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 :(
[deleted]
Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
171–180 of 325 posts
Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
#172If 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…
Surprised I haven't seen anyone mention Hyperloop yet. I think if any of the major Hyperloop companies are able to realize their vision then traveling city center to city center by Hyperloop would be a much preferable substitute to air travel for most intercontinental travel.
Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
#173Earlier 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/
Yes, I really want to see that project grow. There was a HN post recently where they gave a lot of fantastic answers to questions about the project: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403570
Of course, the more we can scale back greenhouse gas emission the less we'll need to extract, so IMO it only makes sense to come at the problem from both sides.
Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
#174If 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…
You seem to have conflated CO2 with other pollutants. All the world's shipping taken together amounts to only 3% of the carbon emission inventory. It certainly is not the case that 15 ships emit more carbon than all cars.
Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
#175I 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…
Do it. I'm happy to be your accountability partner if that means anything. I am planning to limit flying to absolute emergencies (think: my parents die and I need to get to the funeral). I live in a country which has an almost renewable grid. Long journeys can be made by electric car, public transport (which can be electrified), trains, etc. The highest carbon output from my lifestyle is heating the home, and the emb…
[deleted]
Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
#176"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.
And imagine all of the benefits we get from only 2.5%.
More migration - the smartest researchers in photovoltaics can move to a city where they can make a bigger impact, and still visit their families. Even without migrating, researchers can collaborate across continents.
Increases economic productivity - when production stops at a nuclear plant, you can fly in parts/personnel quickly.
Economic development - if you couldn't fly in technical experts to China, how could you source components from there? Imagine how expensive lithium batteries would be if all components were made in western (expensive) countries. Teslas are fairly expensive, and they already source many parts from China.
The solutions for climate change requires technology and money. Why kill the economy with draconian measures? We need this economy to produce the solutions.
Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Definitely tax it, but I actually view a lot of the business travel as unnecessary compared to consumer travel, and that's what I'd want to get rid of first with a tax. I'm far more sympathetic to people trying to see their dying uncles or attend their sister's wedding or visiting their parents once a year than, say, professionals "needing" to attend conferences or whatever. Heck, come to think of it, if I ever saw a…
I agree with you there big time. You can virtually attend a conference. FaceTime with grandma from her deathbed is not an acceptable alternative.
Kicking the price of this kind of policy down to individual consumers is a great way to just make everyone really mad and get more money from business customers who will still go on not-strictly-necessary trips.
Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
#178Can we start by banning the cruise ship industry first? I cannot think of a mode of transportation and form of leisure that is as useless and ecologically damaging.
Well there's a new low-sulphur fuel regulation coming into effect in a few months. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/MEPC-... That will help with some of the pollution anyway.
That doesn't exactly solve the problem of cruise ships dumping raw waste into the ocean.
Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I think the following would be a great start:
- Stop destroying forests (such as Amazon) which are a huge carbon sink for cows which are a carbon source.
- Build more buildings out of wood (wood buildings are carbon sinks) instead of concrete (carbon source)
- All building lumber should be self-sustaining (i.e. replant trees you used to build)
- Stop over fishing and allow oceans to grow unchecked (all living things sequester carbon while they are alive... the ocean is potentially the biggest carbon sink of all and could have several magnitudes more fish and plankton life sequestering billions of tons of carbon)
- Supplement all of the above with man-made carbon sequestration tech
Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
#180One thing that's very important to keep in mind when looking at air travel emissions is how fuel efficient planes actually are. The math works out to around 100 miles per gallon per passenger. And at an underwhelming 2.5% of global emissions, I can't really put it in the category of "low hanging fruit." That's not to say that we shouldn't invest in things like high speed rail, (because we absolutely will see quality…
The math works out to around 100 miles per gallon per passenger.
That assumes maximum passenger load, I assume.
At maximum passenger load, my car gets 170 miles per gallon per passenger.
A giant, gas-guzzling Chevy Suburban gets 198 miles per gallon per passenger.
I don't think "per gallon per passenger" is a useful measure.