Air Travel. Should we be doing it?

[platinumsage]

The solution to the climate crisis won't involve moaning about how regular folks live their lives. Calling Doreen selfish for driving to Tesco instead of getting the bus to her nearby expensive hipster grocer, or criticizing Abdul for flying to Bangladesh to see his gran once a year instead of just Face-timing her again from his bedroom aren't solutions.

If you really want to target personal CO2 footprints, the internet's contribution to global warming is higher than that of aviation, so maybe just go offline forever?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

that table is emissions per passenger per km travelled.

a) probably because the whole route is OHL / electric
b) not relevant - the metric is per passenger per km travelled
c) not relevant - the metric is per passenger per km travelled

[obv buses, trains and planes are more economically efficient when well loaded, but that's not what is being illustrated here]

Bus - 52 passengers = Yg/km - 1 passenger = 52xYg/km

Same with the trains and planes.

No?


And domestic flights, which aircraft are they talking about here? We recently flew from London to Dundee on an ATR Turboprop and the supposed CO2 per passenger km travelled was less than the train.

Flying has a lot of issues regarding CO2, not least as has been mentioned where it tends to leave most of the CO2, in the high atmosphere, but it's not really as simple as comparing modes of transport as for many journeys there is no practical alternative to one mode or another.

What does need to happen is either flying gets greener (unlikely), or the need to travel is reduced massively.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

If you really want to target personal CO2 footprints, the internet's contribution to global warming is higher than that of aviation, so maybe just go offline forever?

After you, Claude.

 

[platinumsage]

What does need to happen is either flying gets greener (unlikely), or the need to travel is reduced massively.

It's always getting greener. The rate at which it does so beyond a certain point is down to regulation:

Fuel burn of new commercial jet aircraft: 1960 to 2019 - International Council on Clean Transportation

Updates our 2015 analysis of fuel burn trends of new commercial jet aircraft by including new types and deliveries from 2015 to 2019 and incorporating dedicated freighters delivered from 1960 to 2019.

theicct.org

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Stopping or reversing climate change will inevitably involve changes to our lifestyles. Until or unless some yet-to-be-invented technology comes along. Aviation is an obvious target, which doesn't have to impact too negatively on most people. If we can't even stomach stopping regular flying then we really are buggered.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

It's always getting greener. The rate at which it does so beyond a certain point is down to regulation:

Fuel burn of new commercial jet aircraft: 1960 to 2019 - International Council on Clean Transportation

Updates our 2015 analysis of fuel burn trends of new commercial jet aircraft by including new types and deliveries from 2015 to 2019 and incorporating dedicated freighters delivered from 1960 to 2019.

theicct.org

Of course modern engines are far more efficient than those of old, you don't see the dirty streaks coming off them anymore. But no one who is serious is suggesting that long-haul flights in the next 50 years will run on anything other than fossil-fuels.

 

[platinumsage]

Of course modern engines are far more efficient than those of old, you don't see the dirty streaks coming off them anymore. But no one who is serious is suggesting that long-haul flights in the next 50 years will run on anything other than fossil-fuels.

There's huge scope for CO2 efficiencies in the short-term:

What is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and why is it important? | News and views | Air bp

Sustainable aviation fuel – what is it and why is it important? Tom Parsons, Air BP’s Biojet commercial development manager, explains what sustainable aviation fuel is (SAF) and gives his view on whether SAF really is the answer to reducing aviation emissions.

www.bp.com

"SAF can drop straight into existing infrastructure and aircraft. It has the potential to provide a lifecycle carbon reduction of up to 80% compared to the traditional jet fuel it replaces....At the moment, production of SAF is limited as the higher cost for SAF is preventing wider uptake. Air bp is working on helping create more demand in the short-term which will lead to more production and hopefully lower costs in future."

 

[Brainaddict]

Stopping or reversing climate change will inevitably involve changes to our lifestyles. Until or unless some yet-to-be-invented technology comes along. Aviation is an obvious target, which doesn't have to impact too negatively on most people. If we can't even stomach stopping regular flying then we really are buggered.

Environmental campaigners have been saying this for decades, to a deafening silence from the general public. There have been groups like Plane Stupid who were directed at this very problem. Everyone hated them. Perhaps you could think about why taking this approach hasn't worked up to now before suggesting taking this approach.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Environmental campaigners have been saying this for decades, to a deafening silence from the general public. There have been groups like Plane Stupid who were directed at this very problem. Everyone hated them. Perhaps you could think about why taking this approach hasn't worked up to now before suggesting taking this approach.

I haven't suggested an approach, as such. Plane Stupid tried a direct action or two which caused inconvenience to travelling people whilst they were travelling. That won't go down well.
All I am doing right now is asking a few questions and making a few suggestions. The basic point still remains. If we aren't prepared even to make this tiny sacrifice how in hell can we hope to avert climate breakdown?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

There's huge scope for CO2 efficiencies in the short-term:

What is sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and why is it important? | News and views | Air bp

Sustainable aviation fuel – what is it and why is it important? Tom Parsons, Air BP’s Biojet commercial development manager, explains what sustainable aviation fuel is (SAF) and gives his view on whether SAF really is the answer to reducing aviation emissions.

www.bp.com

"SAF can drop straight into existing infrastructure and aircraft. It has the potential to provide a lifecycle carbon reduction of up to 80% compared to the traditional jet fuel it replaces....At the moment, production of SAF is limited as the higher cost for SAF is preventing wider uptake. Air bp is working on helping create more demand in the short-term which will lead to more production and hopefully lower costs in future."

