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

131–140 of 325 posts

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#131

Post by bennofs »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #85
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.

You need to consider that flying is still somewhat uncommon, if you consider the whole population on earth. From a quick search on google, less than 20 percent of the world's population took a plane in their entire lifetime.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#132

Post by flavor8 »

ddxxdd wrote: post #107
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?

I have repeatedly heard scientists say that planting 1 trillion trees will singlehandedly set climate change back 10 years. I've done the math on that myself and found that such a plan is about 5000 times more cost-effective than driving Tesla vehicles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714034 Anytime anybody says anything about the social cost of carbon being greater than $0.50 per ton, I just tune them out.

On what timescale? I.e. trees take time to grow and accumulate carbon. As I understand it, the climate clock is ticking - there's a threshold beyond which some runaway effects kick in.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#134

Post by TeMPOraL »

umvi wrote: post #58
jcims wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the basic energy equation of sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere using state of the art today? In say megawatt hours per gigaton?

> What's the basic energy equation of sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere using state of the art today? Current state-of-the-art has the following equation[1]: 6CO2 + 6H20 + (photons) → C6H12O6 + 6O2 (sorry, I couldn't help myself, the setup was too good) But seriously, I doubt we can beat plants in terms of carbon sequestration efficiency. [1] https://sciencing.com/photosynthesis-equation-6962557.html

But maybe we could beat the plants in efficiency per square meter. There's nothing saying we couldn't improve on density of matter that photosynthesizes, by e.g. packing the plant matter more tightly in artificial conditions. Nature tries to produce organisms that survive and reproduce. We now have a different set of constraints: we need something that can pull out carbon as efficiently as possible. If it can't self-reproduce, we can reproduce it in labs or factories. I feel (hope) there's plausible biology and engineering work to be done here.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#135

Post by jsingleton »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #94
usaar333 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Business clients wouldn't mind that much. But it would kill a good chunk of tourism industry (and good riddance). Tickets for leisure flights are ridiculously cheap nowadays.

I'm taking the train for my next holiday and it is significantly more expensive. Flying is unreasonably cheap. Aviation fuel needs to be taxed but this has to be done everywhere to avoid refuelling in havens. Or maybe tax stands at airports if that can't be done.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#136

Post by blunte »

If you need to travel long distances, there's little substitute for an airplane.

If air travel accounts for less emissions than passenger cars, and if the top 15 polluting large container ships produce as much (noxious oxides of nitrogen and sulphur) pollution as all cars, then we need to fix shipping first.

And if you look at a lot of the crap that is being shipped, it's stuff we just don't need. A lot of things are replaced frequently with cheap and short-lived new things, so there's plenty of room to reduce the amount of shipping.

We should also focus on trains and electric buses to reduce the amount of car use. Some parts of the world already do. And after spending many years commuting in heavy Texas road traffic, I much prefer European train/metro/tram (and even bus) travel. Oh, and bikes and feet for the last 1-2km.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#137

Post by howinator »

tombert wrote: post #113
bjelkeman-again wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did change. I dropped from 35-40 flights in 12 months (really not good, in more ways than one) to 3-4. Still too many. But getting there.

I think people are too quick to dismiss incremental progress; you dropped by 90%, that sounds pretty excellent to me!

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is something that needs to be included in climate conversations a lot more.

You don't have to be a vegan hermit to have an impact. Eating a little less meat, foregoing one flight, and biking to work once a week is better than not doing anything and that's great.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#138

Post by Symmetry »

acchow wrote: post #84
dehrmann wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'd expect the time delay in weighing every passenger and dealing with any who are above weight would be enough to sink the idea, quite apart from PR concerns.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#139

Post by slimed »

wallace_f wrote: post #80
edmundsauto wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your frustration, but using such loaded language makes it seem like you're judging other people for doing what is in their own personal, rational interest. Doesn't it seem more effective to find ways to align people's self-interest (aka "sloth") with positive outcomes?

[flagged]

Do you not realize that you sound absolutely unhinged? Or is that your schtick?

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#140

Post by smt88 »

tombert wrote: post #86

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 d…

Put your foot down if you can without any consequences.

Otherwise, keep your (presumably) high-paying job and use your money on political donations.

The invisible hand is not going to solve climate change.

Post reply on HN