Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Carbon Conscious Travel
Reload this Page >

Letís let airlines know that climate concerns are changing our flying habits

Letís let airlines know that climate concerns are changing our flying habits

Old Dec 23, 19, 12:28 pm
  #31  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: IAD/DCA
Posts: 31,522
destroying the economy would destroy the climate (wilderness safaris noted this, not sure if they ever figured out how to count carbon storage of land)

there is a climate economy where many are getting rich off funding from government, NGO, charity

besides battery research, which there is not enough of, also need nuclear/fusion research, but of course it is not accepted in the US, along with hydro also not being accepted in US

batteries, solar, wind are not sustainable in terms of mining and fossil fuels used to manufacture , especially mining/manufacturing in countries that are biggest polluters

Last edited by Kagehitokiri; Dec 23, 19 at 12:58 pm
Kagehitokiri is offline  
Old Dec 23, 19, 1:02 pm
  #32  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: USA
Programs: AA Exp
Posts: 438
What I got from your original post, is that youíve been just about everywhere, and for next to nil, on employee passes. And now you have a conscience, and want the world to not be able to experience what you have. How pedestrian.

suppy and demand and the laws of economics will sort this out. And if not, (as I get on my podium) its time for a mic drop. Itís been a good run and the moral decay is getting on an exponential curve. Itís time to cleanse the planet and hit the reset buttons.

all good things gotta come to an end and thatís the same with the wildwood weed.
SJWarrior is offline  
Old Dec 23, 19, 9:53 pm
  #33  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by 5khours View Post
...carbon emissions are only bad in the aggregate... individual action (even by many people) will have zero impact...
Absolutely untrue.



Every individual change takes us further from a (disastrous) high scenario and closer to a low scenario (relatively mild effects). Every ton of carbon not emitted means more sea ice, less sea level rise, less drought, less severe tropical storms, and less excess wildfires.

You can reasonably argue that the changes are small, or too small to matter, but they are not zero. To claim otherwise is to disown mathematics. I know from your posting in other threads that you must be too intelligent to make this claim seriously.

...individual action ...will make the problem worse by distracting focus from real practical solutions...
Please provide any evidence for this claim.

In actuality, every time that we use whatever economic power we have to move our global economy from a carbon intensive one to a less carbon intensive one, we not only provide a direct benefit, but we make it easier (and more rational for others to follow in the future). For example, solar power:
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 23, 19, 10:17 pm
  #34  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by SJWarrior View Post
Youíve been just about everywhere...and want the world to not be able to experience what you have.
Not at all. I would never tell a young person that hasn't had an opportunity to visit another country to continent not to do it. This message is towards frequent travellers (myself included) to see if you can reduce without undue burden (whatever that line is, is up to you, and if that's 5% or 50%, so be it) and more-so to communicate any reductions that you've made to airlines to allow them to respond appropriately. If we can help spur the development of new aviation technologies, that will be far more impactful than the actual reduction in our own flying.

suppy and demand and the laws of economics will sort this out.
If the external costs of carbon pollution were imposed as a tax, sure. But it's not. It's not an unfair characterization of climate change to say that it's rich people screwing over poor people and the environment.

Its time to cleanse the planet and hit the reset buttons.
Ehhh, what?

For all of the media characterizations of climate activists as dour people, I haven't found that to be the case with local organizations that I've started to get involved in. Rather, helping to address even a very large problem can provide a sense of purpose and joy well above base consumerism which is frankly the default option of our mass-consumption society. Most climate activists seem more motivated by hope for the planet and hope for future generations (and selfishly our future selves) enjoyment of nature; I don't really see them engaging in this sort of crass fatalistic, (seemingly) violent sort of talk.
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 24, 19, 12:15 am
  #35  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 4
I'm going to give the flipside of the argument. I've thought about the voluntary contributions that people make in order to reduce their carbon footprint, but what about those that care more about creature comforts than their carbon footprint. From my perspective, people who voluntarily reduce their resource usage are, in essence, freeing up more resources for those willing to consume them. What are your thoughts about this line of thought? Should public policies be in place in order to curb this type of behavior? If a country places restrictions or attempt to affect consumer behavior, do those restrictions put that country at a relative disadvantage compared to other countries where free/loose use of resources exist?

I know that this might go against the line of thought of this subforum, but I would like to know what your response(s) might be to these questions. And yes... I do fly F most of the time or J if F is not available and have not curbed my use of F/J. I can only think how much fuel burn is needed for EK's inflight showers... which I'm not willing to give up unless I have to.
jptan is offline  
Old Dec 25, 19, 9:12 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 8,998
Originally Posted by dickerso View Post
You can reasonably argue that the changes are small, or too small to matter, but they are not zero. To claim otherwise is to disown mathematics. I know from your posting in other threads that you must be too intelligent to make this claim seriously.
I gave you the math (actually arithmetic) but you were not happy "if we stopped aviation tomorrow (reductio ad absurdum) that would delay global warming by a week."
WilcoRoger is offline  
Old Dec 25, 19, 9:44 pm
  #37  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by WilcoRoger View Post
I gave you the math (actually arithmetic) but you were not happy
Hah, fair, if we can agree that it's a week every year (1/52).
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 25, 19, 9:56 pm
  #38  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by jptan View Post
People who voluntarily reduce their resource usage are, in essence, freeing up more resources for those willing to consume them.
It's an interesting argument, but I feel that our overall material resource extraction on earth is mediated through commodity markets that reach an equilibrium between supply and demand. If oil goes back up to $140 a barrell, there are plenty of extraction technologies that we could implement to make even more fossil reserves, "recoverable." However, eventually burning everything that we are technologically capable of recovering would lead to the type of truly catastrophic climate change that's the stuff of horror movies (ie, the very upper estimates of climate change where we accelerate rather than gradually reduce emissions). Instead, I think we need to plan for a future where a substantial amount of our technically recoverable fossil fuels are left in the ground and we substantially rely on renewables.

To that extent, any cutting back either in terms of fewer trips or going from F to J (still plenty of opportunities to shower on the ground) will be beneficial. You aren't sending a market message to drillers (via Emirates fuel bill) to develop more wells.

If actually cutting back on any of the above isn't reasonable for you, even a letter to Emirates that investment in alternative technologies would be helpful. Emirates president, Tim Clark, seems to have had a recent evolution towards caring more about aviation's role in climate change, but this sort of communication from clients will help to underscore the commercial case for investing in transformative aviation technologies.
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 26, 19, 2:59 am
  #39  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 8,998
I think fossil vs renewables are/should not be the issue in the climate change framework - after all, a CO2 molecule is exactly the same, no matter if it’s from burning fossil fuel, synthetic fuel, renewable fuel...

There are sound arguments for renewables, but those aren’t climate change related.

Solar and wind are not “renewable” in the strict sense of the word- IMO
WilcoRoger is offline  
Old Dec 27, 19, 5:38 pm
  #40  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 14,309
The aviation industry has consistently been moving toward cleaner and more efficient planes that pollute less and which use less fuel. If we were still using 60's - 80's era aircraft, the aviation industry would be producing 15-20% of the World's CO2 emissions, not 2% (or 2.5% as some recently have tried to stretch it to, despite the fact that that .5 percent is actually MILITARY, good luck in getting that reduced). It is in the industries interest to continue doing so. This Scandinavian/Calvinist trip guilt did not start with the Thurnburgesque "flightshaming" of the last year or so, but goes back to the late 80's and early 90's when First class was eliminated from all Scandinavian carriers, and they came up with more artful names for Business Class, because that is just how they are, guilt ridden. It is why Nobel, perhaps the man responsible ultimately for more deaths and war than any other person in modern history, started the Nobel foundation, and why the Norwegians try and be so "good" and environmental, when their entire economy is pretty much based on oil and gas.

When one PAYS FOR Business Class (not jumpseating/buddypassing or whatever) one is paying for the space that one uses, and in many countries, one is already paying a "sin tax" whether it is termed APD, environmental tax or whatever, and if one pays and flies more often, one pays more and more for it...............but you know what? In almost all of these cases the governments collect these taxes and throw them into the general "pool" and nothing is used to combat climate change or anything else specifically. You think any further guilt taxes are going to do any real good?

Now let's talk about cement. Between the production of cement and the usage of cement, the numbers are actually bumping up to 10% of all CO2 emissions, not 8% as said above, (aviation is at 2%, and has been pretty steady for awhile). Cement will rise to TWENTY PERCENT in the next 30 years.

Let's talk about the shipping industry, which uses "BUNKER" which is the cheapest dirtiest fuel that you can imagine and which produces TWICE as much CO2 (and many other pollutants) than the entire aviation industry, and is estimated to account for 20% of all CO2 by 2050! Coincidentally who are two of the biggest players ultimately in the shipping industry? Norway and Denmark! Despite some lip service, they have done almost nothing concrete to counteract any of this.
hfly is offline  
Old Dec 27, 19, 9:28 pm
  #41  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by hfly View Post
The aviation industry has consistently been moving toward cleaner and more efficient planes.
If you philosophically accept individual moral culpability for large scale problems, then creating 15 tons of carbon emissions for a roundtrip flight in first class that you could have potentially done in business (or even economy), consolidated into other travel, or skipped entirely is difficult to defend.

If we're aiming for 1.5 degrees C of total warming, aviation is about 25% of the total budget because we now have a clear technological path to rapid decarbonization of terrestrial power systems, automotive transit, etc. Please note, this is for the integral of the time-period between now and 2050. In the year 2050 itself, aviation would essentially be close to half the world's emissions if the IATAs predictions for passenger growth are accurate. To say this is a rounding error is totally illogical.

Similarly, only a small portion of the world actually has the privilege of boarding a plane in a given year. Conversely, a huge portion benefits from international trade and the built environment that necessitates concrete. If I had to give up aviation, the city I live in, or international trade, I would choose aviation in a heart-beat. I don't deny the importance of reducing carbon intensity of concrete or shipping, but fuel expenditures via aviation are the things which I have most direct control over and can most easily reduce. Finally, aviation is something we all probably have a passion for given our participation in this forum.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/aviation...-carbon-budget

If we were still using 60's - 80's era aircraft, the aviation industry would be producing 15-20% of the World's CO2 emissions, not 2%
Unfortunately your numbers are totally wrong. A 777-200 (about halfway through its useful commercial life) has about 65% of the per-passenger-mile fuel consumption of a 747-100, not 10-15% as suggested by your post.

https://www.transportenvironment.org...efficiency.pdf
(figure 1, filled black squares)

Furthermore, the 787 and A350 likely reflect close to the limits of future improvements in the composite airplane and high-bypass turbofan model. We're going to need major technological advancements (alternative power systems) to achieve further substantial advancements. The pathway of technological development is not an immutable force gifted to us by the gods, our economy must choose what to invest in, and the steps outlined in this thread are aimed at increasing the economic pressures and clarifying the technical decision making in favor of major advancements in aviation technology.

Let's talk about the shipping industry, which uses "BUNKER" which is the cheapest dirtiest fuel that you can imagine
Impressive commitment to argument through, "whataboutism," here. However, apparently ill-informed regarding the January 1, 2020 deadline for reducing sulfur contents 7-fold compared to current limits:
https://www.shell.com/business-custo.../imo-2020.html

Furthermore, any technological advancements made in non-fossil fuel aviation power-systems is likely applicable to the marine sector as they're both applications of the same problem: developing energy-dense energy storage systems. Pushing aviation to be more efficient also helps address marine emissions.

Finally, an excellent technical primer for anyone interested on carbon emissions related to cement:
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/26...-economically/

With enough cheap renewable electricity, we could easily address about half of cement's emissions related to heating, but the part that comes directly from transforming the limestone is a very difficult problem without carbon sequestration, etc.

Last edited by dickerso; Dec 28, 19 at 12:27 am Reason: word use
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 27, 19, 9:49 pm
  #42  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by hfly View Post
APD, environmental tax or whatever, and if one pays and flies more often, one pays more and more for it...
Forgot to respond to this part.

Here's probably an area where we have some substantial agreement. I don't think that most of these taxes are currently imposed in a very sensible matter: instead, they should apply directly to jet fuel. If British Airways chooses to fly a 747-400 and Virgin is using a 787-9, the tax applied to jet fuel would favor the more fuel efficient aircraft. Imposing it on a per-passenger basis is total nonsense from an environmental perspective.

Also, we should note that in the world's largest aviation market, the US, the airlines are showered with fossil fuel subsidies. When consumers fill up their cars in the US, they usually pay about 50 cents/gallon in fuel taxes. However, airlines usually pay about 2 cents/gallon (4.4 cents domestic flights, 0 cents for international flights). Look how the airlines squeal when their fossil-fuel subsidies are threatened:
https://viewfromthewing.com/united-t...er-fuel-taxes/
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regi...fXrEdNAZo0jFJ/
dickerso is offline  
Old Dec 28, 19, 2:05 am
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 14,309
You want to talk numbers? A 747 produces roughly 24kg of CO2 per mile. A flight from LHR to JFK is about 3400 Miles. This provinces 85,000 kg of CO2. Please check my math, but that is 85 tons, is it not? Now there are approximately 400 people on such plane. That makes approximately 212kg per person. Now if the mythical F passenger is responsible for 6 or 10 times the emission (and may very well already be paying a sin tax) the numbers states that this is either 1.2 metric tons of 2 metric tons, not 15 as you state. Furthermore this is based on a 747, not an A350 or 787, where the numbers are half that. Similarly, you chose to deliberately choose a 777 as a baseline to compare things, when I was obviously speaking of various 3 and 4 holers such as the 707, 727, DC10/MD 11, as well as older 747's.

Lastly ,please show me the 7 fold decrease in bunker emissions that will occur in 4 days time. The international marine cargo industry has done little to nothing to address their issues. When it starts to become an issue they release a report or two, and the gullible believe them, then they are left alone for 5 years, and do what they want.
hfly is offline  
Old Dec 28, 19, 2:55 am
  #44  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by hfly View Post
You want to talk numbers?
Why not?

this is either 1.2 metric tons of 2 metric tons, not 15 as you state
I never said pick the shortest possible route with first class. DFW-SYD on an A380, 5.8 tons direct emissions, 17.3 tons with contrails and ozone. I'll concede that the later contribution is more controversial than CO2 alone, but it's well above 1.2 tons of CO2.

https://www.atmosfair.de/wp-content/...englisch-1.pdf

Furthermore this is based on a 747, not an A350 or 787, where the numbers are half that.
Lolz, we all wish an A350 was half the fuel burn of a 747, but it's not. An a A350-900 needs about 10% less fuel per pax-km and a 787-9 about 28% less fuel per pax-km efficient per passenger-km than a 747-400.

You chose to deliberately choose a 777 as a baseline to compare things.
Nope. Please reread carefully and review the link provided. A 747-100 was the baseline (first commercial flight 1970, right in the middle of your "60's-80's" technology range). The ten-fold improvement in efficiency you claimed is essentially magical thinking about how great state of the art airliners are today.

But none of this really matters, this is all in the past, and we can't change the past. The more important question is our future fleet. Will we maintain an ongoing average 1.3% fuel efficiency increase (what the UN is modelling on) by adding slightly larger turbofans and slightly more composite to airframes? That's the purpose of this thread: to create additional economic pressure for improvement because direct fuel costs alone are not capturing the destructive externalities of how we're powering the planes now.

Please show me the 7 fold decrease in bunker emissions that will occur...
I did provide a link in the prior post although I presume you ignored it. If we discover that the sulfur contents of the bunker fuels and marine emissions really hasn't improved following this deadline, I'm all for enforcement actions and other steps to improve marine shipping. It would be silly to care about aviation emissions and not think about marine emissions, but again, this is not ShippingTalk.com, and for people of our demographic, my aviation emissions of are an order of magnitude larger than the emissions attributable to what I consume elsewhere in my life. Also, any major technological advancement in high energy-dense storage of renewably generated fuel for aircraft will almost certainly be applicable to marine shipping (totally unlike composite airframes and high-bypass turbines).

Rather than a perpetual circle of finger-pointing and rationalization, I'm trying to make an impact here in aviation where there's a ton of low-hanging fruit.
dickerso is offline  
Old Jan 3, 20, 3:50 am
  #45  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 8,998
Originally Posted by dickerso View Post
Impressive commitment to argument through, "whataboutism," here. However, apparently ill-informed regarding the January 1, 2020 deadline for reducing sulfur contents 7-fold compared to current limits:
https://www.shell.com/business-custo.../imo-2020.html


I am very well aware of the low suplhur bunker regulations - but I fail to see how lowering sulphur emissions (a good thing in itself) has ANYTHING to do with carbon emissions??
WilcoRoger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: