The Alamo Drafthouse in Austin uses voicemail diatribe from disgruntled texter in its anti-texting ad campaign As a cinemagoing experience, the tip tap of fingertips on mobile phone keypads can be almost as annoying as the couple behind you chatting over the opening scenes, or the kid in the back row chucking popcorn. But one cinema in Austin, Texas has laid down the law to anyone caught texting during a movie in no uncertain terms. The Alamo Drafthouse recently ejected a customer from a screening , citing a rule which it says has been in place since 1997. The filmgoer was so offended that she called up the cinema’s management and left an expletive-ridden complaint on an answerphone – which the owners promptly purloined for their latest anti-texting ad campaign. The outraged diatribe is now repeated in full before every screening of an “R” rated movie at the Drafthouse. “Recently, we had a situation where a customer persisted in texting in the theatre despite two warnings to stop,” the cinema revealed on its blog . “Our policy at that point is to eject the customer without a refund, which is exactly what went down that night. Luckily, this former patron was so incensed at being kicked out, she quickly called the office and left us the raw ingredients for our latest ‘Don’t Talk or Text’ PSA.” The Drafthouse’s customer was by no means the first person ever asked to leave a cinema for making too much noise, but some filmgoers have ended up with much rawer deals. In December 2008, a man was shot in a Philadelphia cinema after another customer objected to him talking during a screening of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. In the aftermath of the incident, the offender calmly sat down and finished watching the film as he waited for police to arrive. Earlier this year a man was shot dead by another audience member who objected to the volume at which he was eating his popcorn during a screening of Black Swan. Mobile phones Texas United States Ben Child guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Top Taliban commander Omar Khalid Khorasani says death of Osama bin Laden has given his fighters ‘new courage’ A senior commander from Pakistan’s Taliban, an ideological ally of al-Qaida, has said the movement plans to attack US targets abroad to avenge the death of Osama bin Laden. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Taliban Movement of Pakistan, first threatened to avenge Bin Laden immediately after the raid by US special forces in the northern Pakistani town of Abbottabad on 2 May in which the al-Qaida leader was killed. Since Bin Laden’s death, militants from the group, possibly in alliance with other extremist organisations, have attacked repeatedly in Pakistan, bombing an American consulate convoy, laying siege to a naval base and blowing up cadets from the paramilitary Frontier Corps. However, the Taliban, like several other militant groups, appear to be increasingly adopting at least the language of “global jihad” popularised by al-Qaida. Omar Khalid Khorasani, the top Taliban commander in Mohmand, one of Pakistan’s restive tribal agencies, told Reuters that recent TTP attacks in Pakistan were only the start of bloody reprisals after Bin Laden’s death. “These attacks were just a part of our revenge. God willing, the world will see how we avenge Osama bin Laden’s martyrdom,” said Khorasani. “We have networks in several countries outside Pakistan.” Though counter-intelligence officials believe such claims are exaggerated, the TTP has already been linked to two overseas failed attacks. One, in Spain, never went beyond planning stages. However a second saw a Pakistani-American place a large bomb in Times Square last year. It failed to explode because the timer had been wrongly set. Hakimullah Mehsud, leader of the TTP, appeared in a video with the Jordanian double agent who blew himself up in a fortified US base in Afghanistan last year, in the second most deadly attack in CIA history. Seven CIA officials were killed. “Our war against America is continuing inside and outside of Pakistan. When we launch attacks, it will prove that we can hit American targets outside Pakistan,” said Khorasani. Khorasani said the death of Bin Laden would not demoralise the Taliban but had injected a “new courage” into its fighters. “The ideology given to us by Osama bin Laden and the spirit and courage that he gave to us to fight infidels of the world is alive,” said Khorasani. In what may be a significant move, he described Ayman al-Zawahri, the veteran Egyptian militant who is the likely successor to Bin Laden at the head of al-Qaida, as the Pakistani Taliban’s “chief and supreme leader”. Khorasani is a minor figure but several affiliates of al-Qaida have come out in support of Zawahiri in recent weeks, despite the reservations and ambitions of other senior figures within the group. Nato officials in Afghanistan told the Guardian that the death of Bin Laden had led to an increase in the number of insurgents in that country looking to lay down their arms. A series of contacts are under way between insurgents fighting in Afghanistan and the Afghan and US governments though none appear likely to result in any breakthrough soon. The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said