Sure, but doesn't address the issue of where that carbon is deposited. I have a fairly vested interest in keeping people flying, what with that paying for my home and food and that, but I am sceptical of claims by the likes of BP, also of the environmental groups who refuse to accept anything other than no flying.

 

[platinumsage]

I haven't suggested an approach, as such. Plane Stupid tried a direct action or two which caused inconvenience to travelling people whilst they were travelling. That won't go down well.
All I am doing right now is asking a few questions and making a few suggestions. The basic point still remains. If we aren't prepared even to make this tiny sacrifice how in hell can we hope to avert climate breakdown?

What makes you think stopping air travel would be a "tiny sacrifice" for many people? More importantly, why does it need to be about personal sacrifice in the form of restrictions? We are prepared to accept huge taxes (aka "green levies") on our energy bills, including the energy bills of the poorest in society, all aimed to greening our power generation. Do you think we would equally accept a "tiny sacrifice" of rationed daily power quotas for each home?

I'm sure people would accept an increase in air fares invested in greening air fuel far more readily than they would a restriction on flying.

 

[A380]

the thing about flying as i understand it isn't just the carbon as such but where so much of it is left, high in the sky

It’s not the carbon but other pollutants being effectively above the weather and so not washed out as they would be lower down. The far bigger problem is the ease of travel. The carbon you’d need to cross the Atlantic by ship or get to Hong Kong by land isn’t an order of magnitude different to flying . The issue is you wouldn’t spend five days each way for a weekend in New York ant eight days each way for four days in Hong Kong. Modern aircraft are actually pretty good in terms of carbon KM. of course we shouldn’t use them when we could use trains. But that only really applies in Europe and China. Not so much elsewhere- including the states…

 

[StoneRoad]

Food for thought ?

https://www.dhl.com/global-en/spotlight/sustainability/electric-aircraft-sustainable-logistics.html

 

[A380]

For info ...


clch - transport emissions par StoneRoad2013, on ipernity

Ships are missing from that. Which are the only alternative for transport between the Americas and anywhere else. Roughly 400g per passenger Km for a cruise ship. obviously improvements could be made by building things more like liners than cruise ships and maybe half that. But the carbon ( and CO2 is always global In that emission location makes no difference to climate change) . The issue remains the distance traveled.

 

[Artaxerxes]

What makes you think stopping air travel would be a "tiny sacrifice" for many people? More importantly, why does it need to be about personal sacrifice in the form of restrictions? We are prepared to accept huge taxes (aka "green levies") on our energy bills, including the energy bills of the poorest in society, all aimed to greening our power generation. Do you think we would equally accept a "tiny sacrifice" of rationed daily power quotas for each home?

I'm sure people would accept an increase in air fares invested in greening air fuel far more readily than they would a restriction on flying.

Aye.

Many many people have relatives abroad at this point. Do we have the right to tell them they can never see parents or kids again?

No we don’t. We need to work on encouraging fewer flights from those who fly the most and encouraging domestic high speed rail to cut out short haul flights

Hell let’s get Eurostar going direct from Birmingham or Glasgow to Seoul

 

[Maggot]

Yes we can do it, no it’s not something people should be doing more than once or twice a year.

Most air carbon emissions are from a fraction of passengers taking the piss.

This.

Pre-pandemic in the UK, just 15% of people took 70% of flights. By introducing a frequent flyer levy, you can massively reduce the number of flights without affecting the cost of people's annual holiday flight. The idea is everyone is entitled to one tax-free return flight a year, then charged an increasing amount of tax on each succesive flight after that.

A Free Ride

afreeride.org

 

[Maggot]

Have you done the sums, for e.g. a transatlantic ferry plus onward travel to an inland US destination?

No one is suggesting travelling to the US by boat.

 

[platinumsage]

This.

Pre-pandemic in the UK, just 15% of people took 70% of flights. By introducing a frequent flyer levy, you can massively reduce the number of flights without affecting the cost of people's annual holiday flight. The idea is everyone is entitled to one tax-free return flight a year, then charged an increasing amount of tax on each succesive flight after that.

A Free Ride

afreeride.org

The problem with this is that, especially on long-haul routes, frequent business flyers on hugely expensive open tickets effectively subsidize travel for the majority of passengers who are on the cheapest tickets. Tax these frequent flyers into Zoom meetings and air fares will rise proportionality for everyone else, while the tax take from the new levy will plummet.

It's probably best to tax fuel and let the airlines sort the fares, alongside targets for CO2 reduction similar to the banning of new ICE cars in the 2030s.

 

[Pickman's model]

Should we fly? I'd have thought not, as things stand. Yeh it's shit. But I can't help thinking that people refusing to fly will help concentrate air industry minds to accelerate research into electric powered flights etc.

 

[JimW]

Should start by banning anything better than economy class and travel that's not for tourism or family reunion. Bar the odd engineer or surgeon no fucker's business trip couldn't be done remotely now.

 

[platinumsage]

Should we fly? I'd have thought not, as things stand. Yeh it's shit. But I can't help thinking that people refusing to fly will help concentrate air industry minds to accelerate research into electric powered flights etc.

Yeah the best way to get companies to invest in new technology is to starve them of working capital.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah the best way to get companies to invest in new technology is to starve them of working capital.

Fuck me you're stupid. Go back and read the post again and have another try. As things stand you seem hell-bent on investing in greener fuel rather than taking oil out of the equation. It maybe a while off. But everything should be fine that might accelerate the change because we're really living on borrowed time already.

 

[platinumsage]

Fuck me you're stupid. Go back and read the post again and have another try

Go on then, explain how people refusing to fly will help concentrate air industry minds to accelerate research into electric powered flights etc.

 

[Pickman's model]

Go on then, explain how people refusing to fly will help concentrate air industry minds to accelerate research into electric powered flights etc.

Your second go as abysmal as the first. I don't doubt many people who currently fly will continue to. But the more people who demand an alternative to fossil fuel powered flight and seek alternative means of transport where feasible in the interim it seems to me obvious that aircraft companies and aircraft operators will work on such a solution. You by contrast seem to want just a spot of tinkering with the way things are now.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

This.

Pre-pandemic in the UK, just 15% of people took 70% of flights. By introducing a frequent flyer levy, you can massively reduce the number of flights without affecting the cost of people's annual holiday flight. The idea is everyone is entitled to one tax-free return flight a year, then charged an increasing amount of tax on each succesive flight after that.

A Free Ride

afreeride.org

Not sure that would have much of an effect anyway. Already the UK charges more in tax for premium seats, e.g. London-New York eco the UK tax is £80, in premium, business or first it is £180, no one bats an eyelid. If it raises for each flight taken to eye-watering levels for weekly fliers then that penalises e.g. people who race off to fix sinking ships. Most of the very frequent fliers would travel less if there was an alternative, (some do just enjoy it, being away from their families, the prestige of being needed around the world and so on, but they seem to be in the minority).

 

[MickiQ]

I would imagine that any attempt to simply restrict air travel for any reason is doomed from the word go. Any government that tries it will simply get voted out. People have grown up with the belief that (relatively) cheap travel to anywhere in the world is the norm. People won't surrender something unless you can offer them something better and one flight per year each is not it.
This is yet another thing where it's find a technological solution or nothing.
The only way alternatives will come about is for something to be introduced and people flock to it in preference to the old way then everyone will start jumping on the bandwagon.
Probably going to take government action and investment to kickstart it though depending on what said alternative is. Things like blimps or electric planes might start on a small scale but things like hyperloops and maglevs going to take a fair bit of expensive infrastructure.

 

[RainbowTown]

We could always try this.................or maybe not:

 

[Artaxerxes]

Not sure that would have much of an effect anyway. Already the UK charges more in tax for premium seats, e.g. London-New York eco the UK tax is £80, in premium, business or first it is £180, no one bats an eyelid. If it raises for each flight taken to eye-watering levels for weekly fliers then that penalises e.g. people who race off to fix sinking ships. Most of the very frequent fliers would travel less if there was an alternative, (some do just enjoy it, being away from their families, the prestige of being needed around the world and so on, but they seem to be in the minority).

Also private jets need to be fucking fucked off with

 

[platinumsage]

Your second go as abysmal as the first. I don't doubt many people who currently fly will continue to. But the more people who demand an alternative to fossil fuel powered flight and seek alternative means of transport where feasible in the interim it seems to me obvious that aircraft companies and aircraft operators will work on such a solution.

"Obvious" to you because you can't grasp the basics of capitalism perhaps? Where do you propose these companies get the money from each year to invest if their customer base is declining faster than their costs and liabilities? If you want investment in reduced-CO2 powered flight the quickest way to achieve it is increased revenue from customers combined with regulations forcing an increased proportion of that revenue into investment.

You by contrast seem to want just a spot of tinkering with the way things are now.

Taxing aviation fuel and investing the revenue in greener fuels combined with globally agreed target dates for aviation CO2 reduction is more than tinkering. Hoping that a sufficient proportion of people decide to boycott flying and that this will spur investment isn't even tinkering, it's worse than the status quo with no boycott, because it will lead to declining investment as firms struggle to mitigate their short-term losses.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

One thing is certain. 'Let's just leave things the way they are now for the foreseeable future until the magic green power source becomes available' is not the solution to anything. Once upon a time there was no air travel. People still travelled. Just not so often or so fast or so far. You may say that nowadays people's expectations have changed. True. They can change again. If they don't, and in so many other areas of life, we really are fucking screwed.