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?
Not really; you vote for your national govt only. The ECHR is an agency of the EU whose “govt” is, due to the dilution of the voting system, for all practical purposes unelected.
No we vote for MEPs also. In fact we will be doing so soon. Also there is the council where each of our national leaders has a say in he government of europe as a whole.
The ECHR IIUC is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe set up after the 2nd world war. I believe Winston Churchill played a major role in setting it up.. So there is a set of rules by which signatories to it are judged following a complaint to see whether or not they are adhering to those rules. They can be changed but only by agreement of the signatories which tend to be national governments.
But it is not the ECJ which is something totally different and where the laws are set by the EU parliament and the council of ministers. AFAIK all are elected in one way or another.
Silvaire wrote:
Notwithstanding that symbolic nonsense like this is completely ridiculous
It’s not as ridiculous as it seems. It’s the symbolic nonsense by governments that’s at display here. Making regulations and using tax payer’s money as well as extra fees and restrictions I’m sure, to reach some utterly unrealistic “climate goal”. And in the mean time these old ladies bites the dust in heat waves caused by “climate change”. OK, it really is completely ridiculous, but it’s not those women nor the court that is ridiculous here IMO. I don’t know what Greta is cheering for though. This certainly is a big blow for all over eager climate politicians setting “climate goals” they cannot realistically reach by any means.
Peter wrote:
The ECHR is an agency of the EU
It is entirely separate from the EU.
Currently analysts of all colors are busy as heck, at least someone is making money from this mess.
After the first dust settles, there are two actual findings:
- The ECHR found Switzerland at fault for ignoring the law suit they now had to rule over.
- The ECHR found Switzerland at fault for not protecting it’s citizens sufficiently of climate change, which was the subject of the law suit.
So partially, it is of Switzerland’s own making that this thing ended up at the ECHR, at least at this time. Had our own courts ruled on this law suit rather than reject it, the ECHR would possibly never have been called, even though that is doubtful. But in any case, it would have taken longer for them to get involved.
The take from this is, that all signatories of the ECRH will need to take up cases like that.
The verdict having bigger impact is that the ECHR found that a nation state has neglected to protect it’s citizens adequately from Climate Change. This one is going to be huge, as this sets a precedent for all signatory states of the ECHR. It is the first time that any court, least of all a European court, has reached a verdict on this issue. So we have to be aware that this will produce a HUGE wave of legal claims by similar organisations against pretty much all EU countries, one by one. It is therefore quite likely, that particularly in Germany and other “green” ruled countries, will try to cover their behinds at best, but to excell and produce regulation to the fare-thee-well to see that they are “doing something”.
So far, the ECRH has not defined any possible way of compliance, so the way countries need to formulate their master-plans is still up to them. One wonders however, if these issues won’t find their way into future lawsuits of similar nature.
The ECRH also has done itself a sort of favour by sentencing a non-EU state. So while they set a massive precedent serving primarily “pour encourager les autres” they managed to do without (yet) directly attacing EU law. In any case, the fallout from this will be immense.
IIUC 2 other cases one of them being a mayor in France failed. I think if you look at the cases you will see why.
I believe the difference was more along the lines of whether the plaintiffs point of view had been listened to or not rather than a judgement on the environment. It’s a human right to be listened to by your Government if there is a group or a petition of a certain size.
Someone on a non-aviation forum I am a member of posted a highly popular opinion about environmental sustainability that ‘flying less is one of the most significant changes you can make, especially if you currently fly a lot.’
So I’ve done some back-of-the-envelope calculations in response:
For example, Boeing 737-800 takes 160 passengers and consumes 2600 kg fuel per hour, flying at 840 km/h. Thus, per single passenger it consumes ~1.9 kg fuel per 100 km, producing ~5.7 kg CO2. For example, if you fly from the UK to Spain and back (~1400 km by air each way) as an airline passenger, the carbon footprint of your trip is ~160 kg CO2.
Let’s compare that to cars. Even the most economical non-electric cars on the market in 2024 – I mean small ones that are very likely to be driven by one person, no passengers – consume about ~2.9 kg (3.4 L) diesel fuel per 100 km, producing ~8.7 kg CO2. A typical car on European roads produces at least 50% more, i.e. ~13 kg CO2 per 100 km. At an average driving distance of 12000 km/year, this translates to almost 1600 kg CO2 – ten trips to Spain!
Now, let’s compare that to the carbon footprint of our food. An average Brit consumes ~4.5 kg beef per year, which accounts for greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to ~450 kg CO2, almost three trips to Spain. However, if you switch from beef to chicken, that would only be ~45 kg instead of 450.
Finally, our own bodies oxidise the food and exhale CO2. An average person exhales ~380 kg CO2 annually just by living on this planet.
Bottom line: drive less and eat less carbon-intensive food [or just kill yourself]. Flying contributes only about 2.5% to worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
Ultranomad wrote:
or example, Boeing 737-800 takes 160 passengers and consumes 2600 kg fuel per hour, flying at 840 km/h. Thus, per single passenger it consumes ~1.9 kg fuel per 100 km, producing ~5.7 kg CO2. For example, if you fly from the UK to Spain and back (~1400 km by air each way) as an airline passenger, the carbon footprint of your trip is ~160 kg CO2.
ICAO has a CO2 calculator which actually gives 233 kg and you haven’t factored in the high altitude effect. But it is still the same order of magnitude. But at least in Sweden the kind of flight you mention is not the big thing in the discussion – it is holiday flights to Thailand which gives you about 700 kg.
However, if you switch from beef to chicken, that would only be ~45 kg instead of 450.
There are actually many good reasons to eat less beef.
You could kill yourself half way to Spain in your light aircraft, before lunch. Save loads of CO2 emissions🙂
Meanwhile the people telling us to do this are flying off to meetings half way across the world, sometimes in private jets, where they have all day coffee and biscuits and in the evening meet up again for a 6 or 7 course meal. Doesn’t seem fair does it?🤔
Comparing car vs aircraft is not a good comparison, because you don’t replace an aircraft ticket with a car drive. You just go to your local beach instead of the other side of the world. Even driving something like UK → Spain is a big hassle. Also, these environmental opinions also blame cars, which are the only method of transportation that’s actually worse than aircraft if you’re alone. So comparing flights to driving is really unfavorable from the start.
If you do a round trip 12-hr flight, that’s about 2 tons of CO2 for just one trip. So yeah it makes a big difference. Comparing that to a yearly food consumption is a matter of opinion, but you can’t argue with the fact that you emit a lot of CO2 in a very short amount of time, for something that reasonably can be avoided.
I’m not saying that you SHOULD stop flying, but that the argument that it makes no difference is wrong.
Also, the low global footprint of flights is not relevant when you’re talking about what YOU individually can do. If you want to know what YOU can do, then not flying is a good idea. If everyone applies the same method (seeing what THEY can individually do, even though it will not be not flying for them since they don’t fly), it can make big changes.
If you hypothetically have deciding power for everyone else, then yes replacing China and India coal plants by nuclear power is the easiest way to go. But if you’re just telling yourself that, without any way of having any influence on it, it’s not going to change anything in reality. Generally I think pointing responsibilities is pointless (saying that politicians are to blame, or consumers, or certain countries, or flying, etc.), but trying to imagine solutions based on concrete deciding power (individual, corporation, innovation, regulatory, treaties) is much more interesting.
I also don’t think we’re going to stop flying anytime soon (or that we should). If anything I wish more people flew. I would just like to have a way of dealing with associated CO2 emissions (and I think we will someday if we put the effort into it). And, in terms of deciding who to vote for (which is like I said very different from asking what you can do in your life as an individual), the strongest parties / candidates right now are probably the ones promoting nuclear power and innovation.
