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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. . . .
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
No it isn't. Flying is probably among the most carbon intensive thing you could possible do. I have heard that from multiple sources.
this ( I don't how great a source it is), says
"Flying from San Francisco to Boston, for example, would generate some 1,300 kilograms of greenhouse gases per passenger each way, while driving would account for only 930 kilograms per vehicle.
That is comparing a flight on airline to a passenger car. My guess can get the per person carbon down much lower than that if you use loaded buses.
The fact is all the pols screaming for us all to slit our throats to cut carbon while they jet all over the place for this summit and that, are the worst hypocrites of them all. If they really gave a damn they'd just have conference call.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Today's newest, most fuel-efficient jetliners achieve about 100 passenger-miles per gallon, while electric bullet trains run at the equivalent of 300-500 passenger-miles per gallon. So air travel has a long way to go before it's as fuel-efficient as ground transportation.
Also, bullet trains are faster, curb-to-curb, for distances up to about 400-500 miles. And you can add intermediate stops at a cost of only a few minutes each.
So there's great potential to reduce air travel at no cost to our standard of living.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I want nerd news back.
Okay. It's Friday afternoon, you still don't have a date, and knowing the names and histories of all of the Transformers doesn't seem to be helping with that.
From some website:
A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing's Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).
This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let's call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour (900 km/h)!
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.
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?
Green fanboys and fangirls often suck at math, or at least lack the critical thinking to apply it. Often it undermines their arguments, often in laughable ways. My favorite forehead slapping example is of fanboys doing "green" remodels who rip out perfectly good counter tops and back splashes so they can install something that is "sustainable" or recycled. Boggles the mind. Driving to the local farm or farmer's market to "buy local" often is self defeating when you realize the modest amount of produce at a stand was driven maybe 100 miles that morning by a pickup truck that morning. Efficiencies of scale at large operations don't look like a warm fuzzy good thing, but often they are vastly less energy intensive per veggie than your backyard garden or even your farmer's market veggie.
However, please don't assume that all those pushing for "green" solutions are unthinking green drones.
Also, please include the costs of sticking to the course on fossil fuels. Currently our middle east policies, and their war costs, are usually not included in the cost of a gallon of gas. Should we have an Isreal foreign aid surcharge on a gallon of gas? How about a despot welfare fund surcharge?
Solar is a good niche that fills a real need at a real time. Summer AC usage causes a peak in power usage in summer, in the afternoon, which lines up well (not perfectly) with solar's output. Solar looks to be a good 10-20% solution that complements new or existing power sources. Hydro is not perfect, having a lot of side impacts on the streams and rivers, but in the PNW it accounts for over half the power supply to my house. It has a huge advantage of being adjustable and can be the counter point to solar and wind, picking up the slack when the wind doesn't blow or the sun isn't shining, and saving its stored energy when those are cranking. We can also do a lot on the load side to move energy intensive activities to line up with power availability, but we need new standards and incentives to make the "smart" grid start living up to the hype.
We can do better, and I would be all for trying to doing better at capturing the externalities to all energy sources. Petroleum should foot the bill for our middle east adventures, coal should better foot the bill for their extra high C02 emissions, nuclear should better shoulder the burden of waste disposal, etc. There are many sources of energy that would be more economically viable if the true costs were imposed on each source. I don't expect a single energy source to be the one true solution (thorium fixes everything!!! Not.). I do expect that we will be better remembered by history if we try harder before things get to any more of a crisis level.
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.
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.