Tag Archives: Georgina Rannard

As I see it, Georgina Rannard from the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2lvq4el5vo) needs a little education. It started my (somewhat) raging nature when I saw ‘Ultra-rich using jets like taxis, climate scientists warn’ I was ‘set off’ in a light of day that is somewhat darker then blue. You see there are around 24,270 private jets, two thirds are registered in the US and many of them, are corporate jets. You know these ‘scoundrels’ employed by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM and alike. There is a fair amount of jets used by the ‘ultra-rich’ but the the numbers fade in to the corporate world. And she gets assistance from Prof Gossling (not the brightest professor in the land). I feel repetitive, as I wrote on December 10th 2020 in the article (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/12/10/uniform-nameless-entitlement-perforation/) where I wrote ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’, where Tim McGrath made equally mindless accusations. As I see it in 4 years they didn’t learn anything, they just used a new vessel to spout there nonsense. You see, the fallback in 2023, the 13th to be exact. I wrote ‘The Guardian just won’t learn’ I added a few details there, details that was available to the press for obvious reasons. There I wrote “ignoring the fact that over 15 years 41,000 flights a day have been added and we do not get to see how much pollution that brings” each year 1,000,000 were added bringing to the total of 41,000 flights a day, every day. At this time (as far as I was able to check) was the fact that per 2021 there were 151,435 daily flights in the air. All whilst in 2019 there were 106,849 flights. I think that the stupidity of Georgina Rannard and Prof Gossling is clearly shown here. In addition to this is the fact that these jet are a lot more fuel efficient. It is just another example where leftist idiots put a little more blame on the ‘ultra-rich’ and I have no hidden agenda. I will never be ultra-rich, I have no intent to being ultra rich. Just rich would do, rich enough to have a nice place to live in and a nice retirement, but I reckon I am no different than 80% of us who all share that same wish.

As such I have questions, how was this “The 46% increase in emissions by private jets is probably due to rising demand and the limitations on commercial travel caused by the Covid pandemic” determined? The 15,000,000 flights from 1995-2010 would diminish these numbers. The other side is that the ultra rich would not fly them all the time, so where did these two dodo’s get the numbers? Then we get “The group is estimated to comprise about 256,000 people, 0.003% of the global adult population, each owning an average of $123m (£95m), according to the scientists.” So are they all sharing the 24,270 private jets? Then we get “One travelled by private jet 169 times in 2023, emitting an estimated 2,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide – the equivalent of driving 571 petrol cars throughout the year.” So who was that? Was that a Google (or Microsoft or Shell) plane transporting staff members? There is an amount of data (possibly fictive) that we are exposed to, and one case in 24,270? How random is that? As such we get the statement “The scientists chose not to name individuals, making clear they did not wish to point the finger at any one person.” Makes sense, but it also makes there data debatable. Because if there was clear evidence (like a thousand planes) we would get a really nice sentiment. And in response to this, I get back to the previous article ‘Uniform Nameless Entitlement Perforation’ from 2020 where we see that 50% of the environmental damage came from 147 facilities in Europe. 

The EEA report (also in that document) gives a clear perspective, as such are Georgina Rannard and Prof Gossling anything else but a joke? The EEA gave us a clear report that 147 facilities were responsible for 50% of the damage, so why aren’t the BBC and the Guardian digging into that? They had the report for over 4 years. The media had that report and decided to ignore the report. So how blatantly stupid (and optionally corrupt) are they? A simple question and it gets worse from there. How many empty planes are flying? You see 41,000 implies well over 100,000 people. How many non-tourists are flying? I was in a plane from Amsterdam international to Budapest (Hungary) and we had a 767 plane to ourselves. Less than 25 people were in that flight. How much damage was caused? I reckon that at least 10% of the flights could be cancelled. But then we get economic issues like reserved (but unused) seats come into play and that is the larger extent. You can’t have it both ways. And I think the BBC knows that. 

Sorry for the rant, but these leftists accusing dodo’s get the hairs in the back of my neck up and there is enough evidence to do just that at present. Enjoy your day today.