The Money Mustache Community

General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Glenstache on October 21, 2015, 07:21:05 PM

Title: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 21, 2015, 07:21:05 PM
Premise: Flying has a disproportionate environmental impact compared to most of our daily travel habits. Much of our travel is actually optional.
Question: How many of you consider the impact of flying when deciding to travel or not? This can be a decision to not take a trip, or take alternate transport such as rail.

This seems like a blind spot for many people, or a place where a lot of people rationalize the trips with arguments that are at odds with their professed beliefs. Obviously, if you are a person who thinks that CO2 emissions are not an issue, this question is moot.

This was brought on by a recent conversation with some friends who are generally frugal, intelligent, environmentally aware, and log shit-tons of air miles in a year. Some of those miles are for work and some are for pleasure. When I asked them a similar version of the question above, it seemed like the question not to fly hadn't occurred to them.

While the per capita CO2 per mile traveled may be lower, the rate at which miles are racked up adds to a large impact per trip... especially if we get into long-haul flights across oceans, etc. (note: there are losses in efficiency for short haul flights  and long haul that require a lot of gas to make the trip, mid distances of just a couple thousand miles seem the most efficient from my reading).

There are many articles to discuss the environmental impacts if you Google related terms, or here is an IPCC discussion of it:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/126.htm
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Pigeon on October 21, 2015, 07:28:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on October 21, 2015, 08:04:05 PM
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

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Zikoris on October 21, 2015, 09:26:29 PM
I'd be happy to use whatever methods are more environmentally friendly, but unfortunately it's a long swim to Asia or Europe from Canada, and I have no intention to stop traveling for fun entirely.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: v8rx7guy on October 21, 2015, 10:37:29 PM
I am in the "CO2 emissions are not an issue" club... so I have not put much thought into it.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: A mom on October 22, 2015, 07:06:03 AM
Thanks for bringing this up. I worry about it every time I fly, which tends to make me unpopular with family members who suggest flying vacations. It's a significant issue for me. I don't want to be a spoil sport for other family members, but any pleasure I might get from a plane trip is significantly reduced by recognition of the environmental costs.

And I don't buy the plane is flying anyway argument. As far as I am concerned, an action should be taken if the majority of people behaving in that way would make things better. I believe that if the majority of people reduced or eliminated air travel, the number of planes  in the air would be reduced and the world would be better off.

I know that one transatlantic flight for me has the same carbon footprint as heating my house for an entire winter, and we get very cold winters where I live.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: gt7152b on October 22, 2015, 07:21:41 AM
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.

I try to fly as little as possible. If it's necessary for work I'll go but that's usually only once a year. Vacation flights for my family of 4 happen once every 2 or 3 years. I consider both the environmental impact and the cost when deciding where we're going to travel for vacation. We can have just as much fun riding bikes or hiking in the national forest near home but I also want my kids to see other parts of the world on occasion.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Alex321 on October 22, 2015, 07:26:24 AM
I am also in the club that is very skeptical about whether CO2 emissions are actually a problem. However, I fly very little. My job does not require it, and we prefer the economics and comfort of driving to our vacation destinations.

But I thank you, OP, for pointing out some of the hypocrisies of your friends. I mean that genuinely.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Philociraptor on October 22, 2015, 07:29:58 AM
The only factor that decides if I will fly or not is cost. I typically fly maybe once a year, but wife and I are going to significantly increase that soon since we started travel hacking this year (and thus cost has gone way down). We also eat about 2 lbs of meat a day between the two of us and each travel about 20 miles each way to/from work/gym. Guess that makes me a hypocrite when I claim to care about the environment.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: KCM5 on October 22, 2015, 07:50:14 AM
I think about it, but I also don't generally take it into account. I'm pretty much a terrible person in that I do things that are convenient to me and if there is an option that is convenient to me and has an outside benefit such as emitting less CO2, I'll go for it.

Example 1: I ride my bike to work year round and sold the second car. I do this because I enjoy riding my bike, enjoy the extra money, and the environmental benefits are a bonus (and I work in air quality!)

Example 2: I eat very little meat and try to get any meat I do it/eggs/milk from local sources/farms. I do this because I have the extra money to pay for such things, I value animal welfare, and the environmental benefits are a bonus.

