Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

wildlife, gardening, environment, Rural living, Pets and Vets
swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388320

Postby swill453 » February 21st, 2021, 3:17 am

DiamondEcho wrote:Meanwhile what did St Greta do to get back from the US to Sweden, walk on water perhaps?

See above. She hitched a ride on the catamaran La Vagabonde to Spain. Onward travel was by train.

Scott.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388433

Postby Lootman » February 21st, 2021, 2:54 pm

dspp wrote:
DiamondEcho wrote:
dspp wrote:There is something rather odd in the way some people feel the need to spread malicious lies about a young girl.

It seems obvious to me, the weird anger at the world of the squinted-eye multi-mullionaire pre-teen savant as she sails the world on a mega-carbon yacht (and flies back business class avec entire crew, of course) to er... protest againt, well carbon emissions. Hot air indeed, but very profitable it seems. She's been quiet of late; did she retire by 16?

I'm sorry DE, but please provide specific proof that GT flew back, business class or economy. Actual proof wrt to GT herself.

Absent proof, please stop spreading malicious lies.

I do not know whether Greta, or some of her entourage, took that flight. But can we say with absolute certainty that none of her "team" have ever taken a flight?

Not that I care if they have because I am not hung up on flying. But if they are claiming that flying is evil and should never be done, then she would lose a lot of credibility if in fact she or they have used flights and then kept quiet about it.

I suspect that anyone who creates a media storm is indirectly contributing to a lot of carbon emissions, e.g. journalists flying to where she is protesting, politicians flying to have meetings with her, and so on. And I am fairly sure she turned up at the UN in a limo and not on a bicycle.

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388437

Postby dspp » February 21st, 2021, 3:03 pm

Lootman wrote:
dspp wrote:
DiamondEcho wrote:It seems obvious to me, the weird anger at the world of the squinted-eye multi-mullionaire pre-teen savant as she sails the world on a mega-carbon yacht (and flies back business class avec entire crew, of course) to er... protest againt, well carbon emissions. Hot air indeed, but very profitable it seems. She's been quiet of late; did she retire by 16?

I'm sorry DE, but please provide specific proof that GT flew back, business class or economy. Actual proof wrt to GT herself.

Absent proof, please stop spreading malicious lies.

I do not know whether Greta, or some of her entourage, took that flight. But can we say with absolute certainty that none of her "team" have ever taken a flight?

Not that I care if they have because I am not hung up on flying. But if they are claiming that flying is evil and should never be done, then she would lose a lot of credibility if in fact she or they have used flights and then kept quiet about it.

I suspect that anyone who creates a media storm is indirectly contributing to a lot of carbon emissions, e.g. journalists flying to where she is protesting, politicians flying to have meetings with her, and so on. And I am fairly sure she turned up at the UN in a limo and not on a bicycle.


Good, we agree she did not fly.

What others choose to do is up to them. She chose not to fly, and organised herself to avoid it.

regards, dspp

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388461

Postby 88V8 » February 21st, 2021, 4:18 pm

No one needs to fly. Leave aside military applications of course.
If all commercial flight stopped tomorrow, the world would still turn and we could still travel.
The downside would be that all the numbskulls who currently spend summer hols baking their stupid carcases on the Costas would be holidaying in the UK. We've seen some of their behaviour locally with gates left open, litter, people pooing in hedgerows, an explosion of anti-social behaviour.

But I wonder how the comparative carbon footprint would be if all holiday trips were by ship.

V8

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6563 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388463

Postby Lootman » February 21st, 2021, 4:22 pm

88V8 wrote:No one needs to fly. Leave aside military applications of course.

If all commercial flight stopped tomorrow, the world would still turn and we could still travel.

Europe is feasible by ferry and road/rail, but holiday destinations that are further afield are not practical by sea. For instance it takes about one month to reach Australia by sea from the UK. That is two months there and back. And the cost is about ten times the cost of flying.

Many resort locations are only accessible by cruise ship if you don't fly.

