D
Deleted member 65149
Guest
Objections to the use of aircraft for travel have been raised a number of times within other threads, so I thought the topic should have its own thread so we can elaborate on the discussion without jumping all over the place.
Unless it’s as simple as the objectors having a fear of flying, which I doubt, I’m guessing that the main attack is based on the reported far higher levels of CO2 from aircraft. Of course we can’t compare one plane with one car, so surely a more reasonable comparison would be to look at “g of CO2/passenger/km”. The latest figures I can find using that measure (CO2 emissions from passenger transport) tells us that cars are 42 and aircraft 285. Bloomin eck, no question about it then. It’s surely imperative that passenger flights are brought to an end, and what better time than to do so now whilst so many planes are grounded?
But is that really fair? We live in a globalised world now so the need to travel far and wide has become every bit as essential as driving to work or to visit family in another part of the country. Businesses around the world share knowledge and expertise that help them to develop and thrive. Of course most meetings can be carried out online now, but you can’t install a pipeline or administer medication over the phone. Then there are the countries for whom tourism is their main source of funding; stop air travel and those countries collapse. Or bring it down to individual levels; populations throughout the world are multicultural - should we be stopping people flying across countries to visit their parents, siblings or children?
But again, as we’ve seen above the aircraft emissions are nearly seven times as great as from cars. There’ll be no planet left in which to travel if we don’t stop worrying so much about car emissions and instead concentrating on the massive impact caused by flying. 42 compared to 285 gCO2/passenger km is frightening. But, yet again, how realistic is that alarming figure, the one on which we seemingly base our defence of our right to use our cars as much as we wish when a few people are choosing to kill our planet by swanning off around the globe on holiday?
When we look into those EEA figures I quoted above we see that the averaging assumption used is that there are 4 passengers per car and 88 per plane. I don’t have access to the real averages, but I’m sure that the average car journey is with far less than four passengers - more like two at the most. And aircraft passenger averages are surely much higher than 88 - certainly way more than that at almost every boarding gate I’ve ever been to! Also, the data from EEA is quite old and doesn’t necessarily consider the technological evolutions that have been moving faster in aeronautics than motoring. Because of this, it should be taken with care.
Other considerations need to include things like the fact that the simple figures so far provided don’t account for the significant increases of car pollution when stuck in traffic jams. Apparently CO2 car emissions go up by 2.5 times in a traffic jam compared to normal conditions. And of course there are all the other pollutants to consider, not least being NOx. I don’t have any comparative figures but I’m pretty sure there are more particulates from cars floating around at ground level for us all to breath in than those we might inhale at 36,000 feet. And more nasties from car tyres and brakes too.
I’m not denying that planes remain a very polluting and problematic means of transport. Admittedly, air transport is extremely polluting – but so are cars. Air traffic represents less than 2-3% of the global CO2 emissions whereas road traffic accounts for around 10% of these direct emissions.
We’re told that we need to reduce our carbon footprint and I can’t argue with that (although many would.) And I have no doubt that one of the major ways to contribute to a reduction is by reducing our transportation needs. But should we be trying to justify our increasing use of cars by suggesting that other forms of transport are more to blame. I have serious doubts that we, particularly in a car-based group, are right to do so. Just like dealing with Covid-19, we all have a role to play and can’t afford to rely on a relatively few people to bring about necessary change. An inconvenient truth?
Unless it’s as simple as the objectors having a fear of flying, which I doubt, I’m guessing that the main attack is based on the reported far higher levels of CO2 from aircraft. Of course we can’t compare one plane with one car, so surely a more reasonable comparison would be to look at “g of CO2/passenger/km”. The latest figures I can find using that measure (CO2 emissions from passenger transport) tells us that cars are 42 and aircraft 285. Bloomin eck, no question about it then. It’s surely imperative that passenger flights are brought to an end, and what better time than to do so now whilst so many planes are grounded?
But is that really fair? We live in a globalised world now so the need to travel far and wide has become every bit as essential as driving to work or to visit family in another part of the country. Businesses around the world share knowledge and expertise that help them to develop and thrive. Of course most meetings can be carried out online now, but you can’t install a pipeline or administer medication over the phone. Then there are the countries for whom tourism is their main source of funding; stop air travel and those countries collapse. Or bring it down to individual levels; populations throughout the world are multicultural - should we be stopping people flying across countries to visit their parents, siblings or children?
But again, as we’ve seen above the aircraft emissions are nearly seven times as great as from cars. There’ll be no planet left in which to travel if we don’t stop worrying so much about car emissions and instead concentrating on the massive impact caused by flying. 42 compared to 285 gCO2/passenger km is frightening. But, yet again, how realistic is that alarming figure, the one on which we seemingly base our defence of our right to use our cars as much as we wish when a few people are choosing to kill our planet by swanning off around the globe on holiday?
When we look into those EEA figures I quoted above we see that the averaging assumption used is that there are 4 passengers per car and 88 per plane. I don’t have access to the real averages, but I’m sure that the average car journey is with far less than four passengers - more like two at the most. And aircraft passenger averages are surely much higher than 88 - certainly way more than that at almost every boarding gate I’ve ever been to! Also, the data from EEA is quite old and doesn’t necessarily consider the technological evolutions that have been moving faster in aeronautics than motoring. Because of this, it should be taken with care.
Other considerations need to include things like the fact that the simple figures so far provided don’t account for the significant increases of car pollution when stuck in traffic jams. Apparently CO2 car emissions go up by 2.5 times in a traffic jam compared to normal conditions. And of course there are all the other pollutants to consider, not least being NOx. I don’t have any comparative figures but I’m pretty sure there are more particulates from cars floating around at ground level for us all to breath in than those we might inhale at 36,000 feet. And more nasties from car tyres and brakes too.
I’m not denying that planes remain a very polluting and problematic means of transport. Admittedly, air transport is extremely polluting – but so are cars. Air traffic represents less than 2-3% of the global CO2 emissions whereas road traffic accounts for around 10% of these direct emissions.
We’re told that we need to reduce our carbon footprint and I can’t argue with that (although many would.) And I have no doubt that one of the major ways to contribute to a reduction is by reducing our transportation needs. But should we be trying to justify our increasing use of cars by suggesting that other forms of transport are more to blame. I have serious doubts that we, particularly in a car-based group, are right to do so. Just like dealing with Covid-19, we all have a role to play and can’t afford to rely on a relatively few people to bring about necessary change. An inconvenient truth?
