I fly a ton for work, like I'm over 300 hour of time flying this year, so the 6 hours I've flown for pleasure this year is least of my worries. I do take trains whenever I can, I love trains, but there is so few of them in North America.If you have some guilt over unavoidable flying, carbon offsets are surprisingly cheap. Some actually go toward useful activities.
I try to make reasonable decisions relating to the environment but I know I could do a lot more. I have some guilt.
In the end, none of this really matters. We need to keep doing all these things so that the GMs and Fords and Toyotas and CSXs and Boeings and MAERSKs contained in your index funds keep making money, else your 4% SWRs will collapse and nobody will FIRE.It will be an interesting few decades for all of those industries, with the transformative trends happening right now. Personal EVs already have ~5-yr TCO parity, with purchase price parity achievable soon. The cheapest wholesale electricity in the US is now solar, home producers are driving transformation of utility business models, and long-haul cargo is tinkering with greater efficiencies and alt fuels. The only constant for the energy world this century? Change. :)
Not sure if you are ameat or dairyfood consumer but you could considerdropping one or both from your dietgrowing and raising everything you eat on your own property to offset the carbon footprint of many flights per year.
I read that a 727 burns approx. 4,500 gallons of fuel in a typical (4) hour flight.
At about 180 passengers, each passenger is responsible for 25 gallons of fuel.
In the end, none of this really matters. We need to keep doing all these things so that the GMs and Fords and Toyotas and CSXs and Boeings and MAERSKs contained in your index funds keep making money, else your 4% SWRs will collapse and nobody will FIRE.
If you have some guilt over unavoidable flying, carbon offsets are surprisingly cheap. Some actually go toward useful activities.
Not sure if you are ameat or dairyfood consumer but you could considerdropping one or both from your dietgrowing and raising everything you eat on your own property to offset the carbon footprint of many flights per year.
Fixed that for you.
Got a recommendation?You could send me $20/mo - the average cost of charging my Volt. Offsets 1,000 miles of ICE driving, or one average commercial flight... ish. ;)
I read that a 727 burns approx. 4,500 gallons of fuel in a typical (4) hour flight.
At about 180 passengers, each passenger is responsible for 25 gallons of fuel.
Not sure if you are ameat or dairyfood consumer but you could considerdropping one or both from your dietgrowing and raising everything you eat on your own property to offset the carbon footprint of many flights per year.
Fixed that for you.
Yeah, but dropping meat and dairy will get you something like 90% of the way there. (Note: that's a wild guess, but the actual number is a big percentage.)
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
Plastic… asshole.”
Not sure if you are ameat or dairyfood consumer but you could considerdropping one or both from your dietgrowing and raising everything you eat on your own property to offset the carbon footprint of many flights per year.
Fixed that for you.
Yeah, but dropping meat and dairy will get you something like 90% of the way there. (Note: that's a wild guess, but the actual number is a big percentage.)
I beg to differ. National brands of non-preserved meat and dairy have farms and processors all over the place. Many times one's fancy organic humanely raised chicken is coming from farther away than that pack of Tyson's drumsticks.
Got a recommendation?You could send me $20/mo - the average cost of charging my Volt. Offsets 1,000 miles of ICE driving, or one average commercial flight... ish. ;)
Not sure if you are ameat or dairyfood consumer but you could considerdropping one or both from your dietgrowing and raising everything you eat on your own property to offset the carbon footprint of many flights per year.
Fixed that for you.
Yeah, but dropping meat and dairy will get you something like 90% of the way there. (Note: that's a wild guess, but the actual number is a big percentage.)
I beg to differ. National brands of non-preserved meat and dairy have farms and processors all over the place. Many times one's fancy organic humanely raised chicken is coming from farther away than that pack of Tyson's drumsticks.
I think you missed my point. Transporting the meat to the market is only a relatively small part of it. The majority of meat's carbon footprint comes from the energy associated with feeding and watering the animals (including the production of the petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, etc.). If you took the resources used to grow the grain for a cow and grew crops directly for human consumption instead, you could feed probably 10 times as many people with the same amount of resources. (And even that may even be a gross underestimation.)
What's your point? The quoted poster makes a point about cutting out meat and dairy and you give an example bout buying meat.
A little internet research can allow most of us to source locally and pick up by bicycle too btw.
On another note to those of you here saying you don't care about CO2, are you climate change denies or just don't buy all the science linking CO2 emissions?
That wouldn't do any good; you'd drive a Volt whether I sent you money or not! To offset anything, the money has to actually cause a change in behavior.Stop trying to confuse me with facts and logic!
On another note to those of you here saying you don't care about CO2, are you climate change denies or just don't buy all the science linking CO2 emissions?Wait, what's the difference?
*weighI did Nazi dat kampfing.
I think you missed my point. Transporting the meat to the market is only a relatively small part of it. The majority of meat's carbon footprint comes from the energy associated with feeding and watering the animals (including the production of the petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, etc.). If you took the resources used to grow the grain for a cow and grew crops directly for human consumption instead, you could feed probably 10 times as many people with the same amount of resources. (And even that may even be a gross underestimation.)
...or we could just eat pastured animals.
* theoretically more healthy (though I am skeptical this is the panacea we are told it is)
* if done in combination with ending corn subsidies, it frees up lots of tax money and actually lets people see the actual costs of their meat. Subsidizing feed corn is subsidizing meat (and in turn subsidizing things like fast food). This also frees up land for growing crops for direct human consumption.
Most people don't want to do the research. Strictly from a "carbon footprint" standpoint it's likely that the crap supermarket chicken comes from more locally than the farmers market chicken. Just saying. I would also add that at least in my local supermarkets the ones buying meat aren't buying whole chickens and chuck roasts and pork chops. The only fresh meat that's getting bought is ground beef and only if it's on sale. Otherwise, they're buying chicken nuggets, hot dogs, frozen entrees and stuff of that nature. Remember, Americans don't like to cook.
(By the way, lest people get the wrong impression, I'll state for the record that I do eat meat, and when I do I buy the cheap "conventional" stuff)
*weighI did Nazi dat kampfing.
On another note to those of you here saying you don't care about CO2, are you climate change denies or just don't buy all the science linking CO2 emissions?
(By the way, lest people get the wrong impression, I'll state for the record that I do eat meat, and when I do I buy the cheap "conventional" stuff)
AHA, I KNEW IT! :D My meat and poultry come from farms 20 and 30 miles away respectively.
With supermarket meat and egg prices skyrocketing around here, I'm paying roughly the same for much better stuff.
I think you missed my point. Transporting the meat to the market is only a relatively small part of it. The majority of meat's carbon footprint comes from the energy associated with feeding and watering the animals (including the production of the petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, etc.). If you took the resources used to grow the grain for a cow and grew crops directly for human consumption instead, you could feed probably 10 times as many people with the same amount of resources. (And even that may even be a gross underestimation.)
...or we could just eat pastured animals.
* theoretically more healthy (though I am skeptical this is the panacea we are told it is)
* if done in combination with ending corn subsidies, it frees up lots of tax money and actually lets people see the actual costs of their meat. Subsidizing feed corn is subsidizing meat (and in turn subsidizing things like fast food). This also frees up land for growing crops for direct human consumption.
Ending corn subsidies would certainly help (mostly by raising the supermarket cost of meat, lowering consumption), but pasturing would have little effect. Even then, you still need 10x as many acres of pasture to produce the same amount of food as you could if you grew plants for humans instead.
Using land for pasturing animals only makes sense, environmentally speaking, when it's not fertile enough to be used for anything else.
Cargo ships are the best thing going. You, individually, will never be buying all the cargo on the ship. You have to think of it in terms of per-capita use, and they are extremely efficient.
The aircraft is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
The train is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
The bus is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
Trying to assign emissions on a trip to a passenger is funny.
Even if you fly, the train and bus still make the trip.
The weight of a single passenger on any of them is negligible compared to the entire mass.
The aircraft is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
The train is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
The bus is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
Trying to assign emissions on a trip to a passenger is funny.
Even if you fly, the train and bus still make the trip.
The weight of a single passenger on any of them is negligible compared to the entire mass.
The aircraft is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
The train is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
The bus is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
Trying to assign emissions on a trip to a passenger is funny.
Even if you fly, the train and bus still make the trip.
The weight of a single passenger on any of them is negligible compared to the entire mass. See #10 at:
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html
10. The Futility Illusion "If I don't do it, somebody else will."
It is a famous and time-honored rationalization that sidesteps doing the right thing because the wrong thing is certain to occur anyway. Thus journalists rush to be the first to turn rumors into front page "scoops," and middle managers go along with corporate shenanigans ordered by their bosses, making the calculation that their refusal will only hurt them without preventing the damage they have been asked to cause. The logic is faulty and self-serving, of course. Sometimes someone else won't do it. The soldiers asked to fire on their own people when the Iron Curtain governments were crumbling all refused, one after another. Sometimes someone else does it, but the impact of the refusal leads to a good result anyway. When Elliot Richardson was ordered by Richard Nixon to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, he refused and resigned. Cox ended up being fired anyway, but Richardson's protest helped turn public opinion against the White House. Even if neither of these are the final result, the individual's determination to do right is always desirable in itself. The Futility Illusion is just a sad alternative to courage.
those of you that struggle with the envirnomental aspects of flying.... Realize the plane is going wheather to take up a seat not right?
So what? I live in Atlanta, and Gainesville (the "poultry capital of the world") is 50 miles up the Interstate. Even my conventional chicken is local! But I guarantee your hippie chickens require just as much farmland used for grain as my industrial ones do, and thus are not significantly different in terms of environmental footprint.
(By the way, lest people get the wrong impression, I'll state for the record that I do eat meat, and when I do I buy the cheap "conventional" stuff)
AHA, I KNEW IT! :D My meat and poultry come from farms 20 and 30 miles away respectively.
So what? I live in Atlanta, and Gainesville (the "poultry capital of the world") is 50 miles up the Interstate. Even my conventional chicken is local! But I guarantee your hippie chickens require just as much farmland used for grain as my industrial ones do, and thus are not significantly different in terms of environmental footprint.
(By the way, lest people get the wrong impression, I'll state for the record that I do eat meat, and when I do I buy the cheap "conventional" stuff)
AHA, I KNEW IT! :D My meat and poultry come from farms 20 and 30 miles away respectively.
So what? I live in Atlanta, and Gainesville (the "poultry capital of the world") is 50 miles up the Interstate. Even my conventional chicken is local! But I guarantee your hippie chickens require just as much farmland used for grain as my industrial ones do, and thus are not significantly different in terms of environmental footprint.
Actually there's a Tyson farm 20 miles south of me and its processing plant is 20 miles north of me. What got me interested in going sustainable was driving to work one morning and being behind a truck coming from the farm on the way to the plant with cages crammed with bedraggled, terrified chickens. I never ate Tyson products anyway, but I know Perdue's not doing better, so I went sustainable.
Actually there's a Tyson farm 20 miles south of me and its processing plant is 20 miles north of me. What got me interested in going sustainable was driving to work one morning and being behind a truck coming from the farm on the way to the plant with cages crammed with bedraggled, terrified chickens. I never ate Tyson products anyway, but I know Perdue's not doing better, so I went sustainable.
| unsustainable | sustainable | |
| unethical | "conventional" chicken | "organic" chicken1 |
| ethical | "free range" chicken2 | backyard chicken fed only bugs and table scraps |
...
We can only survive on rhubarb and potatoes for so long. In fact, Faroese people have adapted genetically to a diet full of red meat. Several of my cousins have CTD, and will die if they ever try to be vegetarian.
...
We can only survive on rhubarb and potatoes for so long. In fact, Faroese people have adapted genetically to a diet full of red meat. Several of my cousins have CTD, and will die if they ever try to be vegetarian.
And many people cant eat dairy, we humans are a diverse bunch.
I wonder what has a worse environmental impact: eating a serving of conventionally raised-corn fed cow (stake) while flying, or the flying itself? I wonder if the answer is within an order of magnitude or three orders one way or the other I have no clue? Might have to figure out how to rephrase that and submit it to https://what-if.xkcd.com/ (ftp://what-if.xkcd.com/)
...
We can only survive on rhubarb and potatoes for so long. In fact, Faroese people have adapted genetically to a diet full of red meat. Several of my cousins have CTD, and will die if they ever try to be vegetarian.
And many people cant eat dairy, we humans are a diverse bunch.
