Nice watching for a Sunday afternoon, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Doomsday Clock), quick start at 4:00
And here the infamous wordometer…
As to this nice diagram… no comments required…
For anyone still indulging in reading, may I suggest the 1972 original book The Limits to Growth
Another sure way to entertain oneself is to use your favorite search machine and type either WWW III or WWW 3.
Have fun 
Looks like an increase in the Co2 Charge with JetA1 and AvGas; seems quite substantial and will all start adding up.
€75.29/m3 (2023) to €101.28/ m3 (2024)
That is from €0.075/L to €0.101/L.
That, 3 euro cents per litre, is very small and much less than airport to airport variations.
Another blow (For the future of aviation). Indirectly, of course, this will impact us in the future.
pilotrobbie wrote:
Another blow (For the future of aviation). Indirectly, of course, this will impact us in the future.
This is bad?
Airborne_Again wrote:
This is bad?
Well net zero is ultimately bad if you fly an AvGas or even JetA1 aircraft. It’s also economically unaffordable.
I am not a denier per say, but I do believe that the climate changes and the sun has a huge influence on our weather. We can be green, to cut costs and reduce emissions sure or become more economical. BUT what this usually results in is, taxes by our government(s) that price you out of what you are doing or intending to do.
Airborne_Again wrote:
This is bad?
The implications from this ruling may well change the way governments argue their cases about climate change.
They may well use this as an excuse to impose “unpopular” measures either as a CYA measure or because they want to, against the will of the majority of the people.
We shall see how this pans out in Switzerland. Some parties are screaming murder and will try to make the country renounce their membership in the ECHR. This has been a goal of some parties for a while, but this one may well give them enough signatures to form a referendum on it.
pilotrobbie wrote:
BUT what this usually results in is, taxes by our government(s) that price you out of what you are doing or intending to do.
That is exactly what I fear as well.
This “climate inaction” ECHR ruling is very controversial.
Regardless of your beliefs re climate change evidence being strong enough for criminal law (I would be amazed if anybody, who is scientifically educated and obviously this is not “Greta” who is scientifically clueless, deep down actually believes that), this “inaction enforcement” is a very unusual precedent for a court of any kind. Then there is the nebulosity of the whole topic.
Then there are practical aspects e.g. in only a few countries could the “only electric cars after 2035” (or whatever) be implemented. So this will be just another case where the “Gretas” are beating up a few rich countries while most of the EU ignores the ruling just like most of the EU ignores a lot of the ECHR rulings anyway. Back to Bismarck and “the art of the possible”.
Lots of debate here about it too. I’ve not heard a single legally qualified person think it makes any sense.
this “inaction enforcement” is a very unusual precedent for a court of any kind. Then there is the nebulosity of the whole topic.
Notwithstanding that symbolic nonsense like this is completely ridiculous (do they really think that there is a reasonable “action” that would make any difference to their symptoms or those of the descendants in comparison with the supposed “inaction”) the overtly fashionable approach taken to marketing it and getting it passed by a group of Swiss women is hilarious.
“The women, mostly in their 70s, said that their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to the effects of heatwaves linked to climate change”
IMO they are living a decadent fantasy in relation to what is relevant and important to their well being. OTOH my menopausal wife says this might be a great way to extract some money from the government for violating her rights 
I think one has to be very careful about putting the fault of the ECHR.
Governments, which we voted for, set the law. All the judges can do is look at the particular case in front of them and decide what the law says about it. (Well that’s the way it should work.)
It is not the judges who set the CO2 price . It is not the judges that have decided that net zero is the answer to all our ills.
Much as governments want to put the blame elsewhere, it is usually not the fault of the ECHR or the high court in the UK.
If we want a law changed we need to get the government to change it or change the government. Have I just become a radical or a liberal?😁👍