Example 3: I fly with my family at least once a year, usually somewhere overseas. I do this because I value seeing my family who live overseas and I value travel for myself, spouse and child. This has no environmental benefits, but has social benefits for ourselves. I'm open to alternatives, but aside from boat travel, which would not be feasible while working a full time job, I'm unaware of any alternative.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: chouchouu on October 22, 2015, 08:08:01 AM
I don't. I take the train in Europe because I enjoy train travel but am happy to board a plane. I don't own a car and take public transport everywhere, live in an apartment etc.  my footprint is minimal and the enjoyment I get from travelling outweighs my perceived environmental cost.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: fa on October 22, 2015, 08:26:48 AM
I struggle with this issue as well.  The thing is, driving a car by yourself creates more CO2 than a seat on a completely full airplane.  So what about driving?  Then there is the large CO2 pollution related to the beef industry.  So if we want to be consistent and care about global warming, no flying, no driving and a full vegan diet?  Flying isn't the only sin.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Spork on October 22, 2015, 08:44:12 AM
I rarely fly and I consider myself a "CO2 agnostic".  (Meaning: I just honestly don't know the impact.)

BUT:  If you're going to worry about environmental impact, I believe cargo ships are your #1 target.  There are a zillion of them.  They operate 24/7/365.  They are the biggest internal combustion engines out there -- many putting out 300+ tons of CO2 per hour.

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Alex321 on October 22, 2015, 08:52:22 AM
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.

With your argument, you may as well say that bus or train travel is your #1 target, as those big diesel locomotive engines are always running.

On the other hand, and this goes back to the driving vs. flying thing...driving with 5 people in a minivan is actually very efficient--it's certainly better than air travel, and it's probably better than taking five up five seats on a train.

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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: norabird on October 22, 2015, 08:55:17 AM
This is something I really want to improve but struggle with. Seeing family and friends, seeing new places....I do this all pretty thoughtlessly. :( Also very bad about reducing meat consumption! It is so hard for me to actually change my behavior in this regard. One day I do hope to.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: sky_northern on October 22, 2015, 08:57:43 AM
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.
I try to make reasonable decisions relating to the environment but I know I could do a lot more. I have some guilt.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 22, 2015, 10:03:39 AM
DW's family is 5K miles away, and mine are at opposite ends of the country. Flying will be part of our lives, though an infrequent one, until we're filthy rich and can finish building that self-contained solar-powered travel setup I've always wanted.

We don't sweat it. We care for the greater good, and we'll offset that impact in other areas, in the long run.

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.
I try to make reasonable decisions relating to the environment but I know I could do a lot more. I have some guilt.
If you have some guilt over unavoidable flying, carbon offsets are surprisingly cheap. Some actually go toward useful activities.

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. :)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: takeahike on October 22, 2015, 10:21:36 AM
I fly at least 10 times a year on non-vacation trips. These are 5000 mile roundtrip each.  I've been doing this for a decade.. and probably will for another few years. Yeah, I think about the environmental impact a lot.. but family stuff. I don't feel I can ever give somebody shit for their wreckless environmental practices because of this. Take hour long showers? Yeah, who am I to talk. Drive your dually to your office 5 minutes away? Yup, can't judge. Drink bottled water all day? Ahh, I can't say anything. Do you really need to bring your mansion-on-wheels camping? Well, you probably don't fly as much as I do.

I try to not be such a shithead to the environment in other ways.. but I'm pretty bad for the environment when it comes to flying.. and I'm very mindful of it. 
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Helvegen on October 22, 2015, 10:32:34 AM
I don't fly enough to care about this, barely once a year. My family all lives back east and my husband's on another continent, so not flying ever again for environmental reasons alone isn't really an option.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: cschx on October 22, 2015, 10:34:42 AM
I stopped flying entirely about six years ago, for this reason alone. It was an easy decision to make because air travel has become such a shitty experience in general.

It hasn't been a problem for me. When I need to go somewhere I take ground transportation, which is much cheaper anyway.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: MandalayVA on October 22, 2015, 10:37:44 AM
Not sure if you are a meat or dairy food consumer but you could consider dropping one or both from your diet growing and raising everything you eat on your own property to offset the carbon footprint of many flights per year.

Fixed that for you. 
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Fishindude on October 22, 2015, 12:04:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Rightflyer on October 22, 2015, 12:32:49 PM
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.