on Saturday there could be political talks with the Afghan Taliban by the end of this year if Nato made more military advances. This would not alter the strategy of the TTP, Khorasani said. “Even if some rapprochement is reached in Afghanistan, our ideology, aim and objective is to change the system in Pakistan,” he added. The vast bulk of the victims of the TTP have been other Pakistanis. The coalition of varied and fragmented militant groups in the tribal agencies of Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan was formally founded in late 2007. However many of the groups drawn together under its umbrella existed long before. Taliban Pakistan al-Qaida Global terrorism Osama bin Laden US foreign policy US military United States Jason Burke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Twitter users who breach injunctions risk legal action, warns attorney general
June 7, 2011 No Comment
Users whose tweets breach gagging orders could face fines or even jail for contempt of court Twitter users who breach privacy injunctions could face legal action for contempt of court, the attorney general has warned. In the starkest warning yet to users of the micro-blogging site who breach so-called “gagging orders”, Dominic Grieve said individuals could be prosecuted and added that he would take action if necessary if he thought the law was not being upheld. Twitter played a key role in the exposure of footballer Ryan Giggs’s alleged affair with former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas, after MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to argue that it was not possible to prosecute the thousands of users who had named Giggs. One of the main difficulties in bringing a prosecution against Twitter is that it is a US-based company and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts. However, Grieve said that users of the micro-blogging site in England and Wales may find themselves subject to contempt proceedings. He warned that they are not exempt from the requirement to observe privacy orders. In a pre-recorded interview for Radio 4′s Law in Action , which will be broadcast on Tuesday, Grieve said that while it is usually up to those who have taken out injunctions to enforce them he will take action himself, although it is not something he particularly wants to do. Grieve said: “I will take action if I think that my intervention is necessary in the public interest, to maintain the rule of law, proportionate and will achieve an end of upholding the rule of law. It is not something, however, I particularly want to do.” He also said proceedings could be brought against newspapers that dropped heavy hints about the identity of a person protected by an injunction. People found to have deliberately breached court orders can be fined or even imprisoned for contempt of court. Twitter has been used to name a number of celebrities who have taken out gagging orders. A senior Twitter executive has said it will notify its users before handing their personal information to UK authorities seeking to prosecute them over alleged breaches of privacy injunctions. “Platforms should have responsibility not to defend the user, but to protect that user’s right to defend him or herself,” Tony Wang, Twitter’s general manager of European operations, told a conference shortly after Giggs was named by the service’s users. In May, as the battle between national newspapers and high court judges over privacy injunctions intensified, Grieve announced that he was setting up a joint parliamentary committee to examine the complex related issues of privacy, injunctions, the regulation of the internet and the role of the Press Complaints Commission, saying the current position was not sustainable. The committee is due to report in the autumn. It was during the Commons debate following Grieve’s announcement that Hemming named Giggs. Later in May lawyers acting for the woman alleged to have had an affair with the former bank boss Sir Fred Goodwin failed in an attempt to launch contempt of court proceedings against the Daily Mail . The high court declined to refer the Associated Newspapers title to the attorney general over an article it published. •
Continue reading …Twitter users who breach injunctions risk legal action, warns attorney general
June 7, 2011 No CommentUsers whose tweets breach gagging orders could face fines or even jail for contempt of court Twitter users who breach privacy injunctions could face legal action for contempt of court, the attorney general has warned. In the starkest warning yet to users of the micro-blogging site who breach so-called “gagging orders”, Dominic Grieve said individuals could be prosecuted and added that he would take action if necessary if he thought the law was not being upheld. Twitter played a key role in the exposure of footballer Ryan Giggs’s alleged affair with former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas, after MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to argue that it was not possible to prosecute the thousands of users who had named Giggs. One of the main difficulties in bringing a prosecution against Twitter is that it is a US-based company and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts. However, Grieve