Aircraft manufacturers, industry groups, and trade publications are all touting the need for the aviation industry to reduce it's so-called "carbon footprint".
From AIN Online:
"The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC), along with IBAC’s member associations, today announced they are teaming on an “aggressive strategy” to further mitigate the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions."
This makes everybody feel warm and fuzzy and lines the pockets of the rent seekers but is it necessary?
There never was any evidience that said yes. Only computer models. Now the evidence is increasingly saying no. First there was Al Gore being discredited when errors were found in his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Now there are the leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (Norwich, England). It seems that "scientists" with a stake in the outcome have been manipulating the data and distorting the peer review process.
So businesses that are expending enormous amounts of money to try and jump through all the green hoops are doing so based on false information. This is a disservice to their shareholders and their customers.
What's in it for them if it's such a bad idea? Suppression of competition. Those who are best able to handle the costs of green compliance will prospers while their less liquid competitors fall by the wayside.
"When, therefore, a man absorbed in the effect which is seen has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to fatal habits, not only by inclination, but by calculation." [Frederic Bastiat]
If they want to help the world I think the big players in aviation need to educate themselves and adjust their policies according to the facts rather than the rent seeker's scaremongering.
No comments:
Post a Comment