161–170 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
But imagine if you could have an electricity powered machine that takes out C02 and turns it into solid dense carbon? That is pretty much the opposite of a coal burning power station. With today's technology it would be much simpler to reduce coal burning than taking C02 out of the air.
BTW China alone is building a new coal-burning power station every two weeks. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-p...
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?
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!
I am vegan. Probably 10-20% of my meals end up being vegetarian (usually with a minor ingredient like trace milk in a sauce).
This is simply out of practicality - we're talking stuff like, going to a restaurant with friends and there are no vegan options.
If everyone did that 80%, the ecosystem would (as it _already has!_) change so much that 100% would be trivial.
I used to think that it's pointless to do anything because no-one will follow you.
That has been empirically proven to be complete bollocks over the past few years. Go all in. I will follow, they will follow. It's time.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160411094048/http://www.atmos.... https://www.nature.com/news/2008/081231/full/news.2008.1335....
The second link actually states the opposite: "A new analysis now claims that altered US temperature patterns during the three flight-free days can be explained by natural variations in cloud cover, rather than the absence of planes."
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…
If you can't stop completely that easily reducing would also be a good start and maybe easier to achieve. edit: Another parameter you have control over is the amount of luggage you bring. A 30kg luggage allowance is a considerable fraction of most people's weight. Sure, they will fill the plane up with other things, but at least that's not on you.
That's not to say that we shouldn't invest in things like high speed rail, (because we absolutely will see quality of life improvements for North America) but I'm more excited about improvements in vehicle transportation and energy production.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you need to travel long distances, there's little substitute for an airplane. The emphasis here isn't on substitute, it's on "need". Not many people need to travel long distances on a regular basis; they're just made to believe they need do.
Price in the carbon and let consumers decide if they still need the travel. I expect a carbon offset tax wouldn't actually decrease air travel that much -- there's so much business travel that needs doing -- but it probably would slow down growth.
Heck, come to think of it, if I ever saw a legit use for VR, it might well be substituting for business travel?
Edit: And somewhat relevantly: business class is far less fuel-efficient too, which would suggest maybe we should get rid of first and business class altogether. Heck, forcing businesses to use economy minus for travel might itself be an easy way to get rid of some unnecessary business trips!