Live data from Hacker News

Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

nytimes.com

41–50 of 325 posts

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#41
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Telecom technology has matured enough to make personal presence unnecessary Holy moly that's sad if anyone actually believes this.

I actually believe this, could you maybe expand on for what interactions you think personal presence is still necessary and adds real value?

Seeing your grandmother. Hugging your nephew. Enjoying a trip with close friends. Firing an executive. Laying off people.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#43

2.5% eh? We should all immediately stop flying... This is outrageous. Just imagine, 2.5%!! But on a more serious note, this article is again wrong, like so many others about climate change. Being a combination of clickbait and false assumptions, it fails to miss the point entirely that first, 2.5% are irrelevant, but also that it makes no sense whatsoever to tackle this now. The technology is just not there yet. What…

On a per dollar basis, sucking carbon out is the most expensive option. Economics dictates that there is lower hanging fruit & best to prevent / reduce CO2 emissions at concentrated sources than to suck out it from an extremely dispersed atmosphere. You're fighting against basic entropy (entropy always wins).

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#44

2.5% eh? We should all immediately stop flying... This is outrageous. Just imagine, 2.5%!! But on a more serious note, this article is again wrong, like so many others about climate change. Being a combination of clickbait and false assumptions, it fails to miss the point entirely that first, 2.5% are irrelevant, but also that it makes no sense whatsoever to tackle this now. The technology is just not there yet. What…

>It's not gonna happen

Not with that attitude. To elaborate: it's not black & white. You can definitely have a positive impact reducing emissions.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time someone actually does the math on sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, it seemingly becomes clear that it is simply not scalable to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere. Have you done the math, and if so, why is everyone who comes to the aforementioned conclusion wrong?

Don't do math, don't question the dogma, and don't bet against markets. Coastal florida prices are skyrocketing because underwater real estate is just gonna' be the new trend. And Holland is leading the world in supposed refugees of underwater refugees. I'm incapable of thinking for myself and believe everyhing I'm told. Let's go to war again in the Middle East! Better downvote this comment for offending your regurgi…

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this...

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#46
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on who you are. The median person doesn't fly. But a round trip flight from Shanghai to New York is 3.4 tons of carbon, pretty close to the average global anual per capita emissions of 4.0 tons.

You need to divide that 3.4 tons of carbon by the ~270 people on each flight

It might be slightly better if there's cargo. Or worse if there's a lot of first class passengers.

Someone I know got denied boarding a flight on employee standby (~free ticket, family member works for the airline) because they needed the weight for cargo.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#47

"Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions — a far smaller share than emissions from passenger cars or power plants." 2.5% means we should focus on reducing somewhere else in the near term.

Can somebody give a simple to read breakdown of what compromises the majority of the global carbon dioxide emissions picture/pie?

Apparently the EPA can do that. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#48

2.5% eh? We should all immediately stop flying... This is outrageous. Just imagine, 2.5%!! But on a more serious note, this article is again wrong, like so many others about climate change. Being a combination of clickbait and false assumptions, it fails to miss the point entirely that first, 2.5% are irrelevant, but also that it makes no sense whatsoever to tackle this now. The technology is just not there yet. What…

Any time someone actually does the math on sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, it seemingly becomes clear that it is simply not scalable to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere. Have you done the math, and if so, why is everyone who comes to the aforementioned conclusion wrong?

I like the idea of getting to net neutral with carbon capture. I even did some napkin math about a month ago. I tried calculating the energy requirements to break the CO2 bond as to determine the number of solar panels you would need. To get net neutral with CO2 emissions you would need to spend something around $8.5 trillion and obtain around 84,584,490,753.28 of 300 watt, $100 panels! Note I did not calculate the cost of the actual carbon capture machines, just energy requirements. I think my number is perhaps still a bit low but I also think this is reasonably doable with global support.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#49
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on who you are. The median person doesn't fly. But a round trip flight from Shanghai to New York is 3.4 tons of carbon, pretty close to the average global anual per capita emissions of 4.0 tons.

You need to divide that 3.4 tons of carbon by the ~270 people on each flight

GP wrote the per passenger stat

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any time someone actually does the math on sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, it seemingly becomes clear that it is simply not scalable to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere. Have you done the math, and if so, why is everyone who comes to the aforementioned conclusion wrong?

Don't do math, don't question the dogma, and don't bet against markets. Coastal florida prices are skyrocketing because underwater real estate is just gonna' be the new trend. And Holland is leading the world in supposed refugees of underwater refugees. I'm incapable of thinking for myself and believe everyhing I'm told. Let's go to war again in the Middle East! Better downvote this comment for offending your regurgi…

Just so you know, I'm downvoting this comment instead for being an inane rant without presenting a rational argument.
Post reply on HN