Yes, industries changing can lead to job losses and redundancies. That's what unemployment, education, and re-training is for - the EU does this much better than the US.
Understanding that things that are best for society at large are not necessarily ideal for you is a hallmark of civilisation, or do you want to be called, 100% truthfully, a Luddite?
oldJoe wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:In all of this, more than tiny steps but not giant steps. Improve surface transportation, electrify about everything at a fairly fast pace, start with moderate taxes on fossil fuels, but stepping up from time to time. Boeing is planning on bio fuels by 2030. No one needs to quit flying, but how about business flying drop by 30-50%, make every air trip count. Hire more people, have more fun, go even more places- if we do it right everyone wins.
Airbus already carried out test flights in March and April of this year with an A350 which was fueled with 100% SAF. ( not blended )
That is already going in the right direction and will definitely be the future, but at what price? If you read the article critically, you will notice something up to the refueling of the aircraft with SAF. Transported by ship from Finland to Rotterdam and by truck to Toulouse does not sound very climate-friendly !?
from the articleThen, in April, DLR’s Falcon 20E "chase" aircraft equipped with a “sniffer” (i.e. sensors) will follow 50 metres behind the A350 test aircraft to measure the emissions directly from the SAF-fuelled engine exhaust.
So, a Dassault Falcon 20E-5 in service since 1976 claims to be a "flying laboratory for environmental and climate research" ??? They want to fool us whenever they can !
As always, the only winners are not aviation fanatics or the little traveler, but the ...
Again, biofuel is a make it look like we're doing something so that we can push the problem back another 10 years solution. Here's an article from 2008, expected Air NZ to use 10% biofuel by 2013: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... test-plane
Did it happen? Don't believe so.
The Montreal Protocol (ozone) is notable because it largely said "Achieve these outcomes. If you can't do what you used to do, too bad." Aircraft fire extinguishers and medical devices were basically the only exceptions, but I believe even those are being tightened up.
The equivalent would be saying that all new planes must run on 50% biofuel by 2030, and existing ones upgraded or decommissioned by 2035. If you can't do that, no more flying.
For what it's worth, arguing about the test platforms is stupid. Do you want to complain about research and testing of heat-pumps and furnaces occurring in climate-controlled chambers to ensure consistent test conditions? You need to be inefficient to do the science; the end result is worth it and using a brand-new plane for at most a few hundred hours per year would be a waste of a good plane.