41–50 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Air travel is not a problem because the emissions per kilometer are that bad but because one can easily travel one or two orders of magnitude farther than one usually would.
So your preferred solution is to restrict the allowed travel radius of people, a bit like with medieval serfs?
The summer in non-pandemic times) is a constant parade of large passenger jets flying over. The jets are high up and in the evening you hear the rumble as the aircraft highlighted by the sun fly over while the ground is in evening shadows.
Even a dozen US military Osprey aircraft fly over a few weeks ago.
I wouldn't want a dozen large supersonic passenger aircraft going over all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree, and the airlines absolutely need to keep working to become more climate friendly just like we need to make road travel better. But climate-shaming specifically air travel while at the same time driving a non-electric car or using air conditioning without having solar panels is very hypocritical because both of those and many other things are a far bigger part of the total emissions.
People insulting others as hypocritical for critizing something needs to stop.
> Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another
The better question, given Covid and the climate crisis, is 'Will we ever fly again? Is the age of affordable air travel over?'
Prices are elevated at the moment but people are already back to flying in large numbers at least in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prices are elevated at the moment but people are already back to flying in large numbers at least in the US.
Thinking more about the quarantine and testing costs flying internationally at the moment. And a post-Covid world with bankrupt airlines and a lot less flight availability. With the end of the Covid crisis blending into a more serious fight against climate change.
Not clear to me how big an effect climate change will have unless fuel taxes are really ramped up--which is of course possible.
Solving some societal or civilisational challenge with supersonic flight seems very narrow minded now. Yes I would like to fly to my work HQ faster but due to pandemic I have not visited in 3 years now and it’s been fine, so a better solution is excellent remote work tools such as HQ videoconferencing etc which is such an easier problem, yet many people and companies still struggle with it. In the overall ROI for thi…
It would be nice if we had publically funded communication etc tools. I am not seeing a valid business nodel here that does not involve either massive spying, or poor people loosing access to rest of society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It's not like if you couldn't fly from Los Angeles to New York once a month - you would just drive by yourself - and produce the same amount of carbon. You wouldn't produce any carbon, because you'd likely never make the trip!
Yes, this is why dealing with air is so tricky in economic terms, because "uninducing demand" does have more intrinsic downsides. Car -> rail is a mere political problem, once you get there it "unlocks" more travel so it is clearly economically good. I guess thank god for 9/11 boosting security theater. Don't like all the other patriot act garbage, but the degree to which air travel is so awful really helps here.
It doesn’t seem that all of the unpleasant security theater is enough to significantly deter people from flying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Air travel is not a problem because the emissions per kilometer are that bad but because one can easily travel one or two orders of magnitude farther than one usually would.
True, but when you start comparing denominators in absolute terms you would also conclude that not traveling at all is the far superior choice. And also, that anything emitter (say, a gas grill) that’s unrelated to travel has infinite emissions per kilometer.
People judge these things in terms of how much co2 is emitted by industry, companies, individuals etc. The particular mechanism of emissions is not that relevant. Air ambulance flights are treated differently to private jets carrying bankers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All overland passenger transport should be rail. Over the oceans I suppose we should strive for ships and dirigibles. That said, I find it hard to believe that plane travel can be eradicated for e.g. diplomacy. And frankly, if frequent contract between the powerful different countries is needed to avoid e.g. world wars, it's is worth it. In the short term, any carbon we can capture needs to go in back in ground and s…
Air travel has a big PR problem, because somehow a lot of people think it's the absolute worst for the environment. While on many routes a car is worse in terms of CO2 emission per trip than a small to mid sized airliner if there are less than 3 people in the car. Similar for your suggestion that we should take ships over the ocean, because cruise ships are much more polluting per passenger mile than modern airliners…
Wow. I read that one plane trip can increase your carbon footprint by a greater magnitude than all your typical actions to reduce it.
Does anyone know where to find some data?
EDIT: Here's some data https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
https://theicct.org/blogs/staff/planes-trains-and-automobile...
Also, planes have other problems:
* cars can be powered by carbon-free energy. There's not much current prospect for planes.
* planes also do great harm from non-CO2 emissions: "The climate effect of non-CO2 emissions from aviation is much greater than the equivalent from other modes of transport, as these non-CO2 greenhouse gases formed at higher altitudes persist for longer than at the surface and also have a stronger warming potential"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is why dealing with air is so tricky in economic terms, because "uninducing demand" does have more intrinsic downsides. Car -> rail is a mere political problem, once you get there it "unlocks" more travel so it is clearly economically good. I guess thank god for 9/11 boosting security theater. Don't like all the other patriot act garbage, but the degree to which air travel is so awful really helps here.
After 9/11 air travel plateaued for 3–4 years, then afterward rebounded to the original trend line (i.e. massively expanded, and continues to expand). It doesn’t seem that all of the unpleasant security theater is enough to significantly deter people from flying.