I wonder what has a worse environmental impact: eating a serving of conventionally raised-corn fed cow (stake) while flying, or the flying itself? I wonder if the answer is within an order of magnitude or three orders one way or the other I have no clue? Might have to figure out how to rephrase that and submit it to https://what-if.xkcd.com/ (ftp://what-if.xkcd.com/)
1lb beef has a total carbon footprint of about 14.8 lbs (http://www.americanforests.org/assumptions-and-sources/#food)
Air travel is about 30 to 110g carbon per passenger-km traveled. (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/126.htm)
So, a 16 oz steak is about 61 to 224 km of air travel. You probably drove instead. :)
1lb beef has a total carbon footprint of about 14.8 lbs (http://www.americanforests.org/assumptions-and-sources/#food)
Air travel is about 30 to 110g carbon per passenger-km traveled. (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/126.htm)
So, a 16 oz steak is about 61 to 224 km of air travel. You probably drove instead. :)
Cool. So one modest domestic flight could be equivalent to eating stake a most nights per week for a month. Toss in all the other problems with industrial farming and flying does not come out that bad. Airplanes are reused for 30+years and carry ~200 people twice per day every day then get recycled so there production costs get really watered down. Where hoof-stock are sort of a one time deal.
Amazing how math can help solve problems! Someone should write the government and inform them of this discovery, MATH!!!
Unless you fly first class and they serve you a 16oz steak.
Unless you fly first class and they serve you a 16oz steak.
In this crowd I assumed a 16oz steak was more of a carry on item.
Unless you fly first class and they serve you a 16oz steak.
In this crowd I assumed a 16oz steak was more of a carry on item.
I tried, but the TSA took away my propane torch for the sear.
I read that a 727 burns approx. 4,500 gallons of fuel in a typical (4) hour flight.
At about 180 passengers, each passenger is responsible for 25 gallons of fuel.
Cool. So one modest domestic flight could be equivalent to eating stake a most nights per week for a month.
The aircraft is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
The train is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
The bus is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
Trying to assign emissions on a trip to a passenger is funny.
Even if you fly, the train and bus still make the trip.
The weight of a single passenger on any of them is negligible compared to the entire mass.
Netxlif tried to pull this years back to say that mailing a DVD added no pollution to the world as the mail carrier would be doing the route anyway. At the time Netflix was like 5-10% of the mass of mail delivered, so yeah the post office would (and I assume has) scaled back without those DVD's.
This totally ignores the fact that suppliers adapt to the level of demand, not instantly but in time.
The aircraft is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
The train is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
The bus is traveling from A to B with or without you on it.
Trying to assign emissions on a trip to a passenger is funny.
Even if you fly, the train and bus still make the trip.
The weight of a single passenger on any of them is negligible compared to the entire mass. See #10 at:
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html
This is actually a quite common rationalization that shows up in a number of facets of life. It is also referred more generically as the Futility Illusion. See: http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.htmlQuote10. The Futility Illusion "If I don't do it, somebody else will."
It is a famous and time-honored rationalization that sidesteps doing the right thing because the wrong thing is certain to occur anyway. Thus journalists rush to be the first to turn rumors into front page "scoops," and middle managers go along with corporate shenanigans ordered by their bosses, making the calculation that their refusal will only hurt them without preventing the damage they have been asked to cause. The logic is faulty and self-serving, of course. Sometimes someone else won't do it. The soldiers asked to fire on their own people when the Iron Curtain governments were crumbling all refused, one after another. Sometimes someone else does it, but the impact of the refusal leads to a good result anyway. When Elliot Richardson was ordered by Richard Nixon to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, he refused and resigned. Cox ended up being fired anyway, but Richardson's protest helped turn public opinion against the White House. Even if neither of these are the final result, the individual's determination to do right is always desirable in itself. The Futility Illusion is just a sad alternative to courage.
The discussion above makes a value judgement that assumes an ethical transgression. I don't intend to equate frequent fliers with Watergate/Nixon, just point out that it is a common pattern of argument that is generally flawed. In ethics the criteria are a bit soft, but in the special case of air travel the extent of the fallacy can actually be quantified by the relative efficiency of moving units of people (or cargo).
Not sure if you are a meat or dairy consumer but you could consider dropping one or both from your diet to offset the carbon footprint of many flights per year.
Increased CO2 levels are overall a good thing for society.
Increased CO2 levels are overall a good thing for society.
I've read this a lot recently. It must be the argument du jour for climate deniers.
Increased CO2 levels are overall a good thing for society. We are in a relatively low period of CO2 in the atmosphere, historically. CO2 is a nice self regulating thing since as it increases and temperatures increase plants grow more rapidly and consume more CO2. A warmer planet means more areas are inhabitable, more land can be used for productive means such as farming. More farmable land and faster plant growth means more food overall and cheaper food prices. This is beneficial to the poor everywhere and particularly to undernourished people where food shortages exist.
Considering all this the ebst I can figure is the environmentalists hate the poor, minorities, and those in third world countries. Given environmentalists tend to be liberals this is no surprise.
Anyhow, I do not consider CO2 emissions in my travel plans by flight or otherwise. I do try to minimize the amount I fly as I detest the TSA and overall experience since government has come down on air travel. I opt to drive when under 1000 miles. Unfortunately rail travel is not very cost effective as compared to flying or driving and is not convenient to go the places I typically need to. I do really enjoy rail travel as it's more efficient than a single person driving, relatively spacious, and overall a pleasant experience.
I read that a 727 burns approx. 4,500 gallons of fuel in a typical (4) hour flight.
At about 180 passengers, each passenger is responsible for 25 gallons of fuel.
727s are extinct as passenger carriers in the developed world -- they simply cost too much to operate (burn too much fuel, and have to pay to maintain 3 engines, and are so old they require lots of inspections). On a 4 hour flight these days you are much more likely to fly in a 737NG or A320. These modern airplanes are way more efficient (at least 40%). The 737NG & A320 will soon be superceded with the 737MAX & A320neo, which will be an additional 15% or so more efficient than the current generation.
I read that a 727 burns approx. 4,500 gallons of fuel in a typical (4) hour flight.
At about 180 passengers, each passenger is responsible for 25 gallons of fuel.
727s are extinct as passenger carriers in the developed world -- they simply cost too much to operate (burn too much fuel, and have to pay to maintain 3 engines, and are so old they require lots of inspections). On a 4 hour flight these days you are much more likely to fly in a 737NG or A320. These modern airplanes are way more efficient (at least 40%). The 737NG & A320 will soon be superceded with the 737MAX & A320neo, which will be an additional 15% or so more efficient than the current generation.
According to Wikipedia a 727 fully loaded with 180 passengers weighs approximately 200,000 lbs.
Assuming the above statement that it takes 4500 gallons of fuel to
move that 200,000 lbs on 4 hour flight.
Removing a 200 lb passenger is 200 / 200,000 = 0.001 of the entire mass
so 0.001 of the fuel can be assigned to that passenger mass on that trip.
~4500 * 0.001 = ~4.5 gallons .
If one of those passengers chooses to take the train it takes (~4500 - ~4.5) gallons
to move the 179 passengers that choose the plane.
It takes more fuel to move the mass of the plane than it takes to move the
mass of the passengers in the plane.
If one of those passengers chooses to take the train it takes (~4500 - ~4.5) gallons
to move the 179 passengers that choose the plane.
It takes more fuel to move the mass of the plane than it takes to move the
mass of the passengers in the plane.
Increased CO2 levels are overall a good thing for society. We are in a relatively low period of CO2 in the atmosphere, historically. CO2 is a nice self regulating thing since as it increases and temperatures increase plants grow more rapidly and consume more CO2. A warmer planet means more areas are inhabitable, more land can be used for productive means such as farming. More farmable land and faster plant growth means more food overall and cheaper food prices. This is beneficial to the poor everywhere and particularly to undernourished people where food shortages exist.
Considering all this the ebst I can figure is the environmentalists hate the poor, minorities, and those in third world countries. Given environmentalists tend to be liberals this is no surprise.
I was going to say no, as I fly maybe, once a year. But, been wanting to do a fancypants vacation with husband or husband and kids, that would involve either flying or doing a cruise. The more I delay doing it, the more I think about this. Sometimes I think we can go to one of those ecoresorts in the Yucatan or Costa Rica, but is that really any better if you are flying a family of 4 there? Probably if/when we ever do it, we will do it regardless, since it will be more of a once or twice in a lifetime deal and not a regular occurence.
but does anyone know whether a) driving 2 days to get on a cruise ship and taking a cruise, or b) flying to an island and staying there for same amount of days, which is environmentally better? Or is it pretty much a wash?
just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine. elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine. elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.
The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.
I was going to say no, as I fly maybe, once a year. But, been wanting to do a fancypants vacation with husband or husband and kids, that would involve either flying or doing a cruise. The more I delay doing it, the more I think about this. Sometimes I think we can go to one of those ecoresorts in the Yucatan or Costa Rica, but is that really any better if you are flying a family of 4 there? Probably if/when we ever do it, we will do it regardless, since it will be more of a once or twice in a lifetime deal and not a regular occurence.
but does anyone know whether a) driving 2 days to get on a cruise ship and taking a cruise, or b) flying to an island and staying there for same amount of days, which is environmentally better? Or is it pretty much a wash?
Cruise ship fuel economies are literally the worst. Like a car would get better CO2 millage by throwing burning chunks of coal out the back to get a Newtonian reaction.
All this does sort of raise some questions about flying somewhere to do environmental volunteer work. Like doing habitat restoration for some lizard in Panama will offset the giga-tons of air pollution from flying down there for 5 days/4 nights.
Not that this should change your mind either: But the same airport clog full of private jets happens when there are world conferences on climate change.We really need to get all those jackasses to use VTCs for those things.
If one of those passengers chooses to take the train it takes (~4500 - ~4.5) gallons
to move the 179 passengers that choose the plane.
It takes more fuel to move the mass of the plane than it takes to move the
mass of the passengers in the plane.
You're doing it wrong. Fuel burned by a particular model of aircraft per mile divided by number of passengers. Weight of passengers has a very minor effect on MPG for a large plane. The figure used in the airline industry is passenger-miles. MPG per passenger, or lbs of fuel per passenger per mile, etc...
I read that a 727 burns approx. 4,500 gallons of fuel in a typical (4) hour flight.
At about 180 passengers, each passenger is responsible for 25 gallons of fuel.
727s are extinct as passenger carriers in the developed world -- they simply cost too much to operate (burn too much fuel, and have to pay to maintain 3 engines, and are so old they require lots of inspections). On a 4 hour flight these days you are much more likely to fly in a 737NG or A320. These modern airplanes are way more efficient (at least 40%). The 737NG & A320 will soon be superceded with the 737MAX & A320neo, which will be an additional 15% or so more efficient than the current generation.
According to Wikipedia a 727 fully loaded with 180 passengers weighs approximately 200,000 lbs.
Assuming the above statement that it takes 4500 gallons of fuel to
move that 200,000 lbs on 4 hour flight.
Removing a 200 lb passenger is 200 / 200,000 = 0.001 of the entire mass
so 0.001 of the fuel can be assigned to that passenger mass on that trip.
~4500 * 0.001 = ~4.5 gallons .
If one of those passengers chooses to take the train it takes (~4500 - ~4.5) gallons
to move the 179 passengers that choose the plane.
It takes more fuel to move the mass of the plane than it takes to move the
mass of the passengers in the plane.
But the point is to move the people not the plane. The inefficiency of moving the plane's mass is distributed among the passengers. By your line of logic, it would make less sense to carpool if you drive a big SUV than a geo metro.
We are not talking about the emissions difference between two different vehicles.
It's about the emissions difference one passenger makes on one mass transportation vehicle.
If there are three choices plane,train,bus all carrying passengers from A to B concurrently.
Which one single individual chooses makes no difference in the aggregate emissions of all
three going from A to B.
Increased CO2 levels are overall a good thing for society.
I've read this a lot recently. It must be the argument du jour for climate deniers.
Increased CO2 levels are overall a good thing for society.
I've read this a lot recently. It must be the argument du jour for climate deniers.
I don't know how I feel about the term climate denier...I don't think anyone denies that climate exists..
Personally, I believe in climate change, but am skeptical on the effect of man on climate change. In other words, I believe that climate will naturally change over the course of earth's lifetime. However, I am skeptical that humans have significantly affected the earth's atmosphere to be the driving force of climate change.
Choosing to take a flight or not makes absolutely no difference in the grand scheme of things.The biggest waste of energy is to worry about things beyond your control.Choosing a mode of transport very much falls into out control though.
Choosing to take a flight or not makes absolutely no difference in the grand scheme of things.The biggest waste of energy is to worry about things beyond your control.Choosing a mode of transport very much falls into out control though.
Is flight volume decreasing? Are things getting better? Name calling is immature and not nice. Being nice does more than not flying.Choosing to take a flight or not makes absolutely no difference in the grand scheme of things.The biggest waste of energy is to worry about things beyond your control.Choosing a mode of transport very much falls into out control though.
Others have already explained why you're wrong about that. Persisting in your wrongness just makes you look like an idiot.
You're missing the point. Throwing your hands up and saying my choice doesn't matter is the problem. When people start making better choices it spreads and over tune does make a difference.Is flight volume decreasing? Are things getting better? Name calling is immature and not nice. Being nice does more than not flying.Choosing to take a flight or not makes absolutely no difference in the grand scheme of things.The biggest waste of energy is to worry about things beyond your control.Choosing a mode of transport very much falls into out control though.
Others have already explained why you're wrong about that. Persisting in your wrongness just makes you look like an idiot.
If flying was really much more devastating to the environment, then that shows the environmental externalities are not reflected in the price. If flying got so expensive that spending a few days on a ship to get from New York to London or a train from New York to LA made more sense for the majority of citizens, then perhaps that will be what it takes to show how extravagant airplanes are.
When the environmentally expensive option is more economical than the greener alternative, we have to look and see if that is a natural outcome or if someone is passing the buck somewhere.
Is flight volume decreasing? Are things getting better? Name calling is immature and not nice. Being nice does more than not flying.Being nice, AND admitting that even small choices do add up to major differences in outcomes would both help.
Is flight volume decreasing? Are things getting better? Name calling is immature and not nice. Being nice does more than not flying.
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine. elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.
The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.
if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps. i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more. no way.
Other people's choices sometimes suck, so I shouldn't have to care about the results of my own.FTFY.
we wouldn't be on MMM if we did things the way the majority of the world works... I mean retire at 65 :DOther people's choices sometimes suck, so I shouldn't have to care about the results of my own.FTFY.
If you want to make sure your life never becomes a force for good... go around telling yourself and others that nothing you do matters.
If you choose to believe otherwise, you may be surprised by the results.
we wouldn't be on MMM if we did things the way the majority of the world works... I mean retire at 65 :DPurely a rhetorical device there, of course...
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine. elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.
The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.
not just Hollywood celeb elites. anyone with a boat load of money willing to spend it without concern for the environment i'm pointing my finger at.
the elites in washington, hollywood, silicon valley, nyc, leaders of ivy league colleges - all of them maintain a "do as i say not as i do" attitude. they don't mind asking the laborers to take some pain while they relax on a private jet if they can afford it and if not, recline to full flat bed position in first class.
if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps. i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more. no way. in many of these places there are still diesel vehicles spewing black smoke. if the vehicles haven't yet been tackled, what about the power generators?
in puerto rico, just a tiny island, 7 of 14 power plants are heavy oil/diesel, 1 is coal, just 1 of the majors is natural gas. the remainder are solar but they are so tiny they are hardly worth mentioning. imagine how much of the rest of the world is burning the heavy oil that puerto rico is burning. i think the world will survive my plane ride.
this is what you get when you are isolated within the US - you think everything is neatly controlled world wide. it is not. there is a world wide mess out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_Electric_Power_Authority#Power_plants
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine. elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.
The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.
not just Hollywood celeb elites. anyone with a boat load of money willing to spend it without concern for the environment i'm pointing my finger at.
the elites in washington, hollywood, silicon valley, nyc, leaders of ivy league colleges - all of them maintain a "do as i say not as i do" attitude. they don't mind asking the laborers to take some pain while they relax on a private jet if they can afford it and if not, recline to full flat bed position in first class.
if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps. i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more. no way. in many of these places there are still diesel vehicles spewing black smoke. if the vehicles haven't yet been tackled, what about the power generators?
in puerto rico, just a tiny island, 7 of 14 power plants are heavy oil/diesel, 1 is coal, just 1 of the majors is natural gas. the remainder are solar but they are so tiny they are hardly worth mentioning. imagine how much of the rest of the world is burning the heavy oil that puerto rico is burning. i think the world will survive my plane ride.
this is what you get when you are isolated within the US - you think everything is neatly controlled world wide. it is not. there is a world wide mess out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_Electric_Power_Authority#Power_plants
<your mom>If all the other idiots in the world were jumping off bridges, does that mean you think it would be a good idea too?</your mom>
if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps. i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more. no way.
The US uses almost 19% of the world's energy. The EU uses another 14%. A major change in how 33% of the world's energy (+ Japan and Australia and Canada) is created (or reduced) would seem to be a pretty big change.
The worldwide CFC ban actually worked. CFCs were banned and the Ozone hole stopped increasing and actually started decreasing.
There's still hope.
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine. elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.
The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.
not just Hollywood celeb elites. anyone with a boat load of money willing to spend it without concern for the environment i'm pointing my finger at.
the elites in washington, hollywood, silicon valley, nyc, leaders of ivy league colleges - all of them maintain a "do as i say not as i do" attitude. they don't mind asking the laborers to take some pain while they relax on a private jet if they can afford it and if not, recline to full flat bed position in first class.
if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps. i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more. no way. in many of these places there are still diesel vehicles spewing black smoke. if the vehicles haven't yet been tackled, what about the power generators?
in puerto rico, just a tiny island, 7 of 14 power plants are heavy oil/diesel, 1 is coal, just 1 of the majors is natural gas. the remainder are solar but they are so tiny they are hardly worth mentioning. imagine how much of the rest of the world is burning the heavy oil that puerto rico is burning. i think the world will survive my plane ride.
this is what you get when you are isolated within the US - you think everything is neatly controlled world wide. it is not. there is a world wide mess out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_Electric_Power_Authority#Power_plants
<your mom>If all the other idiots in the world were jumping off bridges, does that mean you think it would be a good idea too?</your mom>
lol it goes both ways, i could say you are the one following the herd after all the debate isn't settled. sierra club president having to be coached by council to answer very basic questions (embarrassing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4baOeuRDK8
just by living MMM lifestyle, i conserve. still, i will not anytime soon because i think it is just that "too soon" to say climate change alarmists are right. i tend to think money has corrupted the alarmists - there is a lot of it at stake.
if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps. i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more. no way.
The US uses almost 19% of the world's energy. The EU uses another 14%. A major change in how 33% of the world's energy (+ Japan and Australia and Canada) is created (or reduced) would seem to be a pretty big change.
The worldwide CFC ban actually worked. CFCs were banned and the Ozone hole stopped increasing and actually started decreasing.
There's still hope.
if cc is real, population growth in the places i mentioned will kill us is what i'm thinking. that is a lot of people and with people living longer the Earth will need a lot of hope.
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine. elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.
The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.
not just Hollywood celeb elites. anyone with a boat load of money willing to spend it without concern for the environment i'm pointing my finger at.
the elites in washington, hollywood, silicon valley, nyc, leaders of ivy league colleges - all of them maintain a "do as i say not as i do" attitude. they don't mind asking the laborers to take some pain while they relax on a private jet if they can afford it and if not, recline to full flat bed position in first class.
CC aside...Nothing aside. (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2014/sep/24/china-pledges-to-cut-emissions-at-un-climate-summit)
...it seems the Chinese are becoming (have become?) very aware of the down sides of air pollution on normal every day life, and I have to assume will move to cleaner tech as they are able for very practical "we like to breath the air outside" reasons.Yep, their approach seems to be improving by the day. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3619736-china-is-curtailing-coal-and-the-rest-of-the-world-may-soon-follow) (posted less than one hour ago)
I think CFC's need more press, the world had a problem, we worked out what we needed to do. People wined about why should I bother-those poor people are still going to be polluting!!! But we made changes anyway and 20 odd years down the line are past the crises.You may have a point about success stories. I'm gonna go off and ponder that now.
CC aside...Nothing aside. (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2014/sep/24/china-pledges-to-cut-emissions-at-un-climate-summit)Quote...it seems the Chinese are becoming (have become?) very aware of the down sides of air pollution on normal every day life, and I have to assume will move to cleaner tech as they are able for very practical "we like to breath the air outside" reasons.Yep, their approach seems to be improving by the day. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3619736-china-is-curtailing-coal-and-the-rest-of-the-world-may-soon-follow) (posted less than one hour ago)
They also installed more solar panels last year than the US has ever installed. Yes, since the day they were invented.
Yes, they're still adding coal-burners too. But they get the endgame, maybe better than we do.QuoteI think CFC's need more press, the world had a problem, we worked out what we needed to do. People wined about why should I bother-those poor people are still going to be polluting!!! But we made changes anyway and 20 odd years down the line are past the crises.You may have a point about success stories. I'm gonna go off and ponder that now.
There's a hell of a lot more money following from the other direction. There is no reputable science discrediting climate change. You're using weak arguments to justify not giving a shit about your own decisions. Even if climate change were not an issue, everything suggested to help fix it would be good for us anyway. Thousands of people die early every year from pollution in cities for example. We could fix that locally by making decisions you're saying don't matter.
There's a hell of a lot more money following from the other direction. There is no reputable science discrediting climate change. You're using weak arguments to justify not giving a shit about your own decisions. Even if climate change were not an issue, everything suggested to help fix it would be good for us anyway. Thousands of people die early every year from pollution in cities for example. We could fix that locally by making decisions you're saying don't matter.
The money spent on climate change by the government far surpasses any private funding. It's not even close.
There is also plenty of reputable science that shows that man is not causing a problem, or that the problem is highly overstated. The alarmists simply dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't fit their agenda/religion.
There's a hell of a lot more money following from the other direction. There is no reputable science discrediting climate change. You're using weak arguments to justify not giving a shit about your own decisions. Even if climate change were not an issue, everything suggested to help fix it would be good for us anyway. Thousands of people die early every year from pollution in cities for example. We could fix that locally by making decisions you're saying don't matter.
The money spent on climate change by the government far surpasses any private funding. It's not even close.
I don't think the reference was to money spent on climate *research.* For example:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years)
$125 million isn't exactly chump change.
There's a hell of a lot more money following from the other direction. There is no reputable science discrediting climate change. You're using weak arguments to justify not giving a shit about your own decisions. Even if climate change were not an issue, everything suggested to help fix it would be good for us anyway. Thousands of people die early every year from pollution in cities for example. We could fix that locally by making decisions you're saying don't matter.
The money spent on climate change by the government far surpasses any private funding. It's not even close.
I don't think the reference was to money spent on climate *research.* For example:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years)
$125 million isn't exactly chump change.
Actually, it is when compared to government climate funding.
"by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments.
In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
On the other hand, companies with FF-intensive profit centers are known to have concealed and misrepresented data that could lead to unwanted policy changes, and to have specifically paid researchers for that purpose. If big numbers were a basis for truth determinations, the trillions in revenue at stake would be enough to settle the issue.
I don't do much of it and don't think about it. I fly a few times a year and usually for work. Rail takes so much more time my employer wouldn't go for it and I don't want to waste vacation time. If we had better rail service I would prefer it. I hate long car trips the most.
On the other hand, companies with FF-intensive profit centers are known to have concealed and misrepresented data that could lead to unwanted policy changes, and to have specifically paid researchers for that purpose. If big numbers were a basis for truth determinations, the trillions in revenue at stake would be enough to settle the issue.
Shhh! Stop stating the well-documented and obvious! People might find out!
On the other hand, companies with FF-intensive profit centers are known to have concealed and misrepresented data that could lead to unwanted policy changes, and to have specifically paid researchers for that purpose. If big numbers were a basis for truth determinations, the trillions in revenue at stake would be enough to settle the issue.
Shhh! Stop stating the well-documented and obvious! People might find out!
NOAA is also hiding information. Are they worried what people might find out, or are they worried about a funding cut if their unproven claims don't hold up under scrutiny? They have just refused to submit information ordered under a subpoena regarding their (unproven) claim that the 18+ pause did not happen:
"In a statement released to Nature, Smith accused NOAA of falsifying temperature records, stating, “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda.”
"Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information," Smith told the Examiner. "When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it's crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made. This action has broad national and policy implications."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/1028/NOAA-refuses-to-comply-with-House-science-committee-subpoena-video
Seriously, even the oil companies don't question it. They've been researching how to mitigate (and benefit from) warming and other related effects for decades.
DoJ is actually considering charges against Exxon now that the disparity between its internally documented research and public statements has come to light.
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
lol it goes both ways, i could say you are the one following the herd after all the debate isn't settled. sierra club president having to be coached by council to answer very basic questions (embarrassing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4baOeuRDK8
i think it is just that "too soon" to say climate change alarmists are right. i tend to think money has corrupted the alarmists - there is a lot of it at stake.
There is also plenty of reputable science that shows that man is not causing a problem, or that the problem is highly overstated. The alarmists simply dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't fit their agenda/religion.
Bullshit. The denialists like to claim that, but it's a complete fucking lie.
Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, written by scientists without a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.
Bullshit. The denialists like to claim that, but it's a complete fucking lie.
Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, written by scientists without a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.
I call bullshit on you. Government funding for climate change is no more special or free of bias than any other funding, and it DWARFS oil company funding. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer reviewed non-government funded studies in reputable journals that aren't funded by left wing interests and share them with us.
Bullshit. The denialists like to claim that, but it's a complete fucking lie.
Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, written by scientists without a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.
I call bullshit on you. Government funding for climate change is no more special or free of bias than any other funding, and it DWARFS oil company funding. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer reviewed non-government funded studies in reputable journals that aren't funded by left wing interests and share them with us.
Maximum number of pages of semi-reasonable discourse on climate change before someone is called a fucking liar: 3.
Considering all this the ebst I can figure is the environmentalists hate the poor, minorities, and those in third world countries. Given environmentalists tend to be liberals this is no surprise.
