Re: Travel Considerations

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I asked James this privately, but if we're going to get into an off- 
topic discussion of global warming, I'll ask it publicly to whoever  
has a good answer.


We all agree that global warming is happening. If you go to the  
terminal moraine, the farthest south that the ice went doing the  
largest or perhaps the most recent ice age, and you don't see any  
ice, the earth is provably warmer than it once was.

That said, do we not see ice at the terminal moraine because people  
drive SUVs, or because warming and cooling is something that has been  
happening since God created the earth? In the latter case,  
specifically what scientific evidence do we have that our current  
global warming event (which started in the 16th century, which was a  
mini-ice-age) is related to emissions? What scientific evidence do we  
have that changing emissions behavior will change global warming in  
any way?


On Oct 13, 2007, at 12:03 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:

>
>   Hi James,
>
>   I think you're missing the point. I'm not advocating being wasteful
> because everyone else is. I'm saying that this effort is futile and
> will not result in _any_ "win" for the planet. Your analogy to driving
> an SUV is incorrect because not driving the SUV (or driving an
> electric car instead) results in less emissions. A trivial amount but
> every little bit helps. Flying 1000 people to Frankfurt instead of
> Prague does not result in any less emissions. Encouraging other
> organizations to follow our lead-- having 10000 people scattered over
> the course of a year fly to a hub instead of through the hub to a
> spoke-- won't either. The demand is still there to fly to places like
> Prague and San Diego and airlines typically fly at less than 100%
> capacity, sometimes significantly so.
>
>   If you think there is an individual responsibility to change what
> you can then please don't waste your effort on something that won't
> have any effect! Do something that will make a difference.
>
>   I for one would rather fly to (spoke) Prague than (hub) Frankfurt;
> to (spoke) San Diego than to (hub) Chicago; and anywhere (spoke) on
> God's green earth (yes, it's still green in spite of the IETF World
> Tour) than (hub) London.
>
>   Dan.
>
> On Fri, October 12, 2007 12:17 pm, James M. Polk wrote:
>> Unfortunately, using this logic -- I can buy a tank and get 2
>> gallons-to-the-mile mileage because the rest of the planet (or at
>> least America) is still buying SUVs that get horrible mileage too,
>> since there will be nearly an unmeasurable difference to global
>> warming if I drive my tank or not... so why not drive it anyway.
>>
>> There is an individual responsibility to change what we each can
>> change to help.  As an organization, we can have a greater positive
>> affect if we reduce demand for such spoke flights by only flying to
>> hub sites of major airlines -- if we're going to continue to meet in
>> person.
>>
>> If other organizations see ours as an example, and do the same, then
>> the positive affect is greater on us doing the right thing...
>>
>> Doing the right thing in mass has to start somewhere -- why does it
>> have to start somewhere else here?
>>
>> It's Friday...
>>
>> At 01:30 PM 10/12/2007, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>
>>>   You're assuming that if 1000 people decide not to fly to Prague
>>> some weekend that the number of planes burning jet fuel to fly there
>>> will be different. I don't think so.
>>>
>>>   Maybe you can start a "Boycott Prague The Spoke City" campaign  
>>> which,
>>> if wildly successful, will reduce demand to fly there by some  
>>> discernable
>>> amount and thereby reduce the number of planes flying there and the
>>> amount
>>> of jet fuel they would've burned. Well, as long as the planes  
>>> that aren't
>>> flying to Prague aren't used to fly to Heathrow or Frankfurt or some
>>> other
>>> hub city. Also doubtful.
>>>
>>>   I do not intend on making ietf-discuss into a forum for discussing
>>> the pluses and minuses resulting from a degree centigrade  
>>> temperature
>>> change but let me just say that "the planet wins" is a somewhat  
>>> dubious
>>> statement.
>>>
>>>   Dan.
>>>
>>> On Fri, October 12, 2007 7:32 am, Eric Burger wrote:
>>>> Here is an interesting optimization problem: it turns out the most
>>>> polluting part of a conference is people taking jets to fly to the
>>>> conference.  Minimize that and the planet wins.  Favors hub cities
>>> over
>>>> spokes, like San Diego or Prague, where you "can't get there from
>>> here",
>>>> no matter where "here" is.
>>>>
>>>> See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5847/36.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may
>>> contain
>>>> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and
>>> affiliated
>>>> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted
>>> and/or
>>>> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
>>> individual
>>>> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
>>> recipient,
>>>> and have received this message in error, please immediately return
>>> this by
>>>> email and then delete it.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ietf mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHEDp5bjEdbHIsm0MRAslgAKDSi+UeR/OnCD1QiXbjIwbHB6RV/ACgqPve
GXSX3XJqDkWibCQ1NeuDivA=
=TqSH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf