User avatar
Aaron747
Topic Author
Posts: 10365
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:34 am

Ugh happened upon this article today:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cheap-flights-hurt-planet-143651921.html

The main article is hosted on Atlantic Monthly, which sometimes has some decent content. I continue to fail to grasp the logical fallacy media and some enviro-whackos buy into that air travel is the prevailing serious threat to global carbon emissions. The share is increasing, yes, but where is the credit aviation deserves for achieving emissions and fuel efficiency improvements that are significantly ahead of the automotive industry? Where are the facts that bear out the significant statistical differences between aircraft and other forms of transport in aggregate?

Some pretty scary commentary out there from readers, including one woman who said "air travel is supposed to be rare and expensive - with today's technology there's no need for face to face interactions - governments should intervene and make air travel as rare as it once was before these jets pollute us to death." The funny thing is, I'll be she owns a private automobile. As we all know the car population in developed countries is not growing appreciably, but the developing world is potentially bringing us 1.5 billion new cars in the next 30+ years:

The number of cars and light trucks globally is projected to triple from the current 850 million to 2.5 billion by 2050, according to the International Transport Forum’s (ITF) Transport Outlook 2011. That growth is projected to be almost entirely in the developing world.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/06/bike-vs-car-on-a-hot-planet/

Yes, we probably all have an emotional bias on the side of aviation, but unless I'm wrong here, the facts bear out that automobiles are the far greater transportation threat to the planet than jet aircraft. What can be done to make media tell the story correctly?
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7771
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:34 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
some enviro-whackos

Any argument you may have had lost its credibility with this. The fact that there are some people who have the notion that the sky is falling every time you let one rip doesn't mean that all those concerned for the planet are "enviro-whackos".

That being said, the author fails to take into account that the plane's CO2 emission is distributed among all of its passengers, so your share of the carbon footprint is smaller than she makes it seem.

Frankly, I'd be more concerned about the ozone layer. Emissions by airplanes, though greatly improved, are thought to have had SOME effect with that layer, especially when airplanes travel close to it. At least Concorde was thought to have had some effect when it existed, and back then emissions weren't as regulated as today.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4038
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:53 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 1):
That being said, the author fails to take into account that the plane's CO2 emission is distributed among all of its passengers, so your share of the carbon footprint is smaller than she makes it seem.

   On a per kilometer basis, even an A340 (which isn't considered to be the pinnacle of efficiency) with a high load factor is more efficient than, say, a Prius. The disparity in emissions from a journey in a plane, compared to a journey in a car, comes from the flight covering a lot more distance.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
As we all know the car population in developed countries is not growing appreciably, but the developing world is potentially bringing us 1.5 billion new cars in the next 30+ years

Also, the vehicles sold in the developing world often have much less efficient engines than those in the developed world. Some developing-markets-only-vehicles like the Nissan Tsuru (which is still in production) don't even have a Catalytic Converter.
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8645
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:11 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 1):
Any argument you may have had lost its credibility with this. The fact that there are some people who have the notion that the sky is falling every time you let one rip doesn't mean that all those concerned for the planet are "enviro-whackos".

He didn't say what 'those who are concerned about the planet' are enviro-whackos, he's saying that' the people who have the notion that the sky is falling every time you let one rip' are the enviro-whackos. Think you misread what he said because you basically said you disagree with him and then went on to agree with him  

I think they'd have more of a valid point if they went after really old and inefficient aircraft instead of air travel in general, because as others have said, aviation is much more efficient
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Topic Author
Posts: 10365
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:28 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 1):
The fact that there are some people who have the notion that the sky is falling every time you let one rip doesn't mean that all those concerned for the planet are "enviro-whackos".

I think I indicated who I was talking about by highlighting the most egregious comment I found associated with that article. All of us, with the exception of a markedly selfish few, are concerned about the planet.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:54 pm

Yes, People should stop heating their homes, specially in winter. It is contributing too much CO2 Emission.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 1838
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:09 pm

Aviation is one of the few industries really pushing itself to become more environmentally friendly... even if that's just a side benefit to trying to reduce costs/increase profitability.

