Bill Nye: Do As I Say Not As I Do
Heading down to DC to catch an #EarthDay flight on Air Force One tomorrow with the President. We're going to #ActOnClimate.
— Bill Nye (@BillNye) April 21, 2015
Keith’s note: Planetary Society CEO Bill Nye (The Science Guy®) is certainly having fun these days. I guess its perfectly normal to brag about getting a flight on Air Force One (I’m absolutely certain that I would too) but when you are flying on a 747 that only carries a small number of people (carbon footprint anyone?) for an Earth Day event, and then you take others to task on environmental and scientific issues, well … this wins the NASAWatch clueless Tweet of the day award.
And yes, yes, yes, the plane would have flown anyway and if Nye did not sit in one of the seats then someone else would have and the carbon footprint would have remained the same. For all we know Nye reimbursed the government for the actual full cost of his seat and has personally sequestered enough carbon in the ground or bought carbon credits to make this trip carbon neutral. But since he’s all about being in the spotlight, wouldn’t a more useful public thing for The Science Guy® Nye focus on something that anyone, anywhere could do to protect our environment – one that did not include selfie opportunities on Air Force One? Just wondering. That’s what Earth Day used to be about.
What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
On the other hand, AF1 was going to fly, anyway. I’m not sure you can pin that on Nye, unless you’re blaming him for flying, period.
Agreed. I’m sure there was an empty seat in that big old Boeing 747 for Bill to occupy.
Except I believe Bill Nye flew to DC so he could fly on AF1. That would seem to be an extra trip.
Thus compounding the issue!
I am as hard as anyone on people who scream “carbon foot print” at every turn. HOWEVER, if you cannot directly impact your footprint, I do not hold it against you. So Bill did not charter a jet to go to DC, the jet was flying. Bill did not tell AF1 to go to Florida, then I would hold it against him. If Bill owns a hummer, then I hold it against him. I think this is piling on for going to an event to discuss science. The carbon foot print of the event would not be impacted by his attendance.
Sure you can say that one person not taking a particular flight will not stop the flight from taking place. But airlines schedule their flights, both for frequency and type of equipment used, based on demand. If Nye had taken Amtrak (if that was feasible I don’t know where he was travelling from) he would have made a small impact on reducing the amount of jet fuel burned by helping to increase demand for rail and decreasing demand for airline flights. Sure it would be a tiny difference, but isn’t that the point of all of this that small changes to lifestyle add up to big changes? Amtrak not feasible? Take Megabus. Would have been a nice gesture that might have had more impact than all of the speechifying which probably no one will remember after a day or two.
I agree with the comment about Leo and Gore flying private jets. I don’t begrudge them if they absolutely have to be somewhere and a private jet is the only way to get there on time. But couldn’t that be the exception and not the rule and they could fly commercial most of the time? After all they would at least get to fly first class or business class which most of us don’t get to. Unless they are already flying commercial most of the time which I have no way to know.
I remember Bob Hope travelled the country on commercial aircraft, I read that he always sat in the first row on the right hand window seat. He didn’t own a private jet. You could say he was just being cheap, but you could also note that even someone as busy as Bob Hope was could keep his schedule flying commercial.
The blame falls to Obama. He is telling us we have to cut our carbon emissions while he flies to FL. A clear case of Do As I Say Not As I Do.
Because it would make sense for the President of the United States to spend hours/days on a bus every time he needed to go some place, right?
No, because it would make sense for the President to do less travelling if he wants to lead the way on cutting carbon emissions. Think of how much carbon he spewed campaigning for democratic candidates last year or taking his wife on a special trip to NYC to see a play. But as I said, reducing carbon emissions is for the rest of us.
CNN reported, “President Bush is using Air Force One for re-election travel more heavily than any predecessor, wringing maximum political mileage from a perk of office paid for by taxpayers. While John Kerry digs into his campaign bank account to charter a plane to roam the country, Bush often travels at no cost to his campaign simply by declaring a trip ‘official’ travel rather than ‘political.’ Even when the White House deems a trip as political, the cost to Bush’s campaign is minimal. In such instances, the campaign must only pay the government the equivalent of a comparable first-class fare for passengers. It’s a minuscule sum, compared to the $56,800-per-hour it costs to run Air Force One.”