I also read that an M1A1 tank gets 2 gallons to the mile...and that's with only 4 passengers.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Sailor Sam on October 22, 2015, 12:37:23 PM
I count myself as someone concerned for the environment, but as the OP points out my convictions don't come across very well in my job or my leisure. My ship burns around 60 barrels of bunker fuel per day. My wife flies 600 - 1000 hours per year. I have no idea how much jet fuel that might be, but I suspect the answer is: a lot. Right now, we live in opposite corners of the country, so we fly commercial pretty regularly.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on October 22, 2015, 01:44:47 PM
I have a business trip to Maryland next week, and this thread is making me want to ask the company if I can take Amtrak instead of flying. (Of course, I'm not badass enough to want to do an overnight trip in a coach seat...)

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.

This is an example of the broken-window fallacy. Even if we cut (non-bicycling, non-walking) travel to the bare minimum we could still FIRE; it's just that a larger proportion of our investment returns would come from industries that don't do a lot of shipping (e.g. software).

If you have some guilt over unavoidable flying, carbon offsets are surprisingly cheap. Some actually go toward useful activities.

Got a recommendation?

Not sure if you are a meat or dairy food consumer but you could consider dropping one or both from your diet growing 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.)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Miss Prim on October 23, 2015, 06:42:53 AM
Well, I guess since I grow almost all my own food, I can environmentally afford to take an airplane trip now and then!

I really never thought about this.  I did think about the gas I used from my stove to water-bath can, and my extra freezer in the basement to store all of my frozen items.  Seriously, I think I have less of an environmental impact than most of my neighbors here who have the McMansions and drive gas-guzzling cars. 

I have planted a lot of trees on my property, does that count?

                                                                     Miss Prim
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 23, 2015, 07:06:59 AM
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).
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: nawhite on October 23, 2015, 07:15:08 AM
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.

Here I was thinking "oh wow, I fly a lot with travel hacking, maybe I should care more about this?" I fly about 50 hours a year, all paid for with travel hacking (well, total cost in Sept 11th fees the past two years was $215 so not quite free). Then I saw this post and realized that since I don't drive at all for work (I work from home everyday) I'm still way ahead overall. Now I've learned how to stop worrying and love the bomb flight :-)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: MandalayVA on October 23, 2015, 07:39:04 AM
Not sure if you are a meat or dairy food consumer but you could consider dropping one or both from your diet growing 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. 

However, I bow to my personal guru George Carlin's wisdom:

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 23, 2015, 07:44:59 AM
The above is a pretty good illustration of why I've always preferred to say I'm a humanitarian, not an environmentalist, even though I devote significant life energy to causes that most would label as the latter. We're stupid and we're fragile, and we're going to kill ourselves, not our planet, if we don't get our shit together. The fact that the universe will kill us in the far distant future is no reason to do the job for it right now.

We don't have to have an inflated sense of our own worth or importance to do what we can, when we can. In fact, I think an accurate sense of our place in it all would do even more to make us change our ways.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: rtrnow on October 23, 2015, 07:56:34 AM
Not sure if you are a meat or dairy food consumer but you could consider dropping one or both from your diet growing 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. 



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?
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on October 23, 2015, 08:04:51 AM
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. ;)

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.

Not sure if you are a meat or dairy food consumer but you could consider dropping one or both from your diet growing 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.)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: 2Birds1Stone on October 23, 2015, 08:09:05 AM
*weigh
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Spork on October 23, 2015, 08:12:25 AM


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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: MandalayVA on October 23, 2015, 08:26:47 AM

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?

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. 

As to not caring about CO2, see Mr. Carlin's words above.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 23, 2015, 08:36:41 AM
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!
Alternately, "curses... foiled again"

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?

*weigh
I did Nazi dat kampfing.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on October 23, 2015, 08:47:30 AM
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.

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. 

In the absence of market distortions caused by subsidies, unit price would be a good proxy for carbon footprint -- generally, stuff that takes more energy to produce costs more. The trouble is, because "conventionally"-raised (i.e., petrochemically, industrially raised) meat is so heavily subsidized, it's very hard to tell whether the supermarket chickens would "naturally" be cheaper than the local/humane/organic/self-actualized hippie chickens or not.