DiamondEcho
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3131
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:39 pm
Has thanked: 3060 times
Been thanked: 554 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388546

Postby DiamondEcho » February 21st, 2021, 9:29 pm

'Greta Thunberg's boat to be brought back by sailing team flying two crew to the US'.
https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/ ... 79721.html

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3606
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 1585 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388549

Postby gryffron » February 21st, 2021, 9:39 pm

88V8 wrote:But I wonder how the comparative carbon footprint would be if all holiday trips were by ship.

I suspect much worse.

Ton for ton, ships are way more efficient than aircraft. But people can be crammed in like sardines for a few hours on a plane. If spending days on a ship, they need a lot of space so the overhead per passenger is enormous. Cabin space, food, staff, restaurants, entertainment...

Gryff

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3606
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 1585 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388555

Postby gryffron » February 21st, 2021, 10:05 pm

88V8 wrote:But I wonder how the comparative carbon footprint would be if all holiday trips were by ship

Here we go. Got the figures from the web.
London to New York. 3500 miles.
Queen Mary 2 - 4 1/2 days @ 430 tons/day = 1950 tons fuel / 2620 passengers = 0.75 tons fuel/passenger
Jumbo jet.. 8 hours @ 11 tons/hour = 88 tons fuel / 366 passengers = 0.25 tons fuel/passenger.

So travel by cruise ship 3x worse than flying. Ballpark.

Gryff

Midsmartin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 778
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 7:18 am
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 491 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388556

Postby Midsmartin » February 21st, 2021, 10:13 pm

The thing about flying is that is so easy and quick. If ship were the only way to cross the Atlantic, fewer people would do so. Plus there would be 'economy' sailings that'd use less fuel per person than a posh liner by cramming in the passengers. Clearly (to me) we all need to do a bit less of nearly everything.

I also get a bit annoyed about cries of 'hypocrisy' pointing at climatologists or campaigners who've traveled while trying to make the world better. 1) it's a crude distraction from engaging with the actual environmental problem, by those who want to ignore it and 2) they couldn't achieve anything if they never left their house except by bicycle

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388663

Postby dspp » February 22nd, 2021, 11:08 am

gryffron wrote:
88V8 wrote:But I wonder how the comparative carbon footprint would be if all holiday trips were by ship

Here we go. Got the figures from the web.
London to New York. 3500 miles.
Queen Mary 2 - 4 1/2 days @ 430 tons/day = 1950 tons fuel / 2620 passengers = 0.75 tons fuel/passenger
Jumbo jet.. 8 hours @ 11 tons/hour = 88 tons fuel / 366 passengers = 0.25 tons fuel/passenger.

So travel by cruise ship 3x worse than flying. Ballpark.

Gryff


Your ballpark is grossly incorrect I am afraid, as is your terminology.

Queen Mary crossing London-New York 3500 miles in 4.5 days (108 hrs) is doing 32-knots. (Actually Southampton > New York is 3632 nm, so 33.6 kts)

However large shipping economic motoring speeds are typically approximately 12-knots, going up to maximum 20-knots for fast commercial traffic.

If you are doing 33-knots you are at the screaming limit of the "hull limiting speed" for a ship of the size of the Queen Mary. You are literally digging a hole in the water the entire way. That is why the QM2 is so long, simply to be able to do 33 kts.

If you look at typical speed vs fuel efficiency curves for large commercial vessels (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3315300127) you will see the ordinary curves don't go beyond 20-knots. There is a very good reason for that and the shape of the curves tells you why.

Queen Mary 2 is 80,000 tonnes displacement, 345m length. The commercial car carrier in the research paper I cited is 200m, 32,000 tonnes. I've done the transatlantic crossing a few times in comparable vessels and we generally did about 12-18 kts, and you can quite happily put 2500 passengers on something of 32,000 tonnes in a fair degree of comfort, complete with food/water/etc. Certainly a similar level of comfort to most UK housing stock and most UK lifestyles. Such a vessel would easily have provision for a 3-tier ticketing.

Look at the fuel curves for the 32,000 tonne vessel and you will see that at 15-knots you will burn 35 tons/day, and at 15-knots it will take 10.1 days, so 350 tons. Divide 2500 passengers into that and you get 0.14 tons fuel per passenger per crossing.

QUEEN MARY in LUXURY FAST LINER SERVICE = 0.75 tons @ 4.5-days
LARGE PLANE = 0.25 tons @ 0.5-days
ECONOMIC LINER = 0.14 tons @ 10-days

Overnight cruise ships are generally doing 12-18 knots by the way, not the 34 knots you think the Queen Mary is doing. She is doing the 34 knots in luxury fast liner service, not as a cruise ship. Cruise ships are generally trying to make their overnight passage so as to arrive at an economic speed about dawn, minimum fuel use.

regards, dspp

JamesMuenchen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 668
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388678

Postby JamesMuenchen » February 22nd, 2021, 11:40 am

Midsmartin wrote:I also get a bit annoyed about cries of 'hypocrisy' pointing at climatologists or campaigners who've traveled while trying to make the world better. 1) it's a crude distraction from engaging with the actual environmental problem, by those who want to ignore it and 2) they couldn't achieve anything if they never left their house except by bicycle

Normally, the objection is that they expect the rest of us to achieve what we need to do without air travel while they carry on using it.

It's a counter-productive argument that says "we can't have a [climate] conference without everyone being physically in the same site".
Because there is nothing special about a climate conference.

At least GT took alternative transport. The problem with that is that is she spent 15 days to cross the Atlantic, was a day late and had to poop in a bucket. She would also have needed a few days to get to Plymouth in the first place.

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3606
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 1585 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388711

Postby gryffron » February 22nd, 2021, 1:05 pm

dspp wrote:However large shipping economic motoring speeds are typically approximately 12-knots, going up to maximum 20-knots for fast commercial traffic.

Internet quotes 29kts cruising speed as "typical" for QM2. I guess cruise ships generally go faster than bulk cargo cos they have places to get, and aren't ultimately guided by fuel cost.

You could equally quote that I picked a jumbo jet which is pretty ancient design and isn't the most efficient of modern aircraft. And the capacity I used includes the first class seats, so that isn't optimised either.

But regardless. Even using your numbers, I think the conclusion we should take here is that even if we could encourage tourists to use "cattle class" passenger shipping, the impact isn't going to be much different from aircraft.

Gryff

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388714

Postby dspp » February 22nd, 2021, 1:07 pm

gryffron wrote:
dspp wrote:However large shipping economic motoring speeds are typically approximately 12-knots, going up to maximum 20-knots for fast commercial traffic.

Internet quotes 29kts cruising speed as "typical" for QM2. I guess cruise ships generally go faster than bulk cargo cos they have places to get, and aren't ultimately guided by fuel cost.

You could equally quote that I picked a jumbo jet which is pretty ancient design and isn't the most efficient of modern aircraft.

But regardless. Even using your numbers, I think the conclusion we should take here is that even if we could encourage tourists to use "bulk" passenger shipping, the impact isn't going to be much different from aircraft.

Gryff


Gryff,
You are confusing a "cruise" liner with a fast passenger liner. But nonetheless if you want to go fast it costs money, and carbon. Go back in the day and there were a wide range of transatlantic speeds - not all the transatlantic liners went fast. An economic speed tens to be in the 12-18 kts range. Believe me, I've done it.
regards, dspp

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3606
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 1585 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388724

Postby gryffron » February 22nd, 2021, 1:39 pm

dspp wrote:You are confusing a "cruise" liner with a fast passenger liner.

I'm using typical figures that were easily available for a modern (and hopefully quite efficient) passenger ship.

I fully concede cruise liners have theatres and casinos and comforts and lots of staff and various other non-essential passenger spaces. But the slower you go, the more recreation you're going to have to provide. By your own figures, even your proposed slow cattle boat is no more fuel efficient than an all-tourist-class modern aircraft. So the conclusion is the same: Moving passengers from aircraft to ships doesn't help solve the emissions problem.

Gryff

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2574
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388733

Postby vrdiver » February 22nd, 2021, 1:56 pm

gryffron wrote: So the conclusion is the same: Moving passengers from aircraft to ships doesn't help solve the emissions problem.

But an alternative conclusion might be "limiting aircraft passengers would discourage more people from travelling long distances". Now that would help to solve the emissions problem!

VRD

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3793 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388750

Postby Mike4 » February 22nd, 2021, 2:40 pm

vrdiver wrote:
gryffron wrote: So the conclusion is the same: Moving passengers from aircraft to ships doesn't help solve the emissions problem.

But an alternative conclusion might be "limiting aircraft passengers would discourage more people from travelling long distances". Now that would help to solve the emissions problem!

VRD


Indeed. There seems to be an implicit assumption in recent posts that people collectively are entitled to travel around the globe regardless of the environmental damage being caused. Limiting (then reducing) the number of carbon-fueled passenger miles travelled by the human race in total seems to me to be the obvious way to make progress, whatever the method of transport used.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388752

Postby dealtn » February 22nd, 2021, 2:48 pm

Mike4 wrote:
vrdiver wrote:
gryffron wrote: So the conclusion is the same: Moving passengers from aircraft to ships doesn't help solve the emissions problem.

But an alternative conclusion might be "limiting aircraft passengers would discourage more people from travelling long distances". Now that would help to solve the emissions problem!

VRD


Indeed. There seems to be an implicit assumption in recent posts that people collectively are entitled to travel around the globe regardless of the environmental damage being caused. Limiting (then reducing) the number of carbon-fueled passenger miles travelled by the human race in total seems to me to be the obvious way to make progress, whatever the method of transport used.


Should we also limit, or stop, international trade, eating food grown overseas, eating meat products, non-international transport, ... ? They all contribute to similar problems. Isn't this about deciding where the "line is drawn". We won't all agree on where that should be.

JamesMuenchen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 668
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 167 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388753

Postby JamesMuenchen » February 22nd, 2021, 2:48 pm

dspp wrote:I'm sorry DE, but please provide specific proof that GT flew back, business class or economy. Actual proof wrt to GT herself.

Absent proof, please stop spreading malicious lies.

- dspp

I don't want to validate DE's exaggeration, but aren't you being a bit dogmatic there?

The yacht's voyage was entirely on her behalf … her team displaced two crew … two crew flew over for the voyage back.
Net, there were two extra transatlantic flights in order to get her and her companion to the conference.
All for her to say "I shouldn't be here" :)

The flights were reportedly offset, but by your standard is trading carbon offsets admissable if it's only what you do personally that counts?

John Kerry was recently in some controversy for flying a private jet to Iceland to pick up an award for protecting the environment, which he justified by using offsets.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... i-BB1dlStM

And of course, Tesla's profitability so far has mainly been the result of carbon trading which has enabled other car-makers to sell more "dino-juice" vehicles.

Do you think carbon trading should be allowed?

Mike4 wrote:Limiting (then reducing) the number of carbon-fueled passenger miles travelled by the human race in total seems to me to be the obvious way to make progress, whatever the method of transport used.

Agreed. Luckily, the pandemic has done a lot to convince business that they don't need to meet all in one place.

I wonder if travelling to climate conferences will be a thing of the past?

Midsmartin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 778
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 7:18 am
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 491 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388754

Postby Midsmartin » February 22nd, 2021, 2:57 pm

dealtn wrote:
Should we also limit, or stop, international trade, eating food grown overseas, eating meat products, non-international transport, ... ? They all contribute to similar problems. Isn't this about deciding where the "line is drawn". We won't all agree on where that should be.


Well, yes, I think we really should be finding ways of limiting these things. Air-freighting food to the UK (as an example) has only been possible for the merest blip of human existence. There is no reason to think all this activity is compatible with the continued existence of a modern civilisation, and plenty of reasons to think it's not.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388755

Postby scrumpyjack » February 22nd, 2021, 2:58 pm

One of the problems with flying is the absence of tax on aviation fuel making flying artificially cheap.

Ideally we would tax it at the same rate as petrol.

Obviously the problem is that it wouldn't work unless other countries had a similar level of tax.


Return to “The Natural World”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests