"Warning: Flying Causes Climate Change"

Health warning labels, much like those on cigarette packs in various countries around the world, may eventually be attached to advertisements for flights or holidays that include air travel, to remind passengers of the global warming crisis.

A leading British think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), suggested over the Easter holidays that such warnings would make people think twice about the impact their holiday has on the environment.

According to the IPPR, “the evidence that aviation damages the atmosphere is just as clear as the evidence that smoking kills…we know that smokers notice health warnings on cigarettes, and we have to tackle our addiction to flying in the same way.”

True, smokers notice the warning labels, initially finding them annoying, then getting accustomed to them. They really have little effect on a smoker. Sure, it ‘might’ deter a few people from starting to smoke in the first place, but for people who have smoked for some time, they have little effect. (Some cigarette packs in Finland state “Smoking is addictive. Don’t start”, which is a bit too late for the majority of smokers who see the warning. In addition, some of the duty-free cigarette cartons on sale around Europe are contradicting. At a duty-free shop on a cruise ship from Finland to Sweden, I say two different makes of cigarettes, next to each other, one saying “Smoking Can Kill”, while the other said “Smoking Kills”.)

The warning labels on holiday ads will have a similar, yet profoundly lesser of an effect on flyers. With smoking, you have a choice of smoking or not smoking. With flying, there are instances when you have really have little choice.

Smoking is (usually) a personal choice, whereas flying is at times a necessity, or atleast an cheaper and easier alternative to expensive and slower means of travel, such as cars, buses and boats.

While it’s well known that smoking has ill effects on a smoker’s health, and health warning labels may be in the right place on cigarette packs, slapping a warning label on ads for holidays seems to be slight overkill.

If the only reason for these warnings is merely to raise public consciousness about the correlation between flying and global warning, a little sticker on a large poster of bikini-clad girls on a beach in Tahiti will not be noticed by most people.

It seems that this whole issue of warning labels on ads for holidays is just a continuation of the global warning awareness craze that seems to be gripping the western world right now. (Now we just need people to get with the program and actually start doing something about the issue, more than just banning incandescent light bulbs and plastic grocery bags…)

If this health-conscious and global warming-scared society really wants to get real on the health warning labels, why not slap those things on everything that actually is bad for humans and the environment. How’s about these ideas?:

CARS: “Driving fast might cause you to wrap your car around a tree.” (Placed on the inside of the front windshield.)

GUNS: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns. And bullets. So guns are bad.”

KNIVES: “Caution: Inserting the sharp end in another human being might be fatal.”

ALCOHOL: “Drinking alcohol may cause you do something stupidly fatal.” (Actually, a law requiring health warning labels on all alcoholic beverages will come into effect in Finland by January 2008. Check out this blog post for more info on the issue)

RAZOR BLADES: “Shaving too close to the jugular is not suggested. Also, do not digest.”

PLAYING CARDS: “Gambling May Damage Your Bank Account.”

DONKEYS: “More people are killed annually by donkeys than die in airplane crashes.”

The point here is that slapping a sticker/label on something detrimental to one’s health is not always the best way to go about saving humanity. Are we just waiting for a warning ticket to show up plastered on the side of the 747 you were supposed to fly to Tahiti with? Slapping a sticker on harmful items doesn’t save the world…

Source:

UK policy body wants health warnings on flights – Yahoo! News

Military Ebay

Ebay has a militaristic competitor: eDisposals. The British Ministry of Defense is auctoning off its surplus and replaced equiptment. This includes boats, truck, Land Rovers, boots, camouflage gear, etcetera, etcetera. Guns and ammo aren’t for sale yet…

http://www.edisposals.com

UK: We’re Pulling Out Troops From Iraq; But Don’t Worry, We’re Sending In Prince Harry

The same day that British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the ‘withdrawal’ of 1,600 British troops from the southern Iraqi city of Basra, the deployment of Prince Harry’s regiment, the Blues and Royals (apt name…) is said to be ‘almost certain’.

If deployed, Prince Harry, or Troop Commander Wales as he is known to his colleagues, will be in charge of an 11 man reconnaissance team equipped with 4 light armoured Scimitar tanks. So not exactly a desk job to keep him out of harms way, but rather to throw him right in the middle of it…

The last time that a senior Royal Family member has seen military action was in 1982, when Prince Andrew, Harry’s uncle, was a helicopter pilot in the Falklands conflict. When’s the last time any member of congress or the White House administration picked up a gun and headed of to war, and not speaking figuratively? We are talking about the grandson of the Queen of England here… When’s the last time a child or grandchild of a US President head off to war?

The United Kingdom has some 7,100 troops in the southern part of Iraq, and is hoping to cut that number down to 5,500 ‘within the next few months’, with an additional 500 hopefully called home by the end of the summer. The UK military presence in Iraq will continue into 2008, ‘for as long as [they're] wanted and have a job to do.’

Although the number of British forces to be withdrawn seems small, one must remember that initially the UK sent in some 45,000 soldiers in April 2003, and has gradually lowered the number of UK forces in Iraq.

So, on one had you have the UK, who, to some extent, is succeeding in its mission in securing Basra (again, to a degree), withdrawing troops and relinquishing control of the area to the Iraqis. On the other hand you have the US, who still maintain a force of some 132,000 soldiers in Iraq, and are now sending in an additional 21,500 troops, all the while (atleast seemingly) failing in their mission. It seems that the methods of operating in Iraq between the US and the UK are complete opposites. Lessons to be learned here, perhaps?

I’m not implying that the American troops are not pulling their weight in Iraq or are otherwise doing a lousy job. Those 132,000 US troops are doing the best they can under the circumstances, and probably could do a better job, if their job wasn’t hampered by political mishandlings and other such burdens, both from the American generals and politicians in Iraq and Washington, and the Iraqi powers in charge over there. Someone in charge needs to get a clue, and fast. Sure, Baghdad is a whole different ballgame compared to Basra, but apparently things aren’t working out too well in the capital…

On a final note, let’s theorize about the deployment of Prince Harry to Iraq, and let’s try to look at the pessimistic aspects of what could happen to him over there. Let’s say he dies or is wounded in the line of duty by a) the insurgents, b) an accident c) friendly-fire:
a) an IED blows up his Scimitar tank and him with it. What would the British reaction in relation to the war in Iraq be? I could see it three ways. One, the remaining troops are withdrawn hastily, due to immense uproar back in the UK over the war. Two, the British parliament sends in hundreds, if not thousands, of extra troops to finally eradicate all insurgency in the south. Three, the nation mourns but the soldiers in Iraq stay the course and finish the job.
b) same as part three of the above
c) US war planes shot up a regiment of British soldiers travelling in Scimitar tanks in 2003, killing one soldier. What if it happened again? How would the cooperation between the UK and the US change if it happened to Prince Harry’s regiment? Would the UK immediately pull all its troops from Iraq? Politically, it’s hard to say, but you know how the British public would react to it…

In any case, worst-case scenario for southern Iraq is that the presence of a very valuable target in Basra could bring more insurgent attacks on the city, undermining the efforts and results the British have undergone in recent months in trying to bring peace to the area. Let’s hope for the best. Not just for England and Prince Harry, but also for the peaceful civilians of Basra…

Sources:
BBC NEWS UK Prince Harry ‘to be sent to Iraq’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6383747.stm
BBC NEWS Politics Blair announces Iraq troops cut
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6380933.stm

UK To Start Interviews For Passports

As of this April, first-time adult passport applicants will be called to face-to-face, 10-20 minute interviews, which “will be “vital” in helping crack identity fraud.” (Identity fraud costs the UK an estimated £1.7bn a year.)

The interviews will affect some 600,000 people each year, and from 2009, interviews will also be compulsory for the millions more people who apply to renew lost, stolen or expired passports each year.

Now for the math portion: there’ll be 610,000 first-time applicants each year, some 10% of the total applicants. There were 1,700 confirmed frauds detected last year.
74% of fraudulent cases were first-time adult applications. And here’s the final math:
Approx. 6 million applicants each year.
Out of all 1700 confirmed cases, 1258 were new applicants, 442 renewals etc.
One confirmed fraud for every 3530 applicants.
Out of first-time applicants, who the new system targets, one confirmed fraud in 477 cases.
Out of other applicants, one confirmed fraud in 12217 cases.

So we’re talking about inconveniencing a lot of people, some who’ll have travel up to two hours for a short interview. Sure, its obvious that this new system is targeting the right demographic, but in doing so is adding unnecessary bureaucracy to the system, and added burden on the people.

The new system is being compared to the added airport security which people face each time they travel by air, an inconvenience which the people are expected to endure (and we do, because there’s no alternative), just to get to travel. And we do so to feel safer. It’s a good comparison, since the new system will really just be another hindrance to smooth travelling. The new system will cut down on ‘chancers’, but won’t deter professional fraudsters.

So how’s about these (theoretical) solutions?

• Create a quick, efficient and secure system to verify identity;
• Train security personnel better, especially in identifying fake identification cards and passports;
• Train current and future airline crews, airport personnel and ground crews better, as well as conducting FULL background checks on all personnel;
• Update security screening at all ports of entry/exit with high-tech, AVAILABLE, technologies;
• Increase funding for future technologies in relation to security measures;
• Review current safety procedures to weed out redundancies;
• Put together an independent, international commission to study all possible threats to mass transportation;
• And finally, listen to the people, the 99.999999999% of travellers who just want a smooth, pleasant trip from point A to point B, and beyond.

Pretty soon all the fun has been sucked out of air travel… Adding more inconvenience to cover up outdated methods and equipment and goverment agency mishandlings is getting out of hand. The people can’t be made to live in fear and submission forever…

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6370627.stm