It's not enough to merely disagree with extremists; they must be shut out of the discussion entirely or they win anyway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)! Being a reasonable person, I refuse to continue putting up with denialists' FUD and bullshit.
It's not enough to merely disagree with extremists; they must be shut out of the discussion entirely or they win anyway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)! Being a reasonable person, I refuse to continue putting up with denialists' FUD and bullshit.
Yup...shut those up who disagree. And, you actually dare to call yourself reasonable? You are nothing but a clueless fool if you believe in censoring those who have a different opinion. That type thinking belongs on a communist country and has no place in a free and democratic society.
I'm done.
i would love to not drive my car to work, but there are no car pools for me nor public transportation that works well enough... before they tell me to cut out my driving, they need to provide me an alternative.You have plenty of alternatives which you can implement without relying on anyone else to provide them for you. Off the top of my head -
I'm not censoring you; I'm ridiculing you. The distinction is important.
before they tell me to cut out my driving, they need to provide me an alternative. same with airplanes, give me those speedy trains and i will take them insteadHere's an alternative.
Bullshit. The denialists like to claim that, but it's a complete fucking lie.
Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, written by scientists without a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.
I call bullshit on you. Government funding for climate change is no more special or free of bias than any other funding, and it DWARFS oil company funding. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer reviewed non-government funded studies in reputable journals that aren't funded by left wing interests and share them with us.
I asked you first. Consequently, you are non-responsive and therefore lose.Maximum number of pages of semi-reasonable discourse on climate change before someone is called a fucking liar: 3.
This discourse quit being semi-reasonable when GetItRight wrote this on page 2:Considering all this the ebst I can figure is the environmentalists hate the poor, minorities, and those in third world countries. Given environmentalists tend to be liberals this is no surprise.
The idiotic arguments (a) that celebrities don't care, therefore neither should we, or (b) that anybody but the fossil fuel industry had a profit motive to lie, are just more trolls piling on.
More to the point, "semi-reasonable discourse" requires that all parties be both competent and arguing in good faith, which is not happening here. The university professor and the village idiot arguing about whether 2 + 2 = 4* or not does not constitute "discourse" -- one is right, the other is wrong, and that's the end of it! Treating people like GetItRight and music lover as if they had valid points of view is itself the fallacy of argument to moderation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation). It's not enough to merely disagree with extremists; they must be shut out of the discussion entirely or they win anyway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)! Being a reasonable person, I refuse to continue putting up with denialists' FUD and bullshit.
To that end, I will write this: Denialism is literally a threat to human civilization, and is not an acceptable point of view. If you think global warming isn't happening, that it isn't being caused by humans, or that it isn't a big fucking problem, then you are wrong and should STFU.
(* in base 10, you pedants!)
before they tell me to cut out my driving, they need to provide me an alternative. same with airplanes, give me those speedy trains and i will take them insteadHere's an alternative.
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2010/08/volt-plugged-in-660x439.jpg)
In order to preemptively silence the "coal car" trolls, I offset my charging with solar panels, which don't return quite the ROI of the stock market, but don't lose money either.
My roommate has a plug-in hybrid and he's paying more to charge it than he would be paying to just put gas in and run it in hybrid mode all the time.What's your per-kWh rate? At my local $0.10, gas would have to be about 70 cents a gallon to compete, and that's assuming I assign no value to the time and hassle of driving to a gas station to get the gas.
My roommate has a plug-in hybrid and he's paying more to charge it than he would be paying to just put gas in and run it in hybrid mode all the time.What's your per-kWh rate? At my local $0.10, gas would have to be about 70 cents a gallon to compete, and that's assuming I assign no value to the time and hassle of driving to a gas station to get the gas.
Fueling up at home is the shit.
If you do have any of the papers that music lover requested, I'd love to read up on one or two. I will be the first to admit that I don't know as much as I should about global warming. As I stated earlier this thread, my un-enlightened/un-read initial outlook is that man-made global warming is minimally significant relative to the earth's natural warming and cooling trends. I'd love to learn and read up on why I'm completely wrong.
No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.I charge mine for about $20/mo, and I use anywhere from a half to a full charge every day. So, either you have exorbitant rates or the LL is full of shit. Definitely worth getting to the bottom of it.
My roommate has a plug-in hybrid and he's paying more to charge it than he would be paying to just put gas in and run it in hybrid mode all the time.What's your per-kWh rate? At my local $0.10, gas would have to be about 70 cents a gallon to compete, and that's assuming I assign no value to the time and hassle of driving to a gas station to get the gas.
Fueling up at home is the shit.
No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.
No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.I charge mine for about $20/mo, and I use anywhere from a half to a full charge every day. So, either you have exorbitant rates or the LL is full of shit. Definitely worth getting to the bottom of it.
You can also take a look at the kW/hr reading on your building electrical meter to track total electricity usage. Recording that value at points in time covering charging/not-charging should allow you to estimate the change in usage associated with charging at least roughly.My roommate has a plug-in hybrid and he's paying more to charge it than he would be paying to just put gas in and run it in hybrid mode all the time.What's your per-kWh rate? At my local $0.10, gas would have to be about 70 cents a gallon to compete, and that's assuming I assign no value to the time and hassle of driving to a gas station to get the gas.
Fueling up at home is the shit.
No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.
No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.I charge mine for about $20/mo, and I use anywhere from a half to a full charge every day. So, either you have exorbitant rates or the LL is full of shit. Definitely worth getting to the bottom of it.
Yeah, the garage is on a separate account and there's discussion about moving it out of the LL's name so my roommate will have direct visibility/control.
We're in NJ. Rates here are absurd, but probably not as bad as HI. Kill-o-watts don't have a good reputation for holding up to extended high current loads (from what I'm told), so we haven't done that.
I'm still waiting for the evidence that countries being concerned about climate change, and spending money to research and/or mitigate it, directly leads to the distortion of scientific data.
Does the existence of the CDC mean the US government is wilfully inflating the threat of epidemics?
On the other hand, companies with FF-intensive profit centers are known to have concealed and misrepresented data that could lead to unwanted policy changes, and to have specifically paid researchers for that purpose. If big numbers were a basis for truth determinations, the trillions in revenue at stake would be enough to settle the issue.
But yeah, they don't have a dog in this fight. It's the evil professors driving Priuses to class that we need to keep an eye on.
But yeah, they don't have a dog in this fight. It's the evil professors driving Priuses to class that we need to keep an eye on.
They're all communicating on their secret "green internet" as they silently scoop up 100 shares of SCTY at a time.
My husband is on 80-100 flights a year for work, plus another dozen for leisure.
Qantas has an option of paying extra (cash or points) to support their carbon neutral program (i.e. pay extra and they will plant a tree).
http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/fly-carbon-neutral/global/en
The problem with that is - how to do you KNOW anyone ever actually planted a tree with your money? I am a bit of a pessimist admittedly but I can imagine the tree company counting a few trees twice and three times and pocketing the difference. The truth might never come out.If you assume everyone's a liar, how do you participate in the modern economy at all?
And furthermore - the tree might represent some tiny percentage of the pollution a flight caused. What about the environmental cost of that big airport in some location for 100 years with the heat/a-c running, all those lights, etc?
The problem with that is - how to do you KNOW anyone ever actually planted a tree with your money? I am a bit of a pessimist admittedly but I can imagine the tree company counting a few trees twice and three times and pocketing the difference. The truth might never come out.If you assume everyone's a liar, how do you participate in the modern economy at all?
And furthermore - the tree might represent some tiny percentage of the pollution a flight caused. What about the environmental cost of that big airport in some location for 100 years with the heat/a-c running, all those lights, etc?
Oversight does exist. If you're concerned about a specific claim being valid, there's usually a way to investigate.
Got a recommendation?You could send me $20/mo - the average cost of charging my Volt. Offsets 1,000 miles of ICE driving, or one average commercial flight... ish. ;)
But seriously - I have used, and can recommend, TerraPass (http://www.terrapass.com/). Their site lists current project info and standards if you want to dig into that. Primary categories are wind power, farm waste and landfill gas recapture (IOW, they turn poop and trash byproducts into combustible fuels).
(By the way, lest people get the wrong impression, I'll state for the record that I do eat meat, and when I do I buy the cheap "conventional" stuff)
AHA, I KNEW IT! :D My meat and poultry come from farms 20 and 30 miles away respectively.
So what? I live in Atlanta, and Gainesville (the "poultry capital of the world") is 50 miles up the Interstate. Even my conventional chicken is local! But I guarantee your hippie chickens require just as much farmland used for grain as my industrial ones do, and thus are not significantly different in terms of environmental footprint.
Actually there's a Tyson farm 20 miles south of me and its processing plant is 20 miles north of me. What got me interested in going sustainable was driving to work one morning and being behind a truck coming from the farm on the way to the plant with cages crammed with bedraggled, terrified chickens. I never ate Tyson products anyway, but I know Perdue's not doing better, so I went sustainable.
I worked third shift in a Perdue chicken plant years ago for a few months. No thanks. Seriously altered my fast food intake too. All of our local stores have Perdue and Tyson products. Never Perdue and rarely (very rarely) Tyson.
I too would rather have something sustainable and local - and we do sometimes. We can buy beef, lamb, chicken, eggs, etc locally. You've got to plan ahead and it's only affordable I think when you own a deep freeze which we don't - yet.
Increased CO2 levels are overall a good thing for society. We are in a relatively low period of CO2 in the atmosphere, historically. CO2 is a nice self regulating thing since as it increases and temperatures increase plants grow more rapidly and consume more CO2. A warmer planet means more areas are inhabitable, more land can be used for productive means such as farming. More farmable land and faster plant growth means more food overall and cheaper food prices. This is beneficial to the poor everywhere and particularly to undernourished people where food shortages exist.
Considering all this the ebst I can figure is the environmentalists hate the poor, minorities, and those in third world countries. Given environmentalists tend to be liberals this is no surprise.
Are you joking? People don't really believe this shit do they.
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine. elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.
The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.
Not that this should change your mind either: But the same airport clog full of private jets happens when there are world conferences on climate change.
Seriously, even the oil companies don't question it. They've been researching how to mitigate (and benefit from) warming and other related effects for decades.
DoJ is actually considering charges against Exxon now that the disparity between its internally documented research and public statements has come to light.
http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/
Does anyone CHECK and AUDIT these companies? Our town has have a bunch of charity bins all over town. Only recently has it come out that a number of them are not really charities after all.You kind of answered your own question, although we're getting into two separate subjects (carbon offsets are commercially traded and generally aren't charities).
re co2 offsetting: Are all the systems tree based? I have never looked into it. Are there systems that pull co2 with algae and then store the carbon in blocks, could this work on a much shorter time frame? Thought I had heard that algae was being looked at for this. Might take more hands on effort than just planting a tree and waiting 60 years.A quick check says there are 87,000 flights per day that crisscross the USA. How many people. Assuming 175 people per flight, and 365 days a year - well, you do the math. ;) Then all those international flights and all those people.
Anything and everything is possible in this GW debate when the long term effects are beyond a person's lifetime. Make bank in your lifetime, spend-spend-spend (party-party-party), and who cares what happens to the next generation. I really think that is what shapes a portion of the decisions made that affect all of us.
Some of these characters don't care what happens to the next generation (their children and grandchildren) b/c they assume their money will shield them from the consequences the longest. And the family unit isn't what it used to be for some folks. Tired of this spouse? She or he isn't going along with your plans or as much fun as they used to be? Get another. The kids aren't that important after all. Besides the nanny raises them anyhow.
When the consequences are ten years out then we will see action - even if it is too late. Until then I think there will be a good amount of FUD from one side (exaggerate the effects ot get people's attention) and a big portion of resistance from those protecting their cash cows (same old-same-old b/c it makes the maximum profit).
I figure the power elite will run us right off the cliff and it'll take multiple generations for the planet to sort itself back out and it will. In the meantime life will be tough on those not living the life of luxury.
I listened to a podcast on Root Simple, where the guest, a physicist I believe, discussed the carbon impact of flying.
http://www.rootsimple.com/2015/02/039-climate-change-and-be-cycling-with-peter-kalmus/
I ran the numbers his way, and was dismayed. Then I repeated the numbers today using the links other folks provided. Here's what I am seeing:
I drive a plug-in Prius (charged mostly with solar power) and get about 100 mpg. I drive about 6000 miles per year, and at 20 pounds of carbon per gallon of gas I generate about 1200 pounds of CO2 per year for my family of 5.
I also visit my husband's family in Belgium once a year, flying from Baltimore, usually. On a typical 747-type plane, at about 0.512 pounds of Co2 per mile per passenger, my family of 5 uses over 19,000 pounds of CO2 for a once-a-year trip. In other words, despite having an efficient home, an efficient car and trying to eat a lower-carbon diet I am still using a crapload of resources due to flying.
I researched other ways to travel across the Atlantic, but they are slow, outragously expensive or not routinely available (no cargo ships routinely carry families).
I'd consider not going at all, but I don't want the family to disown me! And it is in some ways my second home too.