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.
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 cool thing about economics, however, is that there is enormous economic demand to do so. This means if we can put an emissions tax on airlines, there is an incredible incentive to make technological advances that significantly decrease emissions. When that happens, we will still be able to meet demand for relatively low cost.
I agree with the idea, but it's not a "simple fact"; coming to that conclusion requires a long argument involving a lot of scientific reasoning, experience, the particulars of our status quo of technology, population, and environmental inputs, and a certain (if reasonable) valuation of the potential trade-offs.
Proper environmentalism isn't "simple facts" - because it's not a religion of Earth purity. It's about legitimately complicated choices and consequences, and evaluating those choices over a longer term.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
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.
Why would you think that we should allow idiots to burn through limited resources? People who say stupid things like "liberal elitist" all turn out to be right-wing nutjobs. Every last one of them.
Translation - To hell with debating and educating someone with a different viewpoint. It's far easier to label them a "right-wing nutjob" and dismiss them because actually changing someone's mind with reason requires....like.....effort....and stuff. Fuck those idiots. They don't deserve to use any resources because they don't think the way I do!
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.
The simple fact is Globalism is bad for the globe.
In the end it really does not matter what you are moving, the people, the goods, or both. It does not much matter how you are moving it, planes, trains, autos, freighters, or sail boats.
Fundamentally transportation is overhead. If your goal is to maximize the sustainable population (and I am not sure that actually is noble pursuit) than the solution will always be to find ways people can get things they need without having to move, and created out of local resources. Which does not mean you start growing rice in the desert, it means your find a substitute for rice that can be produced efficiently locally.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
a tax which will then simply be passed on to ... the customers.
In a competitive market (and aviation is very competitive) companies cannot just pass on the cost to customers. Ticket prices will likely go up somewhat, but much of the cost will be in lower profits, and reduced wages or employment. This is especially true when different airlines are affected differently. Those with newer fleets will pay less tax because their aircraft are much more efficient, so they can keep ticket prices relatively lower.
Overstate much?
I agree with your sentiments and some of your points, but the above is preposterous. You really think if there were no security at airports we wouldn't have more shit go down on planes?
I honestly doubt we would. Not much shit goes down on busses or trains and they have a lower cost of entry (allowing the riffraff onboard).
But he didn't suggest getting rid of airport security. He suggested getting rid of the TSA and going back to the airport security we had before: walk-though metal detectors and luggage x-ray machines. Any shit that would go down on planes would likely be caused by hotheads with guns or knives (even though shit rarely went down on planes before they had any security at all) and the metal detectors would catch those.
You're buying into the FUD. The threat is enormously overstated.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
It all depends on the problem you're trying to solve. You're right- industries would be disrupted. It is an unfortunate side-effect of any industry moving in any direction.
It is my belief that the government has the right to impose taxes to compensate for negative externalities. Pollution and emissions are prime examples of this.
I strongly agree with Milton Friedman on this issue. Primarily, that it isn't simple or easy to solve, but also that when the government intervenes it shouldn't be through regulation or standards, it should be through a straightforward tax to pay for the costs. That's why if you had an emissions tax it would have to follow a number of basic guidelines:
1. It cannot be transferable or creditable. The entity is taxed only for its emissions, and only based upon the quantity of emissions.
2. It must be used for one of two purposes: either mechanisms to clean up the pollution and emissions, or research into more efficient and cleaner sources of energy.
3. The tax should slightly outweigh the cost for companies to reduce their emissions themselves. When a CFO looks at a balance sheet, he should see he can either fork out $50,000 for a much better engine or $51,000 for taxes on the emissions from the worse engine.
The fuel economy might be comparable, but we are talking about emissions, not fuel economy. Cars have catalytic converters that scrub all kinds of nasty stuff, stuff worse than CO2, from the emissions. Jets have no such thing, the fuel is combusted in open air, and all the emissions are propelled out of the back, no filtration.
Additionally, as mentioned in these Slashdot comments, the pollutants are more damaging when released at 35,000 feet than at ground level.