According to a recent study, 1% of people cause half of global aviation emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... y-covid-19

fr by the end of the year I'll have been on 15 flights this year if anything its time to support our airlines

No, the article isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown long distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

c933103 wrote:

No, the title isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown ling distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

With the number of Chinese and American tourists as well as the 700,000,000 Europeans on Ryanair and Easyjet, I cannot believe that only 4% of the world has flown abroad.

One might go ahead and read the linked article in the Guardian.

I don't see the grand insight: Sure, higher income people fly more. Does it surprise anybody that air travel is a normal good, not an inferior good? Higher income people spend more on food, too (meaning more expensive food/going out more often, not just eating more calories). Compare W Europeans to Africans and you'll find they travel greater annual distance by car. They spend more money on heating/cooling of homes and offices, too.

If you agree that aviation emissions are a problem that must be reduced, don't fall for the arguments about how much the industry already pays in taxes: they lack context (comparison to what is paid by other industries, what is received in services, and the scale of emissions). Don't think this will be solved by the very low avg annual increases in fuel economy per seat mile that the aircraft manufacturers have delivered over the last 25 years. You will need people to fly less. Swedish/Guardian flight-shaming isn't going to be effective - tax air travel by distance, or tax fuel.

Sorry, I thought this was about bodily functions!

Depends if beans or other cruciferous vegetables are served at the first class lounge.

Well I guess I would fall under that category. But you know what, I drive fuel efficient vehicles, I don't buy excess things like food that I just throw away. I recycle as much as possible. So if I want to take an uneccessary trip to ATL or fly to LAX oh frigging well. That flight was going to go with or without me anyways.

zrs70 wrote:

Sorry, I thought this was about bodily functions!

I thought I'd finally made the 1%. Nothing quite satisfies like the first epic release at 35,000 feet following a brekky of deviled eggs and a bloody maria. Umm, umm umm.

c933103 wrote:

No, the article isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown long distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

Thank you. This is an important point. Air travel is still used pretty much by the “rich” (in terms of earth’s 7.5 billion people). Any comfortable person (maybe me?) in developed countries is a global 1% member. We use way more carbon than other people. The earth is not strong enough for all 7.5 billion to live in a detached heated / air conditioned house with 2 cars and fly on oil fueled jets frequently. The math simply doesn’t work out. The 1% need to learn to live with smaller carbon impact.

zrs70 wrote:

Sorry, I thought this was about bodily functions!

Yeah, I absolutely thought this was an article about people farting on airplanes.

Woulda been much more interesting...

LCDFlight wrote:

c933103 wrote:

No, the article isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown long distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

Thank you. This is an important point. Air travel is still used pretty much by the “rich” (in terms of earth’s 7.5 billion people). Any comfortable person (maybe me?) in developed countries is a global 1% member. We use way more carbon than other people. The earth is not strong enough for all 7.5 billion to live in a detached heated / air conditioned house with 2 cars and fly on oil fueled jets frequently. The math simply doesn’t work out. The 1% need to learn to live with smaller carbon impact.

I agree with you. In reality it`s not only the 1% wich should change something. Many more of us too !
To be honest : According to some studies, the Internet now produces at least as high a level of greenhouse gas emissions as aviation !

LCDFlight wrote:

c933103 wrote:

No, the article isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown long distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

Thank you. This is an important point. Air travel is still used pretty much by the “rich” (in terms of earth’s 7.5 billion people). Any comfortable person (maybe me?) in developed countries is a global 1% member. We use way more carbon than other people. The earth is not strong enough for all 7.5 billion to live in a detached heated / air conditioned house with 2 cars and fly on oil fueled jets frequently. The math simply doesn’t work out. The 1% need to learn to live with smaller carbon impact.

There is a solution of plant-based fuels. Right now it's just expensive but it's entirely possible even with just grasses. It can't compete economically with $50/bbl oil, though.

Surprised no one is talking about the fact ships pollute way worse than airplanes. I guess its an easy target for the media and environmentalists.

Google Bunker C oil.... its nasty nasty nasty stuff. And cheap.

overall it seems the aviation industry is doing well to reduce emissions (and noise!).

I certainly am not part of the 1% but I do my best to contribute to the emissions. For example, when buying fruits and vegetables at my local supermarket, I always try to choose those that come from another continent (e.g. living in France, I will always buy avocados from South America instead of Spain or Morocco, because they have flown on a plane). I am proud to support commercial aviation in those times of rampant pseudo-ecological obscurantism.

WorldFlier wrote:

c933103 wrote:

No, the title isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown ling distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

With the number of Chinese and American tourists as well as the 700,000,000 Europeans on Ryanair and Easyjet, I cannot believe that only 4% of the world has flown abroad.

In the year of 2018.

I'm pretty sure there would be category of people who travel multiple times in a single year. Plus people who always fly first class or business class which increases their carbon emissions.
Those people are the biggest emitters aren't they? Especially if they fly on longer routes.

Anyway, I do actually liked that the world is pressuring the aviation industry to evolve.

Both Boeing and Airbus are getting extremely lazy these days, all rehashing the same boring old technology. There is not much breakthrough because if the duopoly. They just getting too comfortable with the status quo.

I see this as a win-win for all sides. The more the public pressure the airlines to became more aware of their emissions, the more the airlines would pressure both Boeing and Airbus to push the boundaries further.

Please god, no more re-engine old aluminum pipe.

The title is definitely needing a modification the mods

usxguy wrote:

Surprised no one is talking about the fact ships pollute way worse than airplanes. I guess its an easy target for the media and environmentalists.

Google Bunker C oil.... its nasty nasty nasty stuff. And cheap.

overall it seems the aviation industry is doing well to reduce emissions (and noise!).

Different pollutants of concern - CO2 vs. particulate and sulfur dioxide. The former is a long term climate concern. The latter is a near term direct human health concern.

Of course, ships emit CO2, as well, but on a per ton-mile basis, are the most efficient way of moving cargo.

The first major regulation on sulfur emissions from vessels took effect for IMO members this year, by the way. This followed an initial regulation from 2005 that had minimal impact, but could be quickly implemented.

c933103 wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

c933103 wrote:

No, the title isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown ling distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

With the number of Chinese and American tourists as well as the 700,000,000 Europeans on Ryanair and Easyjet, I cannot believe that only 4% of the world has flown abroad.

In the year of 2018.

Because things have changed massively between 2018 and 2019 (pre-COVID).

This feels like FakeNews(TM) because the Math can't work.

iamlucky13 wrote:

usxguy wrote:

Surprised no one is talking about the fact ships pollute way worse than airplanes. I guess its an easy target for the media and environmentalists.

Google Bunker C oil.... its nasty nasty nasty stuff. And cheap.

overall it seems the aviation industry is doing well to reduce emissions (and noise!).

Different pollutants of concern - CO2 vs. particulate and sulfur dioxide. The former is a long term climate concern. The latter is a near term direct human health concern.

Of course, ships emit CO2, as well, but on a per ton-mile basis, are the most efficient way of moving cargo.

The first major regulation on sulfur emissions from vessels took effect for IMO members this year, by the way. This followed an initial regulation from 2005 that had minimal impact, but could be quickly implemented.

The diminishing demand for bunker will reduce its price making it attractive to some users, think, undeveloped countries will burn it.

WorldFlier wrote:

c933103 wrote:

WorldFlier wrote:

With the number of Chinese and American tourists as well as the 700,000,000 Europeans on Ryanair and Easyjet, I cannot believe that only 4% of the world has flown abroad.

In the year of 2018.

Because things have changed massively between 2018 and 2019 (pre-COVID).

This feels like FakeNews(TM) because the Math can't work.

No, what he means is that 4% of the world population flew abroad within the year of 2018. Obviously some of the other 96% have flown abroad at some point in their lives, just not within that calendar year.

By the end of the year I’ll have just 62 segments flown, a very down year for me. However, it should be enough for me to score my “I’m part of the 1% of polluters” t-shirt! Which I promise to proudly wear on my 63rd leg in 2021.

c933103 wrote:

No, the article isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown long distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

Clickbait article.
11% of the population flew in 2018, that means 11% were responsible for 100% of aviation pollution.
Of that number some were very frequent travellers, some are airline crew, some fly private, so its no surprise that 50% of this aviation pollution is caused by 10% of the flyers. Afterall the majority of flyers are once a year types. So basically almost everyone on this board is part of the 1% (or wants to be)

Agree with the other comments about shipping and other heavy polluters

Airlines produced a billion tonnes of CO2 and benefited from a $100bn (£75bn) subsidy by not paying for the climate damage they caused

Since I don't imagine most people would care much about updated estimates from the current US administration, it is worth noting that the EPA under the Obama administrations latest estimate as of 2016 was $36 per ton.

The Guardian does not appear to explain why a figure almost 3 times as high was used.

Also, we're still talking about less than 3% of global CO2 emissions, and arguably the most difficult 3% to address, except for perhaps sea-going vessels, which produce a similar total amount.

This is the opposite of focusing on the low hanging fruit first.

LCDFlight wrote:

c933103 wrote:

No, the article isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown long distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

Thank you. This is an important point. Air travel is still used pretty much by the “rich” (in terms of earth’s 7.5 billion people). Any comfortable person (maybe me?) in developed countries is a global 1% member. We use way more carbon than other people. The earth is not strong enough for all 7.5 billion to live in a detached heated / air conditioned house with 2 cars and fly on oil fueled jets frequently. The math simply doesn’t work out. The 1% need to learn to live with smaller carbon impact.

I agree but it's very contentious on here as you get "but I recycle" and "air travel is already taxed". Until people realise that we all live well beyond our means as far as our CO2 footprint goes, mindsets will not shift.

I think flight shaming is showing first signs of success. Of course it's not going from four holidays a year straight to not flying but people are starting to reflect on and think about their behaviours more. That is the first step...

iamlucky13 wrote:

usxguy wrote:

Surprised no one is talking about the fact ships pollute way worse than airplanes. I guess its an easy target for the media and environmentalists.

Google Bunker C oil.... its nasty nasty nasty stuff. And cheap.

overall it seems the aviation industry is doing well to reduce emissions (and noise!).

Different pollutants of concern - CO2 vs. particulate and sulfur dioxide. The former is a long term climate concern. The latter is a near term direct human health concern.

Of course, ships emit CO2, as well, but on a per ton-mile basis, are the most efficient way of moving cargo.

The first major regulation on sulfur emissions from vessels took effect for IMO members this year, by the way. This followed an initial regulation from 2005 that had minimal impact, but could be quickly implemented.

You are missing the point. The time for "they are worse, so they need to do something first" is coming to an end. We'll be seeing some radical shifts in policy over the next couple of years.

Trivia from Google.

There are approximately 53000 commercial ships in the world vs 24000 commercial aircraft. Growth before the pandemic was over 3% a year.

Shipping probably carries a payload of 10000 x that of an aircraft, so any comparison on pollution and emissions is pretty meaningless.

LCCs stimulates over consumption of air travel, over tourism and pollution. That should not be a surprise to anyone. But then again, LCCs are also smart because they know many people are selfish enough, not to give a [email protected] about the consequences of their consumer choices.

WorldFlier wrote:

c933103 wrote:

No, the title isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown ling distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

With the number of Chinese and American tourists as well as the 700,000,000 Europeans on Ryanair and Easyjet, I cannot believe that only 4% of the world has flown abroad.

Agree...that's not even a plausible figure.

Dahlgardo wrote:

LCCs stimulates over consumption of air travel, over tourism and pollution. That should not be a surprise to anyone. But then again, LCCs are also smart because they know many people are selfish enough, not to give a [email protected] about the consequences of their consumer choices.

Except flying in a fully loaded Ryanair 737 has a >100 miles per gallon per passenger efficiency. It is literally as good as >2.5 people inside your Prius car driving. How many people have a car that gets 40+ MPG per passenger?

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... 737-in-mpg

Maybe we should focus on the real drivers of climate change and emissions and damage to the environement?

Our daily commute in inefficient ICE engine cars (or Trucks in America where the #1, #2, #3 selling vehicles are Trucks and get -1 miles per gallon). Electricity Generation. Commercial Real Estate. Throwaway Fashion and e-gear. Fast food. Feeding our animals that we eat with corn and soy.

Westerwaelder wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

c933103 wrote:

No, the article isn't saying 1% passenger. Instead it is talking about 1% global population, aka 70 Million people, compares to 11% who have actually fly on an aircraft and 4% world population that have flown aboard.
Which mean every one in four world population who have travelled aboard on a plane in 2018, or 1 in 11 who have ever take flight that year, are "superemitter" by their definition.
If I have to estimate, I would say anyone who have done more than one international trip, or anyone who have flown long distance intercontinental that year, would already be top 25% polluter among those who have flown internationally that year, and is thus fulfilling their definition of "superemitter"

Thank you. This is an important point. Air travel is still used pretty much by the “rich” (in terms of earth’s 7.5 billion people). Any comfortable person (maybe me?) in developed countries is a global 1% member. We use way more carbon than other people. The earth is not strong enough for all 7.5 billion to live in a detached heated / air conditioned house with 2 cars and fly on oil fueled jets frequently. The math simply doesn’t work out. The 1% need to learn to live with smaller carbon impact.

I agree but it's very contentious on here as you get "but I recycle" and "air travel is already taxed". Until people realise that we all live well beyond our means as far as our CO2 footprint goes, mindsets will not shift.

I think flight shaming is showing first signs of success. Of course it's not going from four holidays a year straight to not flying but people are starting to reflect on and think about their behaviours more. That is the first step...

Lol "but I recycle" that is just gold. Yes, flight shaming is working. Maybe too well. All ofthis conigtive load could be avoided by just implementing a carbon tax. Including on agriculture. We don't actulal need yto waste our time thinking about this. All of these fraught moral questions can be avoided if we just properly clolect a carbon tax (and offset it with cuts to other taxes IMO). Eventually we will need to put this carbon back into the ground.

Westerwaelder wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

usxguy wrote:

Surprised no one is talking about the fact ships pollute way worse than airplanes. I guess its an easy target for the media and environmentalists.

Google Bunker C oil.... its nasty nasty nasty stuff. And cheap.

overall it seems the aviation industry is doing well to reduce emissions (and noise!).

Different pollutants of concern - CO2 vs. particulate and sulfur dioxide. The former is a long term climate concern. The latter is a near term direct human health concern.

Of course, ships emit CO2, as well, but on a per ton-mile basis, are the most efficient way of moving cargo.

The first major regulation on sulfur emissions from vessels took effect for IMO members this year, by the way. This followed an initial regulation from 2005 that had minimal impact, but could be quickly implemented.

You are missing the point. The time for "they are worse, so they need to do something first" is coming to an end. We'll be seeing some radical shifts in policy over the next couple of years.

Yes, I've missed the point, because the point has not really been made. Regardless of whether your point is about aviation or shipping, both industries are doing something, not merely passing responsibility to others.

I will maintain my stance that the most significant efforts should come where the greatest cost-effectiveness is possible unless and until a compelling point is made to change that stance.

What really tell us this numbers ???
1% of people cause half of global aviation emissions. We talk about global aviation !
What is included in these numbers ?
- cargo flights without any passenger ?
- coporate jets with a handful of pax
and so on .....
Mr. Stefan Gössling forgot to tell us about all those flights in Sweden ( and Scandinavia ) for the sake of mail delivery at all for example !
He lives in Sweden and has a "Bio farm" there. How he came there , by bicycle or even by feet ???
And everybody claims the aviation industry for the highest "emitter" take a sharp look wich industry it really is : power plants

iamlucky13 wrote:

Westerwaelder wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Different pollutants of concern - CO2 vs. particulate and sulfur dioxide. The former is a long term climate concern. The latter is a near term direct human health concern.

Of course, ships emit CO2, as well, but on a per ton-mile basis, are the most efficient way of moving cargo.

The first major regulation on sulfur emissions from vessels took effect for IMO members this year, by the way. This followed an initial regulation from 2005 that had minimal impact, but could be quickly implemented.

You are missing the point. The time for "they are worse, so they need to do something first" is coming to an end. We'll be seeing some radical shifts in policy over the next couple of years.

Yes, I've missed the point, because the point has not really been made. Regardless of whether your point is about aviation or shipping, both industries are doing something, not merely passing responsibility to others.

I will maintain my stance that the most significant efforts should come where the greatest cost-effectiveness is possible unless and until a compelling point is made to change that stance.

I stand corrected - on several fronts. Aviation and shipping are addressing climate change and it's clearly working.

The comments around "I fly xx time a year and it's a badge of honour" on here show, people have understood the challenge and are starting to shift behaviours.

And Old Joe in the comment below yours summed it up perfectly. As long as a bio farmer in Sweden produced at least some CO2, as long as I can point out that someone arguing for change isn't 100% perfect, as long as I can do that, why would I do anything different.

Nothing wrong with looking at cost effective solutions. Zoom replacing business travel is one of them. Starting to add the cost of pollution onto the products and services causing it is another. But none of it will be enough if people don't start recognise that everyone needs to change their behaviours. Then again, if the premise is that climate change is just a made up problem and California wildfires are due to bad forest management, then I'd say all is we. Off to turn my heating up full and open the windows...

It's a shame the media are focused on air travel's environmental impact, instead of a far more horrific source of environmental harm: dogs and cats.

Every day, the US's pet cat population kills at least 750,000 innocent, defenseless birds.

However, dogs are even worse for the environment than cats are. Producing the food eaten by dogs, and hauling it to dog owners' homes, generates the same amount of pollutants as 17 Million SUVs do.

Everything dogs eat has to come out the other end. The volume of fecal matter spewed out by America's dogs is equal to the volume of garbage generated by every person in the state of Massachusetts. A few people pick up their dogs' excrement, which means more energy has to be consumed to haul it to landfills. However, most dog owners prefer to leave their dogs' fecal matter on sidewalks and lawns, where it eventually washes into streams and rivers, which contributes to water pollution.

People should not feel guilty about flying on an airplane, because aviation contributes relatively little to the planet's environmental problems. However, people should feel guilty if they own a dog, especially if their dog is a large dog like a great dane or a german shepherd that eats a lot and defecates a lot. It would be nice if the Guardian and other media outlets started shaming people for owning dogs and cats, and encouraged them to live without pets, because fewer pets will have a MAJOR impact on climate change!

WA707atMSP wrote:

It's a shame the media are focused on air travel's environmental impact, instead of a far more horrific source of environmental harm: dogs and cats.

Every day, the US's pet cat population kills at least 750,000 innocent, defenseless birds.

However, dogs are even worse for the environment than cats are. Producing the food eaten by dogs, and hauling it to dog owners' homes, generates the same amount of pollutants as 17 Million SUVs do.

Everything dogs eat has to come out the other end. The volume of fecal matter spewed out by America's dogs is equal to the volume of garbage generated by every person in the state of Massachusetts. A few people pick up their dogs' excrement, which means more energy has to be consumed to haul it to landfills. However, most dog owners prefer to leave their dogs' fecal matter on sidewalks and lawns, where it eventually washes into streams and rivers, which contributes to water pollution.

People should not feel guilty about flying on an airplane, because aviation contributes relatively little to the planet's environmental problems. However, people should feel guilty if they own a dog, especially if their dog is a large dog like a great dane or a german shepherd that eats a lot and defecates a lot. It would be nice if the Guardian and other media outlets started shaming people for owning dogs and cats, and encouraged them to live without pets, because fewer pets will have a MAJOR impact on climate change!

You are right but I think you don't go far enough. Humans! That's the biggest problem. We should immediately get rid of at least a 1/3 of human population (provided, of course, that we find an ecological way to dispose of them)! And, since we will have to choose who to start with, I think people who spend their time posting on an aviation fan forum should definetely be in the first batch!

COVID is helping rid us of these terrible humans. Now, if the fearful would let us out to boost the process, we’d get it done.

workhorse wrote:

WA707atMSP wrote:

It's a shame the media are focused on air travel's environmental impact, instead of a far more horrific source of environmental harm: dogs and cats.

Every day, the US's pet cat population kills at least 750,000 innocent, defenseless birds.

However, dogs are even worse for the environment than cats are. Producing the food eaten by dogs, and hauling it to dog owners' homes, generates the same amount of pollutants as 17 Million SUVs do.

Everything dogs eat has to come out the other end. The volume of fecal matter spewed out by America's dogs is equal to the volume of garbage generated by every person in the state of Massachusetts. A few people pick up their dogs' excrement, which means more energy has to be consumed to haul it to landfills. However, most dog owners prefer to leave their dogs' fecal matter on sidewalks and lawns, where it eventually washes into streams and rivers, which contributes to water pollution.

People should not feel guilty about flying on an airplane, because aviation contributes relatively little to the planet's environmental problems. However, people should feel guilty if they own a dog, especially if their dog is a large dog like a great dane or a german shepherd that eats a lot and defecates a lot. It would be nice if the Guardian and other media outlets started shaming people for owning dogs and cats, and encouraged them to live without pets, because fewer pets will have a MAJOR impact on climate change!

You are right but I think you don't go far enough. Humans! That's the biggest problem. We should immediately get rid of at least a 1/3 of human population (provided, of course, that we find an ecological way to dispose of them)! And, since we will have to choose who to start with, I think people who spend their time posting on an aviation fan forum should definetely be in the first batch!

Naah, I think it would be better if we got rid of the humans who love dogs first. That way, not only would there be fewer humans, but also there would be no dogs. Think how much better the environment would be, think how nice it would be to never again be shamed for flying, and think how wonderful it would be to never again step in dog feces on a sidewalk!

I'd be interested to see an evaluation of the impact of first/business class travel vs. private aviation. How many first/business class flights can you take in a year to equal the emissions of a single flight on a private jet.

Before getting hung up on those 750,000 birds, think of all the Mice and other Rodents.

Do you know how rapidly they multiply.

btfarrwm wrote:

I'd be interested to see an evaluation of the impact of first/business class travel vs. private aviation. How many first/business class flights can you take in a year to equal the emissions of a single flight on a private jet.

This is an excellent point. I feel that far too many celebrities say they are environmentalists, but travel around the world on private aircraft while encouraging everyone else to pollute less. This means you, Leonardo diCaprio!

Dahlgardo wrote:

LCCs stimulates over consumption of air travel, over tourism and pollution. That should not be a surprise to anyone. But then again, LCCs are also smart because they know many people are selfish enough, not to give a [email protected] about the consequences of their consumer choices.

LCCs fly the newest fuel efficient low pollution aircraft and filll every seat efficiently. They are vital and essential airlines.

Dreadful heritage legacy airlines fly half empty 20 year old inefficient airlines with lots of underutilised space on board and the encourage silly unnecessary travel via silly mileage programmes. Step one , ban mileage programmes ...... ban non revenue staff travel etc. Massive tax penalities every time a legacy carrier takes off with an empty overpriced seat

WA707atMSP wrote:

btfarrwm wrote:

I'd be interested to see an evaluation of the impact of first/business class travel vs. private aviation. How many first/business class flights can you take in a year to equal the emissions of a single flight on a private jet.

This is an excellent point. I feel that far too many celebrities say they are environmentalists, but travel around the world on private aircraft while encouraging everyone else to pollute less. This means you, Leonardo diCaprio!

THEY. DO. NOT. CARE. I’ve operated bizjets for years, they don’t care, they’re above you, they’re not accountable. See Gavin Newsom.

I’ve seen owners demand an extra hour circling around so they could sleep. I’ve seen ONE person fly NYC-LON because he or she wanted to go in private and in their times.

Well, I hope to be adding a ton once flying is allowed for us, the great washed masses, gotta do my part. In the meantime, I’ll be tool’n round Boston in my 5 mpg, 1978 Jeep CJ.

WA707atMSP wrote:

However, dogs are even worse for the environment than cats are. Producing the food eaten by dogs, and hauling it to dog owners' homes, generates the same amount of pollutants as 17 Million SUVs do.

You have a source?

Everything dogs eat has to come out the other end. The volume of fecal matter spewed out by America's dogs is equal to the volume of garbage generated by every person in the state of Massachusetts.

Can you expand?

...people should feel guilty if they own a dog, especially if their dog is a large dog like a great dane or a german shepherd that eats a lot and defecates a lot.

My wife is a bit stunted. That's nice. She eats a lot less.

Gotta get those Sky Pesos somehow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Considering entry into the top 1% income earners club globally is only around $36,000 per year, I think many posters to this thread may be making incorrect assumptions as to what these numbers mean on a practical level.

I'd wager that most of us on this board are in the top 1%.

PM wrote:

According to a recent study, 1% of people cause half of global aviation emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... y-covid-19

Maybe the solution is for us all to live in poverty.

peterinlisbon wrote:

PM wrote:

According to a recent study, 1% of people cause half of global aviation emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... y-covid-19

Maybe the solution is for us all to live in poverty.

Just wait. At the current rate of global warming that will be the case in a few decades.