[jocelyn]

I flew to Dublin for 3 days last week - it cost me about 50 quid. My colleague took the train from London and the Ferry from Fishguard, it must have cost her about 200 quid. Bearing in mind we were both working on publically financed projects - should I have taken the eco-friendly option as well?

[walter]

yes!!

[david_r]

I Think you should have done because you have to remember:
- We all have a responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint
- It is as individuals that we can change the world. If enough of us make a difference then we CAN make a difference!!

[peter]

What about the even more eco-friendly option - staying at home and meeting through a video conference only? We have become addicted not only to air travel, but to travel per se. Some face to face meetings may be critically important. Other meetings can be facilitated using a new technology - instant global communication! Peter

[brian]

I heard that the effects of greenhouse gases such as CO2 are being offset by global dimming. Air travel is major contributor to global dimming. Should we not therefore consider air travel as a positve effect?

[cvs_s28]

Global dimming can also reduce the amount of light getting to plants, making them less efficent at converting CO2. Global dimming reduces heat and light levels, which would also cause an decrease of oxygen production from plants and CO2 absorbtion by plants.

You also would have difficulty looking for stars and objects in the night sky if global dimming happened, so it is best not to consider global dimming as an option at all!

[cvs_s28]

[cvs_s30]

I have mixed views by the comments made, personally its about looking ahead and not behind, we have to remember that what has already been done has already caused it damage its how o prevent further damage that we have to prevent.

Yes a plane trip to austrlia would have been more co2 friendly than laying thousands of miles cables however now that those cables have been laid we all might as well utilise them and thus it is now more friendly to use the cable and stop one more plane buring on average 300,000 litres of fuel to get down under.

However as stated, people are always going to want to talk face to face how maybe we ought to focus on re-designing the plane to make it more effeicent, for example look at the honda-jet they simple put the jets on top of the wing and have saved masses on fuel comspution and allowed more room in the cabin for more people making it consuption per person even less.

[cvs_s28]

[cvs_s30]

Reaserch has shown that that the dose of radiation from flying at alltide has no effect unless you fly more than 5 long-hall return flights a year and for the majority of the population they do not fly this much. The people at risk are really the pilots however there are strict guidelines into how many hours pilots can fly in every month and these rules have be but in place for the safty of the piolts.

A way you could prevent the radiation would be to line the plane roof with lead however the extra weight could increas CO2 emisions and decrease economy

[cvs_s28]

if you put lead on a plane it would not make health and safety guidelines, and if you put enough on it to stop gamma radiation you would only be able to fly the pilot and one other person at a time, so not a good idea.

it seems sitting next to a computer is the best way to do long distance talks, but it has still damaging effects to the environment, is there a way to fly without producing CO2? or to power your computer with solar cells?

[cvs_s30]

I agree. I feel that neither plane nor computer communication stop, it the fuel that we use to power them which needs to change.

Hydrogen power seems to be the next big developing fuel which simply puts water in the atmosphere. Also advances in nuclear fussion (which i no is another issue by its self) could be scaled down and implentmented into planes and computer so everything would have its own mini powerplant with 0 co2 emmision.

Yes solar cells could power a computer however all manufacters state not to put computer in direct sunlight which is oviously where solar cells perform best.

Another alternavtive for the future is to use solar nano technology, edemonstated on a concept phone made my nokia (the morph) which shows however gadgets can be made of nanotechnology that would power itself using the suns energy.

[cvs_s28]

nuclear fussion is tricky enough without trying to put it into a phone or computer (we have had enough environmental disasters for a lifetime). i think you have watched to many science fiction programs.

something like that might not even be thought of developing till at least 2100. i dont know about you but i will probably be dead.

secondly a solar cell might not work on a phone, if its put in a pocket, it would get no energy.

a better idea is using water for energy.

by using water you produce no dangerous waste products and its an easy to get to resource.

[cvs_s30]

Yes i agree that nuclear fussion is not a option for a good 100 years or more but it feel it might get there one day or even some fuel that does not even exist yet.



Yes i agree with you that solar cells do have many draw back and are quiet inefficent so i agree that hydrogen power (water) will be a far better fuel to use for air travel and all travel. There as been a new concept passenger aircraft the A2 designed by the company 'reaction engines' that runs on liquid hydrogen which is cable of mark 5, and the emmission are just water, and similarly BMW are testing there new hydrogen car.

[cvs_s28]

i didnt mean hydrogen power, i meant water cells.

go on google and research water powered devices, you will find out what i mean.