Do you want to do something to help this planet? Stop flying.

[MadHound]

When you fly, the plane is spewing far more pounds of CO2 into the air per person per mile than a car ever does(even my old '49 DeSoto). Yet over the past fifty years, flying has become de rigueur for most people. Long gone are the days of Mom and Dad packing the kids into a station wagon and driving out for a vacation. Now Mom and Dad make sure that they and their kids are wearing shoes that are easy to slip on and off before they head to the airport and board a plane.

While the numbers vary a bit(due to car and plane model and how long the plane trip is), a rough average is that a plane emits a little over one pound of CO2 per person per mile. Meanwhile, if that same person were driving a car, they would be emitting a bit over 0.6 pounds of CO2 per mile. That is a significant difference.

Worse yet are those planes that are not carrying passengers, but cargo. Our obsession for next day(and now the latest thing, same day) delivery means we're sending up planes, planes and more planes all in order to get your Ginsu knife set to you tomorrow, because you absolutely, positively can't wait until next week for it. A train, even on our nation's horrible rail system, can go coast to coast in four days max, but apparently we've become far too accustomed, far too demanding to wait until then, so it is flown to you instead.

Oh, I know, I know, I can hear all the complaints and snide remarks now, but the fact of the matter is that if you want to accomplish something to abate the severity of global climate change, it is up to you to make that change, because if we leave it up to corporations and the government, it simply isn't going to happen. So it is up to us to make the change we want to see come about.

And really, just how much of a sacrifice are you going to be making? It wasn't that long ago that air mail was hardly used, and most of us waited patiently to get anything that we had ordered, a week or two. No big deal. You simply planned ahead for the delay. Same with travel. When I was a kid, air travel was something for the elite, not the rest of us. So, we took two week, or one week vacations, and drove to our destination. Some of the best times were to be had in the back seat of a car on a long trip.

But now we are a society that is far too into instant gratification. We want our stuff now, not in a week, we want to be there now, not tomorrow. It is this sort of selfish attitude that allows FedEx and Southwest to continue to pollute, and profit, from our poor self control.

So, the next time you want to order something, check the US Post box for shipping. When you want to go somewhere on your vacation, drive, don't fly. We've got to be the change we want to see, because nobody else is going to make that change for us.

[Fumesucker]

1. I use USPS for shipping

Here's the tradeoff though, if I ship by Priority Mail which goes by air for longer distances then I can print out the postage at home and the mail truck will stop by my residence and pick the package up from the porch, I don't have to drive to the Post Office (about ten mile round trip for me) to take it, also I get tracking included in the price.

I really don't know where the cost/benefit/co2 tradeoff lies in that case, I do know it's more convenient for me and saves a considerable amount of energy and co2 emissions on my end since the mail truck makes the rounds every day anyway.

[NYC_SKP]

2. The pounds CO2 per mile traveled per person for flying is about the same as driving a car at 38 MPG.

Driving one person in a car, that is.

The range for flying is .39 to .64 pounds CO2 per person mile traveled, depending on short or long flight.

A gallon of gas burn emits about 19 pounds CO2.

Thus, at 38 MPG a car will travel 38 miles on one gallon and emit 19 pounds.

And a plane flying 38 miles at .50 pounds/mile will also emit about 19 pounds.

The lesson: Don't drive alone!

Also, bus and rail travel are much more efficient and cleaner than cars or planes, a bus is usually more efficient than a train.


http://www.whatsmycarbonfootprint.com/faq.htm

[frazzled]

5. And don't fly alone, either!

I think the OP forgot to factor in the fact that you'd need several hundred individuals driving cars to equal one airplane full of passengers.

My rule of late is: if its 7 or 8 hours of driving away, take the car. You'll probably get there in about the same time, given the time it takes to get to the airport, be there 2 hours early, get from the airport to your destination. (Plus, our Prius gets around 50 mpg.) But say, if you're going to Portland Oregon from Chicago for a long weekend (as we did this past weekend), driving is totally impractical. If you need to get to London or Estonia, well, needless to say, DON"T DRIVE.

[tama]

33. Take train

and if not possible, bus.

[a geek named Bob]

70. tama... as soon as we have a train that can travel the same speed as a jet, I'm on board. n/t

Then there's traveling across an ocean. Most folks don't have that kind of time.

Realism is a lovely thing...

[tama]

77. Ah, the Gray Gentlemen, the Time Thieves

I learned about them long long time ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_(novel)

You know, they are not really real, they are just mythological creatures nagging in your head, in reality you have all the time you ever want, each moment.

[NYC_SKP]

92. People actually think we'll always have air travel...

Last edited Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Fly while you can young ins' cuz I don't expect it'll be cheap 20 years out....

[frazzled]

90. That's not practicable in many cases

For instance, in the trip I mentioned in my post above (1756 miles from Chicago to Portland, which had to be started on a Friday and returned by Monday afternoon, latest). I just looked up the Amtrak schedule for that train: it takes 45 hours and 55 minutes. So if I left on Friday, I wouldn't arrive there until Sunday at 10:10 am. I'd have about 3 hours before having to hop a train back again. More than 90 hours on the train. Fuggedabout it.

[tama]

95. And not to mention

that it is in many cases cheaper to fly than to take train - which is just wrong wrong wrong!

The problem is systemic and it makes responsible choices very often less practicable. And from all that we know, it cannot continue much longer, and we would like to find our ways to jump out of the train - or plane - before it hits the wall of rock.

Myself, I wouldn't consider flying from pointless meeting to another just to make moneymakers more money very meaningful life, sounds more like torture - my late mother used to do that, until she got burn out and had to stop working for money - and started doing things she really liked and wanted to do (in her case theater and bead jewelry). And as they say, there is nothing more important than gardening, and even that is not that important.

[riverbendviewgal]

144. to visit my son i have to fly

He lives in england. When I go to vacation in Canada I drive.

[MadHound]

7. Umm, no.

Your reference site(which actually uses Wiki as a source:wtf is wrong. The pounds per mile emitted goes up dramatically on short flights as opposed to long flights. This is because on any flight, a great deal of the CO2 is emitted during take off and landing. Thus, if you have a couple of thousand miles between take off and touchdown, your average gets better.

