Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 325 posts

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#61

Post by quotemstr »

funklute wrote: post #21
martamoreno2 wrote: post #8

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?

These guys seem to have a viable approach to accelerated weathering, a form of carbon removal: https://projectvesta.org/

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#62

Post by russdill »

creaghpatr wrote: post #28
ahelwer wrote: post #17

It is an interesting exercise to ask people to imagine a world without air travel. Where you can't just appear halfway around the world at the drop of a hat. Travel again becomes the domain of boats & trains. To almost anyone you talk to, banning air travel sounds completely ridiculous. In reality it wouldn't be enough by itself. It's on the lower end of action that is required.

Or we invent solar-powered planes. Not feasible yet, but who knows.

Solar powered planes are a feasible engineering challenge. The engineering challenge is making synthetic aviation fuels from electricity. Once that is solved, it's just a matter of installing production plants in areas were solar is most productive.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#63

Post by usaar333 »

martamoreno2 wrote: post #8

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…

> The leading countries need to suck the shit back out, that is the only way forward

Its almost certainly for the leading countries to cut emissions and coerce the noncompliers into compliance.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#64

Post by itcrowd »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #10
misiti3780 wrote: post #2

"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?

Yes: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...

This is global data per sector. The rest of the page is fantastically insightful, too.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#65

Post by funklute »

quotemstr wrote: post #61
funklute wrote: post #21

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?

These guys seem to have a viable approach to accelerated weathering, a form of carbon removal: https://projectvesta.org/

that's actually pretty cool

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#66

Post by quotemstr »

rolltiide wrote: post #13

This is sad to read as the budget airlines are really just taking off. So many people are just getting to obtain some of their travel dreams and now they have to stop :(

No, nobody has to stop. Nobody has to listen to people who continually promote a variety of ad-hoc, ineffective, and annoying emissions mitigation measures.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#67

Post by russdill »

quotemstr wrote: post #52

There's a cavernous gap between the apocalyptic rhetoric from climate activists and the brittle, ineffective policy they actually promote. If climate activists really believed that climate change were a near-term catastrophic threat, they'd jump on the change to reduce emissions using whatever techniques and technology worked. "Geoengineering? Great! Nuclear power? Great!" --- that's what someone genuinely concerned…

"them"

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#68

Post by phkahler »

misiti3780 wrote: post #2

"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.

Air travel is more important because of the water vapor far more than the carbon.

The week following 9/11 was dramatically different. NASA recorded the change in daily temperature range. Less significantly, we had crystal clear skys where I live - for a week!

Water vapor can also seed cloud formation. Air travel causes a daily cycle in this, which might just keep more heat in at night.

You can look at data and see the temperature rise along with energy use (CO2). But to compare it with the rise in air travel is also informative. IIRC there is even an uptick of both during WWII.

But y'all can keep screaming 'bout CO2 till the cows come home. It may be that we really need coal fired airplanes that dont emit water vapor, just more CO2.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#69

Post by usaar333 »

ahelwer wrote: post #17

It is an interesting exercise to ask people to imagine a world without air travel. Where you can't just appear halfway around the world at the drop of a hat. Travel again becomes the domain of boats & trains. To almost anyone you talk to, banning air travel sounds completely ridiculous. In reality it wouldn't be enough by itself. It's on the lower end of action that is required.

Like most things with climate change, it's not about banning X action. It's about discouraging it.

The more accurate question is how does everyone respond if the cost of flying doubles?

How many business trips can be handled by VC? How many personal trips provide similar value being taken closer to home?

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#70

Post by eanzenberg »

martamoreno2 wrote: post #8

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…

Plant trees
Post reply on HN