More Hot Air
Britons are the world’s worst offenders when it comes to carbon emissions from air travel, according to figures published on Wednesday by market research company Global TGI.
One doesn’t know at a glance who should get more of the credit for the overall content of this reportorial masterpiece: Reuters or the research company?
It’s easy always to give too much credit to Reuters or to media, so I thought it worth an extra look in this case at the research company’s web site. The Global TGI page doesn’t tell us much, but at the bottom right of that main page, one finds a link to another page, which has a link at its bottom for a company called BMRB. Their mindmill windmill photo on that page is suitably thoughtful given the subject matter, and then, towards the bottom of that page, we are told:
…Our clients have included: Department for Transport, Defra, BDGworkfutures, NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts), The Local Government Association (LGA), Green Fiscal Commission and the Woodland Trust…
Which seems to indicate they haven’t done much research on behalf of Ryanair. But that’s their right; one does business with any client according to one’s business outlook. So whomever the client happened to be in this case, presumably they are happy with the research outcome. (“A throbbing Defra ad on my homepage has been driving me nuts all day telling me not to leave my games console on standby because it will make my carbon footprint bigger….”) Presenting their infomercial findings, a research company spokesman is quoted by Reuters:
“There are clearly a number of reasons for it, some of which include the British weather and people wanting to get away from that, some of which are to do with our being an island,” said spokesman Geoff Wicken…
“It” being Britain’s addiction to air transport, “some of which” is due to it being an island. It has obviously dawned on Mr Wicken that Britain is some-thing of an island. But the “fact” is it is entirely so. And since swimming off it is an impractical means of transport for most Britons, aside from a ferry or the Eurostar train, people have no choice but to fly off of it. (Cars go through the Eurotunnel loaded on a vehicle train; it isn’t a “drive through” like, say, NY’s Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel.)
Next up, naturally, bring out the Americans:
…the road carbon emissions of Britons at 2.4 tonnes per adult are less than one third of Americans’ 7.5 tonnes.
In fact overall American adults have the biggest annual travel carbon footprint in the world at 7.8 tonnes, more than double France’s 3.7 tonnes, which comes in at number two.
Reuters, as you probably know, deals in nothing but “facts”. Yet there being, ”in fact”, the fact of a “carbon footprint” is not quite yet a “fact” akin to Great Britain’s being an island. (“…Your carbon footprint is no more real than the graphic of a foot on the Defra ad. These “footprints” were dreamt up as a way of brainwashing us into thinking that small changes in domestic energy consumption can alter the temperature of the planet…”) And one is not being petty to point out the difference. After all, the island assertion is a ”fact” which, for instance, Mr Wicken has himself apparently not been entirely won over to as of yet.
Third on the list at 3.1 tonnes is Britain, followed by Ireland on 3.0, Germany on 2.4 and Spain on 2.2 tonnes.
TGI, which carries out research on brand usage and consumer behaviour, calculated air emissions by adding up the number of long and short haul flights taken. It arrived at road emissions figures by determining the amount of fuel consumed.
More fascinating than all the previous, though, is that indirectly the research managed to uncover these heretofore unknown facts.
First, the United States is actually vastly larger geographically than any European country. Secondly, therefore, many Americans tend to live a great deal farther away from places of work and/or school and travel destinations than do Europeans, and having to drive so much farther on a regular basis, Americans as a consequence prefer larger, more comfortable vehicles. The combination makes for more fuel consumption.
And, wouldn’t you know it, the overall result of both is that Americans drive greater distances (and fly greater distances internally) and use more fuel per capita than do British, Irish, Germans and Spanish. Yes, I know, you too are probably stunned by such an astounding set of revelations.
_____________________________
Relatedly, the BBC reports:
A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains “nine scientific errors”.
Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools – if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument…
…The nine errors alleged by the judge included:
Before we go on, one would hope the BBC really understands that judges do not “allege” when they hand down a decision. For as the Beeb itself had said in the opening, he “ruled“. And that is what judges do. Now, to one of the errors:
Mr Gore’s reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice”. The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”
Which is how a “fact” is ascertained in court. However, next it is time for the required opinion of the government minister, who, if the Beeb hadn’t introduced him to us with his current job title, we might just as well have thought he worked at Defra:
…Children’s Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: “It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion…
“The vast weight of scientific opinion”? Or, in other words, “the scientific consensus“. That is a creature which, as Depleted Uranium reminds us, is an oxymoron.
And “arguments”? “Opinion”? Both there would be reasonably considered synonymous with “allegation”. Or, as the BBC might say, ”alleged”.
Indeed, a direct synonym for “argument” is also “polemic“, which is essentially (as used in regular conversation) the opposite of distinterested discourse. As a basis for altering policy, some might say acting upon “polemics” is the way to go. Yet I suspect most people desire ”facts” first.