Do some searching around, and you'll find that your source has got the figures almost backwards
http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/fly_vs_drive.htm

You are correct however that it is always a good thing to carpool.

And it is always more environmentally friendly to ship via ground than through the air.

[uponit7771]

126. Airlines would do good to do folding props until they get altitude, take off energy is REALLY high

[NYC_SKP]

156. Um, nothing in your post varies from what I wrote.

I mentioned a range, and it's not absolute, and yes of course distance of entire trip matters.

I stand by my approximated number for most commercial air miles traveled.

It's my job, I didn't go to EIA for date, but I know the facts.

Sorry you don't like my links.

[NYC_SKP]

157. I stand by the general points drawn from the data in my post.

I mentioned a range, and it's not absolute, and yes of course distance of entire trip matters.

I stand by my approximated number for most commercial air miles traveled.

It's my job, I didn't go to EIA for data because I am at work, but I know the facts.

I grabbed the quickest link I could that wasn't full of shit.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

148. What if I drive an electric car in a nuclear or hydroelectric powered neighborhood...

[NYC_SKP]

150. ZNC!

Zero Net Carbon!!!

[quinnox]

3. I have

I had a bad experience, as the famous line from the movie goes.

It has been the train for me for ten years at least.

[HughBeaumont]

4. I don't fly unless I absolutely, positively HAVE to.

Flying is now an inconvenient, uncomfortable and expensive pain in the ass that's not even worth it anymore.

Between

* the overbooked filled-to-capacity flights,
* the crying babies and toddlers,
* the seats that cannot accomodate an average 10-year-old girl,
* 90% of the time being surrounded by personal-space-clueless seatmates (almost always males) and full-recliners in the front (again, almost always males),
* the dank smell of sweat, B.O., bad breath and stale cigarettes,
* the TSA feel-ups and full-body scans,
* delays for whatever reason,
* long security lines,
* overcharging on bags,
* never being able to find a space for your bag because people take 2-4 medium suitcases with them on the flight

. . . and most importantly, the expense (I can't get under $70 one way for a city that's 5.60 hours away by car) . . . I'd rather just DRIVE. In the case of Cleveland to DC, I'm actually paying less in gas and turnpike and the travel time isn't that much greater.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

29. Agreed!

Back in 2007 my late fiance and I drove from south FL to San Diego because most airlines wouldn't let him use his portable oxygen concentrator back then. It was an amazing trip....

[closeupready]

22. +1.

[2ndAmForComputers]

102. You forgot to say he's fat and it snowed last week so har har you librul dummies and he's fat.

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. One small correction;

A train, even on our nation's horrible rail system, can go coast to coast in four days max

Not actually true.

The fact is, a railroad company that offers coast to coast service does not exist in the US, and where it is possible to ship a container or a trailer across the country by rail, it is moved by at least two different railroads.

I did a quick check on BNSF's website and the standard "target" time from San Bernardino (a major intermodal yard in the LA basin for them) and Charlotte, NC was 134 hours - 5.58 days, the last leg of which is served by CSX. To get a container or trailer from the Port of Long Beach to New York or Jacksonville or anywhere in between is going to take in excess of 6 days.

Just for comparison, Long Beach to Central Park via the interstate system is about 2800 miles. Using a 60 MPH average, that equates to 46.7 hours. That means a two man tractor trailer team can have your container in NY 4 days faster than the railroad can.

Interestingly enough, the only rail service provider that does offer coast to coast service by the same locomotives, if you will, is AMTRAK.

[stevenleser]

9. Dont attack air travel, support Better solutions: Enviro Friendly Jet engines + High Speed Rail

I think rather than attacking air travel, a better idea is to throw support behind efforts to bring high speed rail throughout the US and efforts to make jet engines more environmentally friendly and throw out less CO2. Of mass transit solutions, europeans are much more apt to take trains for trips of between 120-500 miles than we are, but that is because their system is better. They would not do that if their train system was as inefficient and slow as ours is.

Here is a project in the EU to make more environmentally friendly jet engines that put out 20% less CO2

http://ec.europa.eu/research/transport/projects/items/_eefae____efficient__eco_friendly_aircraft_engines_en.htm

New cleaner aircraft engines will soon be tested under aegis of the EEFAE project, co-funded by the EU and involving all of Europe’s major aero-engine companies. Researchers say the project will bring multiple benefits to civil aviation via reduced NOx and CO2 emissions and substantially lower engine purchase and operating costs.

The five-year ‘Efficient and environmentally friendly aircraft engine’ project will receive a total of €101.4 million in funding, half from the European Commission and the other half from EEFAE’s 20 industrial, university and research partners.

EEFAE partners have set ambitious objectives, namely to bring down an engine’s nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions, fuel consumption and life-cycle costs. For instance, EEFAE aims to reduce CO 2 emissions by as much as 20 percent and NOx emissions by an impressive 60-to-80 percent, while, at the same time, cutting engine life cycle (repair and maintenance) costs by nearly one-third.
.
.
.

[Fumesucker]

12. We would be best served by a system that uses already existing rights of way

Which basically means the Interstate Highways.

For passenger and light freight some sort of "monorail" that is built above Interstates would be the quickest to implement simply because it would spend less time in court.

Engineering such a system today would almost be trivial, the real hurdles are in the legislatures and the courts, including the court of public opinion.

[stevenleser]

14. Yes, existing rights of way. IIRC, most trains I have taken in Europe travel alongside highways.

The thing is, we have a barebones rail system that can be expanded. It's not like we are starting from scratch. The accela routes between Boston and Washington are extremely popular and that shows that there is a market for this here.

[JVS]

17. You don't need new tech for more efficient aircraft, turbo-prop engines are more efficient and...

already exist.

You know those big Russian recon planes? The Tupolev 95 Bear. The Soviets had the same platform built already with jet engines (Tu-16), but found that if they were willing to drop top speed from 650 to 575 they could increase the range from 4,500 miles to 8,100 miles by using turboprops. But they are noisy. These are still well within the speeds considered acceptable for air travel.

[stevenleser]

18. I think there are two issues, the noise you mention and the perception of it being older and less

reliable. I know I dread when I am traveling somewhere and part of the itinerary involves a turboprop. Although after my Africa trip in 2011, I think I am now more accustomed to it.

[B2G]

10. No thanks. I like getting a little thing called a paycheck.

[Nye Bevan]

11. Sure. When all the concerned celebrities and politicians give up their private jets.

Nothing like leading by example.

[tama]

34. Then why

don't you lead by example?

[Nye Bevan]

37. If me stopping flying generated the same publicity as Al Gore and Bono would

by giving up their private jets, then I would.

[tama]

42. Weird "logic"

Same as "why should I stop driving Hummer and hoarding lethal weaponry, before Obama changes into small hybrid and stops flying drones"???

Why chain your actions and consciousness by what some celebs are doing? Are you slave or a free man?

[2ndAmForComputers]

103. I notice you didn't cite any RW public person.

Don't they have private jets too?

[tama]

108. The standard character assassination strategy

against people who are not "perfect" - who is? - but at least doing something and speaking publicly in way that TPTB feel threatening.

[Nye Bevan]

125. They were the first two names that sprang to mind

when thinking about people who constantly lecture the rest of us about climate change etc. while zooming around and polluting the world with their private jets when they could simply use Skype.

Having said that, if it would make you happy for me to mention some other people in the post, let me know who and I will edit accordingly, consistent with my 100% satisfaction guarantee.

[sinkingfeeling]

13. So, will we have a new fleet of cross-Atlantic liners that can make the trip in 3 days?

[zappaman]

15. No thanks.

I work to make money to be able to travel the world.
Unless you can beam me around like Star Trek, planes are gonna be the way I do it.

[tama]

35. Clouds look pretty much same everywhere - if you get window seat

Much more to see on the ground, and the slower you travel, the more you see.

[zappaman]

43. If I could drive to Palau or Australia or, this year, Thailand...I would. n/t

[tama]

45. By ship...

I know, it's not easy, not much shipping lanes functioning nowadays. But getting a passenger cabin on some cargo ship can be a real adventure. Or learning how to sail...

[zappaman]

49. If my vacations was over a month long, maybe.

As it is, it sometimes takes an entire day just to arrive at a destination...

[tama]

55. When my friends were in traveling age

they worked and saved for couple of years, and then resigned and travelled for several months (China, India, etc.). My "honeymoon" trip was about half a year of freely wandering around Greece. I heartily recommend the freedom of wandering attitude without hurry anywhere and no strict time-tables, if you want to really travel and experience the world. One such trip is worth dozen quick vacations between work work work.

[zappaman]

57. That's pretty awesome!

I hope to have the time to do that one day.
Until then, flying it is!

[MadHound]

47. Nice bit of attitude there,

Me, me, me, I, I, I. Hmm, what group does that remind me of? Oh, yeah, that's right.

[zappaman]

48. Sorry, but flying is a reality.

Better ways to fly that aren't as harmful to the planet?
All for it.

I find your attitude condescending, ridiculous and holier than thou.
Hmm, what group does that remind me of? Oh, yeah, that's right.

[MadHound]

50. Rationalizing your selfish attitude, hmm.

Well, I hope that I don't see you complaining about global climate change around here. After all, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Your basic answer is "I'm going to keep recklessly polluting the planet until they find a better way to gratify my needs."

Sad, truly.

[zappaman]

52. ummm...

"Your basic answer is "I'm going to keep recklessly polluting the planet until they find a better way to gratify my needs." "

So flying is "recklessly polluting the planet?"

You really live in a different reality than humanity.

Are you a hermit of some kind that lives off the land and "don't fancy none of them flying machines?"

Rationalizing your holier than thou and ridiculous attitude, hmm.
Sad, truly.

[MadHound]

60. I do what is necessary to keep my carbon footprint as small as possible,

Guess you can't say the same.

You're the one doing the rationalizing around here, rationalizing your own selfishness. Again, your basic reason for flying comes down to "I just want to, and I don't give a damn about the planet".

It is attitudes like yours, and others on display here in this thread, that has gotten us to the point where we are facing a major catastrophe.

Gee, thanks, keep on flying, keep on expanding your carbon footprint

[zappaman]

62. Bully for you!

I'll raise a toast to you when I am in Thailand after my flight!

[tama]

61. In truth

most people on Earth don't ever fly on airplanes, or own a car. And we all live of the land. But I don't believe blame gaming and guilt tripping helps much, if anything. And if travelling is your hearts desire, then that is good and we all make practical compromises against our ideals.

But just as friendly advice, you really get and learn more from travelling by giving it time and freedom, and perhaps learning to know some other culture almost as deeply as your own, than from superficial quick hops here and there.

[zappaman]

63. I agree!

That's why 10 days in another country is a minimum...

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. K&R The first step to solving a problem is to understand that you have a problem.

We are simply determined to pretend that all we need are a few tweaks and "lifestyle" changes to make it all better.

[Prism]

19. I would never see my family

Many families are scattered these days, and flying is a fact of life. When there's a time efficient way to get from San Francisco to Chicago and back, wonderful. Until then, I will continue flying to see my family. I cannot afford the time off work to make weeklong treks across the continent just so I can see my family for less than a day before driving right back.

It's just not going to happen.

I agree about shipping, though. I always get standard. Nothing I buy is so important that I need it right this second.

[closeupready]

20. No thanks.

[Taverner]

21. Airflight is a drop in the bucket. China spews more carbon in an hour...

Than airlines do all day

[AverageJoe90]

153. Sad, but likely true.

After all, it's one of the world's largest coal-producing countries, am I right?

[Blue_In_AK]

23. I know you mean well, MadHound,

but if I ever want to visit my family in the Lower 48, I almost have to fly. Try driving from Anchorage to Denver sometime. No railroads or buses go from Alaska to USA. The ferry is time-prohibitive, not to mention the fact that we have to drive 700 miles to get to it anyway.

[RobertEarl]

24. Heh

After reading this thread comes confirmation of why some of us have given up on doing anything about climate change. The evidence here on DU of people who know better not willing to do anything about their impacts confirms that it will only get worse.

Sorry, kids. We have ruined your inheritance all in the space of a few decades. I hope you can forgive us.

[stevenleser]

25. Completely wrong. People are just demanding better solutions than "Dont use airplanes for anything"

And there are several better solutions listed in the thread.

1. Less economic damaging jet engines.

2. More high speed rail options in the US, i.e. a true modern and full rail system

3. Re-examine turbo-prop

[RobertEarl]

31. Yeah, keep on trucking

We want it now and since we can get it now we will have it now and fuck the future.

Don't know where you have been all these years, but some of us have been telling the world that our way of life was going to end up changing the planet in ways no one is gonna like. And here we are.

Your point of view is old - this we can build our way out of the problem - and it is a proven failure. The only way is to quit doing so much, like quit flying, but no, people here have this feeling that they are entitled to do what the fuck ever - damn the consequences - I want it now and i will have it now - I got mine, fuck you. I know, been there done that, for a bit, and it was sinful, so I stopped. But the rest of the world just keeps on trucking. The planet is fucked. Have a nice day. Jurors take note: Nothing personal intended.

[stevenleser]

36. Translation: "It has to be my way." No, it doesn't. Those are perfectly good solutions.

But you already knew that.

[RobertEarl]

41. Not my way

Nature bats last.

There WERE perfectly good solutions but time has run out. Hey, I'm as much to blame as anybody. We privileged Americans all felt entitled and we ate of the apple and have ruined this Garden of Eden.

Now all we can do is stop creating more problems, but we won't. We want to "be somewhere else now", we want everything - Now.

It's been real and its been fun, but it hasn't been real fun. Not for nature. Now nature is replying.

[liberal N proud]

26. If I can get there in 2 days or less driving, I drive

It is difficult to drive to the west coast or overseas from Cleveland.

There are also business reasons that I have to fly sometimes. But I prefer driving.

[Godhumor]

27. Absolutely would not give up air travel, ever

I can leave Buffalo and be in Chicago for a meeting before lunch, stay at HQ all day, have a working dinner and be home in time to tuck in my kid all in the same day.

Air travel becoming affordable for the masses is one of the best first world developments of the modern era.

[LeftyMom]

28. I don't get vacations long enough to drive anywhere.

[AsahinaKimi]

30. I am sure in a few years...

Flying will not be affordable and Passports will be far more expensive. Only the Rich and upper crust will be able to fly...the rest of us will stay home and visit exotic places on our computers...

[thelordofhell]

32. One good thing about 911.........no air traffic for a few days

The skies were brighter, clearer, and more beautiful than ever in those days of no-fly

[DeadEyeDyck]

68. Not over lower Manhattan. n/t

[alphafemale]

137. Some people say things that are absolutely stunning, don't they?

And revealing.

That was a real right there.

That's comparable to someone reminiscing about the beautiful sunsets created by all the smoke from the furnaces at Auschwitz.

9/11 was great because this person didn't have to look at wispy jet trails?

Good gawd.

[MadHound]

38. The responses to this thread are stunning,

In many cases they are no better than Freepers. The basic gist goes like this "I like it, I want it, and I'm not going to give it up even though it is doing incredible damage to the planet."

For those of you who are responding this way, you have absolutely no room to complain about global climate change or the effects it is having on the rest of us. You know why? Because you are unwilling to modify your own wasteful behavior in order to save the planet. Have you no shame?

[Godhumor]

44. Hell, if convenience is now something to be ashamed of, why don't we go back to horse and buggy?

Or covered wagon? After all if flying some place in two hours should be done in a day car ride to reduce damage then why not do the same for cars? That way, we can reduce air pollution to a minimal level!

And before you say it is a false equivalency, no it is not. If using air travel for business or personal needs is not an acceptable reason then it should apply to autos as well.

Until something works better, air travel is a vital aspect of many, many lives.

[MadHound]

46. Let's see, what is that tradeoff?

Convenience in exchange for a warmer, more polluted planet. Hell of a rationale you've got there.

Future generations are going to damn us for thinking about ourselves first and ignoring the future. That is if there are future generations.

[Godhumor]

59. So, screed about cars, too

My point is, a lot of us have tried to point out that air travel is a fact of life. Either it helps us see family, do our jobs or see more of a world made small and reachable. You are proposing to eliminate that without a direct alternative, and returning flight to a have versus have nots situation. And you pretty much lecture us on being selfish.

So okay, rationale of convenience is gone. Taking two hours to fly versus a full day to drive is now indefensible. The exact situation should apply to any place you can drive in two hours versus riding a horse in a day.

If you say you agree with that then kudos for being consistent. If you don't, then you are saying convenience does become a rational choice and can be applied to travel situations.

[zappaman]

53. Shhhhh...the OP has created their own perfect world for themselves

Without electricity, wheels or any means of transportation besides walking.
Don't ruin it for them.

[tama]

71. At certain phase

I also acted like that, preaching amending our ecologically sinful way full of fire and brimstone. I had just become a father and worried myself sick over their future.

The worry is genuine and arises from love, the problem is systemic, and people are resisting and changing everywhere, please show understanding and compassion for also those of us who go through the angry preacher phase.

And once more, you really learn so much more about world and yourself if you can travel without the consumerist tourist attitude.

[zappaman]

73. ok

You're right...they'll probably grow out of it..

?w=510

[Sissyk]

113. I guess he has a windmill

running that computer too, huh? lol

[tama]

106. Amish are doing fine

and their way of life won't be affected by the inevitable - and already ongoing - power down.

Adaptation is name of the game, and it is gradual process of evolution. And as conscious ethical compassionate beings most of us wish that adaptation process is as painless as possible.

There are lots of things we will let go of - and we don't know what will be possible and what not. Flying is relatively easy luxury to let go of, compared to many other modern comforts powered by fossil fuels. And we can't expect politicians to "save" us if we are not building momentum of progressively adaptive change by our own choices.

[alphafemale]

138. Yeah. They run the best puppy mills. nt

[geek tragedy]

88. Maybe you should take a math class before advancing idiotic ideas

like taking a boat to London instead of a plane due to carbon impact.

[greytdemocrat]

107. No...

The replies are for the most part realistic instead of rainbow farting pony silly.

[Nye Bevan]

134. Are you stunned that Al Gore travels around by private jet? (nt)

[tama]

39. Thanks

Stopped flying 2007, IIRC.

[Kip Humphrey]

40. Hey, my first car was a 1952 DeSoto! Oh, and flying IS about the worst thing you can do to the

environment.

[Ian David]

51. One more reason why I want them to bring back the airships...

... and start building Vacuum Tube Trains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube_train

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/the-new-age-of-travel-blimps-and-beyond/

[Hekate]

54. OTOH, airplanes are mass transit of a sort

When I was a mother of young kids, I had precious little vacation time -- a week at most, plus the tacked on weekends. My folks lived 150 miles away -- okay that's doable in a car. My sister, however, lived across the continent. By saving up my money and purchasing tickets in the cattle car section I was able to make sure my kids got to know their aunt and cousins. This would not have been possible otherwise.

When I was a kid in the 1950s, sure air travel was a luxury. We got dressed up for the occasion, sweetly smiling stewardesses brought us treats, and the airlines boasted that passengers had plenty of leg room. Those days are long, long gone, and air travel is now universally acknowledged to be a misery.

These one size fits all solutions do not fit all, or even most.

As for the cargo -- I always choose ground shipping (when given a choice) because I like to save money. But tell that to the entire business world that now counts on "just in time" shipping and deliveries in a "pipeline" that does not use warehouses any more. No, seriously, one good shipping strike and entire industries will find themselves up the well-known creek without a paddle.

[MindPilot]

56. Be nice if there was a choice.

If my employer wants me on the other coast tomorrow morning, I need to fly. And if my client's server is down, he needs that part now, not in a week.

I would love to take the train, but a) Amtrak's motto should be "you can't get there from here" and b) unless you want to spend your entire vacation on the train, it is not practical to go any great distance.

No, I'm not being selfish; there is no alternative to flying.

[Whisp]

58. see this vid: air traffic in 24 hours...

I have not reason to believe this is made up or a fake. If anyone has some proof of this please post here.

If this doesn't make you think twice about flying - you should.

Convenience is the whole reason the earth is in the fucked up shape it is today - you should remember that too.

But it's probably too damn late anyway, so what the hell.

[union_maid]

64. No problem

I have no interest in flying anyway. I'd like to think I'd make the sacrifice, but I can't say for sure because flying has become a trial. That doesn't mean there aren't emergency situations in which I'd have to fly, but that's it for us. However, I don't think the very occasional flight my husband and I took are going to have much impact either way and I don't see the world stopping any time soon. Even if people didn't travel for pleasure, there's business for many. And there's the very big fact that families live in far flung places, their decisions to do so informed by the accessibility of air travel. But hey, we can hope. I know if people would stop going back and forth to Florida so often it would be a lot quieter in the airspace over my house, too.

[FreeJoe]

65. Carbon Tax

We need a carbon tax. Set properly, the price of things would include the negative externality of CO2 emmissions and we could decide based on whether it was still worthwhile.

[SoCalDem]

66. I quit flying when my last out-of-state relative died

There is nowhere I have to be in such a hurry that I cannot drive there.

We have a comfy car, and are content with driving where we need to go. As it is, we only buy gas for the car every 6 weeks or so..

[zappaman]

67. hmmmm

[MadHound]

69. Hmmm, looks like your conscience is rattling your cage.

You know that you are part of the problem, but just can't bear to admit it, even to yourself. Therefore we see all the faux outrage and childlike posting screeds.

Damn, you're obvious.

[zappaman]

72. Project much?

Nope.
I fly with a clear conscience.
You got right ahead and stare at your 4 walls while the world passes you by.

[MadHound]

74. LOL, your very post belies your words,

But hey, keep that selfish "me, me, me, I, I, I" attitude up, you'll go far in life with it.

[zappaman]

75. LOL!

keep that condescending "me, me, me, I, I, I" attitude up, you'll go far in life with it.

[tama]

89. I'm part of the problem, too

As I said, I stopped flying long time ago for reasons of consciousness, and have done much else (learned gardening, lived in ecovillage, etc.), but I'm still part of the problem. My diagnosis is that we are suffering from collective insanity, so I can't exclude myself by blaming others who have done less, but live as copatient and keep on healing together.

[Glassunion]

76. How do I get to London next month?

I'm a shitty swimmer and the water is friggin freezing.

[MadHound]

78. Boat.

What are you going to London for, business or pleasure?

[Godhumor]

83. You realize that the large sea going vessel

Will measure diesel fuel burn in gallons per mile and not miles pet gallon, right?

[geek tragedy]

86. Why do you hate the planet? Boating is much worse for the environment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2006/dec/20/cruises.green

Climate Care, carbon offsetting company

“According to our calculations, a cruiseliner such as Queen Mary 2 emits 0.43kg of CO2 per passenger mile, compared with 0.257kg for a long-haul flight (even allowing for the further damage of emissions being produced in the upper atmosphere). Sometimes our instincts about what’s best for the environment are wrong and this shows the importance of calculating the actual carbon emissions from different activities and making our decisions - both as individuals and government policy - based on the real numbers. We would certainly welcome the cruise liner industry taking a closer look at their carbon footprint. As these figures show, it is not negligible.”

Richard Hammond, the Guardian's green travel columnist

"Quite aside from the carbon emissions, there is a high cost to the ocean. The cruise industry has a poor record in terms of waste water treatment and disposal, and therefore it has to clean up its act if it is to be considered as an environmentally friendly means of travel. The size of the industry is also crucial: cruising is the fastest growing sector of the travel industry. In 2003, 9.3 million passengers took a cruise while the International Eco-tourism Society projects that 17 million passengers will do so in 2010.”

Gwyn Topham, author of Overboard: the stories cruise lines don't want told

“Mile for mile, the carbon footprint for a cruise is worse - and many passengers will take planes to join a cruise. Since the big cruise lines were hit with massive fines in the US for polluting waters a few years ago, they have made improvements - but ships are not facing that same kind of scrutiny outside Alaska and California. The overall benefits to the ports of call are questionable. And while environmentalists do generally agree that new ships are greener, it takes a long time to adapt older ships and in many areas - such as cleaner fuel, better waste treatment systems - campaigners think cruise lines aren't doing nearly enough.”

Tricia Barnett, director of Tourism Concern

"It’s not greener, and it's a much broader issue than carbon emissions alone. Cruise ships are the ultimate all-inclusive holiday experience where everything is paid for before you board. So the benefits to locals when you dock are minimal, but they have to deal with the waste that the cruise ship leaves behind. While you're on board huge amounts of electricity will be used to provide everyone with the services they expect.”

Justin Francis, Responsible Travel

“You might naturally assume that a ship would emit less carbon dioxide than a long-haul flight but it’s not the case. On a typical one-week voyage a cruise ship generates more than 50 tonnes of garbage and a million tonnes of grey (waste) water, 210,000 gallons of sewage and 35,000 gallons of oil-contaminated water. Some of this is pumped into ocean and some treated.
The cultural impact of large numbers of tourists descending on, in some cases, small destinations has also been overlooked. People are after simple answers, simple solutions. But we’ve oversimplified it with flying: if people really want to reduce their carbon, they can make a larger difference by lagging their boiler or taking showers not baths, rather than cutting out a flight to somewhere which needs it.”

George Monbiot, environmental campaigner and author

“There are remarkably few figures. But George Marshall of the Climate Outreach Information Network has conducted a rough initial calculation for the Queen Elizabeth II. Cunard says the ship burns 433 tonnes of fuel a day, and takes six days to travel from Southampton to New York. If the ship is full, every passenger with a return ticket consumes 2.9 tonnes. A tonne of shipping fuel contains 0.85 tonnes of carbon, which produces 3.1 tonnes of carbon dioxide when it is burnt. Every passenger is responsible for 9.1 tonnes of emissions. Travelling to New York and back on the QEII, in other words, uses almost 7.6 times as much carbon as making the same journey by plane.”

[Silent3]

91. Boats are definitely better for cargo than they are for people for energy efficiency.

Some people might make the mistake of assuming they'll move as efficiently as cargo. But cargo doesn't need a dozen or so meals while crossing the ocean, a cabin to sleep in, recreational activities to pass the time, room service, showers, etc., etc.

[tama]

99. All ships have crews that need all of that (well, room service???!!!)

But there is big difference in energy consumption between floating palaces and regular ships...

[Silent3]

131. And for every one member of the crew...

...demanding some of those creature comforts, there are many, many tons of relatively undemanding cargo just sitting there, going along for the ride.

It would be interesting (though not at all practical) to figure out the potential energy efficiency of transporting people in a very non-luxurious ocean-crossing passenger boat, something just barely above the old "steerage" form of travel. You'd still have to provide and transport at least a week's worth of food for each person (for something like an Atlantic crossing), handle washing clothes, transport the weight of the beds (or cots?) they'd sleep in, provide bathing and toilet facilities, provide heating and/or air conditioning for the long duration of the trip. Even stripped-down cross-ocean travel might have a hard time beating an airplane for efficiency.

[tama]

136. Interesting yes

There are couple guardian articles discussing the issue posted below, and with different emissions and altitudes of it's very complicated equation.

But the sword to open that knot of Gordion is wind and sails.

[MindPilot]

104. Crossing and cruising are two very different trips.

The ships are very different too. A big cruise ship is not really designed for the open ocean; they stay close to land and out of bad weather.

A ship like the QEII is designed to handle high seas and rough weather, and as such is less efficient than the typical cruise ship with a few thousand passengers.

[Glassunion]

94. A boat would not be economical. I also can't afford the time off of work to make the roundtrip.

I am travelling for business.

I'm assuming I would have to sail, as an oceanliner is far worse for the environment, not to mention, that I am unaware of any the cross the Atlantic this time of year due to weather and ocean conditions. So instead of taking two 7 hour flights, I'm looking at what? A month and a half, two months of sailing in the deadly North Atlantic?

Nah, I'll stick with the airline.

[zappaman]

79. Maybe you can fly over with your gilded angel wings?

But first, you must become...

[alphafemale]

145. +infinity

evangelical fundamentalists suck no matter what their delusion is.

[KamaAina]

96. And how do I get back to Hawai'i?

Water's not as cold, but there are sharks.

[Glassunion]

98. Take the tunnel.

I hear they put in bike lanes.

[donheld]

160. Broom

[Warpy]

80. One thing they found in the week after 9/11

was that without all the jet contrails in the upper atmosphere, the US warmed a lot faster.

In some ways, jets are putting water vapor, hydrocarbon particulates and CO2 where it will do some good, instead of leaving it next to the ground the way cars do.

[geek tragedy]

81. And don't have children. And don't eat meat or cheese. And stop using the Internet

and any non-solar device that requires electricity, like phones or televisions. And don't buy new clothes. And don't use a car, ever. Or a bus for that matter. And don't own a house. And why are we spending money on air conditioning? And has anyone checked out the carbon impact of keeping old people alive?

This is the stereotype of the whiny, holier-than-thou liberal who demands other people change their lifestyle to accomodate their Puritanical standards.

I live 1000 miles away from my closest family, and anyone who wants me to forego ever seeing them can shove their preachiness up their ass.

[zappaman]

82. Well said!

[geek tragedy]

84. If you use a refrigerator or a washing machine, you're like Hitler. nt

[RobertEarl]

93. heh

That's funny stuff.....geek

Funny in that 100 years ago, that's how life was for everyone, i.e. no cars, no tv, nothing electric. Now just a few, dare we call them "Privileged?" people have all that. Yes, me too. I have had all that. Funny, too, in that of say 10 billion people who have lived on this planet, just 1 billion have had all that. And now? Well, tell me what the world is like now as compared to 100 years ago. Better? Or worse?

[geek tragedy]

97. Electricity and houses and meat didn't exist 100 years ago?

Life expectancy in the US has increased by 20 years per person over the past 100 years.

I don't live in a house, own a car, or have children. I'll take my carbon footprint against the person who has all of the above but doesn't use airplanes.

[RobertEarl]

117. Who said houses and meat didn't exist? Only you, geek

So why go off in right field like that? Having trouble... maybe some guilt?

Electricity to houses is just around 100 years old and even then only the elite and Privileged had electricity into their houses. Much the same as today.

Sure, Americans live longer, but you skipped answering a pretty simple question: Is the WORLD better off than 100 years ago? I think not. Today there is a lot more pollution and a whole lot less diversity. So, try to stick with what I write next time, ok?

[geek tragedy]

121. Well, sure the rest of the planet would be better off if 4 billion people

died tomorrow.

[RobertEarl]

127. See? There is our difference

You think 4 billion dieing is the answer, and the rest of us think quit flying is a better solution. It really Is. That. Simple.

So you now see why we try and talk folks like you down?

[zappaman]

128. "It really Is. That. Simple."

It really is simple-minded, that's for sure.

[RobertEarl]

133. No. Its ecologically minded

It is basic common sense. It's just some of us have their heads in the clouds thinking flying will not have consequences.

[tama]

141. Self hating humans

tend to have great difficulty to love anything and anyone as long as they hate themselves.

Rest of the planet - cats and dogs and horses and dolphins etc. etc. - teach us much about love by sharing it with us humans. And they often help and heal humans who have fallen into the trap of self-hate and cannot find way out. We are much loved by the rest of planet, that gave birth to us.

[MadrasT]

85. No. I did my part by not procreating. I'm flying. n/t

[mn9driver]

87. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The fuel burn of an A320 flying from Minneapolis to Los Angeles is 18244 pounds, including taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise descent and landing. It also includes the fuel required to carry reserve and alternate fuel. Jet A weighs 6.7 pounds per gallon. The A320 has 150 seats, and they are all almost always full on this particular route. I know this for a fact. It's what I do.

It works out to 18 gallons per passenger for the 1332 statute mile trip. At 21 pounds per gallon CO2 emitted, that's 378 pounds of CO2 per passenger for the trip, or 0.28 pounds of CO2 per mile. The conversions for all of this are freely available with a quick google search.

[SidDithers]

101. Facts are good...

thanks for correcting the nonsense in the OP.

Sid

[RobertEarl]

105. Wow. 378 pounds of co2!

Roundtrip that's 756 pounds of co2.

See? The OP is right, want to help save the planet? Don't fly. 766 pounds per person in 8 hours times 1,000s of people a week. We are talking some serious numbers there. You don't even have to do the math, common sense is enough.

[geek tragedy]

109. Aviation is 2% of world carbon emissions.

Same as computers.

The OP is destroying the planet by posting this crap.

[zappaman]

110. ...

[tama]

115. Check this

According to the paper, if we focus just on the impact over the next five years, then planes currently account for more global warming than all the cars on the world's roads – a stark reversal of the usual comparison. Per passenger mile, things are even more marked: flying turns out to be on average 50 times worse than driving in terms of a five-year warming impact.

If we shift to a 20-year time frame, things look completely different. The short-term impacts have largely died down and the plane looks considerably better – helped along by a quirk of atmospheric chemistry which sees nitrous oxide pollution from the aircraft engines causing cooling during this period by destroying methane in the air. The paper even suggests that for any time frame longer than 20 years, flying is typically greener per kilometre than driving (although when I phoned to check this, one of the authors of the report confirmed my suspicion that this isn't true in Europe, where fuel-efficient cars are more popular).

Of the various forms of transport examined by the researchers, shipping is the other one most markedly affected by short-term climate impacts. Here, however, everything is in reverse because the major short-term effect of shipping is sulfate aerosol pollution. While they remain in the air, these aerosol particles bounce sunlight away from the earth and therefore cause cooling rather than warming. The extent of this effect is amazing: if I'm understanding the numbers correctly, over a five-year time frame the world's ships cause enough cooling to offset the total warming caused by every car, plane and bus combined.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/carbon-emissions-planes-shipping

[geek tragedy]

118. But check this:

The true scale of climate change emissions from shipping is almost three times higher than previously believed, according to a leaked UN study seen by the Guardian.

It calculates that annual emissions from the world's merchant fleet have already reached 1.12bn tonnes of CO2, or nearly 4.5% of all global emissions of the main greenhouse gas.

The report suggests that shipping emissions - which are not taken into account by European targets for cutting global warming - will become one of the largest single sources of manmade CO2 after cars, housing, agriculture and industry. By comparison, the aviation industry, which has been under heavy pressure to clean up, is responsible for about 650m tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, just over half that from shipping.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution

[tama]

129. Easy solution:

Better than starving people by produce biofuels for flying instead of food for people. First things first?

[RobertEarl]

123. Aviation 2% and computers 2%?

It sounds like bullshit.

Besides, even if it were true, there are a lot more people using computers than there are flying, so per capita, your claim is crazy talk, at the least.

[tama]

112. Looked and found this:

We hear much about the environmental costs of air travel. As our recent Q&A explained, the problem is not just that planes burn a lot of fuel and therefore kick out plenty of CO2 per passenger. Just as important are a host of other high-altitude impacts, including vapour trails and ozone production, that are usually estimated to cause as much warming as the CO2 itself.

Hence we often hear that although air travel accounts for only a small fraction of global emissions (relatively few people can afford to fly), one transatlantic flight can add as much to your carbon footprint as a typical year's worth of driving.

Surely it couldn't get any worse, could it? Unfortunately for green-minded air travellers, it just did. Kind of.

The wrinkle, always vaguely understood by climate geeks but finally explored in depth in a recent scientific paper, is that the relative impact of different types of travel depends not just on practical factors such as engine efficiency and occupancy rates, but also on something altogether more abstract: the time frame you care about.

The reason this is so crucial is that the effects of different greenhouse gases play out in the atmosphere at a different speeds. CO2, released by all fuel-burning vehicles, can remain in the air for centuries, causing a gentle warming effect. By contrast, most other gases and impacts – such as the vapour trails and tropospheric ozone produced by planes at altitude – cause much more potent but shorter-lived bursts of warming.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/carbon-emissions-planes-shipping

[geek tragedy]

116. But did you read this part?

If we shift to a 20-year time frame, things look completely different. The short-term impacts have largely died down and the plane looks considerably better – helped along by a quirk of atmospheric chemistry which sees nitrous oxide pollution from the aircraft engines causing cooling during this period by destroying methane in the air. The paper even suggests that for any time frame longer than 20 years, flying is typically greener per kilometre than driving (although when I phoned to check this, one of the authors of the report confirmed my suspicion that this isn't true in Europe, where fuel-efficient cars are more popular).

[tama]

124. Yep, see my reply to your post ;)

The main point is, it's complex dynamic system and impact cannot be measured by CO2 amount alone.

And if you want to help by your own choices, boikoting flying is much easier than cars - or train or ship - and can make biggest difference on time scale nearest to us, according to our best current understanding - which may also change.

[Travis_0004]

120. I flew recently

The way I see it is, the plane was going there without or without me, so the marginal co2 emissions from the extra 250 lbs (me plus luggage) is very small.

By flying I created less co2 than driving.

I realize that if everybody stopped flying, then there would be less planes, but I'm not going to worry if I create 800 lbs of co2 a year from flying.

[RobertEarl]

130. Don't worry

The world's climate is screwed. All you can do is add to it. Now, there was a time when we could have done something, but everyone felt it wasn't their problem, so here we are. We won't suffer much, but future generations and all the cuddly little creatures we share the planet with?

Think they applaud our high flying actions?

All we are asking is give the rest of the world a chance.

[mn9driver]

132. Your Prius will blow nearly 500 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere, making the same trip.

[RobertEarl]

135. See Tama's post

I do think it is cute making excuses for flying, but in reality it is a dangerous and anti-environmental action that is not good for the world. Or are you claiming it is good for the world? Or do you have a position? Good? Bad?

[gollygee]

100. I have family overseas so I have to sometimes

But I have to say, I really wish better rail options existed for within the US.

[DollarBillHines]

111. But I cannot drink gin and tonics, non-stop, to JFK.

I love free drinks.

[IDemo]

114. I last flew in 1998

and very likely never will again. But then again, I don't drive much either.

[moparlunatic]

119. I'm amazed at

some of the responses. Is this really DU?

[geek tragedy]

122. you think only Republicans fly on airplanes? nt

[name not needed]

142. Yes.

True progressives live in the woods and forage for berries.

[Godhumor]

146. I believe those are bears you are thinking of

Easy mistake to make.

[tama]

154. If true progressives

believe in evolution and that it would be good if our kids had decent chance to live good lives, progress means continuous adaptation to environmental limits and making best of life within those limits.

Boom-bust cycle of technocratic overshoot and die off sounds more like what Hayek etc. consider "good". Bipolar mass murder to extreme...

[Nye Bevan]

159. "LOL" is such a cliche. But this is a rare occasion when I actually did (nt)

[BainsBane]

139. it's fine for me. I don't have to travel much

But what is someone like a diplomat or business exec who has to travel around the world supposed to do? Swim?

Are you suggesting we have no State Department presence abroad or that Americans make a point of becoming even more insular and self absorbed. If you travel internationally, you have to fly unless you're going to Mexico or Canada.

[pscot]

140. Sixteen reccs out of 140 comments

Which is why homo (not so) sapiens is doomed.

[Godhumor]

143. This is the most entertaining thread on DU in a long time

Not quite the batshit insanity of the moon bombing thread from DU2, but has a tremendous amount of very entertaining replies.

While I disagree with you, MadHound, on the premise in your OP, I have to give you mad props for opening this thread. Sincerely, thanks.

[waterwatcher123]

147. Eat Less Meat

The single most important thing you do to improve the planet is to eat a plant based diet (agriculture is one of the largest sources of carbon emissions). It is also a good way to regain your health.

[Swede Atlanta]

149. I think I will be more careful about when I fly now......

Not only does your post illustrate the destructive nature of aviation on our atmosphere but it gives insight into why so many airlines are trying to play the "cover up" game by having green initiatives such as allowing you to pay an extra $5.00 to plant some trees somewhere. They know they are fucking the planet over and are seeking cover somewhere.

That is reason enough to fly only when absolutely necessary but another reason is that I have noticed that where the porno scanners used to be used only at some airports and then only on about 1/3 of the passengers, now every airport and every checkpoint seem to be using them. I am convinced we will learn in 10 years people are dying of cancer because of these machines and of course the government will claim sovereign immunity.

Boycott air travel. Make the airlines feel the pain. When the CEOs of American, United, Delta, USAir, etc. all descend on Congress, this crap will stop.

[Xipe Totec]

151. Would that I could nt

[NoOneMan]

152. Did you know the internet causes as many emissions as the entire airline industry?

Stop tweeting

[tama]

155. Without internet

we would be much less informed of our predicament and much able less to discuss these issues peer to peer on global level.

And if we are to build some kind of global community based on sustainability and responsibility, it would help much to have Internet available, which means that it would be nice if we knew how to make net sustainable - and did so.

[NoOneMan]

158. Did you know...

The human brain uses about 20+% of our energy, just sending around energy in a biologically evolved multiprocessor. Thats pretty demanding. When you think about the internet, its just a big network that allows energy to flow in directions (stopping at the server level for more processing) and creates outputs at the IO points. As long as you need energy flowing, Im not sure what you can do about it.

On the server side, a bad thing is happening in this regard. Hardware is becoming so cheap (due to technology) that it encourages vast inefficiency. Why write a better program when you spend less money (by not paying developers) just doubling down on RAM and CPU? Why use better image compression (or smaller media) when hard drive space is amazingly cheap and the internet becomes faster? Many, many sites uses terribly inefficient programming and instead throw money at hardware.

A lot of what is produced is also not "helpful". They encourage the consumption of energy (by downloading the content) for trivial matters.

I really, really am not sure the net as we know it could possibly be part of any type of sustainable future. Its only going to get bigger, allow more information (or energy) flowing, and probably become more wasteful. Though, its not going away soon (suggesting maybe the sustainable future is what is on the block)