acids, rather than acid deposition. By combining information on relevant water chemistry parameters (pH, aluminum, calcium), fish toxicity models, and historical and current distributions of fish populations in the lakes and streams included in the National Surface Water Survey (NSWS), NAPAP investigators estimated the proportion of water bodies with water chemistry conditions that are unsuitable for survival of various fish species.”[2]

TRANSLATION: Aluminum causes problems with fish by interfering with the ability of gills to take oxygen from water. The aluminum works with acidic water to create a toxic environment for wildlife in lakes and streams. Aluminum is connected with ecological damage. And since it’s a heavy metal

And who is spraying the aluminum oxide everywhere at high altitude? The government themselves. This is clearly another case of the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing…or perhaps it may not want to.

Other household products contain aluminum oxide such as sandpaper and other abrasives. Billions of nanoparticles are likely to be released when using sandpaper, which until now has been thought to be almost harmless. The problem would be worse when an electric sander is in use. Most people have been wearing a mask when sanding to avoid inhaling wood dust. Now we can see that the wood dust may be the least of our problems. And when sanding is done, there are countless particles of aluminum dust suspended in the air for hours, and all around the area on surfaces where sanding was taking place. Consider how the metal impairs ion regulation in the gills of fish - what harm will aluminum dust do deep in our lungs where there is also a thin blood-oxygen membrane?

EFFECTS ON PLANT GROWTH

Researchers at the New Jersey Institute of Technology have demonstrated that plants can be harmed by nanoparticles. Professor Daniel Watts (a toxicology expert) and a post-doc Ling Yang performed research, and reported that aluminum oxide nanoparticles in ground water inhibited the growth of corn, cucumbers, cabbage, carrots and soybeans. Watts warned that care must taken to prevent dispersion into the air, where they will be carried by rain into groundwater systems and stunt plant growth. Silicon dioxide (otherwise known as sand) had no effect on plant health.

According to Watts, “There was an assumption that nanoparticles had no effects on plants. But we have shown that seedlings can interact with nanoparticles such as aluminum oxide., and that they can have a harmful effect on seedlings and perhaps stunt the growth of plants.” Watts and his post-doc grew seedlings in Petri dishes, using water with aluminum oxide nanoparticles. After just seven days the effects of stunted growth were measurable. [3]

Could aluminum also affect human fetus development via the bloodstream? We do not yet have conclusive data on this. But nanoparticles are used for scratch resistance coatings and sunscreen lotions. Ironically, the Aluminum oxide is also used as environmental catalysts used for remediating polluted soil. Exhaust systems, chimneys or smoke stacks can mix with rainwater and snow to gradually and irreversible pollute groundwater and soil. [3]

Oppenheimer wrote a paper many years ago how barium oxide and aluminum oxide could be dispersed at very high altitude to reflect the sun’s heat back into space, would stay suspended for some period of time. But what if he was wrong? What if chemtrail spraying is the real source of the “greenhouse effect?” Is it merely a coincidence that since this aggressive world-wide spraying program began, that the poles are melting and winters are growing warmer than ever before?

Perhaps the true objective all along was to warm up the earth, and not cool it.

Ted Twietmeyer

[halva]

One reflex that one finds among conservative people is that of assuming that if there are any real problems, it can be left to the "leftists" to draw attention to them and shout about them, enabling conservatives to sit back and enjoy the benefits of leftist activism without having to do anything themselves.

Such conservatives implicitly assume that if "right-wingers" get up in arms about anything it will be either bullshit, lies or some very narrow sectional interest. This is frequently their implicit self-understanding. Real problems are things that "leftists" get worried about. Therefore, if there are real problems, the thing to do is to wait for the leftists to start agitating about them.

Assumptions like this are very much being challenged at this time.

[halva]

These assumptions come out very clearly when you see ordinary people finding out about chemtrails and then not being able to understand how Greenpeace is not out there protesting.

[foot_soldier]

So, tell us, Wayne, since you continue to insist on completely ignoring the actual topic of this thread, are "chemtrails" occurring in the troposphere or in the stratosphere?

[halva]

Where I am the spraying seems to be taking place in the troposphere, but I couldn't say whether it is also going on in the stratosphere, as proposed by Teller, Crutzen, and others for all I know.

What is your answer to this question and what conclusions may be drawn from it?

[foot_soldier]

November 14, 2007
Plan to Cut Jet Pollution Is Approved in Europe
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/business/worldbusiness/14emissions.html?ex=1352782800&en=7f0db6ebe2acb727&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

WASHINGTON - Nov. 13 — The European Union voted Tuesday to impose quotas on the emission of carbon dioxide by airlines, setting up a fight with the United States, which argues against unilateral actions on aviation, a relatively small but rapidly growing source of global warming gases.

The European Parliament gave preliminary approval to a global warming control plan that would require, beginning in 2011, that airlines flying to and from Europe offset some of their emissions by buying carbon dioxide allowances on the open market.

A result would be increased pressure on airlines to do more to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases from burning jet fuel. Europe has imposed similar emissions limits on other industries for several years in search of steep reductions in its greenhouse gas production.

The cost of this proposal to the airlines is hard to estimate, because the price of carbon allowances has varied widely, as has the value of the currency in which they are denominated, the euro. The goal would be to reduce future emissions to 90 percent of the average given off in recent years, or to offset any excess above that limit.

The backers of the plan said they hoped other countries would emulate the European approach.

“We want a worldwide system as soon as possible,” said Peter Liese, a German member of the Parliament who helped to guide the legislation through the assembly, which met in Strasbourg, France. “There must be an end to the status quo that nothing is done in the aviation sector and which has predominated for many years now.”

Airline emissions were not part of the Kyoto Protocol’s targets for reducing each nation’s output of greenhouse gases. Limits on airlines were left to the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency. This year, in anticipation of the European action, that organization passed a resolution emphasizing that it would be in charge of carbon reduction agreements, but it has not acted.

Carl Burleson, the director of the office of environment and energy at the Federal Aviation Administration, said after the European vote, “This doesn’t go along with what the world community agreed to, which is that you should undertake this on the basis of mutual agreement.”

To reduce the region’s emissions of carbon dioxide, which come mostly from burning fossil fuels, Europe has established a trading arrangement. Companies that face high costs for reducing their emissions can purchase credits from other companies that can cut emissions as less cost. The price of credits fluctuates.

The United States has never joined in the Kyoto agreement, although Congress is debating regulations on carbon emissions.

Some American environmentalists hailed the European action. “It’s a big step forward to include airlines,” said Rafe Pomerance, president of the Climate Policy Center, an environmental advocacy group. He helped negotiate the Kyoto agreement during the Clinton administration.

The European Union plans to begin by putting internal flights under its existing carbon control plan.

The airlines have been stressing technology as a way to cut emissions per flight. For example, the jumbo Airbus A380 is supposed to burn 17 percent less fuel per seat than a Boeing 747-400, and the Boeing 787, which is supposed to begin test flights next year, is supposed to burn 30 percent less fuel than average planes.

The Federal Aviation Administration argues that improvements in air traffic control will reduce emissions per flight, by letting airplanes fly on more direct routes and at altitudes that are more efficient for their engines But experts also say the improvements will allow more traffic, driving total emissions higher.

On average, studies have found, a traveler making a typical trip in a plane accounts for roughly the same greenhouse gas emissions as one traveling alone by car — although much depends on the details of any particular trip.

At a conference last month in Washington on global aircraft emissions, Shigenori Hiraoka, a researcher at the Japan International Transport Institute, pointed out that transportation emissions were 14 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2004, but that aviation was just 6 percent of those emissions. That puts emissions from aviation in the range of 1 percent of all emissions. “Aviation’s share is still small,” he said. “Why bother?”

The answer, he said, was that aviation is galloping ahead, with growth of about 4.4 percent a year, overwhelming the fuel economy gains of about 1.3 percent a year.

While American carriers resist being brought into Europe’s control system, European airlines oppose it, too. Last week Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways, said in a speech at the International Aviation Club in Washington, “We need a mechanism that will allow us to continue to meet the rising demand for air travel until more fundamental technological breakthroughs are made.”

November 13, 2007
European Union moves to reduce aircraft emissions
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/13/business/air.php?WT.mc_id=rssfrontpage

PARIS: One of the boldest attempts by the European Union to impose its climate policy on other parts of the world received a boost Tuesday when legislators voted to strengthen a plan to cap carbon emissions from aircraft flying to and from Europe.

The proposal mirrors an existing carbon credit trading system that the EU uses to combat global warming and meet its emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Under the current system - which exempted airlines - governments set carbon dioxide limits for producers of power, cement, fuels, pulp and paper. Companies must then purchase credits if they exceed those targets.

The new measures, approved by the European Parliament, drew immediate criticism from the U.S. government and from the airline industry. They argued that the rules broke with international aviation practices, would cost companies billions of dollars and could lead to sharp increases in airline ticket prices.