And you're right about the per-person contribution. I was giving an informal talk at work back in November about our company's transition from air freight to ocean freight. Another employee challenged me, asking how this transition fit with Merck's "green" initiatives because of how much dirtier ocean transport is than air transport. I reminded him that, on an absolute basis, yes, a voyage by an ocean-going vessel will generate more greenhouse gases and more pollution than an airplane. However, when you consider that you'd need to have many, many planes fly the route to carry the same amount of cargo as the container ship, the airplanes generate more pollution.

Breaking down the emissions into a per-unit-transported (whether it be ocean containers, passengers, pound of bulk material, etc.) is the way to compare across modes. With this discussion, yeah, of course a 737 flying cross-country generates more pollution than a car. But a 737 is eliminating tens of vehicles on the road between the coasts. Those tens of vehicles combined generate significantly more pollution.
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:45 pm

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 6):
With this discussion, yeah, of course a 737 flying cross-country generates more pollution than a car. But a 737 is eliminating tens of vehicles on the road between the coasts. Those tens of vehicles combined generate significantly more pollution.

Of course. If people want to reduce Co2 emissions the answer is a carbon tax and carbon credits for vegetation that is planted. They will pay more for airplane tickets and more for gasoline. And more for electricity. Let them work out whether they want to fly or not. The free market can decide.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21638
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:49 pm

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 2):
On a per kilometer basis, even an A340 (which isn't considered to be the pinnacle of efficiency) with a high load factor is more efficient than, say, a Prius. The disparity in emissions from a journey in a plane, compared to a journey in a car, comes from the flight covering a lot more distance.

And this is very true. The issue is the absolute number of kilometers. My Prius won't take me 5,000 kilometers in 6 hours.

In the end, banning air travel isn't going to be feasible. Switching to carbon-neutral biofuels is feasible.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:38 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 1):
That being said, the author fails to take into account that the plane's CO2 emission is distributed among all of its passengers, so your share of the carbon footprint is smaller than she makes it seem.

I don't think he does. Compare what he says to this graph: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20.../01/27/opinion/27rosenthal-ch.html

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 2):
On a per kilometer basis, even an A340 (which isn't considered to be the pinnacle of efficiency) with a high load factor is more efficient than, say, a Prius.

Not when the Prius has the same percentual load factor, and this does not only go for the Prius.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 7):
The free market can decide.

The free market alone should not decide on environmental issues or other things that relate to the tragedy of the commons.
I support the right to arm bears
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:22 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 9):
The free market alone should not decide on environmental issues or other things that relate

I just described how a carbon tax would fully solve the global warming / tragedy of the commons issue. Not saying let the free market run free. I am saying impose a tax on all co2, and let the free market decide all the details. But this solution makes politicians less money for their cronies, so they do not pursue it.
 
User avatar
n229nw
Posts: 2035
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:03 pm

Frankly, I agree that the Jets exhale way too much CO2, though things are somewhat better than when Tim Tebow was on the team.
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:16 am

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 6):
Another employee challenged me, asking how this transition fit with Merck's "green" initiatives because of how much dirtier

I love it when large corporations follow a trend and "go green" in order to repair the damage they have done on first Hand.

I take it that your workplace is a large pharmceutical Company. Your products are mostly expensive and justify Transport by air when taken all costs into account, including the higher interest / time it takes between production and sale.

Now the Company goes green and thinks it saves money, the opposite might be true when the PC mode going green is taken out of the calculation.

Does the Company tell ist customers wordwide that a large amount of the Transport costs come from the decision to relocate to "cheaper" countries, concentrating often on a single production location worldwide for one pharmaceutical product? This creating Transport Needs which would not exist if mutliple production Locations had been kept?

Going green might be nice for some who do not see the whole picture, and as we all know ideolgies keep People from thinking, whoich is an effective method of using once own head.

Especially pharmaceuticals with a short shelf life should have a short Transit time which makes airfreight the better choice.

Does your study takes into account that many of the Containers Need to be reefers which cause additional CO2 Emission on top of the ship's bunker oil?

Does it take into account that the distances from factory to the nearest Airports usually are by far shorter than the distance to the nearest seaport?

I am not speaking about the shortage of some medication even in first world countries because inefficient Transportation modes are used for reasons of ideology and the results that may have.

.

.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21638
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:49 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 9):
Not when the Prius has the same percentual load factor, and this does not only go for the Prius.

It's more efficient than the Prius when it's carrying two passengers. Practically, you rarely see any car with more than two people in it.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Rara
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:48 pm

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 6):
Aviation is one of the few industries really pushing itself to become more environmentally friendly... even if that's just a side benefit to trying to reduce costs/increase profitability.

How about if I claim that aviation does nothing towards becoming more environmentally friendly - all they do is become more efficient in order to be more profitable.   Could you disprove that?

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Yes, we probably all have an emotional bias on the side of aviation, but unless I'm wrong here, the facts bear out that automobiles are the far greater transportation threat to the planet than jet aircraft.

That's not really the issue though, is it? I mean, of course we can play the blame-game. Why should us Germans reduce CO2 output if the Chinese emit much more than us. Why should I save electricity if heating needs a lot more energy in my house. The fact is that in order to halt climate change, we'd have to radically reduce CO2 emissions as a whole, in every sector. The question isn't how much each sector contributes to global emissions, but how large the potential for savings is. For instance, heavy industries are always going to emit carbon, there is only so much you can do about it. Aviation, on the other hand, is in large degrees dispensable. Very few plane trips are truly necessary. In many cases you could e.g. take the train, conduct your business talk via Skype, or simply don't take the holiday trip you're taking. The huge growth of aviation is testimony to that. Just one decade ago, we took a lot fewer plane trips, and we could easily go back to that.

I just booked a flight to Nice and back to visit my parents for an extended weekend. Why? Well basically because the connection is there, it's convenient, and I can afford it. From a climate perspective this is quite fatal.
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 1838
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:38 pm

Quoting Rara (Reply 14):
How about if I claim that aviation does nothing towards becoming more environmentally friendly - all they do is become more efficient in order to be more profitable. Could you disprove that?

I am not sure you read the comment that you quoted... because that is exactly what I said.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
I take it that your workplace is a large pharmceutical Company. Your products are mostly expensive and justify Transport by air when taken all costs into account, including the higher interest / time it takes between production and sale.

You are correct in your assumption on my employer.

When I began working for my employer around this time last year and was introduced to this initiative, I was skeptical (and remain so, to an extent), because of my academic and theoretical background in transportation. You are correct that, most basically, the balance is between long lead time (therefore higher inventory carrying costs) but lower transportation cost vs. lower lead time (therefore lower inventory carrying costs) but higher transportation cost. When I began, I asked if these considerations were made. I am not sure that they really were studied fully. However, inventory carrying costs are very low across industries right now because of low interest rates.

Furthermore, the longer transportation lead time is not a huge issue. The real issue is a ridiculously long production lead time. We waste an enormous amount of time in the production process and in storage time. As it is for most industries, transportation is viewed as a sideshow where you can make up for your ineptitude in production by expediting freight movement with the fastest mode available. Our production planning and manufacturing teams just assume we can just snap our fingers and magically transport our goods around the world instantly make up for the fact that they are awful at their own jobs.

Actually, we are using the air-to-ocean initiative as a bludgeon to force the manufacturing side to improve its processes.

Quote:
Does the Company tell ist customers wordwide that a large amount of the Transport costs come from the decision to relocate to "cheaper" countries, concentrating often on a single production location worldwide for one pharmaceutical product? This creating Transport Needs which would not exist if mutliple production Locations had been kept?

Through mergers, we've grown a massively redundant worldwide network. There is definitely a lot of transportation waste. We're constantly reducing that network. Unfortunately, that costs many people their jobs, but it is an effect of becoming less redundant.

Quote:
Especially pharmaceuticals with a short shelf life should have a short Transit time which makes airfreight the better choice.

The fraction of the shelf-life taken up by ocean freight really isn't that much. The shelf life taken up by inefficient production process is substantially more.

Quote:
Does your study takes into account that many of the Containers Need to be reefers which cause additional CO2 Emission on top of the ship's bunker oil?

Probably not, considering I think there were never really any studies done by my company. But if I were a betting man, I'd bet that it still works out that ocean shipping is more environmentally friendly per-unit than air shipping. Again, it's a matter of how much per-unit, not how much per voyage. Pharmaceuticals often ship in "active" containers via air, which require additional power to be generated either by battery or by plugging into the electrical grid to remain on, just like an ocean reefer. Most active air containers hold one pallet of goods. An ocean container holds in upwards of 20 pallets, depending on how you configure the load.

Quote:
Does it take into account that the distances from factory to the nearest Airports usually are by far shorter than the distance to the nearest seaport?

Let's take my plant for example. It takes 4 hours for an ocean container to get to the seaport of export. All of our ocean exports leave from the same seaport. There is another container port closer than the one we use.

For air shipments, a small percentage of exports leave via an airport 1 hour away. Probably 25-35% of our air exports leave via an airport 7 hours away. Probably 60-65% of our air exports leave via an airport 12 hours away.

"Nearest airport" or "nearest seaport" is not the biggest factor Like with passenger travel, it's what lanes are operated through the airport or seaport. Most of our exports by air have to travel to the airport 12 hours away because of lanes operated through that airport and, much to my dismay often, by request of the customer. The seaport we use is part of loops that touch every market to which we export by sea. The closer seaport is part of no loops that touch our export markets.

Now, I should mention that my plant is not one of the bigger exporting plants in our network. We're middle of the road, in that respect. Most of our product ends up in the US and Canada, so we do substantially more road freight than air or ocean freight. Honestly, I wish we did rail freight, too, but our Quality and Security groups would have a fit. One of our facilities in another country does rail freight for some imports and I am pretty jealous of them. lol

Quote:
I am not speaking about the shortage of some medication even in first world countries because inefficient Transportation modes are used for reasons of ideology and the results that may have.

Having been immersed in world of pharmaceutical transportation for the last year, I am fairly confident that any shortages has absolutely nothing to do with transportation mode. I am not just saying that to defend my functional area. When I look at our end-to-end lead time (receipt of the basic raw materials to delivery to customer), transportation is a small fraction of the total time. The difference between air transport and sea transport will barely reduce or length the end-to-end lead time for our products. I am in meetings literally every morning during which market shortages are discussed. Transportation is pretty much never the culprit for the shortage. Planning, upstream supply, production inefficiency, etc. are all typical reasons for market shortages of our pharmaceuticals. As I said above, we are expected to expedite shipments at light-speed because of those issues.

[Edited 2014-08-23 09:03:16]

[Edited 2014-08-23 09:05:49]
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
Rara
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:12 pm

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 15):
I am not sure you read the comment that you quoted... because that is exactly what I said.

I'm not sure.   You said aviation is pushing itself to become more environmentally friendly, but it is really? I realize this is bordering on semantics, but the point is not entirely moot. The aviation lobby claims to take emissions seriously, and uses efficiency gains as proof, but as you will agree, the true motive isn't the environment but rather the increase in profits. And yet many people, especially on this site, feel that the industry should be credited for the efficiency gains even though its dishonest about its true intents.

Now you could say, who cares whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice, that is to say, as long as efficiency is good for the environment, who cares on what the true intent behind it is. But is efficiency really good for the environment? I would claim it isn't. More efficient aircraft translate into lower fuel costs, therefore lower airfares, therefore more paying customers, therefore more routes, more aircraft, and so on. Had we stayed with the extremely inefficient aircraft of the 1960s, chances are aviation would never become the mass market it is today, and total emissions would be a lot lower.


Very interesting read about the logistics of the pharmaceutical industry, by the way. Confirms my suspicion that a lot of the "just in time" craze, which we hear about everytime a night curfew at some airport is being discussed, is really covering up for a lack of planning that happened much earlier in the process.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 15):
But if I were a betting man, I'd bet that it still works out that ocean shipping is more environmentally friendly per-unit than air shipping.

So would I.
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 1838
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:57 am

Quoting Rara (Reply 16):
You said aviation is pushing itself to become more environmentally friendly, but it is really? I realize this is bordering on semantics, but the point is not entirely moot.

Yeah, I could've worded that better. By me saying it was a side effect of reducing costs, I was saying that the increased environmental friendliness is not a true reason.

Quoting Rara (Reply 16):
Very interesting read about the logistics of the pharmaceutical industry, by the way. Confirms my suspicion that a lot of the "just in time" craze, which we hear about everytime a night curfew at some airport is being discussed, is really covering up for a lack of planning that happened much earlier in the process.

Since my undergraduate years, I have been an opponent of pure Just-in-Time processes. It works only in very limited situations. All JIT ultimately does is pass the inventory to another member of the supply chain.
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:29 am

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 15):

I am not sure you read the comment that you quoted... because that is exactly what I said.

Thanks for your very interesting reply. It confirms what I have larned in my Long career in tha Business, that each and every Transport has to be seen and evaluated individually.

I have done many studies which had abviously the disadvantage that the lead time in production was rarely included. Low interest rates are a recent phenomena as well which will not stay.

All such studies are however isolated cases and have to be seen from the shippers perspective. The freight forwarder offers a complete pckage and for him it does not matter whether the customer choses air or ocean, he can provide both modes of Transport. If Inland Transportation from seaport to Distribution centre is required, he can also Chose/ offer the Options, road, rail or barge.

Hence, such studies usually have the Goal of cost cutting rather than environmental aspects. These can be a nice side effect however, for PR reasons. But you confirmed that yourself.

What such studies never can yield is the result of decisions such as switching the Transport mode from air to ocean For an 8K, 12 K or larger box carrier it matters Little if there are another dozen boxes loaded or not. If those goods however have travelled before as belly load on a passenger aircraft and the Airline has no replacement freight, any theoretical envronmental benefit will be nixed by flying empty spaces around the globe.



. .

Quoting Rara (Reply 16):
I'm not sure. You said aviation is pushing itself to become more environmentally friendly, but it is really? I realize this is bordering on semantics, but the point is not entirely moot. The aviation lobby claims to take emissions seriously, and uses efficiency gains as proof, but as you will agree, the true motive isn't the environment but rather the increase in profits. And yet many people, especially on this site, feel that the industry should be credited for the efficiency gains even though its dishonest about its true intents.

Rara, profits are essential in the world of Business, without profits companies cannot exist, cannot provide Jobs. Biut before a Profit can be made, the costs must be earned adn that is increasingly difficult in a Business where competition is global and cost bases are different. Take routes from West Europe to mthe USA, the local carriers such as LH and AFKL are fighting the ME3 as well as russoian carriers here, plus the US Integrators fill up capacity. You are out of this game when you are not competetive.

Nack to the Environment, LH Comes close to the 3 Liter per 100 Pax Kilometer which beats most cars and does not even take into account the freight that rides in the bellies, lowering that figure even more.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
Rara
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:34 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
Rara, profits are essential in the world of Business, without profits companies cannot exist, cannot provide Jobs. Biut before a Profit can be made, the costs must be earned adn that is increasingly difficult in a Business where competition is global and cost bases are different. Take routes from West Europe to mthe USA, the local carriers such as LH and AFKL are fighting the ME3 as well as russoian carriers here, plus the US Integrators fill up capacity. You are out of this game when you are not competetive.

I know. I do support their attempts to become more efficient and increase profits - in fact, I think that's what businesses should exclusively focus on. I don't believe in corporate social or environmental responsibility. Obviously companies shouldn't break any laws, shouldn't exploit people, shouldn't behave immorally, but other than that, social and environmental issues are none of their concern. LH Cargo can care less about their CO2 emissions or whether people in Frankfurt sleep at night. LH Cargo's responsibility is to its shareholders, not to Franfurt's residents. It should be entirely up to the state to define the boundaries within which businesses operate, and it should be the state's responsibility to define e.g. emission and noise limits.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
Nack to the Environment, LH Comes close to the 3 Liter per 100 Pax Kilometer which beats most cars and does not even take into account the freight that rides in the bellies, lowering that figure even more.

Yeah, but that suggests that a car is a valid base for comparison. It isn't. When I travel to Mumbai, it's not like I can choose between the car and the plane. Only the plane enables me to travel this distance in the first place. Without the plane, I couldn't attempt this journey at all, and my expected energy use wouldn't be the 7 liters per kilometer that my car gets. It would be zero.
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4038
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:54 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 9):
Not when the Prius has the same percentual load factor, and this does not only go for the Prius

Yes, but cars nearly always have very low load-factors. Airliners usually have rather high ones (and if they consistently don't, routes are usually canned rather quickly). When people go on holiday in a car they tend to take much, much more luggage/junk with them compared to when they fly. Additional weight = additional emissions, though the big reason that planes have an efficiency advantage is that they hold a reasonably constant speed. Also, since widebodies usually take a decent haul of cargo, a better comparison might be a prius with a trailer.
First to fly the 787-9
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:27 pm

And in addition to CO2 emissions there are also people out there who think the government is using airliners to spread mind control gasses over the general population as a way to control them! See! All those aircraft at altitude have white stuff coming out of their engines!
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Topic Author
Posts: 10365
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:46 am

Quoting Rara (Reply 14):
Very few plane trips are truly necessary. In many cases you could e.g. take the train, conduct your business talk via Skype, or simply don't take the holiday trip you're taking.

In a standalone sense, this may be true, but in a socioeconomic sense, these trips are not dispensable. Some places are further than train or time by sea allows, some cultures do not accept making business deals without physically looking someone in the eye or shaking a hand, some cultures do not accept apologizing to customers via phone or letter, and many hard-working people need to take that holiday trip to relieve stress, keep a good relationship with their wife, educate their children about the world, etc.

In a word, if globalization was not an established process, these trips could be said to be dispensable, maybe.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Rara
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:39 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 22):
In a standalone sense, this may be true, but in a socioeconomic sense, these trips are not dispensable. Some places are further than train or time by sea allows, some cultures do not accept making business deals without physically looking someone in the eye or shaking a hand, some cultures do not accept apologizing to customers via phone or letter, and many hard-working people need to take that holiday trip to relieve stress, keep a good relationship with their wife, educate their children about the world, etc.

Granted, but in this sense, nothing is really dispensable.   I mean where would you start? The person with a Porsche 911 could say that, yeah, of course the car is a gas guzzler, but he really enjoys driving it and it relaxes him after work, and without it he wouldn't be as happy as he's now, so the car is quite indispensable for him.

Experts say that emissions of about 3 t CO2 per person and year should be the maximum, if we want to stop man-made climate change. With one return flight to LAX, I already cause twice my yearly allowance. Of course you could say that the trip is indispensable because I need to relax and see the world, but from a climate perspective, that really means that we can't reduce CO2 to acceptable levels because we've got more important things to worry about.
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Thu Aug 28, 2014 4:02 pm

Quoting Rara (Reply 23):
Experts say that emissions of about 3 t CO2 per person and year should be the maximum

I know of no expert who says so, at least not out of the top of my head. The CO2-footprint per capita is certainly something to consider but has - to my knowledge - no place in scientic studies, and certainly not in absolute numbers without hinting if this includes indirect CO2-emissions as well.
I support the right to arm bears
 
Rara
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:51 am

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 24):
I know of no expert who says so, at least not out of the top of my head. The CO2-footprint per capita is certainly something to consider but has - to my knowledge - no place in scientic studies, and certainly not in absolute numbers without hinting if this includes indirect CO2-emissions as well.

Not sure what you mean. The amount of total CO2 that we can still emit without leaving the two-degree window is one of the most researched topics in the world right now. And if you divide that amount of CO2 by the world population, you arrive at a theoretical amount per capita.. that's not exactly rocket science. Obviously that's not a realistic target (Germans for instance emit about 9 tons per capita annually, and there's no way we could bring that down to 3 or less within a foreseeable timeframe), but it still gives you an idea that aviation in its current form isn't really justifiable from a climate perspective.

What do you mean by indirect CO2-emissions?
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Scaremongering About Jets' CO2 Continues

Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:29 pm

Actually it is a bit too little rocket science for my taste.

There is a table with more than 60 entries that list what we need to do to limit global warming to 2K (or 2°C if you want). Another table calculates the costs: efforts will spoil global economic growth by 0.06 percent points (e.g. 1.94% instead of 2%). Some countries will be a lot more affected, though and in the long run, total costs can be as high as 11% for a year or more. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will probably get.
It is possible to achieve the goals with technologies such as CCS (Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage).

Quoting Rara (Reply 25):
What do you mean by indirect CO2-emissions?

The production of your car or your jeans, building sites, roasting and grinding your coffee ...
Your indirect CO2-emissions mount up to 2t per anno.
I support the right to arm bears

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dutchy, Ertro, speedygonzales and 178 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos