Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to uspaul666,WrongLicence388,CryptoPlankton,Anonymous,Instep, for Donating to support the site

Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

wildlife, gardening, environment, Rural living, Pets and Vets
Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 8320
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 1469 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357935

Postby Lootman » November 18th, 2020, 10:34 pm

dspp wrote:
Lootman wrote: On the one side we have the self-styled "expert" .

When it comes to renewables/energy, or wider engineering fields, please note it is you who are throwing the moniker at me in a pejorative manner, rather than a term I have applied to myself. If you can find a flaw in my reasoning in those topic areas please draw it to my attention so I can learn.

I was not casting doubt on the extent of your professional competence in this field. I do not know enough to know either way but I always like to give others here the benefit of the doubt, so will accept that at face value.

Rather my point was that experts, scientists, technologists, engineers, specialists, whatever you want to call them, only get you so far. They are inputs into the debate, as are many others. But they do not decide the outcome - rather that is a political and democratic decision.

So when it comes to deciding what we do, if anything, about this alleged problem then your vote doesn't count more than anyone else's. Being informed may be necessary but cannot be sufficient. The voters are entitled to disregard the science if they hold other factors to be more vital to their wellbeing, like freedom, mobility and prosperity.

But if you thought I was being pejorative then I apologise.

dealtn
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2214
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 775 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357973

Postby dealtn » November 19th, 2020, 8:49 am

Lootman wrote:Rather my point was that experts, scientists, technologists, engineers, specialists, whatever you want to call them, only get you so far. They are inputs into the debate, as are many others. But they do not decide the outcome - rather that is a political and democratic decision.



There is usually another consideration, and one where the "expert" is rarely a visible part of the debate, and often ignored by the vocal minority ensuring the issue is visible to the wider audience. It isn't just scientific expert vs individual liberty.

Often the thought is with the person having to "give up" something they are used to, or have an (expected) "right" to. A bigger issue is usually with the person who has yet to acquire that "right", or the economic means to purchase it, yet sees the unfairness in being denied the future use or right. These are the conflicts that ultimately lead to global strains and can spill over not just into global trade conflicts, but potentially wars at the extreme.

You will often have scientists (even assuming they agree) that will present a logical path of, for example, flying uses carbon, which produces emissions, they harm the planet, now and into the future, which are (clearly!) a bad thing, so we need to reduce (or stop). You rarely see the counter from the "social scientist" who points out that by stopping there is a potential for the imbalances in the worlds economies to remain. The (often Western) scientist is saying, it seems, the West has developed an economy where it is "richer" and enjoying the fruits of that wealth, and is now denying the developing world its opportunity to access those (future) benefits when it catches up, or overtakes.

China, or India, or Brazil, or Russia.... doesn't view an imposition to restrict flying, or the ownership of a fridge, or a car ... as a fair outcome, and its unlikely the West will be proposing a solution where only 50% of its population has a fridge, or bans second cars etc. to rebalance either.

So you have a scientist saying if we don't stop flying, polluting, using up the worlds resources ... the (future) population of the planet will be harmed, extreme weather events, millions killed etc., but you don't have the social scientist countering with the possible outcomes of the proposed solution which might lead to global tensions, trade wars, actual wars, that in turn mean economic harm, loss of life etc.

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2619
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 719 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#358011

Postby GoSeigen » November 19th, 2020, 10:06 am

dealtn wrote:I responded to someone who suggested that we should be rationing people's air miles. I thought such rationing would reduce the number of people flying by 1 or 2 a flight. In which case virtually the same emissions would occur. I then asked what had I missed? Maybe that 1, or 2, isn't the correct number and that rationing would be more strict such that total flights would fall significantly, and with it emissions. In which case that can be pointed out and explained to me.

If you think it should be the case that the 1% should fly the same as the rest of the population, even given that 99% would have varying amounts of flying to "match" with, surely the likely outcome would be close to no airlines and no flights. Sure we would have no emissions, but I'm not sure that's a desirable outcome. Or is it?


Not commenting about the rights and wrongs, but wondering what is difficult about this?


Let's do a thought experiment and assume that each the 1% create the same amount of emissions as the average on each flight taken (which dspp is suggesting may not be the case but I am simplifying here). So the average journey of the 1% creates the same emissions as the average journey of other flyers.

Now pretend that there are two flights per day. (There are in reality thousands, but this makes it easier to understand.) One plane (A) is filled with the 1%. The other (B) is filled with other people. Each plane travels the same distance on its route.

Every day plane A carries the same people. Every day plane B carries a different (new) set of people. After 100 days the 1% make up 1% of the population who have flown (1 plane-full of unique people vs 100 planes-full). But they have created 50% of the emissions, because they have flown on 50% of the journeys. Effectively the 1% fly all over the place everyday whilst each of the others have only flown once.


The thought experiment can be adjusted for dspp's points: so if the 1% use 3 times as much emissions on each flight, then make plane A one third as full but everyone flies for 33 days instead of 100.


So by my reckoning the average flight would be about half full if the rationing limited all passengers to the same amount of flying as the 99%.

Have I missed anything?

GS

dealtn
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2214
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 775 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#358015

Postby dealtn » November 19th, 2020, 10:11 am

GoSeigen wrote:
dealtn wrote:I responded to someone who suggested that we should be rationing people's air miles. I thought such rationing would reduce the number of people flying by 1 or 2 a flight. In which case virtually the same emissions would occur. I then asked what had I missed? Maybe that 1, or 2, isn't the correct number and that rationing would be more strict such that total flights would fall significantly, and with it emissions. In which case that can be pointed out and explained to me.

If you think it should be the case that the 1% should fly the same as the rest of the population, even given that 99% would have varying amounts of flying to "match" with, surely the likely outcome would be close to no airlines and no flights. Sure we would have no emissions, but I'm not sure that's a desirable outcome. Or is it?


Not commenting about the rights and wrongs, but wondering what is difficult about this?


Let's do a thought experiment and assume that each the 1% create the same amount of emissions as the average on each flight taken (which dspp is suggesting may not be the case but I am simplifying here). So the average journey of the 1% creates the same emissions as the average journey of other flyers.

Now pretend that there are two flights per day. (There are in reality thousands, but this makes it easier to understand.) One plane (A) is filled with the 1%. The other (B) is filled with other people. Each plane travels the same distance on its route.

Every day plane A carries the same people. Every day plane B carries a different (new) set of people. After 100 days the 1% make up 1% of the population who have flown (1 plane-full of unique people vs 100 planes-full). But they have created 50% of the emissions, because they have flown on 50% of the journeys. Effectively the 1% fly all over the place everyday whilst each of the others have only flown once.


The thought experiment can be adjusted for dspp's points: so if the 1% use 3 times as much emissions on each flight, then make plane A one third as full but everyone flies for 33 days instead of 100.


So by my reckoning the average flight would be about half full if the rationing limited all passengers to the same amount of flying as the 99%.

Have I missed anything?

GS


What is difficult is the "pretending".

What practical measures do you suggest to "ration" the 1% in the real world, and how will that play out in the real world do you think? Thought experiments about plane A always having the high flyers, and plane B the others, bears no relationship to the reality of the world that I can see.

GoSeigen
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2619
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 719 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#358057

Postby GoSeigen » November 19th, 2020, 11:57 am

dealtn wrote:What is difficult is the "pretending".

Well if you can't accept an abstract form of argument then what do you suggest? How does the real world look to you?

What practical measures do you suggest to "ration" the 1% in the real world, and how will that play out in the real world do you think? Thought experiments about plane A always having the high flyers, and plane B the others, bears no relationship to the reality of the world that I can see.


I have no opinion about how to ration or if it should even be done, so will leave that to its proponents to answer.

GS

dealtn
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2214
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 775 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#358062

Postby dealtn » November 19th, 2020, 12:07 pm

GoSeigen wrote:
dealtn wrote:What is difficult is the "pretending".

Well if you can't accept an abstract form of argument then what do you suggest? How does the real world look to you?



I can accept an abstract argument.

What you said was "what is difficult?", to which I answered. A hypothetical abstract argument is difficult to apply to the real world. If the real world had just the 2 sets of planes, and their users, as you describe I think we could both agree answers to the practical problem wouldn't be difficult.

However, in answer to your subsequent question, the real world looks different to me (and probably to you and others too). That is why solutions to the problem are so difficult. It is all well and good having the problem pointed out, but devising practical solutions to it isn't so easy. As you appear to concede yourself with the statement "I have no opinion about how to ration or if it should even be done...", and as you say it is up to the proponents to answer that. Yet that rarely appears to happen.

A degree of rationing already occurs via tax imposition etc. but the suggestion is either that isn't working, or more should be done in addition.

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 8320
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 1469 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#358100

Postby Lootman » November 19th, 2020, 2:34 pm

dealtn wrote:solutions to the problem are so difficult. It is all well and good having the problem pointed out, but devising practical solutions to it isn't so easy. As you appear to concede yourself with the statement "I have no opinion about how to ration or if it should even be done...", and as you say it is up to the proponents to answer that. Yet that rarely appears to happen.

A degree of rationing already occurs via tax imposition etc. but the suggestion is either that isn't working, or more should be done in addition.

Yes, like a lot of "think tank" reports, there is a lot of detailing about the problem but little about what to do about it. Scientists are better at observing and collating than they are at planning and action. But I only saw 2 ideas in the article for an implementation:

1) Fiddling around with taxes and fees. This of course already happens and the UK is a world leader in dumping taxes and artificial costs onto flying, from the notoriously expensive air passenger tax to BA and Virgin's usurious fees on cashing in air miles. More of that will just drive air passengers to originate elsewhere which is already worth doing if you are not in a rush. And the article itself casts doubt this would be effective - the rich will still fly anyway so it would really just deny flying to the poor, whilst the article tries to claim it is the rich who cause the problem.

2) Rationing, which begs a bunch of questions about how that could ever work. If the UK tells me I can only fly once a year out of the UK, what is to stop me crossing by land and sea to Dublin, Brussels, Paris or Amsterdam, and then flying from there? What about UK residents who have a non-UK passport? How on earth would any of this be tracked and enforced? How much aviation and other business would the UK lose to other nations? Something like this could even drive residency decisions, again for those with the means to do so.

Dod101
Lemon Half
Posts: 6841
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 1580 times
Been thanked: 2788 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#358113

Postby Dod101 » November 19th, 2020, 3:27 pm

I think in general we have the wrong end of the stick. It is not the passenger that needs to have his air travel rationed it is the airlines themselves. Do not build another runway at Heathrow and so restrict the number of flights that leave from there. This is though an international industry if anything is so it will need an international solution. Any chance of that? Not the slightest so it is all just so much hot air.

Like the motor vehicle, it will need a massive and fundamental change of fuel from kerosene to something else. Flying is here to stay.

Dod

JamesMuenchen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 856
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 109 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#358335

Postby JamesMuenchen » November 20th, 2020, 10:34 am

A timely article on the topic from Bill Gates
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/17/coronav ... -term.html

It seems that business travel isn't all that special in terms of trips/revenue numbers -
Business travelers before the virus accounted for half of U.S. airlines’ revenue, but just 30% of the trips, according to Airlines for America, an industry group that represents most U.S. carriers.

Not all that much.

I get the feeling the "1% of the global population" might be 'us' rather than 'them'.


Return to “The Natural World”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests