John Travolta - solution for Global Warming

Another ass hat with the do as I say not as I do speech.

Webmaster said:

See pic enclosed for one of Johns Green examples.....

Click to expand...

He must have been referring to his lawn.... it looks very green.

IMO, any vehicle getting only 17mpg should be hauling wood.

Webmaster said:

Then you also have to figure in that no infrastructure (roads) are needed in between point A and B.

Click to expand...

Yup... but they do have to take off and land somewhere... I'd prefer that be a nice, long chunk of concrete that takes up much more room than really "needed".

I wanted to ask BB if they had a fireplace in that corporate 707.

Another flaming, hypocritical, Hollywood liberal who wants us to "save the planet" while he leaves dinosaur-sized carbon droppings behind his aircraft............hypocritical SOB's...... and we thought Al Gore was the height of hypocrisy......





































l

Webmaster said:

Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space ... "

Click to expand...

Sounds like John is thinking about buying his own space shuttle to add to his collection. Should be a small step from space-case to astronaunt.

Travolta's five private planes – a customised £2million Boeing 707, three Gulfstream jets and a Lear jet – are kept at the bottom of his garden in the US next to a private runway.

The MPG issue of planes is you often cover many more miles than a car would. In europe they are finally thinking of stopping short domestic flights given the efficiency and speed of their rail network. With the new security requirments the times savings by flying are nearly gone. A train gets great mpg per person compared to planes or cars. Makes be cringe watching them tear up all the rail beds around here knowing how much trouble there is going to be in the future trying to expropriate them back.

slowzuki said:

The MPG issue of planes is you often cover many more miles than a car would. In europe they are finally thinking of stopping short domestic flights given the efficiency and speed of their rail network. With the new security requirments the times savings by flying are nearly gone. A train gets great mpg per person compared to planes or cars. Makes be cringe watching them tear up all the rail beds around here knowing how much trouble there is going to be in the future trying to expropriate them back.

Click to expand...

Side benefit...when God closes one door he opens another......torn-up rail beds make for great bike paths......

How bout ole' John flies the regular airlines like everyone else. I can see if he were so high-powered company official or a CEO of sort, where 1/2 the yr is spent traveling place to place. TO him it is about convenience.

In the aviation business, the saying goes "SPEED COSTS MONEY, HOW FAST DO YOU WANNA GO?"

I flew business aircraft for the last 6 years, and I found one thing is true: The people who own them are quite possibly the most wasteful people in the world...

It is beyond my realm of comprehension how some can become that detached from reality, but they are.

Lest we forget though that airliners give us the ability to cross oceans in hours, and avoid the perils of the sea..... Domestic travel however can be done more economically in other ways...

Myself, I drive a 1982 Chevy Chevette Diesel. I get about 40+/- mpg in town and better on the highway. I care not that my brethren at the airline are driving mercedes and bmw's, I like the thought of getting better mileage than most hybrids, for 10% of the cost......

Besides, whats sexier than a chevette diesel??

Of course you are not being 'green' by driving around your old diesel.
(And neither am I at 208k miles on my Beetle TDI.)
You need to buy a new Jetta Sportwagen TDI when it comes out in 2008, which will meet all the EPA's standards.
Of course, how long or well the particulate filter and catalytic NOx scrubber will last, who knows?
Have you noticed how diesel is more than hi-test now-it's 3.28 here now? It was at mid-grade prices all summer, unlike in years past.
I'm thinking Prius now as a replacement, but the new VW diesels are supposed to get good mileage (better than the unit injector models it's replacing) - hopefully around 50 mpg, and that's for a less tinny kind of feel.

We just bought a new car (Honda CRV) and went with the most efficient small SUV we could find for a reasonable price. Did our research, test drove half a dozen vehicles and found out that a Prius wouldn't fit three car seats.

So far the Honda gets about 21.5 in town and 27 on the freeway. Not excellent, but better than anything else we test drove that fits our situation and about the same as our Subaru Impreza. (24 MPG in town)

If John Travolta was serious about combating global warming (which isn't even possible) he'd trade in his jets for something more efficient. It's just more typical hypocrisy for the super-rich crowd.

Folks: This is America, home of the free ! Travolta is a self made man. He has achieved what many people can only dream of. If he wanted, he could buy any number of smaller jets for around $250k upwards, but that would cramp his style (where will the luggage go ?). Lets also not forget that anytime you put your family on a plane and fly over the cold atlantic, there are some real risks that you would want to manage.

People like Diamond fly their twin engine diesel plane from Austria to Oshkosh every year, getting pretty good fuel economy, but light twins don't have much in the way of reserves for dealing with bad weather when tackling long stretches over hostile terrain. http://www.diamondair.com/aircraft/da42_private/index.html They show the twin diesel getting 15.8mpg @ 172 knot airspeed. That is almost 200mph, almost 3x faster than one is allowed to drive anywhere on the highway. Michigan to Colorado by road is 24h straight driving but 5-6h flying in an aircraft like the Twinstar. And remember that this is a piston engined prop plane, not a jet.

Whichever way you want to see it, Travolta is an entertainer. If you would do the math and work out what his hourly rate on a movie set is, then the jet probably makes sense for him because he is able to be in more places quicker working on different projects without having to bend his plans around an airline schedule. Not to mention all the diseases he will avoid by not flying coach, nor the ridiculous check in procedures. Lets face it, modern air travel is something we put up with, not something to look forward to or enjoy.

Lets all hope that the great "air taxi" scheme gets off the ground based on the mini jets like the Eclipse, so that we are offered more options for getting from A to B in a reasonable amount of time and with a certain amount of dignity, while avoiding the major hubs. Is there really anyone out there who will miss O Hare, or Cincinati, or Dulles, or JFK or Atlanta ?

Webmaster said:

Yeah, and it certainly easier to power trains with windmills and solar electric!
But do we see even a peep out of DC about trains? Nah. Maybe if Haliburton starts making them, but until then nothing. After all, they think government cant do anything (and given their record, they are right!).

Click to expand...

Sorry, in my rant I forgot to comment on the train situation: Lts see - how is a train going at 200mph significantly different to an airliner from a Republican "security" perspective ? In europe, security measures for train operations are almost entirely absent, but we have the same "airline" security measures for boarding a ferry. I have used the high speed trains in Germany and they are great, but the investment in infrastructure would be hard to stomach. Maybe if that military spending were cut back a little (taboo topic) we could "easily" afford to connect all the major hubs without batting an eyelid.

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_04-10-2005/featured_0

The military. Including estimates for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will spend $527 billion on military expenses this year. In fact, the U.S. spends as much money on its military as all other nations combined. About $5 billion goes for military assistance to foreign governments, including $2.2 billion for Israel and $1.3 billion for Egypt. Intelligence spending—also part of the military budget—is classified, but GlobalSecurity.org, an intelligence policy think tank, estimates that the year’s expenses for spying and other intelligence-gathering will be more than $40 billion. About $34 billion goes to the Department of Defense, including $7 billion for the National Security Agency and $7 billion for the National Reconnaissance Office, which builds and maintains spy satellites. An additional $5 billion goes to the CIA. (Among other intelligence-gathering agencies, the FBI receives $5.2 billion, and the Department of Homeland Security accounts for about $33 billion.) U.S. military spending also includes $2.5 million to remove unexploded bombs dropped over Laos during the Vietnam War, $400 million to train and equip the Afghan National Army and more than $600 million on Army recruitment advertising. end quote