Embattle
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 13,738
Yes but it is still useful when you bare in mind the other statistics such as 48% of the population didn't fly at all last year.
Also wouldn't the effect of many short journeys be even worse environmentally than one long haul, on short haul there are alternative forms of transportation and the repeated take offs surely make it worse.
Personally I believe you should be charged more if you fly more. I even gave some thought to having a system where you are allocated a certain amount of flights/milage each year, you could introduce a trading system as well.
I've not flown since 2002 when I went to Florida, in fact my total flights are 3 with 2 to Florida and 1 to Menorca.
Most of the damage aircraft do is a function of altitude so one long haul can be worse than several short hauls. And while I agree people should be encouraged to use surface transport instead if possible, in practical terms that's not always possible; is a 50 minute flight ultimately worse than a four hour train plus two hour ferry journey (never mind the practicality, I'm not even certain on environmental grounds; diesel ships are HUGE emitters).
Interestingly lots of business flyers integrate carbon offsets into their corporate travel budgets already.
Question should be - why do you need to fly from London to Dublin every week when videoconferencing is so ubiquitous?
It's not every week that you need to workshop face to face all the time?
Whilst I take the point about long haul (which may or may not be on more efficient jets, but do tend to be higher altitude - which is worse) I know people who do the same to Germany every week.
Increasing costs based on numbers of flights taken would primarily hit business - and that would force a culture change to either teleworking or local staffing - both of which are more desireable outcomes.
Having used both - Google's device and interaction is way better tbh.Game changer; Amazon Alexa gets Samuel L Jackson's voice
Speccy was more iconic music wise. The c64 was too good hahaSIDAMP off the google play store. For all your Commodore 64 Sid music needs.
It's free, has a brill interface, auto downloads the high voltage sid collection if you want too.
Casting it through the google home app to my chromecast audio so the last ninja is blaring out of my old stereo![]()
Ah, that old chestnutSpeccy was more iconic music wise. The c64 was too good haha
That's not really a solveable problem. If people have done well, they're going to try to provide for their children. Always have, always will.Here lies the problem. Quarter of secondary pupils 'get private tuition'
That's not really a solveable problem. If people have done well, they're going to try to provide for their children. Always have, always will.
The bigger problem is the two-tier educational system that we subsidise for the rich (they pay, yes, but these schools run tax free and swallow up the best teaching talent) - creating a structural imbalance in our democracy.
Anyway. GCSE's are far from "so fucking hard". What it is is that teachers have bob to no hope of getting kids to be interested in the huge classes of massively differing abilities and social backgrounds.
Always makes me laugh when people say "it's not about class sizes" - and try to produce evidence to prove that point. From first-hand experience - being on the receiving end and teaching adults - that once you get over about 15 people the ability for anyone to receive quality that is tailored to their specific needs is massively reduced.
Funny that state schools have massive classes and private schools it's about 10-15. With better teachers.
This year. GCSE Biology. What a joke.When was the last time you looked at a GCSE paper?
So you're judging GCSEs by looking at 1 paper?
OK.
Straight from the horses mouth.
BBC bosses: 'We are not impartial on racism and Naga Munchetty had right to speak out'
Y'see Gwad. This doesn't help.So in one thread you're jumping at 'white racism' what ever the flying fuck that means.
Y'see Gwad. This doesn't help.
Of course white people are subject to racism. It's not like <insert other colour here> people are any better than us. Which means they're just as racist.
Difference is - we live in a majority white country, so it's much rarer. But don't kid yourself that it's not a thing.
Absolute rubbish. Racism is racism. Pure and simple. Zero tolerance. From anyone.Yeah, it exists, but I think the term against the majority massively undermines the expanded problem and definition of 'racism'.
Sorry - this is simply a function of living in a white majority country. It doesn't excuse it in any way - but yes, if you're a minority of any kind you'll experience increased prejudice.People believe that racism is a bloke going down the street and calling an indian guy a paki, but it's not, it's so much more than that, it's perception, it's opportunity, it's targeted policing based on skin colour...
Sure whilst a Indian guy might be racist towards a white person, the white person doesn't struggle in the latter areas due to their skin colours.