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

301–310 of 325 posts

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#301

Post by dhdicbxkcjc »

Lramseyer wrote: post #168

One 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…

Big deal; it’s a bus with wings. My seven seat SUV gets 210 passenger mpg.

But if I vacation with my SUV, I’ll go 600 mi. away as an absolute maximum or about a days worth of driving. That’s 7.5 gal per person for my family of four

If I take a plane, I’ll stick to a 24 hr travel limit. Which will get me a third the way across the world, or 83 gal for every member of my family.

In scenario 1, I’m a redneck with a family in Virginia Beach.

In scenario 2 I’m an enlightened cosmopolitan in Machu Pichu

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#302

Post by dhdicbxkcjc »

djmips wrote: post #196
reaperducer wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just feel like pointing out that airplanes are flown maximum passenger load or close to it as much as possible whereas you can see just by looking around in traffic that passenger cars are mainly driven with one person inside.

They’re also flown very far away.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#303

Post by the_gastropod »

romwell wrote: post #283
the_gastropod wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ticking off the number of countries you've visited is hardly a benevolent hobby. You can learn the history, culture, language, traditions, etc. of any country by opening a book, if that's really what you're interested in.

Yeah right, because nobody who travels to a country reads up on the history, culture and traditions. Traveling and reading, after all, are mutually exclusive. /s Let me tell you of a night in Mardid. I headed out to see the night Madrid around midnight. Going along a crowded street, I heard someone singing. I was carrying a portable synthesizer, so I played along. Three people, carrying two guitars and a saxophone we…

That's, no doubt, an amazing experience. And there's likely countless wonderful experiences you have had / could have right in your home city.

The suggestion of the comment I responded to was about learning. Traveling, on its own, doesn't do anything to help people learn anything substantial. It's still ultimately a consumerism-centric activity. The travel industry has done an amazing job of convincing people otherwise.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#304

Post by dhdicbxkcjc »

ojagodzinski wrote: post #189
reaperducer wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

your car is full probably 5% of a time, airlines have profits from full planes, you don't. "per gallon per passenger" is a useful measure for planes.

If you’re running an airline, yes that’s the relevant metric. If you’re comparing an urban elite with a poor bloke with his truck, no.

Mr. Loves-his-truck drives, at the insane most, 20 000 miles a year. That’s a round trip Thai vacation.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#305

Post by TheCoelacanth »

blunte wrote: post #284
marcosdumay wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> noxious oxides of nitrogen and sulphur People keep repeating that. Nobody cares about nitrogen and sulfur oxides on deep sea. Good luck trying to even find evidence it's locally harmful to organisms (most likely, it isn't). At the extent that people are against ship emissions, it's about what they emit at the coast, and that is a very small share of that total you cite. Ships are quite clean of the pollutants that…

There's a great number of humans that live in coastal areas affected by shipping pollution. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440801/ From that publication, "About 98% of the particles emitted from diesel engines are less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)" -> that gets into your lungs and potentially into your bloodstream.

Shipping pollution is not completely unconcerning, but suggesting that it is a bigger concern than cars is just staggeringly wrong.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#306

Post by arcticbull »

blunte wrote: post #288
arcticbull wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shipping is the single most efficient way to move anything, followed by trains.

That entirely depends on how you define efficient. In pure immediate financial cost, yes - because the negative consequences of shipping are not borne by the shipping companies or their immediate customers. And of course, there is also the question of whether it is necessary to ship all the goods that we ship. For example, the Netherlands is the second largest agricultural exporter in the world. Beyond the standard f…

No, it’s the most efficient in liters of fuel per hundred kilometers of distance traveled.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#307

Post by js8 »

vonmoltke wrote: post #238
js8 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A world with greatly reduced air travel is a more insular and less understanding world. I don't think there is an evidence for that. It is more likely that immigration increases cultural understanding rather than travel. In any case, emissions of travel can be greatly reduced by using other modes of transport and by making the stay in the target country longer. Such a cultural shift could actually even improve the…

> It is more likely that immigration increases cultural understanding rather than travel. What will the affect on immigration be if going back to the "old country" becomes significantly more difficult?

U.S. and Canada had huge influx of immigrants from Europe in 19th and 20th century, when air travel didn't exist. It seems to me to be a basis of strong ties of these countries with Europe rather than other countries.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#308

Post by m463 »

martyvis wrote: post #289
m463 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading years and years ago that teleconferencing would really change once we put a panel at the end of a conference table with life size images of the participants. Teleconferencing now isn't what it could be. I think if it were a little bit higher-end it might eliminate a number of physical trips. I mean, it IS doing that now on laptops all over the world, but I mean make it Telepresence instead of Telec…

We actually had these in our office at HP. https://youtu.be/TC4sNztp8dk They were quite well used by execs, but those of us at the bottom end probably only a couple of times for virtual team meetings. They were very expensive, to get the high end video (think 2008). As soon as you have one or two remote attendees though the point of it goes away. After the demerger, building shuffles, they were decommissioned

This is an interesting layout.

Mostly the way I've seen conference rooms set up is a large flat panel (or two) high up on the wall showing a remote converence table. Sometimes there's a system for popping up individuals on their laptop usinge side-by-side images, but they are still high up on the wall.

Your video shows people "down with the rest of us", and on the smaller side of things (instead of a 3 foot wide head on the screen). It definitely has a different feel than what is common. It seems more inclusive.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#309

Post by js8 »

jalgos_eminator wrote: post #236
js8 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there are substitutes. People who need to travel (and most of them don't) can just use trains or ships, and make the overall stay longer (decreasing overall number of trips). It was already possible more than 100 years ago, and it would be much less of a problem in today's digital economy.

There's only so much time each day, and a plane gets you to your destination so much faster. Trains? Maybe for shorter trips like NYC to Philadelphia or DC, but NYC to Seattle? A train going 150mph would take 19 hours for that trip not counting stops. It would probably be more than 30 hours with stops, and significantly longer if the train can't average 150 mph. The flight is 6 hours gate to gate. You can't beat the…

You can't beat the speed of the Concorde either, and it was too expensive commercially. Perhaps if we correctly externalize carbon fuels, people will en-masse choose trains rather than airplanes.

I think the work argument gets pretty weak in modern society, where we have automation and most people could afford significant leisure. Sure, perhaps in capitalist reality it is different but it is still a social choice.

Re: Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions

#310

Post by megaremote »

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…

Your idea is never change what we are doing? Crazy.
Post reply on HN