"Any sort of emissions trading system should be done on the basis of mutual agreement between governments," said Carl Burleson, the director of the office of environment and energy at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. "If one government wants to include another airline in their system, then it should come and talk to that government."

Burleson said the EU measures remained proposals, and so it was premature for him to comment on whether the United States would bring a case against Europe for unfair trade practices at the World Trade Organization.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative had no comment.

On the opposite side, some environmental groups criticized the measure - which still must be approved by individual EU states - as far too timid.

But members of the European Parliament said that including airlines in Europe's emissions trading system would set an important precedent and could be emulated by other countries.

"We want a worldwide system as soon as possible," said Peter Liese, a German member who helped to guide the legislation through the assembly, which met in Strasbourg. "There must be an end to the status quo that nothing is done in the aviation sector, which has predominated for many years now."

Liese added that two-thirds of all aircraft emissions are from intercontinental flights.

Under the draft approved Tuesday, all flights arriving or departing from Europe would be included under the European system from 2011, rather than from 2012 - the date originally proposed by EU officials.

Airlines would be allocated some permits for their emissions but would have to buy more than originally planned in an auction. In addition, airlines would have to buy more than other regulated industries to compensate for the more severe kinds of damage aircraft are believed to be causing while emitting greenhouse gases at high altitudes..... (continued)

[foot_soldier]

November 13, 2007
Clear skies ahead: MEPs vote to curb airline emissions by including them in European trading scheme
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/062-12900-316-11-46-910-20071109IPR12781-12-11-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm

In adopting a first-reading report, MEPs backed the Commission's plan to include the aviation sector in the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS). While the Commission had proposed capping ETS allowances for CO2 emissions at 100 percent of aircraft operators' average annual emissions during 2004-2006, the EP went even further, reducing the number of ETS-authorised emissions for aviation to 90 percent. The House also voted to exclude all military flights from the scope of the directive.

In 2004, greenhouse gas emissions from the EU's share of international aviation increased by 7.5 percent compared with 2003. Cumulative growth of CO2 emissions, meanwhile, is at 87 percent since 1990, in stark contrast to the EU's overall 8% greenhouse gas reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol.

It is with this in mind (and in line with its overall strategy to tackle climate change) that the European Parliament approved, by a large majority, the European Commission's plan to include the aviation sector in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). In 2004, greenhouse gas emissions from the EU's share of international aviation increased by 7.5 percent compared with 2003. Cumulative growth of CO2 emissions, meanwhile, is at 87 percent since 1990, in stark contrast to the EU's overall 8% greenhouse gas reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol.

A 10 percent cut in airline emissions

MEPs introduced several significant changes into the draft law, however. While the Commission had proposed capping ETS allowances for CO2 emissions at 100 percent of aircraft operators' average annual emissions during 2004-2006, the EP went even further, reducing the number of ETS-authorised emissions for aviation to 90 percent. Though acknowledging the specific nature of the airline sector ("it is difficult", says the final report, "for aircraft operators to switch to alternative (renewable) energy sources". MEPs endorsed the need for even more ambitious emission targets. Depending on the EU's choice for a post-2012 target of either 30 percent or 20 percent reductions in overall CO2 emissions (as compared to 1990 levels), they decided, "the Commission shall reduce the total quantity of allowances" in further periods.

The ETS allocates a number of permits to operators, each giving them the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide per year. The total number of permits sets a limit, therefore, on the overall emissions from participants in the scheme. While some permits are allocated to operators free of charge, others are traded freely (auctioned) -- this, to allow emissions reductions to be made where they are most cost-effective. While the Commission proposed no concrete values for the number of permits to be auctioned, MEPs did so, deciding on an initial figure of 25 percent.

Revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances, as MEPs see it, should be used "to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change in the EU and third countries," to fund relevant research and development and, lastly, "to lower taxes and charges on climate-friendly transport such as rail and bus."

All flights covered by 2011

The Commission had also proposed that the ETS should cover all intra-EU flights as of 2011, but that flights between the EU and third-country airports should come under its scope only as of 2012. The Parliament disagreed, voting through amendments that would see no distinction made between EU and non-EU flights in this regard: the scheme, they decided, would cover both types of flights by 2011. As rapporteur Peter Liese (EPP-ED, DE) had earlier stated, "It is difficult to explain that a flight from the UK to Morocco is not covered by the scheme while a flight from the UK to the Canary Islands [would] be covered."

Lastly, whereas the Commission sought to exempt government flights from the scheme, MEPs -- taking the line that governments ought to be setting an example -- deleted the derogation..... (continued)

[foot_soldier]

Aviation and climate change
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/aviation_en.htm

Air transport performs many important functions in modern societies. Aviation facilitates economic and cultural exchanges and is a significant source of employment and growth in many regions. However, aviation also contributes to global climate change, and its contribution is increasing. While the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions fell by 3 % from 1990 to 2002, emissions from international aviation increased by almost 70 %. Even though there has been significant improvement in aircraft technology and operational efficiency this has not been enough to neutralise the effect of increased traffic, and the growth in emissions is likely to continue in the decades to come..... (continued)

VIDEO
Reducing climate impacts from international aviation: Europe leads the way
http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/video_prod_en.cfm?type=detail&prodid=674&src=1

The European Commission is proposing legislation to bring the aviation sector into the European Union's pioneering emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) in order to control the rapid growth in CO2 emissions from air travel. Until now airlines have not been subject to the constraints on energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions that other businesses have to live with.

Emissions from domestic flights are covered by the Kyoto Protocol’s emission targets for developed countries, but international aviation – which makes up the vast majority of flights - is not. In addition, jet fuel for international flights has historically been exempted from taxation. Hence the need for policy action.

The film was shot in Belgium, UK and the Netherlands. It includes a graphic presentation of the European ETS as it applies to air companies, with interviews with Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for the Environment, and Jos Delbeke, the European Commission director responsible for climate change policy.

Scientific experts explain how aviation can still improve the fuel efficiency of modern aircraft, and British Airports Authority and a UK-based air company Easy Jet give their opinions on the proposal.....

[foot_soldier]

So, we have an executive order to open military air space to accommodate Thanksgiving commercial airline passenger traffic?

HELLO.

Why might this be?

November 14, 2007
Bush orders U.S. military to expand air space, ease holiday congestion
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-airtravel16nov16,1,1317992.story?track=rss

WASHINGTON — President Bush, citing "an epidemic of airline delays," announced today that the U.S. military will open up air space to civilian airlines on the U.S. East Coast during the Thanksgiving holiday period.

Noting crowded airports, stranded travelers and passengers forced to sit on runways during long delays, Bush said, "It's one thing to analyze a problem. The American people expect us to come up with some solutions."

In response to the worsening congestion, Bush announced a series of steps in advance of the Thanksgiving holidays, when 27 million passengers are expected to fly, and called on Congress to pass reforms for the long-term.

Among the other measures announced today, Bush said that the government would set up a website -- www.fly.faa.gov -- that would give passengers real-time information about delays, and would promulgate new regulations to double compensation for passengers -- up to $800 - who are bumped from flights. The Federal Aviation Administration, he said, will also impose a holiday moratorium on nonessential maintenance projects, allowing all FAA personnel and equipment to focus on the task at hand.

The administration is also asking airlines to spread out their flights throughout the day and offer what Bush called "congestion pricing," which has worked in other parts of the economy. And, he said, the FAA is looking at another rule that would define flight delays as "unfair and deceptive practices," which come with a hefty monetary penalty.

"These failures carry real costs for the country," Bush said. "We can do better."

[foot_soldier]

November 16, 2007
Some military air space will open Thanksgiving week
Goal is to reduce airline flight delays
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071116/BUSINESS/711160393

WASHINGTON -- Ahead of the holiday travel crunch, President Bush ordered steps yesterday to reduce air traffic congestion and long delays that have left passengers stranded.

The most significant change is that the Pentagon will open unused military air space from Florida to Maine to create "a Thanksgiving express lane" for commercial airliners.

It will be open next week for five days -- Wednesday through Sunday -- the busiest travel days.

Bush said the problems with delayed flights are "clear to anybody who's been traveling. Airports are very crowded. Travelers are being stranded and flights are delayed, sometimes with a full load of passengers sitting on the runway for hours.

"These failures carry some real costs for the country, not just in the inconvenience they cause but in the business they obstruct and the family gatherings they cause people to miss," the president said. "We can do better."

The new plan also will be in effect for the Christmas travel season, and White House press secretary Dana Perino said the Federal Aviation Administration was imposing a holiday moratorium on nonessential maintenance projects, allowing all FAA personnel and equipment to be focused on keeping flights on time.

Further, the Transportation Department will propose doubling the bump fee that airlines must pay travelers who buy tickets but wind up without a seat. The penalty is $200 or $400, depending on how long the passenger has been inconvenienced. The proposed increase would raise the fee to $400 or $800. Perino said if it becomes final, the rule would take effect next summer.

Officials also said the FAA would take other steps to increase efficiency such as rerouting air space, using technology to fill unused space in the air and on the ground, and using more precise routes for takeoffs and landings.

The president said other steps were under consideration to reduce crowded skies, such as charging airlines higher landing and takeoff fees at peak hours, and auctioning landing and takeoff rights to the highest bidder.

Domestic carriers are expected to fly approximately 27 million passengers worldwide over 12 days beginning today, with planes about 90 percent full, according to the Air Transport Association.

[foot_soldier]

November 16, 2007
DOT: Military Airspace Opened For Thanksgiving
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MILS11167.xml&headline=DOT:%20Military%20Airspace%20Opened%20For %20Thanksgiving&channel=comm

By Madhu Unnikrishnan/Aviation Daily

Military airspace off the East Coast for the first time will be available for commercial traffic for a five- day bloc during the busy Thanksgiving travel period, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said yesterday in Washington.

The availability of military airspace is one of two "holiday gifts to the nation" that Peters announced at a White House briefing. The other is a package of proposed rules aimed at beefing up passenger rights and protections.

The rules would double the compensation for bumped passengers to $400 for delays of less than two hours, and to $800 for longer delays. A second rule would require airlines to provide binding contingency plans for tarmac delays, including providing food, water, lavatories and, when needed, medical services to passengers. Peters noted that DOT could see the regulatory process for the bumped passenger compensation rule wrap up as early as next summer.

Currently, commercial air traffic can use military airspace off the East Coast on an as-needed basis, such as during a weather event, said Nancy Kalinowski, FAA VP-systems operations. Access is negotiated in real time when needed, she said.

To alleviate delays during the Thanksgiving holiday period, DOT took the unprecedented step of negotiating with the military in advance for use of the airspace, said Peters. Commercial traffic will be able to operate in two airways, above 24,000 feet, while military activities will continue beneath that altitude, she said.

Reaction to the announcement was mixed. "I want to thank President Bush for reading our bill, H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, for most of the ideas he announced today come right out of our bill," said House aviation subcommittee Chair Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) in a statement. "Finishing the rulemaking on overbooked flights, requiring better data collection and reporting by airlines on delays, and requiring airline and airport contingency plans for flight delays -- they are all in there," he added.

Calling these measures a "good first step on the part of the White House and the FAA" IATA spokesman Steven Lott said the proposed changes are the "low-hanging fruit." He added that "industry has proposed additional operational improvements and long-term changes that will more effectively manage congestion and mitigate delays."

Yet the Air Transport Association was more supportive. "We share the administration's frustrations and applaud the...numerous operational steps [it is] taking to improve air service and reduce delays," said ATA President James May.

[halva]

Footsoldier did you sign the international Greenpeace campaign supporting Dimas on the subject of allowing genetically modified maize into Europe?

[Jeff Reynolds]

So, tell us, Wayne, since you continue to insist on completely ignoring the actual topic of this thread, are "chemtrails" occurring in the troposphere or in the stratosphere?

haha, the disinfo spook just fucked up and made a comment Jay Reynolds would.
to paraphrase:
hey numbnut Wayne, the plans for geoengineering are for the stratosphere, not the troposphere. What we are witnessing are super contrails from ordinary commercial aircraft. All aircraft are "defacto sprayers."

Thanks for revealing yourself yet again as a fake, Ms. FootStink

FootSoldier/Deborah is a debunker in chemmie clothes

You MegaLiars are toast.

[halva]

Footsoldier did you sign the international Greenpeace campaign supporting Dimas on the subject of allowing genetically modified maize into Europe?

http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=877610&postcount=8643

[foot_soldier]

November 14, 2007
Plan to Cut Jet Pollution Is Approved in Europe
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/business/worldbusiness/14emissions.html?ex=1352782800&en=7f0db6ebe2acb727&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

WASHINGTON - Nov. 13 — The European Union voted Tuesday to impose quotas on the emission of carbon dioxide by airlines, setting up a fight with the United States, which argues against unilateral actions on aviation, a relatively small but rapidly growing source of global warming gases.

The European Parliament gave preliminary approval to a global warming control plan that would require, beginning in 2011, that airlines flying to and from Europe offset some of their emissions by buying carbon dioxide allowances on the open market.

A result would be increased pressure on airlines to do more to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases from burning jet fuel. Europe has imposed similar emissions limits on other industries for several years in search of steep reductions in its greenhouse gas production.

The cost of this proposal to the airlines is hard to estimate, because the price of carbon allowances has varied widely, as has the value of the currency in which they are denominated, the euro. The goal would be to reduce future emissions to 90 percent of the average given off in recent years, or to offset any excess above that limit.

The backers of the plan said they hoped other countries would emulate the European approach.

“We want a worldwide system as soon as possible,” said Peter Liese, a German member of the Parliament who helped to guide the legislation through the assembly, which met in Strasbourg, France. “There must be an end to the status quo that nothing is done in the aviation sector and which has predominated for many years now.”

Airline emissions were not part of the Kyoto Protocol’s targets for reducing each nation’s output of greenhouse gases. Limits on airlines were left to the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency. This year, in anticipation of the European action, that organization passed a resolution emphasizing that it would be in charge of carbon reduction agreements, but it has not acted.

Carl Burleson, the director of the office of environment and energy at the Federal Aviation Administration, said after the European vote, “This doesn’t go along with what the world community agreed to, which is that you should undertake this on the basis of mutual agreement.”

To reduce the region’s emissions of carbon dioxide, which come mostly from burning fossil fuels, Europe has established a trading arrangement. Companies that face high costs for reducing their emissions can purchase credits from other companies that can cut emissions as less cost. The price of credits fluctuates.

The United States has never joined in the Kyoto agreement, although Congress is debating regulations on carbon emissions.

Some American environmentalists hailed the European action. “It’s a big step forward to include airlines,” said Rafe Pomerance, president of the Climate Policy Center, an environmental advocacy group. He helped negotiate the Kyoto agreement during the Clinton administration.

The European Union plans to begin by putting internal flights under its existing carbon control plan.

The airlines have been stressing technology as a way to cut emissions per flight. For example, the jumbo Airbus A380 is supposed to burn 17 percent less fuel per seat than a Boeing 747-400, and the Boeing 787, which is supposed to begin test flights next year, is supposed to burn 30 percent less fuel than average planes.

The Federal Aviation Administration argues that improvements in air traffic control will reduce emissions per flight, by letting airplanes fly on more direct routes and at altitudes that are more efficient for their engines But experts also say the improvements will allow more traffic, driving total emissions higher.

On average, studies have found, a traveler making a typical trip in a plane accounts for roughly the same greenhouse gas emissions as one traveling alone by car — although much depends on the details of any particular trip.

At a conference last month in Washington on global aircraft emissions, Shigenori Hiraoka, a researcher at the Japan International Transport Institute, pointed out that transportation emissions were 14 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2004, but that aviation was just 6 percent of those emissions. That puts emissions from aviation in the range of 1 percent of all emissions. “Aviation’s share is still small,” he said. “Why bother?”

The answer, he said, was that aviation is galloping ahead, with growth of about 4.4 percent a year, overwhelming the fuel economy gains of about 1.3 percent a year.

While American carriers resist being brought into Europe’s control system, European airlines oppose it, too. Last week Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways, said in a speech at the International Aviation Club in Washington, “We need a mechanism that will allow us to continue to meet the rising demand for air travel until more fundamental technological breakthroughs are made.”

November 13, 2007
European Union moves to reduce aircraft emissions
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/13/business/air.php?WT.mc_id=rssfrontpage

PARIS: One of the boldest attempts by the European Union to impose its climate policy on other parts of the world received a boost Tuesday when legislators voted to strengthen a plan to cap carbon emissions from aircraft flying to and from Europe.

The proposal mirrors an existing carbon credit trading system that the EU uses to combat global warming and meet its emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Under the current system - which exempted airlines - governments set carbon dioxide limits for producers of power, cement, fuels, pulp and paper. Companies must then purchase credits if they exceed those targets.

The new measures, approved by the European Parliament, drew immediate criticism from the U.S. government and from the airline industry. They argued that the rules broke with international aviation practices, would cost companies billions of dollars and could lead to sharp increases in airline ticket prices.

"Any sort of emissions trading system should be done on the basis of mutual agreement between governments," said Carl Burleson, the director of the office of environment and energy at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. "If one government wants to include another airline in their system, then it should come and talk to that government."

Burleson said the EU measures remained proposals, and so it was premature for him to comment on whether the United States would bring a case against Europe for unfair trade practices at the World Trade Organization.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative had no comment.

On the opposite side, some environmental groups criticized the measure - which still must be approved by individual EU states - as far too timid.

But members of the European Parliament said that including airlines in Europe's emissions trading system would set an important precedent and could be emulated by other countries.

"We want a worldwide system as soon as possible," said Peter Liese, a German member who helped to guide the legislation through the assembly, which met in Strasbourg. "There must be an end to the status quo that nothing is done in the aviation sector, which has predominated for many years now."

Liese added that two-thirds of all aircraft emissions are from intercontinental flights.

Under the draft approved Tuesday, all flights arriving or departing from Europe would be included under the European system from 2011, rather than from 2012 - the date originally proposed by EU officials.

Airlines would be allocated some permits for their emissions but would have to buy more than originally planned in an auction. In addition, airlines would have to buy more than other regulated industries to compensate for the more severe kinds of damage aircraft are believed to be causing while emitting greenhouse gases at high altitudes..... (continued)
.

[foot_soldier]

November 13, 2007
Clear skies ahead: MEPs vote to curb airline emissions by including them in European trading scheme
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/062-12900-316-11-46-910-20071109IPR12781-12-11-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm

In adopting a first-reading report, MEPs backed the Commission's plan to include the aviation sector in the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS). While the Commission had proposed capping ETS allowances for CO2 emissions at 100 percent of aircraft operators' average annual emissions during 2004-2006, the EP went even further, reducing the number of ETS-authorised emissions for aviation to 90 percent. The House also voted to exclude all military flights from the scope of the directive.

In 2004, greenhouse gas emissions from the EU's share of international aviation increased by 7.5 percent compared with 2003. Cumulative growth of CO2 emissions, meanwhile, is at 87 percent since 1990, in stark contrast to the EU's overall 8% greenhouse gas reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol.

It is with this in mind (and in line with its overall strategy to tackle climate change) that the European Parliament approved, by a large majority, the European Commission's plan to include the aviation sector in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). In 2004, greenhouse gas emissions from the EU's share of international aviation increased by 7.5 percent compared with 2003. Cumulative growth of CO2 emissions, meanwhile, is at 87 percent since 1990, in stark contrast to the EU's overall 8% greenhouse gas reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol.

A 10 percent cut in airline emissions

MEPs introduced several significant changes into the draft law, however. While the Commission had proposed capping ETS allowances for CO2 emissions at 100 percent of aircraft operators' average annual emissions during 2004-2006, the EP went even further, reducing the number of ETS-authorised emissions for aviation to 90 percent. Though acknowledging the specific nature of the airline sector ("it is difficult", says the final report, "for aircraft operators to switch to alternative (renewable) energy sources". MEPs endorsed the need for even more ambitious emission targets. Depending on the EU's choice for a post-2012 target of either 30 percent or 20 percent reductions in overall CO2 emissions (as compared to 1990 levels), they decided, "the Commission shall reduce the total quantity of allowances" in further periods.

The ETS allocates a number of permits to operators, each giving them the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide per year. The total number of permits sets a limit, therefore, on the overall emissions from participants in the scheme. While some permits are allocated to operators free of charge, others are traded freely (auctioned) -- this, to allow emissions reductions to be made where they are most cost-effective. While the Commission proposed no concrete values for the number of permits to be auctioned, MEPs did so, deciding on an initial figure of 25 percent.

Revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances, as MEPs see it, should be used "to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change in the EU and third countries," to fund relevant research and development and, lastly, "to lower taxes and charges on climate-friendly transport such as rail and bus."

All flights covered by 2011

The Commission had also proposed that the ETS should cover all intra-EU flights as of 2011, but that flights between the EU and third-country airports should come under its scope only as of 2012. The Parliament disagreed, voting through amendments that would see no distinction made between EU and non-EU flights in this regard: the scheme, they decided, would cover both types of flights by 2011. As rapporteur Peter Liese (EPP-ED, DE) had earlier stated, "It is difficult to explain that a flight from the UK to Morocco is not covered by the scheme while a flight from the UK to the Canary Islands [would] be covered."

Lastly, whereas the Commission sought to exempt government flights from the scheme, MEPs -- taking the line that governments ought to be setting an example -- deleted the derogation..... (continued)
.

[foot_soldier]

So, we have an executive order to open military air space to accommodate Thanksgiving commercial airline passenger traffic?

HELLO.

Why might this be?

November 14, 2007
Bush orders U.S. military to expand air space, ease holiday congestion
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-airtravel16nov16,1,1317992.story?track=rss

WASHINGTON — President Bush, citing "an epidemic of airline delays," announced today that the U.S. military will open up air space to civilian airlines on the U.S. East Coast during the Thanksgiving holiday period.

Noting crowded airports, stranded travelers and passengers forced to sit on runways during long delays, Bush said, "It's one thing to analyze a problem. The American people expect us to come up with some solutions."

In response to the worsening congestion, Bush announced a series of steps in advance of the Thanksgiving holidays, when 27 million passengers are expected to fly, and called on Congress to pass reforms for the long-term.

Among the other measures announced today, Bush said that the government would set up a website -- www.fly.faa.gov -- that would give passengers real-time information about delays, and would promulgate new regulations to double compensation for passengers -- up to $800 - who are bumped from flights. The Federal Aviation Administration, he said, will also impose a holiday moratorium on nonessential maintenance projects, allowing all FAA personnel and equipment to focus on the task at hand.

The administration is also asking airlines to spread out their flights throughout the day and offer what Bush called "congestion pricing," which has worked in other parts of the economy. And, he said, the FAA is looking at another rule that would define flight delays as "unfair and deceptive practices," which come with a hefty monetary penalty.

"These failures carry real costs for the country," Bush said. "We can do better."
.

[foot_soldier]

November 16, 2007
DOT: Military Airspace Opened For Thanksgiving
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MILS11167.xml&headline=DOT:%20Military%20Airspace%20Opened%20For %20Thanksgiving&channel=comm

By Madhu Unnikrishnan/Aviation Daily

Military airspace off the East Coast for the first time will be available for commercial traffic for a five- day bloc during the busy Thanksgiving travel period, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said yesterday in Washington.

The availability of military airspace is one of two "holiday gifts to the nation" that Peters announced at a White House briefing. The other is a package of proposed rules aimed at beefing up passenger rights and protections.

The rules would double the compensation for bumped passengers to $400 for delays of less than two hours, and to $800 for longer delays. A second rule would require airlines to provide binding contingency plans for tarmac delays, including providing food, water, lavatories and, when needed, medical services to passengers. Peters noted that DOT could see the regulatory process for the bumped passenger compensation rule wrap up as early as next summer.

Currently, commercial air traffic can use military airspace off the East Coast on an as-needed basis, such as during a weather event, said Nancy Kalinowski, FAA VP-systems operations. Access is negotiated in real time when needed, she said.

To alleviate delays during the Thanksgiving holiday period, DOT took the unprecedented step of negotiating with the military in advance for use of the airspace, said Peters. Commercial traffic will be able to operate in two airways, above 24,000 feet, while military activities will continue beneath that altitude, she said.

Reaction to the announcement was mixed. "I want to thank President Bush for reading our bill, H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, for most of the ideas he announced today come right out of our bill," said House aviation subcommittee Chair Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) in a statement. "Finishing the rulemaking on overbooked flights, requiring better data collection and reporting by airlines on delays, and requiring airline and airport contingency plans for flight delays -- they are all in there," he added.

Calling these measures a "good first step on the part of the White House and the FAA" IATA spokesman Steven Lott said the proposed changes are the "low-hanging fruit." He added that "industry has proposed additional operational improvements and long-term changes that will more effectively manage congestion and mitigate delays."

Yet the Air Transport Association was more supportive. "We share the administration's frustrations and applaud the...numerous operational steps [it is] taking to improve air service and reduce delays," said ATA President James May.
.

[foot_soldier]

Jeff Reynolds wrote:

.....Thanks for revealing yourself yet again as a fake, Ms. FootStink.....

Misquote people and/or post their comments out of context and then pronounce them "fakes."

Nice game you have going there.

[may41970]

Hey footsoldier,

It seems that all you ever do is copy and paste. Articles, pictures. Dozens and dozens. Footsoldier, you waste space.

I haven't the slightest idea of what you want to express. No one possibly could. Who are you, footsoldier? Why are you here? What do you want to say? Are you even capable of writing a couple paragraphs on your own? Your scores of copy/pastes say nothing. They accomplish nothing.

I did, though, catch your joke at Megasprayer about how socrates and I look so very "rigid" LOL! Sounds like you were imiplying that we're homosexuals. Did I get your drift? Well, at least it was some words from your own mouth - and not a copy paste. For that, I commend you.

If you want to say something, footsoldier, than say it. WRITE SOMETHING!

may41970

PS - Next time, don't copy the entire article. Just a key sentence or two, and then post a link. Saves space and time.

[foot_soldier]

I've written plenty of commentary here in this thread and have unambiguously expressed my purpose here.

I copy entire pieces from the research literature and related media in order to preserve continuity of information on the topic for which this thread was set up.

Please consult with the forum moderators if you think this thread is a "waste of space."

Unless my account here is terminated by one of the moderators for "wasting space" I intend to continue adding to this informational thread as additional material becomes available.

Thank you.

[halva]

And you continue to dialogue with multi-identity-posting frauds and wreckers but not with your equals. Perhaps indeed in this world some are more equal than others.

Why don't you say something to Nikos Chrysogelos, Footsoldier?? Since you have words to spare for Jeff Reynolds, whom your presence here incites.

[halva]

Original