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

81–90 of 325 posts

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#81

Post by Maximus9000 »

phkahler wrote: post #68
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 th…

> "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!"

Do you have links for this?

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#82

Post by tick_tock_tick »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #31
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…

What if said super batteries and efficient sequestration never develop? Why isn't creating lower emission power supplies on your list? I understand that the batteries save green power for when it can't be produced, but if we could find other, better, low or zero emission power sources, wouldn't that be just as good? I'm just confused why those are the two must have technologies, which don't yet exist, and not others,…

Find other low or zero emission power sources is the same as "innovation is required to combat client change" as OP. Technically nuclear would be perfect but practically I fear that ship already sailed nothing else up an coming except maybe fusion has any potential as a real baseload powersource.

Without another breakthrough in battery technology solar and wind will never be more than the token effort they are today.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#83

Post by tonyedgecombe »

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.

If you want to know what a world with a lot less air travel is like ask your grandparents.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#84

Post by acchow »

dehrmann wrote: post #46
taylortrusty wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had no idea weight limits on planes were actually so tight.

You'd think with this limit a leaner airline would come out with per-kg passenger surcharges?

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#85

Post by tonyedgecombe »

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.

I wonder where that 2.5% figure came from, I was always under the impression it was quite a bit higher than that.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#86

Post by tombert »

I fly fairly frequently to California from NY for work, lately after reading a few articles like this, I wonder if I should put my foot down to my manager and tell them that I'm not going to anymore until flying is less terrible for the atmosphere.

I don't think I'll be fired for that, and even if I were I'd probably be able to find another job without too much trouble at this point, but I feel a bit bad for people don't have this option.

NOTE: I realize I'm hardly a beacon of "how to save the world from climate change", but I do try and do a bit where I can; I take public transit almost exclusively and do not own a car, and I have stopped eating beef and pork. I still order a lot of stuff from China online, which is probably the next habit I should break.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#88

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

csallen wrote: post #16
Symmetry wrote: 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.

Seems implausible to me that this is a problem that's going to be solved by asking people to make personal sacrifices. The numbers don't add up. When the op says, "we should focus on…" I assume he's talking about policy, technology, etc., not individual concessions. The best argument I can imagine for encouraging individual concessions is that, if the campaign to do so is massively successful, it might create a new n…

There are people who believe that is an essential course to chart because with out the will to change we are nothing.

I’m not saying that is or isn’t my perspective, just pointing out that it is a perspective that may hold some validity.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#89

Post by tomschlick »

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.

The planes don't have to be solar powered, just electric. Leave the energy generation to the ground. The next problem would definitely be the weight of batteries though.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#90

Post by TeMPOraL »

dehrmann wrote: post #36
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.

At least it got the segment right; ~30% of CO2 emissions are from transportation. It cracks me up when people talk about plastic and throwaway clothing as ways to cut back on carbon emissions.

People confuse two separate issues. Plastic straws and throwaway synthetic clothing are about microplastics. CO₂ emissions are about climate change. The former may or may not turn out to be a health hazard (I'm betting not that much), and may or may not affect the ecosystem negatively somehow. The latter is going to kill our civilization for sure. I think we should leave the former problem for another time, and focus on dealing with the latter.
Post reply on HN