Statement of the week: 'Flying to Thailand will be a luxury!'
The discussion about CO2 is still in full swing, but a new environmental discussion has already started and it concerns nitrogen. The, everything must give way to greenAdepts have already found something new to make our lives a bit more complicated and certainly less fun.
If there was already a question about aviation not being tackled harshly with the CO2 issue, now it continues with the nitrogen discussion. Statements by climate geeks send shivers down my spine when it comes to aviation: Lelystad must not be opened, Schiphol must not expand but shrink (100.000 fewer flights) and flying must be made as expensive as possible so that the feels like going camping in the Veluwe instead of flying to Thailand or elsewhere.
The green creeps actually want only CEOs of large companies, the royal family and the super-rich party bosses of the Green Left, such as Paul Rosenmöller, to be able to afford a plane ticket.
Because I'm afraid it's going that way. In the light of the current discussion, draconian measures will be pushed through that will cost the ordinary citizen a lot of money. After all, tax measures should encourage citizens to behave differently, say the Greens. So a plane ticket to Thailand that now costs € 700 is much too cheap and only provokes unwanted environmentally polluting behavior. Simply double the price to € 1.400 and that with taxes. We will then go in the same direction as with the fuel for our cars, where more than half of the price at the pump already consists of taxes.
Of course something needs to be done, you can say if you care about the environment, but if you consider that 30% of our nitrogen comes from abroad, you also understand that it is not a local problem. Especially when you read that a mega airport has just opened in China with an area of 700.000 square meters (one of the largest airport terminals in the world). That's not all, China wants to build another 2035 airports before 216 (www.chinasquare.be/china-needs-216-new-airports-by-2035/).
Anyway, the green goat wool socks brigade will say: you have to start somewhere. These environmental Jehovah's Witnesses are already increasingly proclaiming the end of the world. It didn't work out with acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer, but now they're pushing ahead. Hardly anyone hears about the real problem: the overpopulation of the earth.
So if you still want to fly to Thailand after a year of hard work, you can start saving now. Due to the environmental measures that await us, flying will be discouraged, in particular by sharply increasing the prices of airline tickets.
But maybe you see it differently or less gloomy? Respond to the statement of the week: 'Flying to Thailand will be a luxury in the future!'
Well, as long as only the Netherlands raises the prices for an airline ticket, there is nothing to worry about. Then we just leave (as many already do) from Germany or Belgium. Oops, but then we have to go a little further away by car. If that's okay. We will get the extra petrol out again, because parking there is cheaper than at Schiphol.
Germany is also focusing on a flight tax, as are other EU countries. Logical too, because if 1 country introduces a tax, people look for it across the border and that is rather stupid.
Rutte III agrees with flight tax from 2021
” The rates are not yet fixed, but Snel is considering a surcharge of 3,80 euros for flights within Europe and 22 euros for long haul. This is considerably lower than in Germany (from 7,50 euros rising to 42 euros) and in the UK (from 15 euros to 215 euros). Other countries in Europe with some form of flight tax are France, Italy, Austria, Norway and Sweden.”
https://zakenreis.nl/regelgeving/vliegtaks-terug-in-2021/
Indeed Kees, we have also been departing from Dusseldorf or Koln for years.
Not that the ticket is that much cheaper, but we live closer to DLD than Schiphol (North Limburg).
In addition, I really hate Schiphol, with that unorganized mess such as check-in and passport control. In Dusseldorf usually checked in and through customs within 20 minutes.
The prices of a cup of coffee are also reasonable and something to eat too.
If all those so-called Climate Drams would start paying close attention to what they consume and buy, the rest of NL could simply continue to live as we do now.
Just last week at Schiphol. No problem checking in, Passport control is done by machine in 2 minutes.
Last week experienced the same at Schiphol as Chris. Not to busy. Quickly through the controls. The laptop no longer had to be taken out of the bag, I no longer had to empty the bottle of drinking water quickly, so it was also just full through the check. Also saves again. Well in time, walked around a bit: in the wide corridors spacious and nicely decorated waiting areas with good chairs, benches for the normal people. Everything well signposted. Can many airports take an example. Only the prices of food and drinks: a food court like on Suvarnabhumi wouldn't be crazy.
As for the environment, there is still a lot to gain. Only 1/3 of the countries attended the last climate conference. All heads in the sand. And saddle the (grand)children with the problem. But yes, we all need to consume more from corporates and ECB, so not our fault, right? And we want a lot for little. We will continue to buy plastic-packed cucumbers at the Jumbo, won't we? And at AH the floppy chickens? And we get so much blown over from the neighbors, let's get that started first. And so we keep going around in circles and pointing fingers. That's not how we get there. It is already too late because of all the conflicting interests, often dictated by self-interest. Much more needs to be done and now very quickly. It starts with awareness (upbringing, education) and acceptance of the facts, which many people still lack. But yes, in the past most people believed that the world was flat. And I think the climate change deniers are right next to that.
Get behind this all the way. Cologne Bonn and Frankfurt are even very doable.
Because I worked a lot in Germany for my job and drove there a lot every week. from Brabant, to Munich, Hanover, Bremen and Cuxhaven, I have even departed from Munich, Hamburg and Zurich in the past. This is because I always left my car at my work location.
Just search, but sometimes it is cheaper if you are willing to pay for a train journey with the ICE.
By the way, it's not that far from Venlo to Frankfurt either.
Bert, if you have been departing from Germany for years, what do you know about the current situation at Schiphol. With the exception of a few days a year, check-in and security checks at Schiphol have become minutes of work. Enjoy direct flights to more than 350 destinations worldwide and no fewer than 22 direct flights in Asia. Yes, climate change is taking its toll. Unfortunately, this can only be curbed by tackling “the masses”. Climate change is not a political choice but a scientific fact.
By using words in an article such as 'climate weirdos, idiots, green creeps, green goats' wool socks brigade and environmental Jehovah's Witnesses, you make a meaningful discussion almost impossible in advance.
But you are right that overpopulation is one of the biggest causes of environmental problems, of course together with an out of control consumption pattern.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, women still have an average of 5 children, with the churches calling condom use sinful. In the rest of the world the number of children is now on average less than 2 per woman.
Everyone is allowed to give their opinion on a statement of the week, that also applies to the writer. It is, after all, a discussion piece. I also sometimes read a column in de Volkskrant or Het Parool, in which the climate deniers are unceremoniously compared to holocaust deniers. Is that a meaningful discussion?
Volkskrant, Parool, Holocaust deniers? No, that doesn't contribute to a meaningful discussion either. Too bad, because there is a lot wrong with the environment, also apart from the climate. I am very concerned and therefore want a discussion without belittling the others.
A meaningful discussion is unfortunately impossible because the current polarization in our society does not allow it. If you are not in favour, then you are automatically against, other flavors do not seem to exist. I notice that people with a certain political color don't want the discussion either. This has to do with the fact that all calculation models about the climate are based on assumptions and are therefore very soft. It is already difficult to make a weather forecast in a time frame of 4 weeks. So why should you believe someone who says they know what the Earth's climate will look like in 20 years?
Yes, that's right, but in Africa they have about 30 inhabitants per km², while we here have almost 15 times as many per km².
Africans sometimes wonder why we should teach them a lesson.
If population density was an important factor in this discussion, one wonders why 30% of Africans want to come to Europe. Large parts of Africa, for example, are uninhabitable, barren.
The realization has now also dawned in Africa that if you divide your 100 m2 agricultural plot among 5 children (who survive thanks to Western discoveries), there is not enough left for each of them. The big African cities are therefore overcrowded to bursting point.
In general, a declining world population will put less pressure on the planet overall. 3 billion people seems to be an optimal number. The number of births is also decreasing in Africa.
Just followed Greta's story which I don't understand she is also on twitter that is not as it should be if you go for it all the way. If those people who are so busy with it sometimes want to follow in secret, I think that would be a lot of skew.
I agree with you Cristina, that Greta does have a mobile phone, computer, heating in her room and an air conditioner, will probably be taken to school by car.
And then pretend you're mad.
Where do the raw materials come from for all those batteries, for electric cars, etc. raw materials extracted from the hands of children in Congo.
If you want to change something, you have to plant at least 2 trees for every tree you cut and stop the cutting in the Amazon area.
Precisely. Greta conveniently forgets that the wealth and prosperity in which she lives are largely due to fossil fuels.
Incidentally, behind Greta is a sizeable marketing machine. There are many people who make good money from the Greta brand, including her parents who want to promote their book (on Greta's back?). Again, money is more important than principles here.
Source: https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/3139543/ophef-rond-klimaatmeisje-greta
It is completely unjustified and hypocritical anger because she herself is responsible for a lot of CO2:
https://www.nporadio1.nl/natuur-milieu/18161-hoe-klimaatneutraal-is-de-zeiltocht-van-klimaatmeisje-greta-thunberg
In short: a stunt to attract attention may apparently cause some unnecessary CO2.
There was also a strike here in the Netherlands with the students, but after the demonstration they all had a hamburger at Mac's.
For the sake of convenience, the young people forget for a moment that they have a mobile phone, laptop, tablet, often drive polluting scooters, follow everything via social media, but do not consider that all those things have to be made and that this leaves an ecological footprint
Dear Peter, Kees and Bert,
It's always Jan-with-the-hat that gets caught, isn't it?
Indeed, overpopulation is an underexposed problem. Can be solved in two generations, back to 5 billion inhabitants of this planet. I won't experience that anymore, but take my abacus upstairs and inform you in my way when the time comes.
Let's go back to the statement, not only flying will become a luxury, but many necessary needs in society will become so, but first we will cut pensions with 15 billion euros on the shelf, make houses unaffordable, live with more fixed costs than bricks, etc. …..
In addition to overpopulation, not being allowed to talk about nuclear energy as a solution to the CO2 problem is an issue.
Hi
Do you know what gives me chills from all the drivel of all those people who don't take the climate problem seriously and who only think about their own petty affairs!
Adri
I understand your point of view, but then I get the cold shivers, for example, from all those so-called climate prophets, who, if they get a dissenting voice, immediately scream bloody murder.
One should not have a different opinion, especially when a 16-year-old child, who I think should just be in school, has suddenly seen the light and is being chewed everything out.
It's just too sad for words.
From above, Bill Gates is a strong advocate, among others, if they want to reduce the population.
Like a herd of cattle.
There are plenty of scientists and more and more are claiming that it is a recurring and natural phenomenon.
There is more than enough evidence for that, by the way.
In every way we have become a great cash cow and that cow is almost completely trapped between the fences.
The EU, a blessing for humanity? Forget it.
By the way, do we have a voice in this farce, didn't think so, what do you mean democracy.
All back to Spain by car, right???
A text that I received by email this week and there is a lot of truth in it.
Millions of years ago, half of what is now Belgium and the Netherlands was underwater.
Whales even swam here, a skeleton of which was excavated a few years ago during the earthworks of the renovations of the Monica hospital in Antwerp.
The ice caps had also partially melted by then. Global warming at that time was certainly not caused by man's CO2 emissions, because that did not exist at the time.
However, this event is explained as a cyclical event due to eruptions on the solar surface in combination with the position of the earth in our solar system.
The majority of self-proclaimed climate specialists are silent about this in all languages.
Presumably, however, a similar event is now taking place in which a limited additive effect of humans on global warming is likely, but has not been calculated in terms of figures.
In Belgium, with a contribution of only 0,2 percent of the total CO2 emissions in the world, wouldn't it be better to build dikes instead of investing all our money in expensive inadequate solutions (insulation, solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, etc) with which some earn a lot of money?
To what extent all these investments result in an intended temperature drop cannot be demonstrated even by the cackling mastermind Calvo.
By the way, despite all our efforts, CO2 emissions worldwide have increased by 2,7% in the past year.
This means that elsewhere (including Russia, China, India) they are completely wiped out and are waiting for us to wring our own prosperity instead of looking for efficient and effective technical innovations.
Anuna de Wever, the 'prodigy' from Mortsel, who claims not to know which sex she belongs to ('I am Anuna') but who travels the world in the meantime does not understand that people want to live behind a dike.
I think that the 1795 people who drowned in the 1953 flood disaster would have been happy to have had a dike that could have protected them.
It should come as no surprise that climatologists consider the climate important anyway, because that is preaching for your own parish and your own portfolio.
I have also never met a farmer who did not think agriculture was important.
It is therefore high time that the balloon of the climate hype is burst and the
its instigators, the Green fascists, through a populist discourse for electoral gain,
sponsored, of course, by our 'objective' sympathetic media, are exposed.
And if those 'concerned' young people, with the full sympathy of Leonardo di Caprio, who himself constantly flies around the world in his private jet from one villa to another residence, are so happy to demonstrate weekly – then why not during the weekend. ?
Although it would be less fun, it would certainly remove the perception of their questionable commitment. Wondering how long they would keep that up.
Finally, I would greatly appreciate it if the schools, including indoctrination teachers, would be a little more concerned about the obscene and vulgar slogans their students carry on the marches and replace them with 'The party is over'.
With all due respect, these kinds of 'texts' that you get forwarded often have virtually no reliable sources (or simply none) and amount to the same kind of populist statements as mr. Wilders.
I am open to reliable sources with verifiable information, whichever way they point. Otherwise it's just a nice made-up story that is proclaimed as fact but ultimately consists of nothing more than gut feelings. A little chain letter level. Unfortunately, these kinds of 'texts' are all too often referred to when it comes to climate, rather than substantiated research.
What does Mr Wilders have to do with your "argument"?
Except to display your political preference?
Unfortunately, the real problem is invariably not mentioned, which is that there are simply too many people on Earth. Billions of people too many. The Club of Rome (in the 70's) already said that the Earth between 3-4 billion people could exist forever. That is considerably less than the 8,5 billion of today. The population explosion in Africa is yet to come. You won't hear the climate geeks talk about this.
Well, the environment, everyone thinks something should be done, but nobody wants to be bothered by it.
The youth who blame us for the pollution, but if you address them about their consumption behavior (mac donald, mobile phone, scooter, brand clothing) they react as if stung by a wasp.
The business community also only wants to continue to earn more and that is why nothing will change because cutting costs costs money.
The middle group elites, which also includes D66, PvdA and Groenlinks, are alienating themselves from the majority of the people by saddling them with the huge costs of climate and immigration and undermining Western culture in the Northwest. of Europe still exists. The revolution that is going on now does not come from the people but from the elites with their delusional ideas. For this they very quickly killed the referendum, which D66 and Groenlinks were in favor for a very long time, it reflects the fear of the mob. They no longer represent the people, but only their own circle.
You may be interested in seeing and hearing the following conversation: https://www.rtlz.nl/opinie/video/4861756/het-politieke-midden-suicidaal (possibly copy the link if it doesn't work.)
I agree with the writer that flying will only become more expensive and that not only other daily necessities will also become more expensive. On the other hand, a new sharing economy is emerging, but whether this will still reach enough consumers ….
By the way, I have family there, I want to go on foot, but I don't think I have enough leave for that
I have no problem paying a reasonable surcharge because the tickets are indeed cheap, but what I do object to is that governments and aircraft manufacturers must ensure that the planes fly with less polluting fuels. The governments can pressure the manufacturers to switch as they have now “finally” started experimenting with hydrogen as a fuel and why not hybrid aircraft flying on electricity generated by a generator and perhaps also solar cells in the roof of the planes. After all, they fly above the clouds and during the day they can take advantage of that, if necessary, just to warm up the meals on board!
Flying to Thailand is a luxury??
When I first flew to Thailand with China Airlines in 1992, I paid almost the same amount converted from guilders to euros as now a return ticket with KLM. So that was luxury.
In fact, we now pay too little for tickets due to the fierce competition.
As far as Schiphol is concerned, the following. I don't know of any airport, where you can travel by train from the airport in all directions. Many foreign travelers who use Schiphol call this airport great for this reason.
I do not completely agree with you, of course there is fierce competition, but the technology and costs have changed enormously in the last 20 years. Better technology and production processes and more aircraft are produced due to more demand, more production generally means that the costs per product also go down. Aircraft are also much more economical than 20-30 years ago.
And according to our current government, competition is good, that makes everything cheaper. That's why everything in the Netherlands has to be privatized.
And do you know what those left-wing green pushers like best of all? Peasant bullying….! Totally unaware that without this industry not much is possible in this world!!!
As a farmer, I must point out that we ordinary farmers are not so much bullied by the green idealists, but much more by the consequences of industrial mega-stables with their huge emissions. These are not 'farmers', but purely commercial profit companies, which, at the expense of Boer-met-de-Pet, push prices down through mass production and still optimize their profits by not paying for the real environmental damage they cause. And what applies to farmers also applies to flies and those who fly, like myself (yes, farmers fly too). Just pay taxes on kerosene consumption and environmental damage. The polluter pays. And Jan met de Pet in proportion too. Those costs per ticket are really not too bad. All statistical data show that Jan met de Pet is the biggest victim of the current environmental pollution: a considerable shortening of the lifespan and a relatively greater burden on his/her well-being due to noise, pollution and being unhealthy. In the longer term, we will of course have to fly to electric in order to limit pollution and noise.
I hope not, keep your paws off our transport
Heavy levy on kerosene! Then the airlines will be forced to quickly switch to flying on hydrogen.
Too bad the author only focuses on flights to Thailand. Flying over short distances within Europe should become considerably more expensive (now for 25 euros to Berlin… that's crazy) and traveling by train cheaper. Germany has taken a first step in this direction.
From Amsterdam it will soon be possible to travel by train to London without changing trains.
In my opinion, global warming is indeed a result of our modern way of life and population.
Vision 1 (like Greta): draconian measures will be taken to try to slow that down - but then globally or it is literally mopping up with the tap open.
View 2 (like Trump): Climate catastrophes have been occurring on Earth for millennia for various reasons. You can't stop that economically efficiently. Better to go with the flow and adapt.
Given that half of the world (the emerging Asian part) is just getting comfortable with 'modern' life (air conditioners, cars, planes, ...) it seems hopeless to me to step into Vision 1 - but the government will (and) not hold back from introducing costly measures.
Vision 2 is going to make a large number of victims, as it has done for millennia.
I see it (a little) pessimistic in ...
All scaremongering in 5 billion years the earth will perish, yet we are almost worried about it
Consumer society makes buying compulsory, not being economical with your money, saving costs you money
I don't believe one... of a collective goldmine
For each state country government CO2
The hole in the ozone layer was a real problem and it was successfully addressed by the ban on CFCs. Acid rain same story, partly due to the attention considerably reduced but not completely banned.
So if we continue the parallel about climate change and CO2 – as you seem to argue – you recognize that this is also a problem. With the exception of a few scientists, they all agree that this is a human-related problem.
Taxing everything so that only the rich can fly doesn't seem like the solution to me. Then we return to class society and in my opinion the 'left' cannot be for that. Do you have any sources for 'climate weirdos' who think such class divisions are great? How representative are these people for the groups that draw attention to the environment?
But it seems clear to me that we have to do something. What a fair and acceptable approach is.. no idea.
Fortunately, population growth will level off and we will have about 11 billion people in 2100. But they all want the same modern luxury (house, TV, car, plane trip). That really is a headache, how do we distribute the demand for all that without killing the planet?
Perhaps the vroom-vroom VVD club has no problem flying for the rich, as it did in the good old days when the plebs still knew their place. As a social democrat, I hope that we will share the benefits and burdens fairly.
Flying will probably become a bit more expensive, but unaffordable? Don't think and hope so.
Sources:
- https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/lifestyle/artikel/4414301/lijstje-ozonlaag-klimaat-milieu
- https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/08/30/nrc-checkt-zure-regen-en-waldsterben-bleken-onzin-te-zijn-a1614700
- https://frieschdagblad.nl/2019/7/1/wat-is-er-toch-gebeurd-met-de-zure-regen
- https://www.gapminder.org/category/world-population/
You mention the VVD and as a classical liberal I want to pick up on that. I was surprised at the attitude of the VVD, it suddenly seemed like the sister party of the Green Left. Ed Nijpels embracing his prodigal son Jesse, isn't it beautiful? But it is now clear to me what hidden agenda the VVD has. The energy transition involves billions (the citizens have to cough up through taxes, but good). And those billions go to the companies that embrace green gold. Instead of transferring the billions to the oil sheikhs in the Middle East, the billions now go to European companies that have to take care of that energy transition. That fits in the liberal alley of Europhile Rutte. And also explains why Nijpels did not want to talk about nuclear energy. There is not enough to earn from this for companies. All very special.
Exactly Peter, the VVD found out that there was money to be made with the climate and that is why they turned around like a leaf on a tree
Not only money, but also votes and they desperately need that
Given my monthly Euros, it is already a luxury for me.
Best
all.
why so much chatter day and night? one day the world will come to an end whether you want to stretch it or not.
accept that and try to enjoy your stay on earth as much as possible. there is nothing to save and certainly not by our small country alone!
It has become all the rage…. now a child from Scandinavia is already traveling and has meetings with the pope and Obama and she scolds the older generation that has done “nothing” and saddles today's youth with the climate problem. She does use airplanes and cars for this purpose….
I am not an expert, but in my opinion it is not only an exaggeration, but a completely pointless effort to reduce the CO2 level of the world. It is utter nonsense and especially to raise taxes on air travel now is yet another example of the government's greed to let us pay their debts.
Here is an interesting entry on global warming…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hmvO436g9M
As for overpopulation… yes, there are indeed many people, but not overpopulation. However, very poor management regarding waste processing and also poor awareness of most of them regarding their own production. There is only production, but in such a way that the waste is difficult to process. That's something to look at, not car exhaust. But…. it doesn't make a lot of money, so it's not interesting.
Yes, there is overcrowding and not a little too (and the religions had better scrap the slogan 'Go and multiply').
Only China has done population control in the past fifty years because they could ignore religions because of their ideological system.
It is not because we can potentially feed all the people in the world that this gives us the right to be with more and destroy the earth. All other species reproduce to save their kind. But we are rather busy killing our species and all other species.
Rigidly limiting the human species is the only possible solution to all kinds of problems, because it is the basis of all problems. But no one dares to start that, unless soon because of an even bigger and more murderous world war. (By the way, religions have never spoken negatively about this extreme form of birth control…)
There will be because wars are always about economic issues and are fought to defend economic interests. But we always hang that on other coat racks.
Due to global warming, these interests are increasingly endangered for many countries. Consequence destabilization and fighting by the strong countries for the preservation of their economic system in a military way. That's what 7 years of civilization have always been about. For example, what was the Gulf War different from securing oil for the US, including securing their civilization.
Our species of sapiens is the only one that exhausts the earth, just because we are far too many and will be even more in the future and because we are so smart.
Other species are self-sustaining and waste nothing. Nothing. According to latest calculations there are 8 million species on our planet (including trees and co. and with a margin of error of 3 million, yes!!!, so many million more is assumed.)
Only we, human species, use everything, do everything and again are all over the world worldwide. So we consume and waste our earth all over the world… An elephant only consumes in a small niche in Africa.
We also use much more than we need! We call that consumption. All the other seven million point nine nine nine species of living creatures do not digest anything and consume nothing more than is necessary to stay alive. Nothing anymore.
In this way we leave a huge ecological footprint. And we can't take it anymore. Any attempt to stop global warming is doomed to failure if we don't cut ourselves in half!
In the 70s, scientists already calculated that the earth can only remain in balance with respect to humans if we are 'only' 4 to 5 billion. And stay. Unfortunately.
It's all about the pride of man. For two thousand years, the desert religions, with their one-god system, proclaimed that man, of all living creatures, was the crown of creation. That he was the personification of god on earth. Now we no longer believe in those stories, but we still believe that we are the kings of creation and above all other life. So above those eight million others. What pride. Well, what other species has already sent a rocket to Mars. Certainly not the red-eared slider!
A solution? Not really. The case is like this! We stay with our close relatives, the great apes.
An Orangutan hardly has sex in its life. Every eight years he may be able to deposit his sperm so that it ends up in an egg of a female. Then he has offspring. That remains very few.
Man, however, has evolved as one of the few living beings to be able to have sex anytime, anywhere. So we do nothing but sex all over the world. And make children. Until that changes, there is little hope.
Well, the Netherlands must lead the way, right?
The two-coal-fired power stations must be closed at an accelerated rate, despite the fact that these power stations have undergone every possible modification to make them cleaner.
Meanwhile, China announces that 1149 coal-fired power stations will be built in the next ten years.
The older power stations will continue to be used.
Would those two closed power stations in the Netherlands really help?
Everything we do in the Netherlands has no global effect whatsoever, our country is too small for that. China, India, the US and more countries are not participating. And those are the biggest polluters when it comes to CO2.
Incidentally, nitrogen is something that we should be concerned about. If we want to retain a diversity of nature in our country, we must do so. I think it's a good plan to reduce the maximum speed on the highways.
I am a Knight of the Order of the Teaspoon. A small contribution or sacrifice is also important, also as an example. All changes (even the bad ones by the way...) start with a single vote and a single euro. 'I don't do anything because it is just a drop in the ocean', allows evil to exist.
It is a fact that politicians, the car industry and many others have concealed climate problems for years and not taken them seriously.
For years, advice from real experts has been ignored, while those who refuse the same truth are now suddenly discovering that among the supporters of Greta Thunberg, among others, who are becoming increasingly popular, are the political voices and car buyers of tomorrow.
Politicians in many countries have long been guided by the wishes of their voters and the powerful car industry, so that they now have to bend the often one-sided protests of climate fanatics.
One sided because these climate fanatics, unlike the experts who warned years ago, only see the climate as a priority, and actually ignore the employment and other economic aspects.
Of course it is a wonderful gesture for her supporters and some others when Greta Thunberg travels across the Atlantic to America on a sailboat, but who can afford this gesture in normal life in terms of time and money?
I would like to see those children, who now miss school every Friday for their climate-friendly future, if they had to visit their school on foot or by bicycle instead of the school bus in all weathers.
Even with an alternative fuel, it is already a thorn in the side of the real climate gurus if everyone can still use their own vehicle in the future.
According to them, public transport should become so cheap and extensive that everyone no longer needs their own vehicle.
Who will still have to pay the enormous costs of roads, streets and highways, if everyone no longer pays motor vehicle tax, and public transport becomes so cheap?
Of course something urgently needs to be done, but it is certainly not that simple and one-sided to suggest this climate to Yuppies.
I'm sure the current hysteria will ease up a lot when they see the final bill.
I don't think raising airfare prices will make a difference. We just keep flying. A pack of 20 cigarettes has an excise duty of 5 euros. 1 liter of petrol 0,78-0,87 euros excise. And we still smoke and still drive cars. I also wonder whether the extra tax levy will be used for measures to reduce nitrogen emissions. I don't think so myself, money disappears in the big heap. The "green creeps" are people who are justifiably concerned about the environment, so they're not that creepy. These are the same people who have championed disarmament, abolishing slavery, abolishing bio-industry, recycling, clean energy, buying sustainable products, etc. We find that very normal now, but it wasn't in the past either. Green creeps will always be there and that's a good thing, otherwise we would still be living in the Middle Ages. So long live the green creeps!
Disagree with the statement.
Airline tickets cost twice as much 40-50 years ago as they do now. In those 40 years, salaries have risen sharply and travel has become much cheaper despite the increase in costs. Hence the mass tourism.
We shouldn't be dramatic about an increase in air prices; certainly not when you realize that the next generation of elderly people will be much richer than the current pensioners. The young people are getting poorer, so that's the rub.
And another thing: when Wim Kok raised the petrol prices, everyone screamed bloody murder, but no one drove a kilometer less. Driving is just as essential to the life of the Dutch as beer and salted herring flown in. Flying follows closely. Luxury? We bet that the low-cost carriers see long-haul as a growth market? That development is already underway.
It's a good thing, the competition and the choice are becoming even greater and, above all, cheaper.
Can we visit the family more often?
@Vliegtickets cost twice as much 40-50 years ago as they do now
Tickets were 70-800 guilders in the 1000s, were valid for a full year and you could rebook for free, try that again today. Oh yeah where are the open tickets????
Ticket valid for 1 year and possibility to rebook is now called 'flexeble' and it comes with a price tag.
give me the good old system from 40 years ago.
Real planes and not those sardine cans of today where they squeeze as many seats as possible.
Still nice to smoke a cigarette on the plane, and metal cutlery.
Larger seats and more legroom.
And finally not those abnormal checks of now, and big brother who wants to know where you are going.
Someone argues that global warming is due to stronger solar activity.
However: The sun's activity has decreased in the last few years and will probably continue for decades to come… and yet it is getting warmer ra ra.
Others argue that the reduced activity will not start until 2020:
https://www.livescience.com/61716-sun-cooling-global-warming.html
I also found this: less solar activity between 2000 and 2008, but still warming:
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Help the Poles are melting the sea water rises by xx meters!
Well, take a glass half full with water, add ice cubes up to the edge of the glass.
Now we're going to wait for the ice to melt, and is the glass overflowing now?
The world also got warmer until recently (20-30 years ago), but that has been reversed by a changed position of the sun. It's getting colder now!
I've been following this closely for about 10 years, and when people found out, the disappointment was great when it turned out that they were wrong and there was nothing to be gained from cold. That's why they first talked about global warming (Al Gore), and when that was no longer true, they turned it into climate change.
And why was this wrong? Well, because the thermometers had been placed in the wrong places, such as airports (jet engines) in the cities (city heating) etc. There was no sound from all those beautiful reports, but anyone who said anything about it was denounced.
It's a big scam/hoax in 100 years people will learn in school how everyone was fooled, and many filled their pockets.
Furthermore, it is unbelievable how many people, children and entire tribes all over the world have let themselves be harnessed here in a short time.
Poor souls! How wrong could you be?
I agree with you Karel that the C02 and nitrogen off is not the main cause of global warming or climate change, but it does contribute to it. But of course it never hurts to reduce emissions. However, air traffic in the Netherlands hardly contributes to the total emission of nitrogen in the Netherlands. Only 1%. See article below
Anyone who is concerned about ultrafine particles, CO2 or noise nuisance is quick to point an accusing finger at aviation. But when it comes to the nitrogen problem, aviation is not automatically in the dock.
Why not? This has to do with the amount of nitrogen oxides emitted by aircraft, according to RIVM. "All in all, that is relatively little compared to road traffic and shipping," says a spokesperson. Only 2 percent of the nitrogen oxides emitted by traffic in total come from aircraft landing and taking off. And when looking at the total emissions of nitrogen oxides in the Netherlands, the sector is only responsible for 1 percent.
Agriculture is the main culprit in the Netherlands with 46% of total nitrogen emissions. So what are we talking about when it comes to air traffic 1%? So agriculture must be tackled and not air traffic.
Global warming is simply a fact that we cannot deny, whatever the cause.
In the Netherlands it is also getting warmer on average every year.
Just checked the stats. From 1706 (first measurement) to 1988, the average annual temperature barely rose above 10 degrees. However, from 1988 to 2018, the average temperature has already risen well above 21 degrees 10 times and even 5 times above 11 degrees since 2006.
Conclusion The Netherlands has become significantly warmer in recent years than before.
Take a glass half filled with water and put ice cubes in it. Then we soon see that the water is over the edge. Your example assumes that the ice is already in the water, but of course that is not the case. More than 98% of the ice is on land. If you've been following this for 10 years, you should know this Karel, I think. Sea level rise is simply a fact and has been going on for years. So we better focus on future scenarios to cope with sea level rise. Especially in the Netherlands, where a large part of the country is already below sea level.
Below is an article about the melting of the ice for the enthusiasts.
The ice sheets in both Greenland and Antarctica were regularly in the news in 2014. For example, researchers discovered that there are deep channels on the bottom of Greenland that are below sea level. As a result, the Greenland ice sheet is likely more sensitive to warming ocean waters than previously thought. How sensitive? According to another study, the limit for collapse of the Greenland ice sheet could already be a few degrees of temperature rise above the pre-industrial era. About 400.000 years ago, Greenland caused 4,5 to 6 meters of sea level rise.
Greenland's ice would raise sea levels by 7 meters if it all melted. On the other side of the Earth, however, there is a much larger ice sheet: Antarctica, which in total accounts for a global sea level rise of 57 metres. It is unlikely that all the ice in Antarctica will melt, but the contribution to sea level from the most sensitive part, West Antarctica, is estimated to be 3 to 4 metres.
Warming is causing the permafrost in areas such as northern Russia to thaw. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground that stores huge amounts of carbon. When permafrost thaws, the micro-organisms present in the soil can convert the carbon into methane or CO2. Both greenhouse gases contribute to further warming and thus to the further thawing of permafrost
Go google Karel and you will become a bit wiser.
Greetings Hans
Sorry, I also want to respond to your Hans
With every reaction you get a counter reaction.
Facts. 2000 years ago the average temperature in the Netherlands was 3 degrees warmer than it is now. The Netherlands was a wine country.
There were supposedly fewer glaciers on the Alps than there are now.
Greenland was much greener than it is now.
This period lasted until about the year 1100. After that it started to cool down.
If we go even further back in time, it was indeed much wetter in Maastricht, according to St. Pieter, who excavated a mosasaur. Maastricht is marl and that means shells.
In an interim it was possible to walk to England and the dogger bank was a hill in the area. Now it is 15 meters under water.
This week, Rijkswaterstaat reported that it had not observed any rise in sea levels over the past 10 years.
Taking into account the total volume of ice on land that is present on the world compared to the surface of all oceans and seas, and calculating this together, you will arrive at a rise of 11 meters at the most.
This does not take into account the effect that melted ice has a smaller volume and also that due to evaporation there will be much more moisture in the atmosphere.
It is a fact that Siberia is thawing, but 40.000 years ago the ancestors of the elephants lived there.
It is no surprise that the temperature at the measuring stations is rising. Take a look at aerial photos of measuring station Eindhoven and Arcen. Eindhoven until mid-1980 in the open field and completely surrounded by forests and grassland. Now only asphalt and concrete.
Arcen was a piece of grassland until mid-1990, now a long-term parking area for long-term parkers.
Gives an increase in the average ambient temperature.
Furthermore, the entire nitrogen problem is also greatly exaggerated, our atmosphere consists of 78,08% nitrogen and contains 0,038% CO2.
(Every year I sprinkle 250 kilos of fertilizer (20 to 25% nitrogen) over my mother-in-law's soil around the house. This for the bananas, the corn, the vegetable fields and the fruit and other trees. They always look great. I notice that unlike the Thai I do not plow 10 cm but 30 to 50 cm deep.)
This atmosphere has been almost constant for centuries (10.000 years). Even measured from and with core samples from both Antarctica and the North Pole.
I've already commented here before. Mid 1970 acid rain, mid 1975 towards an ice age, then ozone problem. I can still imagine that. Now first global warming but now it's suddenly called climate crisis.
I suggest we should not look at the big picture, we can never solve this. Look at our environment around us and try to keep it livable.
In mid-1950, our country was overcrowded with 6 million people. and people had to emigrate to Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand. Now we are about 17.5 million. Therein lies a bigger problem.
When I'm in Bangkok I also get the jitters there is no more nature. Am I in Uttaradit is something from Pieterburen in the Netherlands. But also in Uttaradit there is no nature anymore because everything here is cut down and ground into chips and transported to Europe to be burned in power stations. As a result, there is no more condensation under the canopy of the trees and everything radiates here. The soil temperature rises and this also provides almost no cooling at night.
I have already renounced the sources you visit years ago (Fake news), I can name enough sources that make short work of this, but this is pointless, because then it will become a welles nothing story, because you will then say that my sources being fake news.
I learned not to trust politicians and especially men and women in white coats, that white coat must exude authority and confidence and is even used in TV commercials. all bogus!
NASA NOAA and many other agencies are corrupt to the core, It is getting colder and we are heading towards a mini ice age, there has never been so much ice, Large American and Russian Icebreakers are getting stuck in the Arctic. (look it up)
Yes, the glass can overflow a bit, depending on whether you use salt or fresh water.
I'm not worried about the climate at all, only nitrogen is allowed less by me, But I don't like it getting colder,
How nice it would be if we had palm trees in the Netherlands like in the south of France, I can also skip SE Asia.
So Hans Google more on the right sites and don't believe everything you read.
This must be fake news according to you.
So you think the IPCC and many other sources that all conclude the same thing are all unreliable sources of fake news?
The sea level along the Dutch coast has risen steadily in 128 years by approximately 24 cm, or an increase of 1,9 mm per year. The global rise in sea level is in the same order of magnitude, namely approximately 22 cm over the same period. The global rise in sea level is less uniform and is now accelerating. This acceleration is most visible since the XNUMXs. This pattern can be easily explained by estimates for the expansion of water due to warming oceans and the melting of ice caps and glaciers due to climate change. It is not entirely clear why the global rise in sea level is accelerating and the sea level rise along the Dutch coast is not. A possible explanation is the fact that the North Atlantic shows much less acceleration than globally.
The rise in global sea level as shown in the second figure can be traced to four factors, the first three of which are related to climate change (IPCC, 2013; Slangen et al. 2016; Cazenave et al. 2018). The factors are:
thermal expansion of warming seawater (about 1,3 mm per year),
the worldwide melting of glaciers and small ice caps (about 0,7 mm per year),
the melting of the ice sheet in Greenland and the melting of land ice in Antarctica (about 0,7 mm per year),
the use of groundwater (very low, about 0,02 mm per year).
Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice and that is accelerating. One study shows that the ice melt rate has increased by an average of 18 gigatons (36 kilograms) every year over the past 36.000.000.000 years. The ice loss is now more than 500 gigatons per year. This corresponds to 1,4 millimeters of global sea level rise per year.
All fake news right? All pulled from the thumb.
Dear Hans, I just gave you a thumbs up for the great effort and detailed argument, you go all the way, and that is to your credit.
Yes, IPCC and many other sources (not all) are 'on the take' or have multiple interests and/or political views, moreover do not tolerate contradiction, there has also been a lot of criticism of IPCC over the years.
If you really think that governments or scientists (often closely connected together) always speak the truth, then the scales will fall from your eyes one day.
But that doesn't matter Hans, a person must have something to live for, and something to believe in.
And I believe in the following, and a handsome boy who knows how to convince me to change my mind here.
Global warming = fake news. It's getting colder.
climate change = correct, but a natural cycle.
the solution = It doesn't exist. This is a made up problem!
Result = people knocking money out of pockets with tax this and tax that, and farmers make life impossible.
I don't care about all this nonsense and continue to fly with increased tax and all. (Do the Jesse Klavers and Al Gores, don't they?)
fr, gr, Karel
Agriculture needs to be addressed?
The last time I looked I saw that most of the human food is produced in agriculture.
But, I understand, less agriculture eventually leads to famine, people die and that is good for the environment.
Yet?
Some sense of reality in the discussion is nice.
And mind you, less farming certainly means less local food.
That must then come from elsewhere, be transported, is that good for the environment?
And beware, if everything has to come from abroad, the Netherlands will become very vulnerable to unwanted political advances or pressure from abroad.
And that is pretty stupid.
I just wanted to say that agriculture/livestock farming is the biggest problem if you really want to tackle nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands. This is to emphasize that there is little point in tackling air traffic. That's what the piece was about, I thought? I have had no further conclusion or judgment about that. Or how you should tackle that problem.
Just this: Of course I do know that 98% ice is on land in Antarctica, and if that were to melt, the sea level would rise by 60 meters, but that will not happen because it is getting colder, so there will be more ice.
Pictures on television always show the breaking icebergs on the sea part to frighten people, and the melting is not a problem there now. ice has a lesser density than water and the ice has always melted over the centuries and then re-frozen.
No need to worry, but you can always make a donation to the Al Gore Villains Foundation if that makes you feel good.
Nice discussion when the start is about flying to Thailand. But here are some FACTS. Of course, the blame lies with our government, which itself has already indicated that it cannot count. Think of Jesse Clover. The fact that our government cannot count either is due to the fact that they could do nothing else and have never really followed an exact scientific physicist or technical study.
60 meters??? Just say real. Density of ice is lower than water otherwise it wouldn't float. Saves exactly 20%. More evaporation at higher temperatures. Evaporation extracts energy so it gets colder.
surface of oceans and seas 361,419,000 km2 (70,9 %)
Land area 148,647,000 km2 (29,1 %)
Volume of land ice. 29,000,000 km3
So gives 148,647,000 : (29,000,000 x 0,8) = 4,1 meters.
So how anyone ever got to 60 meters is beyond me.
Numbers can be found on the internet. By the way, not all the water will be directly in the oceans, but for example in lakes such as Lake Baikal. In lakes in valleys between the mountains, etc., the real increase, including the evaporation, will be about 4 meters.
Fun facts http://doris.tudelft.nl/Literature/verdult10.pdf
History: https://wetenschap.infonu.nl/natuurverschijnselen/16761-oorzaken-van-zeespiegelstijging.html
60 meters was a typo, had to be 6 meters, so your 4 meters is correct.
But like I said before that will never happen.
Furthermore, I advise all people in the Netherlands to buy an extra thick winter coat and a snowplow this winter because it will get cold, believe me.
But that's because of the warming are the latest scientific discoveries. Ha Ha!! they don't know what to think of to keep the climate candle burning because of craziness.
Well then here's my message to all fake scientists and their followers:
If you put a pan of water on the fire and it starts to freeze, give me a call!
What I don't like is reading President Trump's rhetoric from the mouths of fellow countrymen. You can disagree with each other, but we will have to do it together and in all reasonableness. There is a lot going on in the world in terms of the environment and it should now be sufficiently known. A serious matter for which good and sustainable solutions must be found. The fact that the major polluters such as the USA, China, Brazil and Indonesia, to name a few, do not take things so seriously is of course the most disturbing. Big money rules there and the decisions made there are usually very reprehensible. If we continue in this way, the world will accelerate towards destruction. Every country has its responsibility in this and must take it up. The big problem is that there are many who just do whatever and usually based on their own interests. Look at those wars and all that weaponry used as if it were good for the environment, apart from all the suffering of course. This issue can be found almost everywhere. Humanity that will eventually exterminate itself. Overpopulation is certainly one of the major issues at play and I could go on and on. The longer you think about it, the worse the future will look. How things should be turned around is up to politicians and the leaders and women who have to do their utmost, much more than at the moment. Humanity must also become more aware of what is really going on and not remain so short-sighted and rigid. We must continue to call each other out on irresponsible behavior. However, I have a gloomy view of it and, as a small country, leading the way and setting a good example by, for example, traveling less or paying a little more for a plane ticket is a start, but will of course have little impact on the total. But every little bit helps. As long as we do not convince the major world players, we will have to watch in suffering and wait to see how long we have left on a livable planet earth and make do with what we have. One thing is certain, it will take my time for the few years I still have left. Fortunately, there are young people with the right attitude and that makes me happy.
What would the price be if I traveled to Thailand by “the boat”? How long on the road?
Part of the nitrogen does indeed come from abroad, and part of the nitrogen emitted by us goes abroad.
Given that the Netherlands is more densely populated than our neighboring countries, I assume that we export more nitrogen than import.
Especially considering that in the Netherlands the wind usually comes from the west.
But there will undoubtedly come a day, when oxygen will also be called harmful, and will have to be pumped underground.
And yes, flying is too cheap.
Good piece.
Nice green D66 or animal cat, keep voting people!
https://www.briefjevanjan.nl/aan-links-nederland/
I opened that letter hoping for critical comments about environmental policy. I found a letter with slogans such as 'climate mafia' and aimed at 1 person. Shame. The climate is what it's about, not about Greta, Leonardo or Al (Gore). These people actually interest me little as a person, I have spent less than a minute on the presentations of all these well-known or lesser-known media wonders. I just want to hear clear facts and substantiated scenarios with pros and cons. It strikes me as more of a weakness to shoot the messenger instead of debunking the claims based on solid scientific substantiation.
So far I see mainly short-sighted reactions: oh, if I have to pay a euro more. Everything must be cheap, if only I have my pleasure today. Hear, see and be silent, ostrich behavior or downright antisocial.
Dear Rob, a scientifically substantiated discussion is not possible because then you will be boycotted by the left-wing press. You can't even say you have doubts. The left only wants freedom of speech when it suits them. If you have a different opinion, you will be denounced. Pretty scary when you think about it.
Source: https://www.mediacourant.nl/2019/02/pvv-verbijsterd-dat-nu-nl-klimaatsceptici-weigert/
Me, me, me, me, me, me, is not social either..
Put that finger away too 555
Are you really looking for scientific discussions on Thailandblog? You can easily find all pros and cons on YouTube, including scientific ones.
RobV. you call it downright antisocial if someone has a different opinion.
That it is only about ostrich politics of ours. At least that's how you call it.
I can agree with the nitrogen problem.
Maybe it's time to read not only the opinion of the many proponents, but also read with an open mind the well-founded opinions of the scientists, who come up with hard evidence that humanity being fooled.
And we are not talking about a few euros, but at least a thousand billion.
And what else will follow.
Any idea what this will mean for the millions of Dutch families?
It is, as Karel puts it, a cyclical fact and indeed Peter, what is the influence of that very small Netherlands, if we implement these enormous changes, while other continents don't care.
Dear Fred, I call it downright aso when people deny that any (human-influenced) climate change and CO2 emissions are taking place and therefore do not want to spend a euro on it: my plane ticket should not be more expensive and I vroom-vroom 130 to spare the highway and where it is not possible to tinker with it at all, as a calculation model it also shows that we can relieve some of the burden on the environment there.
But I think opinions with other solutions such as 'no aviation tax or tax on kerosene, but better a nuclear power plant' are fine. This can be substantiated with arguments, pros and cons. What exactly the measures should be is point 2, and in my view it goes without saying that scientifically substantiated necessary measures are distributed fairly. We can critically examine the options for measures and put them under fire from science, economists, etc. so that a good package of possible choices is created. Which choices we choose then becomes subjective, I would personally like to share the pain, but there are probably also people who are fine with everything as long as the bill is passed on to someone else.
I have not said anything about that change about how big or small it should be. An estimate can also be made about how expensive, effective, etc. everything is. We can then decide democratically about what is appropriate. But we have to take at least a few steps and not first point to someone else 'he doesn't do anything either'. What's wrong with taking the lead? Waiting for someone else seems downright unwise to me.
But if even China agrees that we need to do something and criticize the US, doesn't that indicate that the willingness is there? Can we at least take steps without reproaching that “the big players don't do anything either, so we better do nothing”
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/06/01/china-en-eu-nu-in-de-bres-voor-parijs-10873054-a1561255
Where is it that hard and ample scientific evidence about climate change is nonsense? I read that science almost unanimously agrees with climate changes and is indeed concerned:
“The time span from 2015 to 2019 is the warmest five-year period ever recorded, scientists write on the eve of the UN climate summit in New York. They also conclude that the world is doing far too little to limit the consequences of climate change, which is hitting us more often and harder than we previously thought.
It is in the report 'United in Science', which provides an overview of the available science on climate change.”
https://nos.nl/artikel/2302930-vn-rapport-afgelopen-5-jaar-warmste-ooit-gemeten-wereld-doet-te-weinig.html
Hi Rob,
Some reading material:
https://www.elsevierweekblad.nl/kennis/article/2015/12/9-leugens-en-overdrijvingen-over-het-klimaat-2729012W/
https://www.franklinterhorst.nl/Klimaat%20hysterie.htm
https://www.climategate.nl/
https://www.destaatvanhet-klimaat.nl/
https://youtu.be/GuoxLggqI_g (a good documentary by a journalist who is boycotted because he lets both sides speak) https://www.climategate.nl/2018/09/marijn-poels-links-en-toch-niet-politiek-correct/
https://youtu.be/2Tst9-Be4nY
https://www.geenstijl.nl/5146611/het-klimaat-is-ook-maar-gewoon-een-mening-geworden/
You should definitely read this one: https://www.destaatvanhet-klimaat.nl/2018/12/22/het-gaat-slecht-met-de-ijsbeer-zelfs-als-het-goed-gaat/
The left-wing press deliberately omits facts and evidence that show that climate change is not that bad. That is a proven means of trying to convince the masses. Repeating your own position and boycotting or censoring other opinions. You also see this in totalitarian socialist states such as Cuba, North Korea, Russia, etc.
Dear Peter, thanks for the links. Although I have my suspicions about some of those sources. Take Elsevier, not exactly a source for objective pieces (take the nonsense about how Brussels lurks on our pension pots according to Elsevier, the pieces about migration are never actually realistic). It can be nice to read what the other person thinks, for example reading the VNG magazine to read something about grabbing at the top or consulting Greenpeace about nuclear energy. Can be good to gain insight into other opinions, but not the best sources for clear facts and balanced input from all kinds of parties.
Left press? De Groene Amsterdammer possibly, as the Telegraaf is on the right. I see mostly just bad journalism. Take the NOS and the well-known daily newspapers. Many items have been taken over from a press agency or spokesperson for the government or company X. But I know that there are also readers here who dismiss the NOS as 'left-wing' instead of lazy journalists who obediently copy what a minister has to say (there is little on the left with one after the other cabinet under VVD or CDA leadership).
With the other sources I do not expect an objective item such as a site under the name 'climate gate'. But I'm going to dive into it this weekend, to at least listen to my ear. Surrounding yourself with yes-men is not wise. But to determine my opinion on climate and measures, I ultimately rely on what scientists and similar specialists come up with in large (preferably unanimous) numbers.
Dear Rob, just watch the documentary by Marijn Poels https://youtu.be/GuoxLggqI_g and also his sequel to it: Paradogma, then it becomes clear what is going on.
About Paradogma: Documentary maker Marijn Poels (42) was overwhelmed with furious reactions when he made a critical documentary about the climate hype. Poels decided to investigate in a new film why his critics are so angry with him. What is behind the tendency of the politically correct 'left' to silence dissenters? "Why can't I think what I think?"
I am the first to be financially disadvantaged by a flight tax, given my income, approximately €1100. I would definitely regard the premise that this will make my life 'less enjoyable' compared to unhindered consumption as corrupt.
Paul Rosenmöller write you can still fly? Lucky that man. Can he visit his old friends from the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia again, whom he idolized so much years ago. It's a pity for him that Pol Pot and his second in demand have passed away, otherwise they could have played nice stories and exchanged ideas about a new course. For example, transforming the Agricultural State into an Environmental State. Politicians flutter with all winds. And no one in his party is talking about Paul's childhood sins.
It is not surprising that this statement evokes many reactions, because it affects everyone in one way or another.
When it comes to the nitrogen problem, it is good to know that biodiversity in the EU has decreased by about 20% in recent decades. Dutch pastures are becoming less and less alive, which means that food chains have been destroyed. The more diversity, the less chance of naturally solving a natural problem such as the oak processionary caterpillar. Control costs more and more money, while blue tits, among others, can also solve it, but then living space must be granted.
In the nature reserves that have been designated by the Purple cabinets and are therefore not necessarily a left-wing hobby, the intention is that we prevent and retain diversity. In itself, this is unnatural, since a heathland is naturally converted into forest and a marsh area into land.
Nitrogen is the unwanted growth agent for species you don't want in those habitats. If nothing is done, maintenance costs will simply increase.
The Netherlands is too small, so there is a great tension between biodiversity and maintaining prosperity. A country such as China can designate an area such as NL as a nature reserve without too much effort, which then creates space to build a mega airport elsewhere.
I think a ticket can go up by a few tenners if it also accounts for how it has been spent. 70 million passengers already yields quite a bit to take more environmentally friendly measures.
It's like Peter says the real problem is the overpopulation of the earth. More people means more consumption, with all its consequences. When I went to primary school there were 9 million people in the Netherlands and this is now double. As far as flight prices are concerned, I paid FL 76 for a return ticket from Amsterdam to Bangkok in '800 and it was valid for a year. Flight prices are subject to strong fluctuations because they are quoted in dollars and paid for in this currency. As far as Greta is concerned, she's just been groomed (by parents?) to pretend to be like that. A 16 year old girl? Fluent in English and traveling the world alone? Where are her parents? That Greta comes across as very unbelievable. In any case, after me the deluge.
“In any case, after me the deluge”
As a result, the earth is now less beautiful than it was. The plastic soup in the sea and other environmental damage only comes from one species that is also allowed to use the world.
In 80 years, some figures manage to destroy more than what others failed to do even in thousands of years.
Humanity can do a lot, but showing a little respect for the living environment is too much to ask.
As long as people say after me the flood, then not enough Gretas can raise their voices.
All well and good, of course something has to be done, but as long as America, China, Africa and most of the Asian countries do not comply, we can do little in that speck of the world and we pay for the large users in the world .
And now try to bring back the nuance together and read the following article: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/09/27/greta-is-echt-niet-onze-leider-a3974824
Because I have enough time, I am also quite active on twitter.
A lot of facts are presented there about what really and with the climate and environment and especially about our greta
Obviously if it was my child she would be in school and first learned to put things into perspective. To many, she comes across as suffering from Asperger's disease and displaying an awful level of ADHD.
Furthermore, climate and the environment are used inappropriately and inappropriately. Yes, in the summer the North Pole melts and in the winter the South Pole freezes. In our winter, the south pole melts and the north pole grows.
The amount of sea ice has increased in the last 10 years. Only it is not in the traditionally known places, but more to the east and on the other side of the current indicated pole. So looking north west from us. More is growing than melting in the last 7 years.
It is not surprising that the ice caps in Greenland are melting. Mid 600 AD to 1100 AD the Normans lived on agriculture and livestock. Hence GREENLAND. In the mid-1400s that was impossible.
In Switzerland, a Roman fort emerged from under a melting glacier last year. Ra Ra.
Furthermore, with regard to CO2, plants and trees need that. More green measures CO2 storage. Trees convert CO@ to a large extent into C and O2.
The percentage of CO2 in the air fluctuates but has been around 0,038% for centuries with a variation of 0,002% over the last 1500 years (measured by sampling ice).
We really need to do something about this. Especially off the gas in the Netherlands, while in Germany and Belgium they receive a subsidy to switch ON the gas.
An average family is 800 Euro cheaper in Belgium and 600 Euro in Germany. Pure the gas price.
Then the nitrogen. This amounts to 78,08% of our atmosphere. This has been the case since creation and the left parties want to reduce it. Small but very small chance that that will ever work.
Nitrogen thus originates worldwide and a small volcanic eruption destroys all our work.
In principle, it is not a bad idea that we in the Netherlands should abandon plastic cotton swabs. Bamboo is also possible.
I can agree with that to a large extent. But then start with abolishing cucumbers in plastic, Double plastic packaging around products. Get rid of the PET bottles.
But this also has its advantages and disadvantages.
If you hand in the cup separately, a cup of coffee from a plastic cup is better for the environment than from a porcelain cup and saucer. A paper beket also loses it.
This if you consider the entire process from raw material to end of life. The total ecological footprint of a cup and saucer that is baked from clay, transported by truck, and washed with clean drinking water after use is many times larger than a plastic cup.
Don't even want to bring a paper cup. Because that is also bad. Especially considering the use of the chemicals that are required for this.
For how crazy it may sound, a plastic shopping bag if it is used 10 times and especially not washed. Is considerably better than a paper one that I have to use for 10 years. To get the same ecological footprint I have to use a linen or cotton shopping bag for 250 years.
People People First learn to compare from source to end of life.
That combustion engines have emissions and electric ones don't is fun.
But if I compare a petrol car and an electric car with each other, the total footprint is only neutral if I have driven at least 250.000 km with an electric car WITHOUT maintenance compared to a petrol car with its normal services.
What remains of residual waste after 250.000 km is a factor of 2.5 times higher for an electric car than for a petrol car.
With regard to the plastic pollution in our seas and oceans, 65% is caused by 6 countries and their share is growing by 25% per year. This means that in 5 years' time due to the growth of these countries, their GROWTH of emissions alone will be greater than the total emissions of the rest of the world.
Top 6 countries in the list are:
1. China
2. Indonesia
3. the Philippines
4 Vietnam
5. Sri Lanka
6.Thailand.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/science/2018/09/07/great-pacific-garbage-patch-where-did-all-trash-come/1133838002/
Thailand, strange as it may sound, is only sixth
There are other things that could be much more expensive, such as the meat. May be 3x as expensive in my opinion so that we eat that much less. And plastic bags at the checkout of the supermarket just 3 euros instead of 30 cents so that people finally think twice before they unnecessarily pollute the environment again.
Furthermore, flying is unfortunately polluting, but traveling is good for consciousness. Greetings
Climate change is there, and has always been there, but a new revenue model has been found by making people feel guilty: Give me your money and it will be fine, ridiculous!
The only way to combat the warming is to place a large screen in front of the sun, because that is the cause of warming throughout all times, just go and do research for a week.
The climate activists are indoctrinated hysterical climate..., of left-wing signature who do not shy away from violence during demonstrations, (London) terrible people in my opinion.
The left and right have good and bad points, but today's social democrats are no longer the goat wool socks brigade of yesteryear. Also, they are no longer averse to luxury or expensive cars and houses and long journeys by plane, etc. In other words, the Jesus sandal bearers captains of 'Peace man!' are no more, they now wear a three piece costume, and are very creative in planning and executing their actions, through an army of super impressionable idiots who have completely lost their way.
It has therefore become a well-oiled machine, and climate has become big business and everyone is filling their pockets, as a scientist, publish a report that confirms global warming and KASSA!
It is therefore unfortunately the simple man with a small salary or state pension (1100 euros) who ultimately has to pay for the laughter here, but has this ever been different?
Too bad some readers continue to proclaim their one-way left thinking pattern.
Guys that you initially think have their feet on the ground and appreciate for their contributions.
And then that left-wing indoctrination they read starts…
I this, I that, sister this sister this way, I believe, I think that, I don't trust this, my this my that, my sister, my such
Because that's what I've read so it's true.
I think so too, but about those with one-way right-wing thinking patterns that you think are sober but then take everything they read about indoctrination as true and keep proclaiming it... 😉
That is why it is important to consult other sources with different ideas. At least listen to them to gain insight into their thinking. For example, I sometimes read TPO, Elsevier, etc. with their left-wing... sorry nonsense and their climate... uhm, I mean their migration history.
Then I realize that it might not be useful to dismiss the other person as a half-crazy, unreasonable, hysterical person, that most people still want the best for each other and the world, that our brains have difficulty with complex global matters. or matters that player and over a long time. And then I try to fall back on experts. What a filmmaker like Marijn Poels does is fine. Different theories pulse. But then I am left with 'interesting what this learned man (may also be a woman, 555) has to say, but how well can fellow scientists pick holes in it or reproduce it?'
What rolls out there seems to me to be the best or least bad approach to keep the world livable for humans. If an air passenger tax fits in there than an air passenger tax, it will do no harm than an alternative that works/better.
I hope I can express my opinion again.
This one is not about left or right ideas, but about the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants.
But I read all these messages here and it is reported with some regularity that there are too many people living on this planet.
According to some experts in politics, business and climate prophets, 1% of the current world population is more than enough for this planet.
Bill Gates, for example, is one of a very illustrious group.
These people think they can play God.
They need us all to get terribly rich first and then dump us like, God forgive me, TRASH.
Drink this.
Many can all get behind this elitist show because that's what it is and I come with hard evidence.
See the attached link.
No sf, no tin foil hats, just simple facts.
If one still wants to be blind, UP TO YOU.
http://www.novini.nl/greta-thunberg-professionele-mediahype-van-grote-spelers/
Oh yeah, almost forgot.
flying to Thailand becomes a luxury!
This week the air travel budget of the EU leaders, officials etc. has been increased by 50%!!