msit

I fly a lot and I was wondering if anybody had a good website and a green airline that would help me reduce my carbon footprint. Please help.
two things I want:

1. Green organization I can can help out
2. greenest airline to feel good about flying

Please Help!!!

zoobtoob

Don't get mad at me because I'm not citing my sources directly here but...

I have herd that because planes deposit their exhaust emissions so high in the atmosphere, the carbon/particulates/other chemicals the planes leave in the air have a cooling effect because they act as an outward facing mirror.

It was discussed in SuperFreakonomics I believe.

msit

http://www.sustainablestuff.co.uk/En...AirTravel.html According to that website it impacts it greatly

GregWTravels

You would be best finding an airline with the newest fleet, as those planes would likely get better fuel economy than older planes.

You should look to fly non-stop, as take-offs and landings emit the most carbon.

Some airlines (like Air Canada, for instance) offer the ability to offset your carbon for your flight, though I must admit I have reservations about carbon offsets.

A few sites to check out are Nasa's environmentally responsible aviation project as well as the GoGreenTravel website, which offers tips for the green flyer.

Personally, what I do is try and limit my carbon footprint in other elements of my life (home, daily transport, etc.) so that I don't have to worry as much about carbon emissions when flying.

Greg

Ocn Vw 1K

Last year, SFO set up a carbon footprint offset program and kiosks for passengers to make their offset payment. http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/about...09/sf0963.html

Short hair Francis

Oh goody, my major
Other than just non-stop flights, try to limit the amount of regional jet flights especially since they generate more carbon on a per person basis due to need of quick takeoffs and less seats given for fuel use. I know it's usually impossible but see if you can take a train, bus, or even in some cases cars for short distance, I believe the number is under 300 miles travelled.
Another part will be occupying less space on a plane as you are contributing to less carbon emissions overall but are you willing to give up your upgraded First Class seat for a seat in E-? Maybe 1 Class planes will be more carbon friendly for you as well.

But as GregWTravels, other parts of your life also come into play. Try looking into Ecological Footprint, it gives a more concise and complete interpretation of your actions and what it is doing to the environment. Ecological Footprint looks into your diet, your heating and electrical needs, transportation needs among other things. Most of us FTers including myself are forced to travel.

Do you knew the average Canadian needs 5.8 earths to sustain our current lifestyle? And that number is 9.0 for Americans?

Don't be worried if the first time you do it that the number will be above 15, it can happen. For me, I had 13.4 one time compared to my classmate most of which were in the 2.5-3.5 range just because of my travels. Now it's closer to 10.5-11.0

Best of Luck

Aero A

Bottom line...cut down flying. No mileage runs. Teleconference, when possible.

When flying, take a non-stop. Choose a turboprop, like a Bombardier Q400, not a jet and not a CRJ. If you take a jet, a fully packed 737-900 is the best.

Don't worry about carbon offset. That is just money shifting around.

rjw242

Wow, I'm just 5.3 despite flying over 100k miles per year. Time to buy a Hummer!

Ancien Maestro

I would agree with the money shifting comment. If a real effect could take place to reduce carbon emissions, then it would be worthwhile to invest or pay extra into it. Right now carbon offsets seems to me, a money grabber playing on personal guilt.

black dawn

This is just silly. You're not running an airline, so you have no control over how much air pollution the airplanes are putting out.

The suggestion to intentially turn down an upgrade is exhibit A for global warming INSANITY ("Another part will be occupying less space on a plane as you are contributing to less carbon emissions overall but are you willing to give up your upgraded First Class seat for a seat in E-? Maybe 1 Class planes will be more carbon friendly for you as well.")

Do you honestly believe that sitting in a different seat on an airplane will make any difference at all? (besides demonstrating how moronic the global warming cult really is)

debonairy

Consumers responsible for the demand for air travel have some ability to influence airline policies, including over pollution and emissions. But a lone consumer is powerless in this.

The same plane with all economy class will transport more passengers than one with F,C and Y for a similar amount of fuel and carbon emitted. So LCCs will probably be better than full service carriers.

It is not about sitting in a different class, but giving up F and C totally. However, most FTers would probably not want to live in a world where all planes had only Y class.

uElliots

unless your presence or should I say lack of presence cancels a flight, I personally think your efforts are all for naught

BearX220

Finally some sensible perspective on this issue. The best way to influence airlines on carbon issues is to patronize carriers that have the intent and wherewithal to invest in cleaner propulsion (Branson / VS, for example)... not pay alms to some murky, disconnected "carbon offset" outfit whose operators are undoubtedly making a nice living playing on peoples' guilt and naivete.

The other side of the sanity coin is here:

I think it's crazy to drive your own car 300 miles to "reduce carbon emissions" while the airplane you're not taking flies above your head anyway. Mass transit of any kind is nearly always more carbon-efficient than private vehicles. And occupying less space on a plane, or eliminating first class, doesn't shrink the airplane. This is classically faulty reasoning -- the idea that if you discomfit yourself, it must be doing some good. The airplane is going anyway, whether it's full or not, whether the seats are big or small.

No amount of carbon offset voodoo is going to change airline route networks, flight frequencies or aircraft types. Real change is a more complex proposition.

tonywestsider

+1 Totally agree with this. The most efficient, environmentally superior transport mode up to 400 miles in route length is high-speed passenger rail. For example, Eurostar currently claims to operate "carbon-neutral" and sets a good example. For that matter, try to avoid regional jet flights, if that is possible, especially in congested air corridors surrounding major airports. At some of these corridors, high speed rail maybe, or shall we say, should be available instead.

Wide body aircraft such as an A330, A345, 767, 777 and future 787, 747-8I and A350s should be introduced/reintroduced in congested air corridors to maximize capacity and minimize emissions. Why insist pax fly in Y in a narrow body a/c when the real issue here is to provide more capacity on the plane comfortably via a widebody cabin where these planes will generate less emissions per pax for the routes they serve?

Finally, I agree with the above quote. The plane is going to leave with or without you. So you may as well be on the plane...

SFO777

http://www.schwinn.com/
http://www.huffybikes.com/