In article , "Leon" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "Leon"
wrote:

The environmentalists like to throw false figures out there to get the
uneducated, and apathetic wound up and excited. Recently they whined
about
British Airways burning 20K gallons of fuel to make Trans Atlantic flights
with no passengers. That may be true but what they were really
complaining
about was the amount of pollution. They claimed IIRC 400 Tons of carbon
pollution.

Pollution in general, or carbon pollution specifically? It makes a
difference.

Carbon Specifically.

In that case... they're either liars, or idiots, or both.

I did the math using their figures and find that burning 20K
gallons of fuel that weights less than 160,000 pounds

A *lot* less. Figure somewhere around 6 lb per gallon.

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and used the weight of water. I
knew jet fuel was lighter.

creates 800,000 pounds
of waste carbon according to their claims. So burning 1 lb of jet fuel
creates 5 lbs of carbon? Nope!

Depends on what's being measured. Carbon, no. Carbon DIOXIDE, nearly.
Total combustion products, probably.

Carbon, "not" Carbon Dioxide

They're probably considering carbon dioxide to be "carbon pollution".

Again, they tell you what will benefit their cause the most, correct or not
correct.

Agreed. Only questions in my mind are whether they know their figures are
wrong, or not -- and whether they care. My point was simply to illustrate that
the mass of the pollution generated can indeed be considerably greater than
the mass of the fuel being burned, because it combines with a huge amount of
atmospheric oxygen.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.