said that users of the micro-blogging site in England and Wales may find themselves subject to contempt proceedings. He warned that they are not exempt from the requirement to observe privacy orders. In a pre-recorded interview for Radio 4′s Law in Action , which will be broadcast on Tuesday, Grieve said that while it is usually up to those who have taken out injunctions to enforce them he will take action himself, although it is not something he particularly wants to do. Grieve said: “I will take action if I think that my intervention is necessary in the public interest, to maintain the rule of law, proportionate and will achieve an end of upholding the rule of law. It is not something, however, I particularly want to do.” He also said proceedings could be brought against newspapers that dropped heavy hints about the identity of a person protected by an injunction. People found to have deliberately breached court orders can be fined or even imprisoned for contempt of court. Twitter has been used to name a number of celebrities who have taken out gagging orders. A senior Twitter executive has said it will notify its users before handing their personal information to UK authorities seeking to prosecute them over alleged breaches of privacy injunctions. “Platforms should have responsibility not to defend the user, but to protect that user’s right to defend him or herself,” Tony Wang, Twitter’s general manager of European operations, told a conference shortly after Giggs was named by the service’s users. In May, as the battle between national newspapers and high court judges over privacy injunctions intensified, Grieve announced that he was setting up a joint parliamentary committee to examine the complex related issues of privacy, injunctions, the regulation of the internet and the role of the Press Complaints Commission, saying the current position was not sustainable. The committee is due to report in the autumn. It was during the Commons debate following Grieve’s announcement that Hemming named Giggs. Later in May lawyers acting for the woman alleged to have had an affair with the former bank boss Sir Fred Goodwin failed in an attempt to launch contempt of court proceedings against the Daily Mail . The high court declined to refer the Associated Newspapers title to the attorney general over an article it published. •
Continue reading …
Don’t fund those ‘advocating quite different values’, says Dame Pauline Neville-Jones ahead of report on counter-terror strategy There are “plenty of Muslim groups” in Britain who hold anti-democratic values and whose funding should be withdrawn, according to Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, the government’s former security minister. Neville-Jones, who quit the Home Office last month, told the BBC it was not right for the government to “actively assist and advocate those who are advocating quite different values”. Her comments came before the publication of a revised Prevent counter-terrorism strategy, which is expected to confirm that 20 of the 1,200 groups currently financed will have their government funding withdrawn. The affected groups are not expected to be publicly named. The 150-page document will back coalition criticisms that the £63m-a-year Prevent strategy, which combined community cohesion work with tackling terrorism, has seen millions wasted on Foreign Office anti-extremism projects without producing any security benefits. It also reportedly says that no more cash will be spent on “organisations that hold extremist views or support terrorist-related activity”. According to a report in the Times today, the document claims that scrutiny of spending has been so poor it is “possible that Prevent funding has reached extremist groups of which we are not yet aware”. The bulk of the £63m budget is to be split off into a separate community cohesion fund run by the Department for Communities and Local Government. A much reduced Home Office and Ministry of Justice programme will be aimed at “significantly scaling up” efforts to tackle radicalisation in prison and the supervision of newly released convicted terrorists, and on work in the university and health sectors. There will be a new focus on denying potential terrorists use of the internet, with the possible development of a national “blocking list” of violent and unlawful websites. This will be used to prevent computers in schools, colleges and libraries from being used to access unlawful material. “We want to explore the potential for violent and unlawful URL lists to be voluntarily incorporated into independent national blocking lists,” the document is believed to state. “Internet filtering across the public estate is essential.” Doctors and other medical professionals are to be brought within the programme for the first time and asked to help identify those at “vulnerable to the risk of radicalisation”. “The key challenge is to ensure that healthcare workers can identify the signs that someone is vulnerable to radicalisation, interpret those signs correctly and access the relevant support,” the document is expected to say. It adds that the Department of Health will need to ensure that the “crucial relationship of trust and confidence between patient and clinician” is balanced with the health worker’s responsibility to protect wider public safety. Isabella Sankey, director of policy for the civil rights group Liberty, said: “The old Prevent strategy left Muslims feeling targeted and all taxpayers wondering where millions of pounds had gone. But its gravest error was blurring the lines between dissent and criminality and between civil society and security agencies. This is the danger that must be avoided in future. “Block terrorist websites and stop prisons breeding hate by all means, but don’t turn teachers and doctors into spies.” Terrorism policy Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Don’t fund those ‘advocating quite different values’, says Dame Pauline Neville-Jones ahead of report on counter-terror strategy There are “plenty of Muslim groups” in Britain who hold anti-democratic values and whose funding should be withdrawn, according to Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, the government’s former security minister. Neville-Jones, who quit the Home Office last month, told the BBC it was not right for the government to “actively assist and advocate those who are advocating quite different values”. Her comments came before the publication of a revised Prevent counter-terrorism strategy, which is expected to confirm that 20 of the 1,200 groups currently financed will have their government funding withdrawn. The affected groups are not expected to be publicly named. The 150-page document will back coalition criticisms that the £63m-a-year Prevent strategy, which combined community cohesion work with tackling terrorism, has seen millions wasted on Foreign Office anti-extremism projects without producing any security benefits. It also reportedly says that no more cash will be spent on “organisations that hold extremist views or support terrorist-related activity”. According to a report in the Times today, the document claims that scrutiny of spending has been so poor it is “possible that Prevent funding has reached extremist groups of which we are not yet aware”. The bulk of the £63m budget is to be split off into a separate community cohesion fund run by the Department for Communities and Local Government. A much reduced Home Office and Ministry of Justice programme will be aimed at “significantly scaling up” efforts to tackle radicalisation in prison and the supervision of newly released convicted terrorists, and on work in the university and health sectors. There will be a new focus on denying potential terrorists use of the internet, with the possible development of a national “blocking list” of violent and unlawful websites. This will be used to prevent computers in schools, colleges and libraries from being used to access unlawful material. “We want to explore the potential for violent and unlawful URL lists to be voluntarily incorporated into independent national blocking lists,” the document is believed to state. “Internet filtering across the public estate is essential.” Doctors and other medical professionals are to be brought within the programme for the first time and asked to help identify those at “vulnerable to the risk of radicalisation”. “The key challenge is to ensure that healthcare workers can identify the signs that someone is vulnerable to radicalisation, interpret those signs correctly and access the relevant support,” the document is expected to say. It adds that the Department of Health will need to ensure that the “crucial relationship of trust and confidence between patient and clinician” is balanced with the health worker’s responsibility to protect wider public safety. Isabella Sankey, director of policy for the civil rights group Liberty, said: “The old Prevent strategy left Muslims feeling targeted and all taxpayers wondering where millions of pounds had gone. But its gravest error was blurring the lines between dissent and criminality and between civil society and security agencies. This is the danger that must be avoided in future. “Block terrorist websites and stop prisons breeding hate by all means, but don’t turn teachers and doctors into spies.” Terrorism policy Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …WaPo Bows Deeply to Scott Pelley for Skipping?…No, Delaying Weinergate News in Debut
June 7, 2011 No Comment
The Washington Post published a seriously misleading headline Tuesday. At top of the Style section, it read: “Anthony Weiner is everywhere – except CBS: Anchor Scott Pelley takes the high road in his debut, focusing on other news.” It would be natural for readers to think Pelley skipped Weiner’s confession entirely on Monday night. But TV critic Hank Stuever was merely thrilled and impressed that Pelley showed a “ray of serious sunshine” by delaying Weinergate until midway through his first newscast: Meanwhile, I saw a ray of serious sunshine on the future of TV journalism. Barely an hour later, CBS calmly and with little fanfare debuted “The CBS Evening News With Scott Pelley.” That would be the network's not-ballyhooed, post-Katie Couric nightly newscast. Little has changed, but as promised, it came with a “60 Minutes” flavoring befitting the fact that Pelley, 53, was and is the venerable newsmagazine's finest correspondent. Showing a restraint that, say, “NBC Nightly News” could not (“The age of oversharing has claimed another man,” Brian Williams intoned, leading off his newscast with Weinergate), Pelley and company went to a long, on-the-ground report from Afghanistan, where reporter Mandy Clark had embedded with Army soldiers fighting on the Pakistan border. That led to six or so minutes connecting the future of the American involvement in Afghanistan to the troop killings in Iraq. Now Weiner? No. Pelley then segued to a long story about recent breakthroughs in treating melanoma and lung cancer. Nine minutes in — now Weiner? No, not until after the first commercial break, when Pelley granted the congressman's apology a full minute clip, followed by some analysis from Capitol Hill correspondent Nancy Cordes, who essentially boiled the drama down to a rather grown-up summary of why some politicians recover from this kind of scandal and some don't. That was followed, fittingly, by the latest news about former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn's rape charges. The Post TV critic needed a stop watch, since CBS's Weiner clip was about 36 seconds, not a minute. But it was a Cronkite-era soundbite length. Pelley suggested that Weiner's newsworthiness needed to be explained: “Nancy, help us understand why Congressman Weiner matters.” Cordes underlined Weiner's appeal to liberals: “He holds kind of a unique position in the Democratic caucus…Weiner is one of his [Obama’s] most outspoken critics on the left. Whenever liberals feel that the president is straying too far from their principles in the pursuit of compromise. It’s unclear how well he’s really going to be able to handle that role now, a role even the president has said is important.” Stuever continued: Then came a quick item on Rick Santorum's official bid for the 2012 Republican nomination; more glum news about the housing industry; Steve Jobs's iCloud; the Arizona wildfire; and finally, a long and uplifting feature about a World War II veteran's trip to Normandy after 67 years. None of that was any better than when Couric was anchoring mere weeks ago. I don't know why (or even whether) it brings viewers any more comfort to have the news anchored by a stern-jawed man with graying hair, but Pelley's initial broadcast reminded me of how reliable and elegant the nightly news can be – and how nice it would be to sit in a recliner at 6:30 every night and just let the news be news. Of course it feels old, yesteryear, outmoded. (Plavix is not for everyone. Ask your doctor.) But it felt dependable, too. Weiner was everywhere (deeply regret; deeply deeply; full responsibility – I get the feeling he's still in a dark room somewhere, repeating it over and over still), but Pelley took the high road. The sound you hear is the sound of Edward R. Murrow remaining, for once, completely still in his grave. The Hollywood Reporter summarized the initial reception of TV critics, which was mostly positive, happy that CBS was going back to sober, stolid tradition. Ahem: how can that NOT be read as “Hurrah, The Era of Morning Gummy Grin Is Over”?
Continue reading …WaPo Bows Deeply to Scott Pelley for Skipping?…No, Delaying Weinergate News in Debut
June 7, 2011 No CommentThe Washington Post published a seriously misleading headline Tuesday. At top of the Style section, it read: “Anthony Weiner is everywhere – except CBS: Anchor Scott Pelley takes the high road in his debut, focusing on other news.” It would be natural for readers to think Pelley skipped Weiner’s confession entirely on Monday night. But Stuever was merely thrilled and impressed that Pelley showed a “ray of serious sunshine” by delaying Weinergate until midway through his first newscast: Meanwhile, I saw a ray of serious sunshine on the future of TV journalism. Barely an hour later, CBS calmly and with little fanfare debuted “The CBS Evening News With Scott Pelley.” That would be the network's not-ballyhooed, post-Katie Couric nightly newscast. Little has changed, but as promised, it came with a “60 Minutes” flavoring befitting the fact that Pelley, 53, was and is the venerable newsmagazine's finest correspondent. Showing a restraint that, say, “NBC Nightly News” could not (“The age of oversharing has claimed another man,” Brian Williams intoned, leading off his newscast with Weinergate), Pelley and company went to a long, on-the-ground report from Afghanistan, where reporter Mandy Clark had embedded with Army soldiers fighting on the Pakistan border. That led to six or so minutes connecting the future of the American involvement in Afghanistan to the troop killings in Iraq. Now Weiner? No. Pelley then segued to a long story about recent breakthroughs in treating melanoma and lung cancer. Nine minutes in — now Weiner? No, not until after the first commercial break, when Pelley granted the congressman's apology a full minute clip, followed by some analysis from Capitol Hill correspondent Nancy Cordes, who essentially boiled the drama down to a rather grown-up summary of why some politicians recover from this kind of scandal and some don't. That was followed, fittingly, by the latest news about former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn's rape charges. The Post TV critic needed a stop watch, since CBS's Weiner clip was about 36 seconds, not a minute. But it was a Cronkite-era soundbite length. Pelley suggested that Weiner's newsworthiness needed to be explained: “Nancy, help us understand why Congressman Weiner matters.” Cordes underlined Weiner's appeal to liberals: “He holds kind of a unique position in the Democratic caucus…Weiner is one of his [Obama’s] most outspoken critics on the left. Whenever liberals feel that the president is straying too far from their principles in the pursuit of compromise. It’s unclear how well he’s really going to be able to handle that role now, a role even the president has said is important.” Stuever continued: Then came a quick item on Rick Santorum's official bid for the 2012 Republican nomination; more glum news about the housing industry; Steve Jobs's iCloud; the Arizona wildfire; and finally, a long and uplifting feature about a World War II veteran's trip to Normandy after 67 years. None of that was any better than when Couric was anchoring mere weeks ago. I don't know why (or even whether) it brings viewers any more comfort to have the news anchored by a stern-jawed man with graying hair, but Pelley's initial broadcast reminded me of how reliable and elegant the nightly news can be – and how nice it would be to sit in a recliner at 6:30 every night and just let the news be news. Of course it feels old, yesteryear, outmoded. (Plavix is not for everyone. Ask your doctor.) But it felt dependable, too. Weiner was everywhere (deeply regret; deeply deeply; full responsibility – I get the feeling he's still in a dark room somewhere, repeating it over and over still), but Pelley took the high road. The sound you hear is the sound of Edward R. Murrow remaining, for once, completely still in his grave. The Hollywood Reporter summarized the initial reception of TV critics, which was mostly positive, happy that CBS was going back to sober, stolid tradition. Ahem: how can that NOT be read as “Hurrah, The Era of Morning Gummy Grin Is Over”?
Continue reading …Airlines lose economy passengers as soaring fuel bills force up ticket prices
June 7, 2011 No Comment
• Leisure travel drops 3.5% over winter • Profit margins expected to dive to 0.7% • Lufthansa to launch first commercial biofuel route That back-of-the-cabin pilgrimage to Ibiza or Miami this summer will be a little less cramped than usual, according to the airline industry’s leading trade body, as economy class passengers balk at higher fares due to rising fuel costs and aviation taxes. The International Air Transport Association said leisure travel fell 3.5% worldwide between last November and March this year, with Europe suffering the most as recession-hit passengers declined to accept ticket prices driven higher by the increasing cost of oil . IATA’s chief economist, Brian Pearce, said carriers have had no choice but to hike fares because the cost of jet fuel has risen by more than 50% over the past 12 months. With no sign of a significant decline in an oil price that is staying stubbornly above $100 (£61) per barrel, airlines are fighting to stay profitable and have pushed up ticket prices in order to recoup costs, with an inevitable consequence for discretionary spenders, said Pearce. “If they have got a nice fat margin they can lower fares to stimulate demand but when fuel prices are up by 50% that’s not possible,” he said. This week IATA said the industry’s profit margins will slump from 3.2% in 2010, its best since the September 11 attacks, to just 0.7%. Even Ryanair, the best financial performer in recent years , is expected to hike fares by 12% this year. Fuel accounts for 30% of industry costs and a severe fluctuation in oil costs can be the difference between a slender profit and a steep loss at some carriers. UK carriers will have to claw back cost increases of about 8% this year, according to IATA, with the fuel increase equating to a rise of 5% in unit costs and rising air passenger duty forcing up expenditure by a further 3%. Business passengers, meanwhile, are swallowing the resulting rise in fares because buoyant corporate confidence is keeping expense accounts afloat. Business class traffic is running at an annual growth rate of up to 6%. Describing economy class sales as “a worrying trend”, Pearce said: “The high cost of travel is discouraging passengers.” However, the airline industry is set to takes its first serious step towards weaning itself off conventional fuel this year when Germany’s Lufthansa launches its first commercial biofuel route with paying passengers. The Hamburg-to-Frankfurt service will launch later this year if the carrier gets safety clearance, with 25% of its fuel set to be biofuel. The fuel is deemed green because it recoups the emissions generated when it is burned in flight by consuming carbon dioxide when the base plant material from which it is made is being grown. However, IATA’s head of environment, Paul Steele, said the industry was a long way from running all of its services on biofuel, because there is not enough biofuel being made to cover the 70bn gallons of kerosene consumed by the industry every year. “The real challenge is getting the quantities.” Airline industry Ryanair Travel & leisure Oil Global economy Economics Biofuels Energy Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …