SSF556

OK this stuff has gotten out of control at this point....if Ed and Delta feel so strongly about the future wouldn't it be prudent to ground all flights starting today....98% of Delta's carbon footprint comes from the actual flying of airplanes.....

The aviation industry accounts for roughly 2 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Delta’s carbon footprint is its largest environmental impact, with 98 percent of emissions coming from its aircraft. Here is how the company is focusing its efforts to become carbon neutral:

Starting March 1, 2020, Delta Air Lines is committing $1 billion over the next 10 years on its journey to mitigate all emissions from its global business going forward. The airline will invest in driving innovation, advancing clean air travel technologies, accelerating the reduction of carbon emissions and waste, and establishing new projects to mitigate the balance of emissions.

PR Move Here

eneq

This seems like a PR-based move to get out in front of the flight shaming movement while its still in its infancy here.

bitterproffit

I don't know about you, but when I read 'reduce emissions' I really interpret that as reduce fuel consumption, which of course, means 'reduce costs'.

Unless you think Jet Fuel is going to stay cheap forever, wouldn't you:

1) Focus research on reducing fuel use?
2) Sell it to the public as 'environmental commitment'?

Seems like a way to sell a cost savings program as an environmental program.

If it has a positive ROI, why should this bother you so much?

SSF556

Because it is a PR lie...Delta wants to move as many people as they can, to do that they need more airplanes and routes.

The more airplanes you buy the more fuel you will burn. Yes of course an A220 will burn less fuel than a mad dog, but when you have 20 to 30 more planes in your fleet you never gain the offset. I mean the MD88/90, 717 and the 757 account for almost 50% of Delta's fleet.

HDQDD

That fails to consider scale. If DL replaces airplane X with airplane Y that burns 10% less fuel and carries the same amount of pax. That's a net reduction pp of 10%. It doesn't matter if they're flying 100 or 1000 airplanes. Will DL continue to grow? Probably. Is flying still better on a pp basis than driving, most definitely. So the more peeps they can fly, the less that have to drive. Everyone wins (company, pax, environment) except the fuel companies.

xliioper

I give them credit for not once using the term "fighting climate change" which is how these things are usually phrased (as if the earth has most definitely arrived at the most perfect climate possible which would never again change absent man's influence).

FlyBitcoin

Carbon offsets are some fuzzy math at best.

So say DL invests in some wind-technology company that never gets a product to market and the CEO and board make out like bandits. No carbon got offset whatsoever there. Does DL then have to invest that same amount of money back into something with a proven effect, or do they get a pass? Will anyone really dig deep enough to care? The private company can solely determine how they enforce their own slogan.

Until we have some kind of carbon-offset police and court (not in my lifetime), this is really just some nice PR.
I guess this is the airline equivalent of the "sell one, donate one", or buying a bracelet that will clean up an ocean. An effective sales and image technique that appeals to some customers who do not demand a lot of rigorous proof of the promise after the sale is made.

I fly them for safety and convenience, and a uniformity of product compared to the competition. Not because of this.

Duke787

I applaud them for doing something.

Are you planning to no longer take flights if they aren't on a new fuel-efficient planes?

FWIW, a full plane going from JFK to SFO is almost certainly going to have a lower overall emissions impact than everyone on that plane driving themselves from JFK to SFO (assuming 95% are using gas-powered vehicles, not electrics).

WestCoastPDX

I’ve always been pretty much an environmentalist.
Pro electrics car, reducing pollution as much as possible. I pay extra for renewable energy....

I was watching a fairly balanced debate about CO2, and one of the main points was ‘we don’t know if global warming is good or bad’

And it sort of stopped me in my tracks.

Trees will grow faster, same for crops, areas previously uninhabitable will be habitable.

Some good, some bad. The question was what was net change?


anyway, I’m still all about being as clean as possible and green energy. But, it was a fundamental question I’d never asked myself before.

If Delta wants to buy offsets, sure thing. More green technology is good. But, I’d like to see more DATA about if warming is actually bad for the planet on the whole.

*shrug*

bitterproffit

PR Lie? LOL, is there any other type?

Its a spin. And if they retire the MD because its expensive to operate AND they can say that the money they use to replace the MD is part of their 'mitigation', isn't that efficient spin?

The end result is a reduction in emissions while maintaining a successful ROI.

bitterproffit

I was trying to describe to my students the short term boost in aggregate spending caused by the Y2K crisis.

If you remember, Y2K crisis was used by every IT director to justify upgrading just about every single piece of computer equipment the company had.

They were dealing with board of directors, and cost accountants, and stockholders who, on average, really didn't understand IT technology. It was much more 'mysterious' back then.

The companies would all issue these amazing PR releases telling the public (and the stockholders and customers) how they were on top of the Y2K problem by telling us how many millions of dollars they had spent in Y2K contingencies.

In reality, they were able to use Y2K to financially justify modifying their technology for cost and efficiency reasons, but the Y2K was a convenient way to justify it.

I look at this the same way. Killing 2 birds with one stone. Getting a needed improvement in efficiency while scoring a PR win.

rufflesinc

I think that says more about the lack of high speed rail in the US than emissions from gas-powered vehicles

bubbashow

even the HIGHEST speed rail possible would take DAYS between LAX and SFO.

Give me a 767 any day.

ekozie

Sure, if by DAYS you mean 2.5 to 3 hours.

mattp1987

LAX to SFO is slightly shorter than Tokyo to Hiroshima which takes about 3.5 hours on the Shinkansen. It would take DAYS on a bicycle if one really wanted to cut emissions.