Slashdot Mirror
Aircraft Responsible For 2.5% of Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions
jIyajbe writes: Christie Aschwanden of FiveThirtyEight.com reports that the world's aircraft are responsible for roughly 2.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The industry as a whole puts out more CO2 than most countries, and emissions are expected to grow significantly over the next few decades. She writes, "Planes don't just release carbon dioxide, they also emit nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and black carbon, as well as water vapor that can form heat-trapping clouds... These emissions take place in the upper troposphere, where their effects are magnified. When this so-called radiative forcing effect is taken into account, aviation emissions produce about 2.7 times the warming effects of CO2 alone." A related article breaks down how much each airline pollutes, relative to the others. Alaska, Spirit, and Frontier are tied for the highest fuel efficiency score, while American beats out Allegiant Air and Sun Country for the lowest spot.
So what? I need to be able to fly anywhere I want in the world for a weekend vacation.
The truth is, though, as jet travel becomes more attainable economically for more and more of the world's population, there will be an unsustainable growth in the industry and in the pollutions it emits. It is a simple fact that the environment cannot support the ability for any person on earth to fly anywhere else on a whim for under $1000.
Zeppelins, zeppelins all the way up in the sky. It's what everyone wants anyway.
How much greenhouse gas would be emitted if everybody drove their car, or took a boat vs. flying? Me thinks much more.
Most people who take planes aren't going to take buses either. The main advantage is the speed.
The story reports that some airlines do better on fuel efficiency than others. They go on to explain that this is due to differences in aircrafts used (older vs newer) and some government initiative to save fuel. They missed the elephant in the room. Low-cost airlines have only one class an so can squeeze more people into an airplane. So they have lower fuel consumption per passenger. Private jets/chartered aircrafts have the highest expenses of them all.
In the past visions of an utopian future, is based on having a Portable, Safe and Affordable Energy source.
While CO2 causing global warming was know back in these future prediction, the scope wasn't really understood. Oil Was very cheap, and the Idea of Nuclear being good for everyone was still popular.
Flying takes a lot of energy. We never solved the problem of Portable, Safe, Clean (A new modern condition), and Affordable Energy. Back to the Future had Mr. Fusion, If we had Mr. Fusion today I could see flying cars in 10 years.
But we can Have Portable Energy, That is Cheap, but it won't be Safe or Clean.
We can Have Portable Energy That is Safe, Clean but it won't be Affordable...
While Aircraft are a big polluter, I still think the goal is to focus on places that doesn't need portable energy Factories, Homes, Etc... This will have a big impact. Then you can work down to sources that may need some portability however doesn't need the high Energy Density. Like Cars.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Figure it that way (even with the multiplier for altitude effects). Then get back to me.
Atmosfair, a German organization that sells "offsets"
I thought I disabled ads.
P.S. In my day, we called them indulgences, not offsets.
Have gnu, will travel.
Now, why we don't compare it with other solutions instead of just giving absolute values at random.
According to the infographic in the article, 20 people running their refrigerators for a year produces more CO2 than a return flight.
...and not have air travel. Ships are too slow and aren't likely to reduce emissions anyway--those things don't run on wind anymore. Shall we return to the world where no one knows anything about any other country except what others tell them? That's worked out great throughout history--fear of the unknown and distrust of "that hostile foreign nation over there" has probably lead to half the wars we've had.
Sadly, we may have to choose whether we want to be a more equal and connected humanity or planet preservationists. The bottom line is that the world may not be able to handle the 2.5 billion people of China and India with airconditioning and cars. That means to preserve the Western way of life, we need to oppress those who aren't already there for the sake of the planet. I don't see that one working out. The other choice is that everyone forgoes luxury items. I don't see that happening either.
That's why the planet is doomed: everyone will do what is in their own interest. No one can expect anything else.
Volcanoes produce less than 1% of the net CO2 emissions. Breathing produces no net CO2, since the carbon was taken out of the atmosphere in the last couple of years.
Clearly not one more minute should be spent worrying about the polluting effects of aviation, but rather ground transport, industry and power generation are where the focus should be.
Author can't comprehend math and magnitudes..
Aviation does cause way too much pollution as well as attacking all of our immune systems due to the ability to transport bacteria and virii all over the world at high speeds. Prior to avaiation germs were far more localized and therfore people did not have to fight off the large numbers of attacks that they now must do. Shipping as well as cruise ships also are major polluters and also transport diseases and even invasive wild life species and tragedies like oil spills. It may be time to halt aviation as well as commercial shipping of all kinds.
heat-trapping clouds
She mis-spelled "heat-reflecting".
Let's have a conference about how to address this issue and fly in all the delegates. And their entourages. Don't forget them limos.
This is a completely fabricated "fact".
The mode of transportation that is chosen when travelling very long distances. The article even gives an example where Flying from Denver to NYC results in a net gain over choosing to travel the same route in a Toyota Prius.
The summary seems to suggest that you should not fly if you want to be environmentally friendly, but the opposite is true.
Sigh really this headline and story really indicates why this issue has fallen into the realm of the slogan repeating idiots.
If you are actually worried about CO2 emissions and not about controlling people's lives, the concern is how much CO2 is emitted moving a person from place to place, not the bulk number for any given industry or industry segment. You might as well try to rile people up by publishing comparisons of CO2 emissions of buses vs cars. That however wouldn't gain any traction because people who ride the bus aren't envied or resented.
Good point about there being two many people. Of course since the Republicans breed like rabbits, they are the problem. They are destroying this planet. They hate us and want us to die so they keep forcing women to have children. Forcing them to stop raping would solve most of the environmental problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... .2 kg ppm cars .3 kg ppm
planes about
However its a lot easier to rack up miles in an airplane.
Per passenger mile isn't really fair either. Every few years, I fly a few thousand miles for vacation. If flying was not an option, I'd never consider driving a few thousand miles. Instead, I'd find a closer destination.
Somewhat cancelled out by the fact that you can fit a few more people on a plane.
These numbers are per passenger.
PLEASE look up the numbers on C02 emissions from volcanoes. It sure looks splashy, but the biggest eruptions are nothing compared to what we are doing with oil/gas/coal/peat. It's a really easy thing to google and debunk, but it's the kind of thing that SOUNDS really obvious to most people, so you are spreading false information.
This article only takes into account direct emissions. It neglects the CO2 emissions due to the energy used in the manufacture of said airplanes, which is proportional to their cost.
OK a new size TV
Quick, tax the hell out of air travel in the name of saving the planet (only to use the money for unrelated things like social welfare)!
Breathing produces no net CO2, ...
It does, however, cause death -- 100% of all dead people were habitual breathers.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Cool... and naturally we are working on more efficient engines to lower cost and fuel consumption. I for one will not change my lifestyle to reduce CO2. I will however help engineer more CO2 friendly solutions. I'm sick of the environmentalists dictating my lifestyle. We could divide the planet by square foot per person, be required to grow our own food, live in the house the size of a doghouse (only if required by the cold climate), do away with education (cause transportation other than walking will emit CO2) and live happily ever after... no thanks!
Then, give the money to third world countries who will use it wisely to institute their own earth-friendly programs. This has always worked well, no reason why it won't this time.
Another alternative would be to impose such draconian emissions standards that none could meet them and they would all go bankrupt. (see coal regulations)
This is why the U.S. needs a hub and spoke high speed rail system. And by high speed, I meen 300-400mph
So having read the articles, a couple things are clear:
1. Their comparison metric includes "flight frequency per unit of fuel burned", which I think causes their comparison to be backwards. Modern jet engines are most efficient at high altitude and cruising speed, lowest efficiency at low altitude and low speed. Maximum thrust (fuel burn) occurs on takeoff, so more flights=more takeoffs=more fuel burned.
The list favors airlines with short hops and appears to penalize long-haul airlines. Long haul airlines are likely more efficient in terms of passenger-mile, both due to intrinsically more efficient airplanes (per passenger mile) and more time spent at max efficiency service.
2. The article showing the 2.5% emissions compares an airplane to a car getting 44mpg. The airplane is a little better than the 44mpg auto traveling 7500 miles. Considering most sedans are at 30mpg or less in the USA, and that a family traveling 7500 miles by auto is more likely using a van or SUV for the space to carry luggage, the airplane is a far better choice.
Already there are military applications for fossil free jet fuel, and as the technology scales, this will likely make greater contributions to civilian applications. http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
Yes there is. Revive this program.
Why are we obsessing over an industry that
Sorry folks, but all this attention to airline emissions has astroturf campaign written all over it.
Actually, we have both flying buses and cars. Ever hear of private jets?
Seems slashdot has become an arm of the liberal media these days. All the articles are about global warming bullshit. I want nerd news back.
Long distances == lots of CO2.
I've crunched the numbers for various trips I commonly take. My share of CO2 emissions on a trip from my home in Boston to Sacramento California is going to be around 750 kg +/- 50 kg whether I (hypothetically!) drive (in my 34MPG highway car) or fly. Airplane CO2/distance figures overlap automobile considerably (185 - 277 grams/mile for air travel). Air travel CO2/mile is higher for short trips, but lower for longer trips because you amortize the CO2 emitted in takeoff over more miles.
Apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky. Air itineraries can often take you far out of your way, forcing you to fly through hubs that aren't on a line as the crow flies. If I *did* choose to drive to Sacramento, it turns out the driving distance is astonishingly close to the great circle distance between the cities: 2600 miles vs 3000 miles.
So the answer isn't to avoid air travel. It's to travel wisely. Consolidate long trips. Plan ahead and get non-stop flights where possible, or at least book itineraries that have the minimum time in the air. Don't wait for the last minute and take a "bargain" itinerary that has you flying all over the place. Drive a fuel efficient car and use that for trips less than 250 miles or so. The Chevy Cruz Eco gets 42 mpg highway; if that doesn't appeal to you an Audi A6 gets 38 mpg, and is not exactly wearing a hair shirt.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It is interesting to know the numbers of Air Travel pollution.
However, isn't more effective to focus on the other 97.5% of CO2 emissions? Like burning oil to generate electricity?
"airplanes are 30% more efficient than they were only a decade ago or so"
Considering that most airplanes are older than that, care to provide some citations for this extraordinary claim?
In our efforts to decarbonize our society, aircraft should be the last to go. There's no renewable technology that's likely to match what a passenger jet can do (try to design a battery-powered Airbus. You won't get far.) Also, the amount of carbon dioxide they emit is pretty minor, relatively speaking. I'm a pretty big global warming doomsayer, but even I want to live in a world where I can fly to the other side of the planet in 24 hours if I really have to.
Alaska, Spirit, and Frontier are tied for the highest fuel efficiency score, while American beats out Allegiant Air and Sun Country for the lowest spot.
So American has beaten every other airline by producing more pollution than anyone? You know what this means...
We're number one! We're number one! You! Ess! Ey! You! Ess! Ey! You! Ess! Ey!
2.5%, huh -- I'm not impressed. So basically if we all stopped flying it would have just a tiny effect on net anthropogenic CO2 production. Sounds like we should concentrate our efforts on other more profligate industries first and worry about building electric airliners in 50 years.
I'm dismayed that you think science is a strictly liberal pursuit. Most conservatives are just as interested in science as your average liberal. You're perpetuating a meme that the republican party is the anti-science party. It isn't: http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
I'll plant a tree. algore can sod off.
Perhaps the suggestion that in terms of lives saved per dollar spent, procedures used in Israel's airports are more effective than those of the U.S. TSA.
Is there a reason celebs and others need a 727 of their own to fly around in? Just because you're dripping in money, doesn't give you the right to trash the planet for the rest of us. Unless you've got a crew of 250 with you, park the damn thing. That includes you Al Gore.
Wow, if this is the case, then what will happen to the Paris climate meetings? How can they even think to hold the meetings if the attendees will be seriously harming the planet by travelling on aircraft?
Have a Day!
I have not seen a single private jet on the freeway this week.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Aircraft also produce white contrails, which cool the planet by reflecting sunlight that would otherwise be absorbed by the ground or oceans which are on average much darker.
You clearly haven't spent much time riding in public transit of any major city if you think air travellers and bus travellers are in the same economic brackets.
Breathing produces no net CO2, ...
It does, however, cause death -- 100% of all dead people were habitual breathers.
Yea, but laboratory experiments, breathers live infinitely longer than non-breathers.
We can solve this problem if everyone stops breathing for 10 minutes. No cheating. Ready? 3, 2, 1 GO
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Breathing produces no net CO2, ...
It does, however, cause death -- 100% of all dead people were habitual breathers.
Yea, but laboratory experiments, breathers live infinitely longer than non-breathers.
Don't try and manipulate the science in your favor... All breathers will die eventually and it's a proven fact!!
But then where would you get your red herrings from?
1) Europe alone produces 10x CO2 emissions/year than all volcanic activity on the earth combined. Europe is only the 3rd biggest emitter behind China and the US
2) Volcanos are part of a balanced system. Their relatively constant CO2 contribution over the last few million years is easily handled by the earth's natural CO2 sinks
3) The CO2 you exhale was originally captured out of the atmosphere by plants, who will again capture what you're exhaling now (see: balanced system)
Side note: All the coal we are mining now is coming from 50 Million Years worth of carbon sequestration from a time when trees had evolved but no species had yet been able to digest them (wiki: Carboniferous). If nothing changes we can probably burn through all of that in a few centuries. You really think reversing a natural process at a rate 100,000 times faster isn't cause for concern?
Don't get me wrong, personally I'd like to see us cut down the number of aircraft-miles flown as a matter of principle [being on a flight path might prejudice my thinking] but the statement concerning "heat trapping clouds" is provably false.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the FAA grounded all flights over US soil, as a result of which there were no high-altitude contrails being produced by aircraft over the US. The result? temperatures spike during those days when flights were banned, because each contrail acts like a very long, very thin cloud - a cloud that *shields* the surface from solar radiation, keeping down surface temperatures. When the aircraft were grounded, temperatures were markedly higher.
That still doesn't change my fundamental point of view - which is that aircraft are not fuel-efficient given the thousands of tons of fuel burned every day... We need to change our practices in this regard... However, Christie Aschwanden coming up with bunkum like "heat trapping clouds" basically undermines the validity of the entire argument.
For example, see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
Try looking up!
20K ppmv of CO2 is dangerous
10K ppmv is you breath out
2K ppmv was in the atmosphere for most of man's rise from the stone age (last 10K years)
400 ppmv is in the atmosphere today
150 ppmv is the minimum for plant survival
CO2 is plant food.
Let the co founder of green peace Patrick Moore explain the whole thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtcNjoDe5Pg&list=PLgnnPnL9OL7H1_hH-MeHeLCZY1J3oFkBJ&index=3
First, my statement was that brand new airplanes today are 30% more efficient than they were a decade ago.
But second, here is the data you want: traffic has grown 50% over the last 15 years, fuel usage has grown 3%.
There is nothing extraordinary about my claim unless you are particularly ill informed about fuel improvements in aviation.
The cool thing about economics, however, is that there is enormous economic demand to do so.
Another cool thing is that it embraces many different viewpoints in a single discipline.
If you have doubts about the economic "school of thought" you happen to be studying, you can easily find another to believe.
Keynesian, French liberal, Lausanne, Neoclassical, Distributism - economics has something for everyone!
Sort of like Starbucks.
Maybe not, but if this is true then shoudn't we be focusing our efforts towards a replacement for jet engines that burn fossil fuel?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Yes, hydro dams can and do destroy vast tracts of river ecosystem but they also create a vast ecosystem of lake, which while different cannot be ignored when discussing environmental impact. My hometown has a large area of swamps and wetlands that are over 100 years old directly attributable to an old dam that produced power for a long defunct mill. Remove the dam, restore the river and eliminate several thousands of acres of wetlands. Not a win in my book.
Not saying that dams are all good but dams and hydro are not necessarily the ecosystem destroyer you imply.
Here in Portland our MAX light rail has a pretty good cross section of the population. I only have pause riding it during the commuting rush hour when it is overpacked.
And throw in average auto CO2 use too.
Some folks might be surprised at the results
There are a lot of industrial processes that generate *a lot* of CO2. A quick check on Wikipedia indicates that 5% of man made CO2 is from the manufacture and use of concrete. Steel production is another big one.
Industrial processes are something we can improve without unbearable cost increases in the foreseeable future.
In the transportation sector, marine shipping accounts for 14% of man made CO2 and mostly through the combustion of the dirtiest bunker fuel. Nuclear powered ships are an obvious solution.
Its hard to imagine any technology that we can realistically apply in the next decade to reduce CO2 from aircraft in any meaningful amounts. Why bother with aircraft when there is so much other obvious low hanging fruit?
Greed is the root of all evil.
Is spended on arguing over the allegegated carbon output of the human race compared to background carbon outage, the other 0.6% is spent by peddantic correctionists.
Is there any way to include Sulfate Aerosols into the exhaust of high-altitude aircraft?
As background, major volcanic eruptions have always led to periods of global cooling, according to the sulfates that they pump into the high atmosphere.
There have been several proposals to artificially pump sulfates into the high atmosphere to reverse, and control global warming.
On the other hand, aircraft are there all the time, so why not just use them?
So this basically means that the entire airline industry has a negligible effect on CO2 emissions and any improvements would also have almost zero impact? They could basically plant a few trees and become carbon neutral?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
And yet, no one has proven CO2 drives temperatures.. If anything, we still see that CO2 lags Temp changes. Co2 isn't the enemy, and as everyone make CO2 out to be the problem, the whole argument is pointless.
If you want to talk particulate count and ACTUAL pollution, then we can have meaningful conversations. And to the people saying Volcanoes account for too little to be considered, think again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/
How much is it per person per mile? What about cars? Buses? Trains?
Why are we obsessing over an industry
Because TFA is shilling for outfits selling "offsets". The aviation industry has money. Al Gore Inc wants a cut. But the only way to create demand is by generating guilt.
Have gnu, will travel.
Bingo.
Nitpicking over aviation CO2 is like arguing over US budget balancing but not touching the military, Medicare/aid, and SS.
A good onine and paper reference for the airplane CO2 emission situation :
http://www.withouthotair.com/ . A very high quality discussion with consistent units used for many different CO2 emisssion situations.
Here is my sledgehammer simple proposal: Cut all human CO2 emissions by 1/2. For cars and planes, run on some version of every other day or every other week. The goal is to cut CO2 emissions so sharply you can measure the reduction with a hand held CO2 meter. And we get this reduction scheme working in two years. That kind of a reduction and that kind of a timetable means we have to recognize and adapt to the financial problems (paying off loans dependent on commerce volu)me.) and the employment problems (ramping up ride-sharing and unemployment insurance).
Why such a sharp cut so fast? Here is a climate change model you can play with:
http://climateblab.github.io/visualize-mitigation/
The takeaway I have got from the model is, to a first approximation when the total tons emitted by human sources reaches a specific point, then the climate goes into a runaway state. If we can pull total human CO2 emission rates down to the levels of the 1960's, we stall entering the runaway state for a long time.
My partner wants us to fly all over the world and see all those wonderful places.
I couldn't give a rats, because airplanes punch big holes in the sky and pollute like crazy.
Thanks for putting a number on what I have felt for all of my life.
Go well
All human activities contribute only 3% of global CO2 emissions; the other 97% are natural. Buried deeply in a footnote somewhere is that they are talking about *ANTHROPOGENIC* CO2 emissions which means that aviation is actually responsible for only 0.075% of global CO2 emissions. These political activists should really stop lying.
I am sick and tired of the foolishness that the far left displays. Rather than spending efforts on this, they would be better to focus on stopping solar subsidies, and instead require net metering along with all new buildings below 5-10 stories to have enougj on-site AE that equals the buildings HVAC energy usage.
In america, we use 15-20% of our energy just for building HVAC. By requiring that new buildings have on-site AE, it will encourage builders to switch to efficient insulation ( such as aerogel windows rather the current inefficient junk), along with geothermal HVAC. This will stop growth in this one area which more than covers what all global airlines emit.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Warplanes in the US consume 3% and a lot of that is they dump when landing, often 3,000 to 7,000 pounds of fuel. That is the trails you see coming from the wing tips that you see in low level approaches to landing.
FYI, NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) Project explores and documents the feasibility, benefits and technical risk of vehicle concepts and enabling technologies to reduce aviation’s impact on the environment. http://www.aeronautics.nasa.go...
mfwright@batnet.com
What the fuck is a PROTIP ?
Is it one of those new cool names so hipsters can talk about everyday stuff but with it sounding much cooler and special, not at all like everyone else has been talking about? Like "LIFE HACK" and its ilk?
Is the collection of garbage-burning super-tankers circling the globe burning the waste's waste to deliver cheap toys and sneakers from China to the developed world. 2.5%? That's nothing in the eye of what these dinosaurs burn. And since they travel in international waters, they don't have to obey any country's emission laws. There are about 20 of them which, together, produce enough emissions to rival all the cars on earth. How about we squash the giants before going after the insects?
as well as water vapor that can form heat-trapping clouds...
QUICK! DRAIN THE FUCKING OCEANS! 70% of the surface of the planet is trying to kill us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!one1111111eleven!
Seriously, global warming theorists, if water vapor is near enough to the top of your list that you actually tout it as an argument for... well... anything... Really? You expect to be taken seriously with that shit?
Now, I'm no climatologist, but from where I'm sitting, with arguments like that, the whole thing sounds like bullshit to me. If you're right, stick to the strong arguments; if you're wrong, piss off. Just don't make lame arguments like that, as they're prone to making the problem worse (assuming there is one) by making you, the messenger, look like a fool. Nobody wants to listen to a fool.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The calculation is correct - so why the score of -1 ?
Oh, come on, you're not as bad as that.
Oh, hang on a sec, you are.
Watch this Heartland Institute video