Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Air Travel Emissions Vastly Outpace Predictions
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel-emissions.html
315 comments
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 of life improvements for North America) but I'm more excited about improvements in vehicle transportation and energy production.
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.
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 don't have this option.
NOTE: I realize I'm hardly a beacon of "how to save the world from climate change", but I do try and do a bit where I can; I take public transit almost exclusively and do not own a car, and I have stopped eating beef and pork. I still order a lot of stuff from China online, which is probably the next habit I should break.
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 don't have this option.
NOTE: I realize I'm hardly a beacon of "how to save the world from climate change", but I do try and do a bit where I can; I take public transit almost exclusively and do not own a car, and I have stopped eating beef and pork. I still order a lot of stuff from China online, which is probably the next habit I should break.
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 we urgently NEED to do is invest HUGE amounts of money into two key technologies. One is batteries. Make them as small, lightweight and efficient as possible. Pretty much everything depends on that and there has been no notable breakthrough in like forever... Without "super" batteries, we can kiss "preventing climate change" goodbye.
Another one is sucking the carbon out of the atmosphere. And no, we DON'T need to reduce our carbon emission, one of the key mistakes people make when it comes to climate change. What we need to do is to suck out more than we put in. There is no way in hell that 200 countries in the world agree on being C02 neutral. The leading countries need to suck the shit back out, that is the only way forward.
As for all the people who preach changing the entire world by reducing emissions... I mean, I get you are very naive, but seriously: It's not gonna happen. It is cute to have girl sail through the Atlantic to make so pep talk at congress. But it is also really meaningless. This is not the way the world will change. It never has. Politicians can't agree on the color of shit within their own country, not to mention between them.
The only way to avoid catastrophe is to outpace climate change with innovation. The world is not going to sacrifice living standards until they all drown in their own filth.
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 we urgently NEED to do is invest HUGE amounts of money into two key technologies. One is batteries. Make them as small, lightweight and efficient as possible. Pretty much everything depends on that and there has been no notable breakthrough in like forever... Without "super" batteries, we can kiss "preventing climate change" goodbye.
Another one is sucking the carbon out of the atmosphere. And no, we DON'T need to reduce our carbon emission, one of the key mistakes people make when it comes to climate change. What we need to do is to suck out more than we put in. There is no way in hell that 200 countries in the world agree on being C02 neutral. The leading countries need to suck the shit back out, that is the only way forward.
As for all the people who preach changing the entire world by reducing emissions... I mean, I get you are very naive, but seriously: It's not gonna happen. It is cute to have girl sail through the Atlantic to make so pep talk at congress. But it is also really meaningless. This is not the way the world will change. It never has. Politicians can't agree on the color of shit within their own country, not to mention between them.
The only way to avoid catastrophe is to outpace climate change with innovation. The world is not going to sacrifice living standards until they all drown in their own filth.
"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.
2.5% means we should focus on reducing somewhere else in the near term.
When interpreting statements like "Over all, air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions", keep in mind that air travel emissions are higher impact due to occurring in the upper atmosphere. The commonly established multiplier is 2.7X [0].
So while the claim is 2.5% of global co2 emissions, in terms of impact it's more like ~6.7%.
And growing, largely just so people can take selfies in different places, which are then used to promote more travel via social media.
We need to tax fuel used for international air travel. The Chicago Convention [1] may have made sense in establishing the industry but we're well past that point now. Make this high-speed, high-impact transportation method high-cost so it's used less frivolously.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_Internat...
So while the claim is 2.5% of global co2 emissions, in terms of impact it's more like ~6.7%.
And growing, largely just so people can take selfies in different places, which are then used to promote more travel via social media.
We need to tax fuel used for international air travel. The Chicago Convention [1] may have made sense in establishing the industry but we're well past that point now. Make this high-speed, high-impact transportation method high-cost so it's used less frivolously.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermobility_(travel)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_Internat...
Can't we put some chemicals in the fuel to mitigate the warming effects? Just do it secretly, so the chemtrails people don't freak.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_inject...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_inject...
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.
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.
What's the tradeoff? How many people aren't driving because flying is cheaper? What is the economic efficiency gained by air travel and how does that translate into emissions?
A cost number without a benefit number is completely useless for real analysis.
A cost number without a benefit number is completely useless for real analysis.
If I take the train, which is the most green transport (CO2 neutral) from one edge of europe to the other (e.g. Berlin to Sicily), the amount I pay is 500 euros and it takes me 35 hours.
If I fly the same distance it takes me 3 hours, and I pay 100 euros.
Heres the kicker, it costs me 100 euro to buy CO2 compensation and make the flight CO2 neutral, and whenever me and my spouse fly we always pay twice that so that we are actually carbon negative.
So everytime we fly we reduce the earths CO2 by one flight and still have 200 euros more in our bank account.
If I fly the same distance it takes me 3 hours, and I pay 100 euros.
Heres the kicker, it costs me 100 euro to buy CO2 compensation and make the flight CO2 neutral, and whenever me and my spouse fly we always pay twice that so that we are actually carbon negative.
So everytime we fly we reduce the earths CO2 by one flight and still have 200 euros more in our bank account.
Can 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.
Just carbon tax it as an externality, so we can get on with life.
It’s a rich world which can afford constantly having several million of its people sitting in a chair elevated six miles.
I work remote and can pretty much be anywhere anytime working. But I try to be content and focus on where I chose to live. To build relationships and deeper connections to the local community. I try to do one trip a year max by plane and when I go its usually for longer periods of time. We should travel less and focus more on the place we call home.
When people tell me they love to travel. I reply why? It's usually I want to get away or I'm sick of where I am now in my life. Try to understand this feeling deeper and think about how you can better structure your life to appreciate the moment and where you choose to build yourself and your community. People also sometimes describe travel as a sort of escape. It's important to try and understand that feeling deeper. Why do you need to escape from your life as it is now?
When people tell me they love to travel. I reply why? It's usually I want to get away or I'm sick of where I am now in my life. Try to understand this feeling deeper and think about how you can better structure your life to appreciate the moment and where you choose to build yourself and your community. People also sometimes describe travel as a sort of escape. It's important to try and understand that feeling deeper. Why do you need to escape from your life as it is now?
>If you need to travel long distances, there's little substitute for an airplane.
the question if the distance you travel doesn't have substitute. like many business people travel just to meet, which has zero carbon alternative - video call.
the question if the distance you travel doesn't have substitute. like many business people travel just to meet, which has zero carbon alternative - video call.
Grounding of MAX could have an effect as lots of airlines kept old gas guzzlers flying longer than they planned - or they contracted some shady companies with 30 year old 733s and 734s
More efficient aircraft generally means cheaper flights, which unfortunately also means more flights. The efficiency may well make things worse.
I'd actually prefer if air travel was more expensive. It's become expected that you fly groups of people across the continent to business meetings, and some people make regular flights.
I'd actually prefer if air travel was more expensive. It's become expected that you fly groups of people across the continent to business meetings, and some people make regular flights.
Any ideas how much of a contributor (domestic) air freight is compared to shipping via train/truck? (Is the volume of goods currently shipped through either method even comparable? This is way out of my realm!)
Carbon offsets are completely useless. https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconv... there are better ways to protect the environment.
Is it more from leisure (maybe due to Instagram vacation sharing, etc.), or business use?
Why would people stop flying...?
What, the "solution" is going to be blimp travel, boat travel, undersea super train travel...
Maybe we should make air travel so expensive that only the rich can use it!
What, the "solution" is going to be blimp travel, boat travel, undersea super train travel...
Maybe we should make air travel so expensive that only the rich can use it!
I haven't gotten around the paywall to read the article but the last stats from the US government I can find, 2017 show that aviation has reduced emissions 7.5 percent compared to 1990.
Medium and heavy truck emissions are UP 89.5 percent in the same period but aviation is the crisis. Passenger cars up 20%.
Let's look at Tg emissions in 2017 Aviation: 174.8 On road vehicles 1,558.6
Source: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100WUHR.pdf page 2
Medium and heavy truck emissions are UP 89.5 percent in the same period but aviation is the crisis. Passenger cars up 20%.
Let's look at Tg emissions in 2017 Aviation: 174.8 On road vehicles 1,558.6
Source: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100WUHR.pdf page 2
I'm convinced we need zero emissions aircraft. Efficiency improvements alone are going to suffer from the Jevons Paradox. In fact, that "paradox" could help explain why air travel emissions have increased so much even as aircraft have gotten much more efficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
So to avoid the Jevons Paradox, we need actually zero emissions aircraft. Battery-electric or possibly hydrogen are the main contenders, here.
Battery-electric in the near term is limited to about 1000km, maybe 2000km range. That's technically enough to do transatlantic crossings if you stop by Greenland and Iceland or possibly the Azores. And you could do transpacific by following the Aleutians. Pretty much the hardest place to visit is actually Hawaii. But for domestic flights, battery-electric is actually a superior option to high speed rail in the US. Typical HSR routes in the US are only about 300 miles or so, well within range of existing electric battery tech that could be adapted to airplanes, and even a fully subsonic, Mach 0.5 propeller-drive electric airplane would be much faster than even the fastest practical HSR. And operating at high altitude (with far lower air density) would mean that the electric aircraft would be more efficient than a hypothetical Mach 0.5 high speed train. But all of this will require probably non-traditional aircraft makers. The duopoly is culturally unprepared for the kind of radical engineering necessary to make a 1000km battery electric aircraft feasible (almost sailplane-like efficiency, combined with very high battery mass fraction, combined with extremely efficient battery packaging, state of the art structural mass, and transition to higher performance chemistry where possible).
Liquid hydrogen is also a possibility for electric air travel. Compressed room temperature hydrogen is hardly more energy-dense than battery-electric, though, so you're going to have to go at least cryogenic, if not liquid, for hydrogen storage. Liquid hydrogen wouldn't be too bad in this application since the time of storage wouldn't be too long, and the scale would be large enough (if used in a widebody aircraft) that boil-off may not be too much of a problem (besides, you need a constant feed of hydrogen anyway). But a big problem is the fact that anthropogenic high altitude water vapor is maybe even worse (by a factor of 2) for climate change than CO2, so you'd probably want to condense the output. That means using fuel cells and then storing the condensed water on board and doing occasional low altitude dumps (it may even be feasible to store the water for the entire trip, dumping only right before you land) or perhaps freezing the condensate into pellets (small enough to not pose a lethal hazard but large enough to not evaporate on the way down) and then dropping them along the way. So long-haul air is a major challenge.
So to avoid the Jevons Paradox, we need actually zero emissions aircraft. Battery-electric or possibly hydrogen are the main contenders, here.
Battery-electric in the near term is limited to about 1000km, maybe 2000km range. That's technically enough to do transatlantic crossings if you stop by Greenland and Iceland or possibly the Azores. And you could do transpacific by following the Aleutians. Pretty much the hardest place to visit is actually Hawaii. But for domestic flights, battery-electric is actually a superior option to high speed rail in the US. Typical HSR routes in the US are only about 300 miles or so, well within range of existing electric battery tech that could be adapted to airplanes, and even a fully subsonic, Mach 0.5 propeller-drive electric airplane would be much faster than even the fastest practical HSR. And operating at high altitude (with far lower air density) would mean that the electric aircraft would be more efficient than a hypothetical Mach 0.5 high speed train. But all of this will require probably non-traditional aircraft makers. The duopoly is culturally unprepared for the kind of radical engineering necessary to make a 1000km battery electric aircraft feasible (almost sailplane-like efficiency, combined with very high battery mass fraction, combined with extremely efficient battery packaging, state of the art structural mass, and transition to higher performance chemistry where possible).
Liquid hydrogen is also a possibility for electric air travel. Compressed room temperature hydrogen is hardly more energy-dense than battery-electric, though, so you're going to have to go at least cryogenic, if not liquid, for hydrogen storage. Liquid hydrogen wouldn't be too bad in this application since the time of storage wouldn't be too long, and the scale would be large enough (if used in a widebody aircraft) that boil-off may not be too much of a problem (besides, you need a constant feed of hydrogen anyway). But a big problem is the fact that anthropogenic high altitude water vapor is maybe even worse (by a factor of 2) for climate change than CO2, so you'd probably want to condense the output. That means using fuel cells and then storing the condensed water on board and doing occasional low altitude dumps (it may even be feasible to store the water for the entire trip, dumping only right before you land) or perhaps freezing the condensate into pellets (small enough to not pose a lethal hazard but large enough to not evaporate on the way down) and then dropping them along the way. So long-haul air is a major challenge.
Can't read due to paywall, but does the 2.5% figure include the worse effect high altitude emissions have? I believe the best estimate is a doubling.
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 :(
So many people are just getting to obtain some of their travel dreams and now they have to stop :(
I can no longer take any of these articles seriously. The hysteria around climate change precludes the possibility of reasoned rational discourse on the topic, and as such political solutions are all but impossible.
There's a cavernous gap between the apocalyptic rhetoric from climate activists and the brittle, ineffective policy they actually promote. If climate activists really believed that climate change were a near-term catastrophic threat, they'd jump on the change to reduce emissions using whatever techniques and technology worked. "Geoengineering? Great! Nuclear power? Great!" --- that's what someone genuinely concerned about the climate would say.
Instead, climate activists promote a very narrow Utopian vision and work against everything that falls outside this vision. These activists don't really care about the environment: they're using climate activism as a pretext for advancing some Utopian project and putting themselves in charge of how we all live. These people are discrediting all climate science in the eyes of regular people.
Instead, climate activists promote a very narrow Utopian vision and work against everything that falls outside this vision. These activists don't really care about the environment: they're using climate activism as a pretext for advancing some Utopian project and putting themselves in charge of how we all live. These people are discrediting all climate science in the eyes of regular people.
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.