First, here is a quick word about the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates:
Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the homosexual mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is claiming that “white nationalism” is a dire threat to America and is tying it to the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas.
Yet the statistics show that more than 700,000 gay males have died of AIDS since 1981. So perhaps Buttigieg should look into the conditions in his own gay community before taking out after conservative white men like Nikitas3.com.
And now here is today’s main commentary:
War on Air Travel has Begun in Europe
Just a few months after Green New Deal lunatic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested that air travel should be banned it is starting to happen in (where else?) Europe. A New Zealand website called Stuff.co.nz recently reported:
If he had hopped on a plane, Johan Hilm would have travelled from Sweden to Austria in two hours.
Instead, the lanky Swede made an epic overland journey by rail, bus and ferry that took more than 30 hours.
He joined a growing crowd of Europeans who are spurning air travel out of concern for the environment…
OK, folks, if you don’t see this fraud for what it is let Nikitas3.com explain the facts:
Passenger trains are an inefficient 19th century technology. They are a fantasy of the ‘greenies’. Flying is much more efficient and environmentally-sound than travel by train. The reason that ‘greenies’ love these passenger trains is that trains are almost always government-run and taxpayer subsidized, which empowers socialists and their ‘green’ friends in government and the rail unions.
Airlines, on the other hand, are generally private-sector companies that make a profit moving passengers efficiently at high speed. One of the reasons that airlines make profits is that they are fuel-efficient while passenger trains generally don’t make a profit because they consume so much energy.
For instance a Boeing 737 can carry up to 220 passengers and weighs 30 to 40 tons empty depending on the model. An Amtrak Genesis locomotive alone weighs 135 tons and the average Amtrak passenger car weighs 70 tons empty and can carry up to 84 passengers. So which one uses more fuel and causes more pollution to move 220 passengers?
It is obvious, particularly with the starting, stopping, speeding up and slowing down, and idling of trains along their routes, all of which which consumes lots of fuel. Lightweight airplanes, on the other hand, run at a steady and fuel-efficient speed for most of their trips just as cruise control saves gasoline in your car.
Here are more excerpts from Stuff.co.nz with a Nikitas3.com comment after each excerpt:
Stuff.co.nz reports: Budget airlines such as Ireland’s Ryanair and British easyJet revolutionised European travel two decades ago, when they first started offering to scoot people across the continent for as little as US$20 ($30) a flight. But that mode of travel, once celebrated as an opening of the world, is now being recognised for its contribution to global problems.
Tourists have been spooked by the realisation that one passenger’s share of the exhaust from a single flight can cancel out a year’s worth of Earth-friendly efforts. And so they are digging out their parents’ yellowing Europe-by-rail guidebooks and trading tips on the most convenient night train to Vienna.
Nikitas3.com comment: This is all baloney. Airplanes are designed to be lightweight. Trains are very heavy in comparison, and use much more fuel per passenger-mile than planes.
A Boeing 747, which weighs anywhere from 170 tons to 240 tons empty depending on the model, is twice as fuel-efficient per passenger-mile as a Toyota Prius and goes 11 times as fast. Here is the analysis of the 747 fuel efficiency from a website called Science.howstuffworks.com:
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing’s Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).
This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let’s call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour…
And if the 747 is fully loaded its efficiency increases by 14%. These are the types of facts that environmentalists are desperate to keep from us so that they themselves appear to have all of the answers.
Meanwhile the Toyota Prius needs a big taxpayer subsidy while getting 48 miles per gallon at 45 miles per hour with a go-kart engine and the world’s worst handling. Big deal. Try driving your Prius from New York to London.
Trains also need to install and maintain thousands of miles of expensive track systems. It takes lots of energy to produce, install and maintain steel rails and cross-ties for trains. These tracks have to be constantly worked on and the rails replaced when they wear out. On the other hand planes fly through the air and don’t need tracks. ‘Greenies’ don’t want you to think about this.
Air travel is generally cheaper than train travel, particularly on the budget airlines in Europe. And since every dollar of wealth produced consumes a certain amount of energy, it costs a lot more in energy to produce all of the extra wealth to pay for expensive train tickets. See how things change when you consider the big picture?
Stuff.co.nz reports: So far, the biggest shift has been in green-conscious Sweden, where airline executives blame increased train travel – up one-third this summer compared with a year ago – for a drop in air passenger traffic.
Swedish leaders this month announced they would inject new cash into the national rail company. They plan to build up a new fleet of trains after years of cutbacks when cheap plane tickets were luring people into the skies.
Nikitas3.com comment: Notice that second paragraph. This is just what the ‘greenies’ want – to pour money into inefficient government-run train systems. It is all socialism. And who is going to pay the price? Swedish taxpayers will, along with the private-sector airlines that will lose customers.
European passenger trains are grossly expensive to operate. They are heavily subsidized and publicized but still Euros don’t use these trains at anywhere near the rate that we are led to believe.
Stuff.co.nz reports: The newly coined concept of flygskam, or “flight shame,” has turned some Swedes bashful about their globe-trotting.
Nikitas3.com comment: There is a very simple solution to all of this: If you are a ‘greenie’ then you should not travel. The best thing for the environment is to stay home. But don’t expect liberals and ‘greenies’ to do that. They travel more than anyone else.
Stuff.co.nz reports: Hilm, 31, a health-care consultant … was stunned when he assessed the impact of his flights. “I did one of those calculators you can do online,” he said, “and 80 per cent of my emissions were from travel.”
Nikitas3.com comment: Yes, because the ‘greenies’ create these calculators with their own facts and figures incorporated to make trains look good. But it contradicts common sense since airplanes are much lighter in weight than trains.
Stuff.co.nz reports: Environmentally friendly travel can require a time investment. To get to Austria, Hilm took a 5 1/2-hour train trip to Copenhagen, a 1 3/4-hour bus to the Danish coast, a 45-minute ferry to Germany, a 90-minute train to Hamburg, an 11-hour night train to southern Germany and a final three-hour train.
Nikitas3.com comment: How do all of these extra hours of travel help the environment? How much fuel do the trains, buses and boats use? Just think of all of the extra food that you have to consume during a long trip. That food requires energy to grow, transport and prepare. But that is never entered into the ‘greenie’ calculations.
Stuff.co.nz reports: What was it worth? Measuring carbon dioxide emissions from travel can be an inexact science. One popular online calculator suggested that Hilm’s trip would have led to about 261 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions if he had flown, compared with 53 kg by rail, a saving of 80 per cent.
Nikitas3.com comment: Who says this is even true? This figure comes from the ‘greenies’. It is all rigged to their point of view.
Stuff.co.nz reports: But for young, green Europeans, saying no to flying is becoming a thing. The shift has been inspired in part by Greta Thunberg , the 16-year-old Swedish climate campaigner who sparked a worldwide school strike and has been crisscrossing Europe by train as she pressures politicians to do more about the environment. Thunberg has not been on a plane since 2015. This week, she said she would soon travel to the United States – by sailboat.
Nikitas3.com comment: Yes, and that will take several weeks. How much food will she consume over several weeks? Answer: Lots. So let her travel by sailboat. That means she has less time to spend in the US spreading her ‘climate’ nonsense. (And you just watch – she will arrive by sailboat to get all of the publicity but Nikitas3.com predicts that she will quietly fly back to Europe and the media won’t report on it.)
Stuff.co.nz reports: Record heat this summer and last has also focused attention on climate change and influenced travel plans. Hilm set out on his trip during a heat wave that brought all-time high temperatures to Paris, Britain, Belgium, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway.
“If you want to reduce your environmental impact, the best thing you can do is to stop flying,” said Susanna Elfors, founder of a Facebook group called Tagsemester, or Train Vacation…
Nikitas3.com comment: Oh, so a few hots days in the Summer is ‘global warming’. They never talk about ‘global warming’ during the record cold that we have had for the last few years in the Northeastern US.
Stuff.co.nz reports: The aviation sector generates about 2.5 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions – meaning it’s only a small fraction of the problem. A European Union list released in April ranked Ryanair among Europe’s top 10 carbon emitters, grouping the airline with companies that operate coal-fired power plants.
Nikitas3.com comment: Who says any of this is true? This is typical of how ‘greenies’ publish facts and figures and nobody challenges them or fact-checks them.
Stuff.co.nz reports: European leaders are beginning to reconsider how much they should encourage plane travel. Jet fuel is currently untaxed in the EU, unlike in the United States. France this month announced it would introduce an eco-tax on flights originating at French airports, with the money to be reinvested in rail networks and other environmentally friendly transport. Several other European countries have imposed or increased flight taxes. The Dutch government is lobbying for an EU-wide tax on aviation.
Nikitas3.com comment: See the pattern? Tax, tax, tax. Tax airline travel and give the money to inefficient, government-run railroads. Who benefits? ‘Greenies’ do, along with their unionized friends who work on the railroads.
Stuff.co.nz reports: Even some airlines have got in on the “fly less” message. “Think about flying responsibly,” Dutch airline KLM said in an advertisement unveiled this month. Unusually, it suggested considering a different form of transportation: “Could you take the train instead?”
Nikitas3.com comment: This is how ‘greenies’ actually turn companies against themselves. They often have radical ‘green’ executives at the airlines.