Bush did not propose to reduce our carbon emissions by 28%.
Yeah, Bush burned carbon in order to promote policies to burn greater amounts of carbon. Very sad.
“Think of how much carbon he spewed campaigning for democratic candidates last year”
That would be an investment in carbon saving! Having a team that promotes rather than hinders action is worth the carbon trade-off.
Maybe stick to something that would be effective. Notice how the Democrats lost heavily. His travel was wasted carbon.
Democrats actually received MORE votes than Repubs in the last election.
The technical particulars of the election cycle coupled with an off-year election lead to losses. 2016 on the other hand, due to a number of technical factors, should swing extremely strongly blue.
BTW – win or lose, you fight the battles.
No, he needs to travel MORE. He needs to sell his policies. That cannot be done behind a desk. Any policy that is put into action produces results that simply dwarf into non-existence the energy spent promoting that policy.
His policies aim at reducing GHG emissions by BILLIONS of tons.
That’s why I don’t really have an issue with Nye going along. He is a science celebrity and the carbon cost/benefit of his travel for this I see as very positive. It may appear to be hypocritical, but it is an investment with a big possible payout.
Politics requires being amidst the “polis” (or citizens)
So as long as he is promoting the policies you like, then it is OK to burn carbon.
Yes. When the payoff is trillions to one, and the alternative may be disaster, hell yes.
The President cannot and should not govern from within an office. It is his or her job to promote policies at gatherings thruout the country. When was the last time you heard one of his Saturday morning radio speeches? But this trip garnered massive coverage.
Hopefully the return from the policy exceeds the cost of the effort, whether in carbon, money, health, whatever.
“President Obama traveled to Florida on Wednesday to highlight the impact of climate change on the American economy. The choice of Florida, where sea levels are rising rapidly and state officials aren’t allowed to discuss climate change, brings Obama to the front lines of the debate over how to address the changing environment”
He’s doing his job..
Bill Nye sometimes gets into discussions he is not qualified for such as criticizing third parties or unilaterally criticizing republican plans for space.
A few months ago, Bill Nye did an AMA (ask me anything) at http://www.reddit.com/r/IAm…, where he basically fear-mongered against GMOs and nuclear power with the old trope we don’t know what will happen, so best to shut it down until we can prove the negative that it won’t kill us all. The numbers and facts are pretty clearly against him on those positions, so I don’t really trust his opinion any more than any other celebrity. “Scientist” is not mutually exclusive with “prone to let emotion override reason.”
It’s always seemed to me that Nye is unable to provide concise and cogent support for his arguments in interviews and debates. As an “ambassador” of science, he doesn’t bring much science with him when discussing issues.
Carl Sagan or Isaac Asimov or my special superhero, Stephen Jay Gould were much better.
“The Panda’s Thumb,” a great book by Gould.
Here’s a real brief and snarky essay by Gould:
https://www.nytimes.com/boo…
“he numbers and facts are pretty clearly against him on those positions,”
I don’t agree. I just don’t think he is particulary good or qualified in making the arguments.
But he is the celebrity “scientist”, so he is rolled out to be the public face for approachable science.
I never liked Nye lending his efforts as a character (along with Ellen DeGeneres) in the Universe of Energy attraction at Disney World, sponsored by Exxon.
20 years later (fun, but aging ride) he thinks it should should have covered climate change more. Like that would have happened!
https://c1.staticflickr.com…
We should be asking why any President – Democrat or Republican – needs a 747!! They could get by with a much smaller jet and so prove their devotion to the environment and fiscal responsibility.
Could you share with us your analysis that shows this to be a poor choice of aircraft? I’m eager to read what you have discovered.
Todd Austin Let’s take the high road here.
However most of us realize that there are lots of organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, we have read stories in various news outlets over the last few decades about the way that the Federal government spends money.
Let;s do an internet search, while distinguishing between serious journalism and idle chatter – and we can find LOTS of analyses by well respected organizations that say that the current Air Force One is too big, too expensive. A smaller aircraft would work just as well.
Edit – didn’t mean to adopt that snarky tone.
I don’t see ANY- ?
Michael Spencer No snarky tone? I replied and then reconsidered, went back and edited out the snarky. Just wanted to keep the tone more professional.
They sometimes use the C-32 (757) and I have heard of short trips on a Gulfstream in the past although I don’t know if that’s still done.
Seems like the C-32 would have been more appropriate for this trip instead of the VC-25. However all presidents like the pomp and circumstance that goes with arriving on the big jet when it’s a highly publicized visit. In fact that was one of the reasons that Kennedy flew on Air Force One from Ft. Worth to Dallas on November 22nd instead of taking a motorcade the 35 miles, because there was all of the live TV and newspaper coverage of his arrival at Love Field in Dallas. But of course for schedule reasons also as they would have been able to drive the short distance from the Trade Mart to Love Field instead of having to drive back to Carswell AFB.
There are other logistics issues also, how many staff are going along, how many press. A trip like this probably brought a lot of press which could be another reason they used the VC-25.
And there could be security differences. I don’t know if the C-32 has chaff for example. But for trips that are not highly publicized that is probably less of an issue than a trip like this one.
I think we should bring back the Columbine III Air Force One,
only because the Super-Connie was such a gorgeous plane:
http://eftm.com.au/wp-conte…
I walked through Columbine III last November at the Air Force Museum in Dayton. Along with Sacred Cow, Independence and SAM 26000 Kennedy’s 707. You can still see where they cut the bulkhead to get JFK’s casket into the rear of the passenger compartment. Rather than replace the bulkhead afterwards they repaired the cut with some metal strips.
Whereas the main museum is off-base, the presidential aircraft are currently in a hanger on-base and they take you there on a bus. Only a few buses per day so you have to sign up in the morning as it books up quickly. There is an adjacent R&D hanger with SR-71, X-15, XB-70 and many others. There was a recent discussion about having Falcon first stage grab onto a hook, they have the Ryan X-13 Vertijet that did that, and they have it displayed hanging from the hook
The great thing about the on-base hangers is you get to walk around and under all of these planes, and you literally have to watch your head which they caution you. You can climb up a step and look inside the cockpit of an X-15. You could touch all of the planes but they ask you not to because it can degrade the metal.
This all changes October 1st when they will close the on-base presidential and R&D hangers in preparation for moving them into a new exhibit hanger at the museum which will open next year. This will allow everyone who visits the museum to see these planes, however there will be ropes around them, no more walking under them. Not sure if they will still let people walk through the presidential aircraft. I think they probably will because they are all lined inside with Plexiglas.
On that note, if you go to the Intrepid Museum in New York, where Enterprise is, be sure to sign up for the Concorde tour. It used to be lined with Plexiglas and all museum visitors could walk through it. They have since removed the Plexiglas and have very limited tours, a dozen people per tour and only about four tours per day. You get to sit in the seats and look out the tiny windows while the tour guide tells the story of Concorde. Then he takes people into the cockpit in pairs, you don’t get to sit in the cockpit seats but you are crouched down right behind them (it’s cramped up there). You could reach up and flip switches but of course they don’t want you to. I sure wanted to move the lever that lowers the nose but I was able to restrain myself (obviously it wouldn’t have worked anyway)
The Constellation that Ike used- the first Air Force One, by the way- is a currently rusting hulk.
You are referring to Columbine II which was only used by Ike during his first year in office then replaced in 1954 by Columbine III which is the one on display at Wright-Patt.
Interesting- thanks, Steve.
Columbine II photo taken recently
All the Connies need to be preserved
The restoration in progress. Of interest is the number 8610 seen on the front landing gear door. That was the designation which created confusion with Eastern Airlines flight 8610 in 1953, resulting in the subsequent designation Air Force One.
Short trailer for a film starring the greatest airliner, the Super Constellation!
https://vimeo.com/76275010
When the Breitling Constellation was at Camarillo Airport in California (in USAF markings) you could see it from the Ventura Freeway. I never got a chance to see it up close however then it was flown to Switzerland in 2004.
Some fantastic and amazingly coincidental news was announced yesterday about Columbine II.
First for some background, Columbine II has been languishing, albeit in pretty good shape for over a decade as the private owners have tried several times to sell it.
Then in February of this year Dynamic Aviation in Virginia made a tentative deal to purchase it on the condition that after their mechanics inspected it they felt it could be made at least airworthy enough to get a permit to ferry it back to their home base in Bridgewater for display with their other restored aircraft. Ideally they would also like to eventually get it certified airworthy so that it could be flown to airshows.
Warbirds News has been following the progress with some great articles on their website with great photos, like the one I posted in my reply to Michael Spencer.
Their initial look at the plane in February was quite encouraging:
“We have found the airframe to be in quite good condition with very little corrosion but with the normally expected things that you would find with an airplane that was parked outside and subjected to extreme heat. However the engines needed a lot more work than we expected before we feel comfortable to even run them. We determined very early that we were not going to run them until we had carefully inspected them and made necessary repairs, to give us the best potential to have successful engine runs and ferry.”
In March and April the Dynamic Aviation mechanics repaired three of the four engines and were able to fire them up. The fourth engine has parts out for overhaul. There is one spare engine available if number four cannot be restored but they hope to avoid using the spare.
Their checkout of other systems (hydraulics, fuel, brakes etc.) was favorable, and:
ON APRIL 24TH DYNAMIC AVIATION ANNOUNCED THEY WILL PURCHASE COLUMBINE II AND RESTORE IT TO FLYING CONDITION
Statement by Karl Stoltzfus, founder of Dynamic Aviation:
“After extensive inspection and repairs on the aircraft we are ready to accept it, and to proceed with closing in June. Many challenges remain before we can fly it to Virginia but we are now confident that it is feasible.”
For major flights the 747 has the equipment added to provide the massive power supples for electronics needed for a mobile white house and command in chief of the us armed forces. The communication gear alone is enormous. When Reagan swapped the 707s for the 747s it provided much higher functionality.
For minor trips like a visit from DC to NY Obama would use the gulfstream
The President has the Cabinet, various other departments, etc etc etc. In the old days the President could be out of touch for weeks – we need to tell the President to delegate. If they want a 747 they should pay for it out of their salaries.
You’ve got to love the way that they literally have no ability to realise just how hypocritical this behaviour pattern actually is!
No one can compete with G. Bush in abusing his AF1 rights at taxpayer expense, with Bil Clinton and R. Reagan in distant second.
Even assuming that they are hypocrites (an oversimplification) or alarmists (which is dead wrong), their message should be the important thing. They may have personal shortcomings, but we must keep our eyes on the prize.
Q: There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?
Gore: “I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.“
So, in the sense of in his movie “piling on” the mass of “factual” dangers in order to wake people up, you are correct.
Glad he did it.
Just as an aside, I don’t think much of fusion as part of the energy mix. That view really, really, really isolates me from almost every poster on this blog, but hey, you can’t please everyone (or in this case, anyone!)
[Yale pissing off EVERYONE: http://nasawatch.com/archiv… ] 😉
The size of the presidential aircraft is dictated in part by the accompanying press corps. While the 747 costs about $5K per hour to fly, if most of the aircraft is filled (as is usually the case) it is a reasonable choice since otherwise a second press aircraft would be needed. The president’s personal activities have considerable symbolic importance but insignificant effect on the environment. His actual policies (and the astounding denial of basic scientific principles by his opponents) have real effects on the environment, and the future.
“Obviously a video appearance would have sufficed.”
Not at all. They both made personal appearances on widely viewed programs promoting specific policy initiatives, joking and dancing and being approachable, all the while staying on message. The resulting publicity was quite high and mostly positive.
The key is the risky trade-off on the “optics” of the trip. If it gets portrayed essentially as wasteful, then it failed. If the take-away by the public is instead positive, then it suceeded.
The main power of a president, outside of Commander-in-Chief, is as a persuader. That was Reagan’s greatest strength (unfortunately..), as it was with FDR.
Recall that the Prez and 1st Lady (quite likely a new name will have to created after the next election) have entirely different schedules and duties with minimal overlap.
In this case Ms. Obama had a morning flight to LA to do tapings of shows for the child anti-obesity/pro-fitness program using a C-52 (Boeing 757) and then went to DC.
Mr. Obama needed to do an afternoon flight with AF1 for other events and shows and then in the AM traveled to Phoenix AZ, and then on as scheduled. Yes, they use more GHG than we do, but they have broader activities, which when successfully infinitely outweigh the emissions.
List them and we’ll discuss them (as long as this Blog post doesn’t roll off the front page. Life has to go on.
From Albert Brooks:
https://twitter.com/AlbertB…