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
Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357475

Postby Lootman » November 17th, 2020, 7:59 pm

dspp wrote:A rule of thumb I have seen is that cattle class are packed 3x as densely as biz-class, who are in turn packed 3x as tightly as first class. The revenues and profits flow similarly. If you take the airframe mass (and hence fuel fraction) as being apportionable to the area occupied - which is a fair approximation, given that airframe selection is also a variable in play - then the mass fraction allocated to each seat will follow the revenue, and in turn the energy consumption, and in turn the carbon footprint. (For simplicity I am ignoring premium economy). Remember that as a generalisation we know that airline profits are 80% business+first. You can find stuff online that gives the decimal points behind this if you want and try and understand what you are all looking for

One report I read had it a bit different i.e. that business class is the most profitable. First is less profitable. That is a big part of why many airlines do not have First any more. BA still does (but it is fairly crap). Virgin hasn't had it for years, if ever. The US airlines have abolished it except for AA Flagship, which is crap. Air France and Lufthansa have it, maybe Swiss (not sure) too but the other European airlines do not. Which leaves First as mostly Asian airlines and, inevitably, the over-the-top ME3.

Also, whether a passenger in F or J is producing more carbon depends on how you argue it. A BA Club World seat probably takes the space of 3 passengers in Economy. So if I fly CW am I producing more carbon than 3 passengers and their bags? Maybe if only because the CW seat is very heavy but I am not certain about that.

In BA First you are taking the space of 6 economy passengers. I can construct a reasonable argument that an "All F" BA Dreamliner or A350 might be the most carbon-friendly plane in the sky.

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

#357587

Postby dspp » November 18th, 2020, 9:29 am

Lootman wrote:A BA Club World seat probably takes the space of 3 passengers in Economy. So if I fly CW am I producing more carbon than 3 passengers and their bags? Maybe if only because the CW seat is very heavy but I am not certain about that.

In BA First you are taking the space of 6 economy passengers. I can construct a reasonable argument that an "All F" BA Dreamliner or A350 might be the most carbon-friendly plane in the sky.


As a very crude approximation that BA Club World at 3x BA Economy is also taking up 3x the airframe, 3x the wing lift, 3x the avionics, etc and so 3x the fuel. Now you can try to apportion this into fixed + variable, but I included the key phrase "given that airframe selection is also a variable in play" in my previous post in recognition of the fact that one would likely hit other loading constraints if you just tried to stuff an airframe full of max capacity PAX. And in turn one would then choose different airframes. So .... as a first approximation a Business seat is indeed 3x more polluting than a Economy seat, and correspondingly so (3x) for First vs Business.

You can come at the engineering calcs from a number of different directions, and come up with all sorts of distracting arguments, almost all specious, many already being wheeled out here. But ultimately if one accepts that there is a 'need' to fly humans longhaul around the world at a great carbon cost which is currently unsubstitutable, then one has to acknowledge that this should be done in as carbon-effective a manner as possible. That in turn comes from packing the humans in like sardines and only flying them on the most fuel-efficient routings, and with the most fuel-efficient load factors. So doing Mach 0.85-0.9 with narrow seats in single-class Economy with no hold baggage and just one EasyJet-compliant hand luggage and 85% seat-fill-factors is the way to do it. That 85% fill-factor would in turn mean quite long connections at airports so as to ensure the few planes that do fly are totally full. Funnily enough I think you'd find an enormous amount of the demand for that 'need' would evaporate if one got serious in just this way.

(The last time I flew BA first class was a very long flight indeed, and I slept like a baby the whole way. Regrettably that was quite a long time ago. I don't expect to ever do that again given what I have sketched out above.)

regards, dspp

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357598

Postby Lootman » November 18th, 2020, 10:01 am

dspp wrote:ultimately if one accepts that there is a 'need' to fly humans longhaul around the world at a great carbon cost which is currently unsubstitutable, then one has to acknowledge that this should be done in as carbon-effective a manner as possible. That in turn comes from packing the humans in like sardines and only flying them on the most fuel-efficient routings, and with the most fuel-efficient load factors. So doing Mach 0.85-0.9 with narrow seats in single-class Economy with no hold baggage and just one EasyJet-compliant hand luggage and 85% seat-fill-factors is the way to do it. That 85% fill-factor would in turn mean quite long connections at airports so as to ensure the few planes that do fly are totally full. Funnily enough I think you'd find an enormous amount of the demand for that 'need' would evaporate if one got serious in just this way.

The irony is that the recent (pre-Covid) trend was the exact opposite i.e. the emergence of ultra long haul non-stop flights. Examples are the Qantas non-stop from Perth to Heathrow and the Singapore Airlines non-stop from Singapore to New York City.

These 18 hours or so flights are possible because of new fuel-efficient planes like the 787 and A350. But on a flight that long, economy could literally be a killer. So these planes have premium-heavy configurations because people will pay up for a little more space and comfort on such a long flight. And that lighter load helps fuel efficiency, according to those airlines. The same plane packed with Economy passengers would have to stop en route.

Of course flying that much fuel around is a problem. The plane would use less fuel in total if there were an intermediate stop. But the demand is there for non-stop flights between major population centres, which is where most wealthier people live.

dspp wrote:(The last time I flew BA first class was a very long flight indeed, and I slept like a baby the whole way. Regrettably that was quite a long time ago. I don't expect to ever do that again given what I have sketched out above.)

BA's hard product in F is not competitive. Their soft product can be decent but it very much depends on what crew you have. But since Covid the soft service is miserable, no Concorde Room at LHR T5, no welcome on board champagne, and a meal served in a box that could be out of Economy. All to minimise human contact, they claim, but BA are loving the cost savings. So you may be right.

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

#357601

Postby vrdiver » November 18th, 2020, 10:07 am

We've discussed flying people around, but was I the only one to notice the number of aircraft flying during the Spring/Summer lockdown? There seemed to be an awful lot of cargo still being shipped around*.

Is there a similar argument to be made about the amount of produce that's air freighted and any that perhaps we need to ween ourselves off of? Does anybody have data on aviation emissions caused by, e.g. supermarket produce for example?

VRD

*and no, this isn't a "don't bother worrying about the 1% because there's a "whataboutery" problem over there that I want to distract you with. Just a question of whether there are additional aviation-based emissions that could be targeted for reduction?

As an aside, I used to teach linear programming to consultants, one exercise being on how to optimise cargo loading for aircraft, based on the airframe load and capacity restrictions - it's a well known industry problem/solution, but assumes that the decision/desire to ship by air is already made. We did expand the model to multimodal transportation (air, road, train, sea) and could optimise based on a number of factors, such as profit, cost, service (order fulfilment by due date), but we never factored carbon footprint into the optimality - something that's probably been added since my day!
Last edited by vrdiver on November 18th, 2020, 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

#357607

Postby dspp » November 18th, 2020, 10:10 am

Lootman wrote:The same plane packed with Economy passengers would have to stop en route.


Lootman wrote:The plane would use less fuel in total if there were an intermediate stop.


I think you are beginning to get it.

Lootman wrote:But on a flight that long, economy could literally be a killer.


Regarding the economy = killer:
1. I have been flying economy longhaul for most of my life. Biz & First are the exceptions in my life, though it has been nice when it has happened. Provided you take the recommended actions then it is not a health problem being in Economy for most people. Otherwise lawyers would be suing airlines and ICAO for selling death-seats, and they are not. Uncomfortable perhaps, deadly no.
2. For the people for whom it is a genuine problem, then maybe they are not fit enough to travel, and certainly should not be insurable.
3. The real issue is that most folks want an excuse to spend on themselves, "Because it is unhealthy" is a better marketing excuse than "Because I'm greedy". I am speaking from decades of watching my own family doing just this on just these flights ......

regards, dspp

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

#357612

Postby dspp » November 18th, 2020, 10:19 am

vrdiver wrote:We've discussed flying people around, but was I the only one to notice the number of aircraft flying during the Spring/Summer lockdown? There seemed to be an awful lot of cargo still being shipped around*.

Is there a similar argument to be made about the amount of produce that's air freighted and any that perhaps we need to ween ourselves off of? Does anybody have data on aviation emissions caused by, e.g. supermarket produce for example?

VRD

*and no, this isn't a "don't bother worrying about the 1% because there's a "whataboutery" problem over there that I want to distract you with. Just a question of whether there are additional aviation-based emissions that could be targeted for reduction?

As an aside, I used to teach linear programming to consultants, one exercise being on how to optimise cargo loading for aircraft, based on the airframe load and capacity restrictions - it's a well known industry problem/solution, but assumes that the decision/desire to ship by air is already made. We did expand the model to multimodal transportation (air, road, train, sea) and could optimise based on a number of factors, such as profit, cost, service (order fulfilment by due date), but we never factored carbon footprint into the optimality - something that's probably been added since my day!


VRD,
1. indeed this issue is being studied. For many markets long-haul electric cargo trains are a perfectly good answer.
2. Quite a lot of the perishable cargo simply did not get flown during lockdown. It has insufficient intrinsic value to drive the flypro itself, it can only hitchike. More locally sourced substitutes emerged, and the distant providers went bust or found other lines of work.
3. Increasingly carbon is one of the variables going into the multimodal LPs you are describing.
4. To the extent that air freight was unsubstitutable more freight-only planes were sourced/converted. Quite a lot of quick-conversions have happened.
5. It has made for some interesting times in industry the last 9-months. There has also been slow-steaming and reduced liner frequencies and reduced port calls in seafreight to add further complexity. Oh, and overstacked congested ports.

regards, dspp

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357633

Postby Lootman » November 18th, 2020, 10:45 am

dspp wrote:
Lootman wrote:The same plane packed with Economy passengers would have to stop en route.

Lootman wrote:The plane would use less fuel in total if there were an intermediate stop.

I think you are beginning to get it.

My point was more in relation to our discussion about whether the "problem" is Economy class flyers or "wealthy" Premium class flyers. The fact that a 787 can make it (just) from Perth to London non-stop with 100 Biz class passengers but cannot make it with 300 Economy class passengers tells me it is more fuel efficient to have fewer passengers with more space, period.

Those Economy class flyers who do not want to pay up for a premium seat will make a different decision e.g. fly via Dubai or some such. The passengers taking the ultra long non-stop flight are business flyers for whom saving a few hours is worth the extra cost. There is a market for both and you cannot expect airlines to do things that are not financially viable, especially given their current state.

My understanding (willing to be corrected if wrong) is that aviation (and shipping) falls outside international agreements on carbon emissions.

Anyway, Covid has helped your cause. 4-engined planes are now becoming as rare as 3-engined planes. BA has retired its large 747 fleet and mothballed its A380 fleet. Other airlines are dumping thirsty A340s and 767s. We can make progress without flight-shaming (yes, it's a phrase) people who want to enjoy a little luxury now and then.

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

#357642

Postby dspp » November 18th, 2020, 11:00 am

Lootman wrote:
dspp wrote:
Lootman wrote:The same plane packed with Economy passengers would have to stop en route.

Lootman wrote:The plane would use less fuel in total if there were an intermediate stop.

I think you are beginning to get it.

My point was more in relation to our discussion about whether the "problem" is Economy class flyers or "wealthy" Premium class flyers. The fact that a 787 can make it (just) from Perth to London non-stop with 100 Biz class passengers but cannot make it with 300 Economy class passengers tells me it is more fuel efficient to have fewer passengers with more space, period.


I think you should try doing the sums, then you may want to revise your opinion.

regards, dspp

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357780

Postby Lootman » November 18th, 2020, 3:10 pm

dspp wrote:
Lootman wrote:
dspp wrote:I think you are beginning to get it.

My point was more in relation to our discussion about whether the "problem" is Economy class flyers or "wealthy" Premium class flyers. The fact that a 787 can make it (just) from Perth to London non-stop with 100 Biz class passengers but cannot make it with 300 Economy class passengers tells me it is more fuel efficient to have fewer passengers with more space, period.

I think you should try doing the sums, then you may want to revise your opinion.

My point was restricted to this, which I contend remains true: The same Qantas 787 that can transport 100 business class pax 9,010 miles non-stop cannot transport 300 economy class pax that same distance, other things being equal. The weight of those 200 extra pax, and the extra fuel needed to transport them , makes the difference. The flight only works with 100 or so pax.

What that tells me is that the problem is not the 100 in the premium cabin, but the 200 in steerage. This confounds the point the Guardian was trying to amplify which was, utterly predictably for that organ, that this is yet another problem caused by rich people.

I am not denying climate change at all. I think it is real. I am not denying that commercial aviation adds to that problem. It does. My point was limited to contesting the idea that the problem is all due to a privileged class of people that just happens to be the same class of people that the Guardian is always kicking off about.

As for what to do about it, I will merely say the same thing I have said about Covid a few times on TLF. It is not a decision for scientists and technologists. It is a political decision which requires a balancing of the predictions of doom and gloom on the one hand, with the need for a vibrant world economy and freedom of movement.

Referendum, anyone?

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

#357812

Postby dspp » November 18th, 2020, 4:08 pm

Lootman wrote:
dspp wrote:
Lootman wrote:My point was more in relation to our discussion about whether the "problem" is Economy class flyers or "wealthy" Premium class flyers. The fact that a 787 can make it (just) from Perth to London non-stop with 100 Biz class passengers but cannot make it with 300 Economy class passengers tells me it is more fuel efficient to have fewer passengers with more space, period.

I think you should try doing the sums, then you may want to revise your opinion.

My point was restricted to this, which I contend remains true: The same Qantas 787 that can transport 100 business class pax 9,010 miles non-stop cannot transport 300 economy class pax that same distance, other things being equal. The weight of those 200 extra pax, and the extra fuel needed to transport them , makes the difference. The flight only works with 100 or so pax.

What that tells me is that the problem is not the 100 in the premium cabin, but the 200 in steerage. This confounds the point the Guardian was trying to amplify which was, utterly predictably for that organ, that this is yet another problem caused by rich people.

I am not denying climate change at all. I think it is real. I am not denying that commercial aviation adds to that problem. It does. My point was limited to contesting the idea that the problem is all due to a privileged class of people that just happens to be the same class of people that the Guardian is always kicking off about.

As for what to do about it, I will merely say the same thing I have said about Covid a few times on TLF. It is not a decision for scientists and technologists. It is a political decision which requires a balancing of the predictions of doom and gloom on the one hand, with the need for a vibrant world economy and freedom of movement.

Referendum, anyone?


You really really really do not want to admit that flying premium has a greater carbon cost do you.

regards, dspp

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4255
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 2628 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357813

Postby Gengulphus » November 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm

Lootman wrote:
dspp wrote:
Lootman wrote:The same plane packed with Economy passengers would have to stop en route.

Lootman wrote:The plane would use less fuel in total if there were an intermediate stop.

I think you are beginning to get it.

My point was more in relation to our discussion about whether the "problem" is Economy class flyers or "wealthy" Premium class flyers. The fact that a 787 can make it (just) from Perth to London non-stop with 100 Biz class passengers but cannot make it with 300 Economy class passengers tells me it is more fuel efficient to have fewer passengers with more space, period.

More fuel-efficient per plane flown, yes. More fuel-efficient per passenger flown, no - the factor of 3 gained by transporting 300 passengers rather than 100 will outweigh the factor lost due directly to the extra weight of passengers & luggage and indirectly to the extra fuel that needs to be carried.

Gengulphus

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357816

Postby Lootman » November 18th, 2020, 4:19 pm

dspp wrote:
Lootman wrote:
dspp wrote:I think you should try doing the sums, then you may want to revise your opinion.

My point was restricted to this, which I contend remains true: The same Qantas 787 that can transport 100 business class pax 9,010 miles non-stop cannot transport 300 economy class pax that same distance, other things being equal. The weight of those 200 extra pax, and the extra fuel needed to transport them , makes the difference. The flight only works with 100 or so pax.

What that tells me is that the problem is not the 100 in the premium cabin, but the 200 in steerage. This confounds the point the Guardian was trying to amplify which was, utterly predictably for that organ, that this is yet another problem caused by rich people.

I am not denying climate change at all. I think it is real. I am not denying that commercial aviation adds to that problem. It does. My point was limited to contesting the idea that the problem is all due to a privileged class of people that just happens to be the same class of people that the Guardian is always kicking off about.

As for what to do about it, I will merely say the same thing I have said about Covid a few times on TLF. It is not a decision for scientists and technologists. It is a political decision which requires a balancing of the predictions of doom and gloom on the one hand, with the need for a vibrant world economy and freedom of movement.
Referendum, anyone?

You really really really do not want to admit that flying premium has a greater carbon cost do you.

I am certainly not convinced by the claim that half the problem is 1% of the passengers who just happen to be the wealthier ones.

Nor am I convinced that one passenger in First taking the space that would otherwise carry 6 people in Economy is emitting more carbon.

However, to paraphrase the point that Gengulphus was making, it depends if those other 6 people are going to fly anyway. But whether I take a flight in First or stay at home does not, ipso facto, cause much of a difference either way. That empty seat weighs far more than me and my bags (about 200 kg. versus 100kg, say).

Back in the 1950s flying was something only rich people did and we did not have a carbon problem. It is the fact that everyone and his wife now flies, and at very low cost in many cases, that has led to the concern.

Howard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2178
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 885 times
Been thanked: 1017 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357836

Postby Howard » November 18th, 2020, 4:49 pm

Lootman wrote:I am certainly not convinced by the claim that half the problem is 1% of the passengers who just happen to be the wealthier ones.


I don't think you are addressing the issue raised by the survey. You appear to have raised a different issue with which you are disagreeing.

The study suggested: Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018".

I don't think this suggests that the wealthy individual, family or couple who go for a nice holiday every five years are the problem.

It is frequent flyers who are responsible for the pollution.

Some may justify their travel as a necessary business activity others may have personal reasons. And they are currently quite within their rights to carry on flying. But they are "super emitters" if you believe the survey.

regards

Howard

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357870

Postby Lootman » November 18th, 2020, 5:51 pm

Howard wrote:
Lootman wrote:I am certainly not convinced by the claim that half the problem is 1% of the passengers who just happen to be the wealthier ones.

I don't think you are addressing the issue raised by the survey. The study suggested: Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018".

I don't think this suggests that the wealthy individual, family or couple who go for a nice holiday every five years are the problem. It is frequent flyers who are responsible for the pollution.

Perhaps we got side-tracked by the issue of Economy class versus Business Class and that wasn't helpful.

I have flown over a million miles in my life, and have done about half of that on BA alone with whom I have "gold" status as a result. Does that make me a problem? Only a small part of that was on business, so I am usually paying for my own ticket, or using air miles of which I have a lot.

I have a wife whose family are all 5,000 miles away. There is no real way around that and I have made about 100 10,000 mile round-trips as a result, as has my wife. Other than that it is a couple of trips each to Canada, India, Hong Kong and Japan, and one to Australia. Plus the usual holidays in Europe.

Am I really the problem here? What about this guy?

https://nypost.com/2019/07/27/worlds-mo ... itinerary/

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

#357877

Postby dspp » November 18th, 2020, 6:23 pm

Lootman wrote: I have flown over a million miles in my life, and have done about half of that on BA alone with whom I have "gold" status as a result. Does that make me a problem?


Yes, that does make you a significant part of the problem, very typical of the 1%.


Lootman wrote: Only a small part of that was on business, so I am usually paying for my own ticket,


How it is paid for is irrelevant. But again what you describe is very typical.



Lootman wrote: I have a wife whose family are all 5,000 miles away. There is no real way around that ....


These are your choices. Many people make other choices.

Lootman wrote: Other than that it is a couple of trips each to Canada, India, Hong Kong and Japan, and one to Australia. Plus the usual holidays in Europe


Choices again, very typical 1% choices it seems.


Lootman wrote: Am I really the problem here? What about this guy?

https://nypost.com/2019/07/27/worlds-mo ... itinerary/


Excuses, excuses, ....

Look, I too have travelled by air a heck of a lot in the last 20-years, almost all on renewables/decarbonisation business. So I'm very aware of the issues, as indeed are all of us who have been doing that in these industries. That makes us even more sensitive to the reality that collectively as humans we have to change this. Personally, as a consequence, you will very seldom find me travelling long haul for pleasure (I can recall one long haul pleasure trip in those 20-years, and that was to visit someone who was not expected to last another year, and they didn't last unfortunately.) And my family is even more far-flung than yours. With luck I'll be able to do electric-TGV from London to Trieste or further in my time, or BEV to Athens, but for sure we do have to get aircraft emissions under control somehow. The first step is to acknowledge the problem. The second is to decide to act. The third step is to choose the action. Then do it.

regards, dspp

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357888

Postby Lootman » November 18th, 2020, 7:11 pm

dspp wrote:
Lootman wrote: I have a wife whose family are all 5,000 miles away. There is no real way around that ....

These are your choices. Many people make other choices.

Ah, I see, so for the sake of the planet I should have married a different woman? Should I divorce her now on ecological grounds?

dspp wrote:Look, I too have travelled by air a heck of a lot in the last 20-years, almost all on renewables/decarbonisation business. So I'm very aware of the issues, as indeed are all of us who have been doing that in these industries. That makes us even more sensitive to the reality that collectively as humans we have to change this. Personally, as a consequence, you will very seldom find me travelling long haul for pleasure (I can recall one long haul pleasure trip in those 20-years, and that was to visit someone who was not expected to last another year, and they didn't last unfortunately.) And my family is even more far-flung than yours. With luck I'll be able to do electric-TGV from London to Trieste or further in my time, or BEV to Athens, but for sure we do have to get aircraft emissions under control somehow. The first step is to acknowledge the problem. The second is to decide to act. The third step is to choose the action. Then do it.

With respect just because you work in that line of business doesn't mean that you are any more informed than anyone else on what should be done. That is a political decision i.e. something that is up to the people to decide.

I favour a gradual approach such as we have been seeing with everything from solar/wind/nuclear power to electric cars to more fuel-efficient aircraft. Maybe Musk will come up with an electric plane and that will be great.

And maybe at the margin we can do some things to slow the growth of aviation in future decades. But I cannot support for or vote for extreme measures that will harm the world economy or impede freedom of movement. A cleaner planet where everyone is miserable and constrained will not get my vote.

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

#357900

Postby dspp » November 18th, 2020, 7:44 pm

Lootman wrote:
dspp wrote:
Lootman wrote: I have a wife whose family are all 5,000 miles away. There is no real way around that ....

These are your choices. Many people make other choices.

Ah, I see, so for the sake of the planet I should have married a different woman? Should I divorce her now on ecological grounds?

dspp wrote:Look, I too have travelled by air a heck of a lot in the last 20-years, almost all on renewables/decarbonisation business. So I'm very aware of the issues, as indeed are all of us who have been doing that in these industries. That makes us even more sensitive to the reality that collectively as humans we have to change this. Personally, as a consequence, you will very seldom find me travelling long haul for pleasure (I can recall one long haul pleasure trip in those 20-years, and that was to visit someone who was not expected to last another year, and they didn't last unfortunately.) And my family is even more far-flung than yours. With luck I'll be able to do electric-TGV from London to Trieste or further in my time, or BEV to Athens, but for sure we do have to get aircraft emissions under control somehow. The first step is to acknowledge the problem. The second is to decide to act. The third step is to choose the action. Then do it.

With respect just because you work in that line of business doesn't mean that you are any more informed than anyone else on what should be done. That is a political decision i.e. something that is up to the people to decide.

I favour a gradual approach such as we have been seeing with everything from solar/wind/nuclear power to electric cars to more fuel-efficient aircraft. Maybe Musk will come up with an electric plane and that will be great.

And maybe at the margin we can do some things to slow the growth of aviation in future decades. But I cannot support for or vote for extreme measures that will harm the world economy or impede freedom of movement. A cleaner planet where everyone is miserable and constrained will not get my vote.


What family choices you (or I) should have made are not really the issue. What is pertinent is that they are not relevant excuses.

I am going out of my way to not say that my line of work is an excuse, though I am noting the irony.

However my line of work (and my training & knowledge & experience) do mean I am more informed than others. I am taking the trouble to share that insight with you.

As to what should be done, well perhaps that is up to people ("the people") to decide. But if people make the wrong choices then the planet will very likely inflict catastrophic consequences as a result.

There may not be a solution set that is viable where "not be constrained" and "not impede freedom" is consistent with "cleaner planet" or even "viable for human existence". If we see that coming then my vote will be to ground ALL of the planes.

regards, dspp

JohnB
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2497
Joined: January 15th, 2017, 9:20 am
Has thanked: 677 times
Been thanked: 997 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357910

Postby JohnB » November 18th, 2020, 8:28 pm

the @dspp/@lootman argument show how difficult moral pressure is to apply, as people can always push back as being 'special'. It seems much easier to apply financial pressure, by assigning a cost to carbon emissions. If you chose to make the emissions, you pay the cost, and the money can be used for mitigation measures. The problem is that all the carbon trading schemes devised so far seem susceptible to political fiddling and gaming the system (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_em ... Criticisms), but at least it removes the holier-than-thou finger pointing.

I have flown 253k miles over 52 years, but have been abroad for perhaps 6 years in total, visiting 54 countries in 52 years. 5000 miles a year is similar to most people's ground travel, and at 115 miles per day abroad, doesn't feel excessive, as its a major part of my lifestyle. If flights get more expensive, I will tend to go away for longer periods, economics driving my consumption.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#357929

Postby Lootman » November 18th, 2020, 9:54 pm

JohnB wrote:the @dspp/@lootman argument show how difficult moral pressure is to apply, as people can always push back as being 'special'.

I agree that dspp and I represent the two sides of this issue, although I am not sure I am claiming to be special in any way. Merely that I wish to have the right to travel freely internationally and so would be opposed to the "rationing" and "quotas" that are implied in the cited article.

Financial incentives and penalties might be more appropriate. But as I said long ago UK APT is already fairly punitive, and legally avoidable by routing via other major non-UK airports. The real loser there is BA, Heathrow and the UK. And we are still planning for Heathrow's third runway.

In a sense what we see here is a similar debate as we have seen recently on TLF with both Brexit and Covid. On the one side we have the self-styled "expert" who advocates flying bans, remaining or lockdowns. On the other hand we have the self-styled libertarian who resents a nanny state deciding how much freedom we should have. And that debate truly will be timeless no matter which way this issue goes.

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

#357932

Postby dspp » November 18th, 2020, 10:25 pm

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.

regards, dspp


Return to “The Natural World”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests