Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Ryanair boss labels flight critics ‘econuts, idiots and headbangers’
Michael Harrison, The Independent
The head of the no-frills airline Ryanair has launched a vitriolic attack on the Stern report on climate change, claiming that shooting the world’s cow population would do more to combat global warming than banning low-cost air travel.
Michael O’Leary, chief executive of the Dublin-based carrier, said that aviation was responsible for just 2 per cent of European Union carbon emissions. If “eco nuts” were really serious about tackling climate change they should support nuclear power and a clampdown on livestock farming which was responsible for more greenhouse gases than the airline industry, he said.
Referring to last week’s report from the former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern on the economics of climate change, which warned that rising carbon emissions could wipe out 20 per cent of the world’s wealth if not tackled, Mr O’Leary said: “A lot of lies and misinformation has been put about by eco nuts on the back of a report by an idiot economist.”
(9 Nov 2006)
Insurance by the Mile
A simple way to slow global warming
Dean Baker, Harper’s Magazine
The world must reduce its consumption of fossil fuels in order to avoid the worst effects of global warming. This will require many long-term and expensive measures to promote alternative fuels and conservation-and consequently, many major political battles.
But there is one thing we could do now that would change how people consume gasoline. We could switch from the current way in which people pay for auto insurance to a pay-by-the-mile system. Such a switch might reduce annual gasoline consumption by as much as 10 percent, without raising the cost of insurance for an average driver. The key is to change the way that people view the cost of driving their car.
Currently, auto insurance is viewed as a fixed expense. People pay the same amount for their insurance no matter how much they drive. This means that when someone is comparing the cost of driving to work with the cost of carpooling or public transportation, they won’t factor in the cost of insurance, because they will pay the same whether they make any particular trip or not.
This would change if drivers paid for insurance by the mile.
(1 June 2006)
Contributor Steve Athearn writes:
The author assumes that large reductions in fossil fuel use will be determined in the policy arena, not imposed by nature. Nevertheless, mileage-based insurance ought to be on the list of short-term measures that could be done to accommodate Peak Oil. In the likely scenario in which the need to “save oil in a hurry” replaces gradual change as the framework for policy response, the proposal should arguably be subordinated to educating the public about the scale of our predicament and to more comprehensive responses like the Oil Depletion Protocol. But like the Protocol, mileage-based insurance also has the political advantage of being subject to implementation at lower levels of government.
Dean Baker also comments on this topic at the following links:
www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080906N.shtml
www.prospect.org/deanbaker/2006/10/combatting_global_warming_what.html#comments
and www.prospect.org/deanbaker/2006/10/lack_skills_but_need_a_good_pa.html (in an exchange with myself.)
Aid Groups Drive to Curb Deadly Gas-Guzzling Cars
Ruth Gidley, Reuters via ENN
LONDON – Aid workers in risky environments may fear violence but they are more likely to die — and hurt the people they are trying to help — in a car crash, logistics experts say.
These specialists are joining a growing initiative to make humanitarian groups more responsible with their gas-guzzling four-wheel-drive cars, which belch out fumes that pollute the local environment and make people sick.
Many agencies campaign on environmental issues, but few people in the aid world are watching fuel emissions of the 60,000 vehicles used in their industry, according to the initiative, called Fleet Forum.
…Aid agencies spend about $800 million a year on vehicles, but they could save $160 million annually — and many lives — by training staff in road safety and buying appropriate cars to higher environmental standards, the logistics specialists say.
…Working with aid agencies, U.N. bodies, donors and commercial organisations that want to pass on their expertise, Fleet Forum aims to encourage aid groups also to be more efficient and use cleaner fuels.
Gas-guzzling cars, like the ubiquitous shiny white four-wheel-drive with an agency logo on the side, are the norm for aid workers even in cities, McConnell said.
“You’ll see four different people from the same office going to the same meeting in four different vehicles,” he said. “Practise what you preach. That’s what we’re bad at.”
(1 Nov 2006)
