Author Topic: Air Travel  (Read 2136 times)

A mom

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Air Travel
« on: August 04, 2016, 10:36:08 AM »
I know I've seen this elsewhere on the boards in the past, but I was just listening to a radio show about the rapid decline of species. At the end of the show, the moderator asked the experts what could individuals do to at least slow the rate of species loss. The answer that they generally seemed to agree on was to reduce consumption and in particular to limit air travel. One person said that she had discovered that her two jet trips per year had the carbon footprint of the rest of her lifestyle combined, so she stopped taking them.I have  made similar calculations  about my own carbon footprint, but still do fly to see and to please family.  Obviously we would need many people to decide not to fly to reduce the number of planes in the sky, but if enough of us did, it would make a difference. It is always a moral dilemma for  me, because I am made into the party pooper if I won't travel long distances, but I feel like  a destroyer of the environment if I do. To be clear, I am talking about giving up or severely restricting travelling long distances, not just driving instead, which I understand is not better if you drive alone. Also, please do not respond to this thread if you do not believe in anthropogenic climate change, because that is not the debate I wish to have here. Also not really interested in the plane will fly anyway arguments. I'm talking about what if we could reduce the number and/or size of planes in the sky by individually deciding to restrict our own long distance travel?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Air Travel
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2016, 10:48:18 AM »
What are your calculations on the carbon footprint of air travel?  I've just used the 80 mpg of air fuel/passenger rough estimator for a number. I'd be interested to hear if there are more indepth numbers.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Air Travel
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2016, 11:14:48 AM »
Interesting, but as an ecologist I don't see the connection of air travel to species loss.  It is not the primary driver - that is from habitat loss - land clearing, agriculture, and development. 

Certainly in the long term climate change is going to be a driver for species loss, possibly the leading cause.  But right now it is not.  Hard to speculate really.

See this accessible summary:  http://www.rainforestconservation.org/rainforest-primer/2-biodiversity/g-recent-losses-in-biodiversity/5-causes-of-recent-declines-in-biodiversity/

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Air Travel
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2016, 11:54:56 AM »
Interesting, but as an ecologist I don't see the connection of air travel to species loss.  It is not the primary driver - that is from habitat loss - land clearing, agriculture, and development. 

Certainly in the long term climate change is going to be a driver for species loss, possibly the leading cause.  But right now it is not.  Hard to speculate really.

See this accessible summary:  http://www.rainforestconservation.org/rainforest-primer/2-biodiversity/g-recent-losses-in-biodiversity/5-causes-of-recent-declines-in-biodiversity/

From the 10,000 ft view, warm tropical places tend to have much more biodiversity and species populations than cold ones, so if we are seeing warming, it would tell me it's actually becoming more favorable for life, not less.  I could be wrong, but it makes sense in my head.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Air Travel
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2016, 12:43:32 PM »
Interesting, but as an ecologist I don't see the connection of air travel to species loss.  It is not the primary driver - that is from habitat loss - land clearing, agriculture, and development. 

Certainly in the long term climate change is going to be a driver for species loss, possibly the leading cause.  But right now it is not.  Hard to speculate really.

See this accessible summary:  http://www.rainforestconservation.org/rainforest-primer/2-biodiversity/g-recent-losses-in-biodiversity/5-causes-of-recent-declines-in-biodiversity/


From the 10,000 ft view, warm tropical places tend to have much more biodiversity and species populations than cold ones, so if we are seeing warming, it would tell me it's actually becoming more favorable for life, not less.  I could be wrong, but it makes sense in my head.

Not to get too esoteric here - but it depends.  In shallow marine waters there is a high level of biodiversity, but warming waters are just crashing coral reefs, which are the backbone of this diversity.    Will tropical forests be able to expand their range with warming temperatures?  Hard to say - it's not just the temperature that supports these forests but rain, humidity, water cycling, nutrient cycling, topography, wind patters and the multitude of species interactions among them.

In more temperate climates - look at Mt. Rainier for instance.  the biologically diverse meadows are losing out to expanding conifer forests.  The meadows cannot just retreat upward - there is no soil in the upper alpine zones that were geologically recently dominated by glaciers - it will take thousands of years for these rocky habitats to develop soil.  Correspondingly animals such as Pika, that are found at high altitudes, only have so far to go upward before they run out of forage.  So it is very complicated.

And just one note - yes, you would be correct that the earth has seen past episodes of glaciation and then retreat.  But not human caused and not at the current rate.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 12:46:03 PM by Northwestie »