(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 -- but I buy whole chickens and large pork or beef roasts (or even primals) and break it down myself (or more often, have my wife do it) because it's usually cheaper per pound that way. (The exception is that ground chuck is cheaper than chuck roast, for some reason -- probably because of "pink slime," I guess.) However, since I recently learned just how bad meat production is for the planet I've been trying to cut back such that I start using meat as a "seasoning" as opposed to the bulk of the meal.)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: MandalayVA on October 23, 2015, 09:03:29 AM
(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 will say, however, that I'm really getting to loathe the "use meat as flavoring, not the main part" way of thinking.  I think it's based on eyeballing chain restaurant portions, which are grotesquely huge.  A twelve-ounce steak, which is standard in those places, is easily split between Mr. Mandalay and me.  A whole roast chicken will be four meals with meat and its carcass made into broth.  One doesn't need to eat a lot of meat to be satisfied as fat and protein are pretty satiating.

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Landlord2015 on October 23, 2015, 09:10:04 AM
*weigh
I did Nazi dat kampfing.

I do not weight... if I need to fly then I do that but I do not fly so often...

Nazi? Hmm nazi are cool I think.

Anyway I live in Finland and Finland(Europe) did fight with Germany against Russia... because we did know that we needed to fight Russia anyway sooner or later at that time.

I am not saying I would want that Nazi would have won all of the world, but they are cool if you want to see a cool Nazi in a TV series with vampires then see The Strain:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2654620/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Germany today have very friendly relation with other countries and german tourists are everywhere in Europe.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: AlanStache on October 23, 2015, 09:18:32 AM
I fly a lot for work and sort of work in the aviation industry, I think in large part I sort of ignore the environmental impact of flying.  Most of my work travel it would be highly impractical to go by any other means.  I do very much think of the tons (literally) of fuel used per flight, often my work deals with the difference between take off weight and landing weight, and well that is all burnt fuel.  A new 737 can hold 6,875 gallons of fuel, that works out to like 40,000 lb.  But that is being used to take 120-200 people 3000 miles in a few hours. 

I guess on the up side is that there are lot of ways to boost efficiency and small fractional benefits can have big effects. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device (ftp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device)  There are economic incentives for airlines to implement these savings and the infrastructure to turn the wrenches.  Along these lines would you take your car to the dealer to get 1% better gas mileage?  maybe but most would not, but an airline would very much take that 1%. 

1% of 40,000 is 400lb, use that much less twice per day every day for a year and you get 292,000lb less fuel used PER airplane PER year.  Delta has 800 airplanes.

re food choices: was vegetarian for a long time partly out of efficientcy/environmental reasons, am now a pescetarian who loves cheese. 

edit: forgot about the leased airplanes.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Philociraptor on October 23, 2015, 09:25:26 AM
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?

Like both MMM and Ramit say, you cut relentlessly on things you don't care about so you can save for the things you do. I see it similarly. I keep my thermostat range wider than the typical 72-75. I traded in my Mustang for an xD. I take cold water only showers.

But I feel best when I eat around a pound of cooked meat a day. I drive 15 minutes away from home and work to attend a Crossfit gym where I like the programming and people. I enjoy traveling by air to visit friends and family.

I guess a good rule would be that I will choose the less CO2 option when it doesn't negatively affect my perceived quality of life. But I don't let it change my behavior.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on October 23, 2015, 09:39:03 AM
(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.

With supermarket meat and egg prices skyrocketing around here, I'm paying roughly the same for much better stuff. 

Now that's interesting; I'll have to look into whether it's also true here. I'm not going to pay much extra, but I'll happily buy a better product for about the same price...
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: captainawesome on October 23, 2015, 09:47:22 AM
Environmental impact of flying, no. Envionmental impact of using plastics, now you are starting to get a little closer to the truth.  Environmental impacts of our common practice of unsustainable farming practices through constantly tearing up fields to plant corn or soy, absolutely.  I'm a huge propent of better farming through sustainable methods, which isn't what the US Govt values and pays farmers to do.

And anyone who tells me that eating as a vegan/vegetarian is more environmentally sound has done little to no research on the impacts created by producing soy and soy based products. 
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Spork on October 23, 2015, 09:50:25 AM
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.


Well you use prairie land... because that's really what works.  The theory is (and honestly: I don't know if I believe it):  ruminant animals actually are carbon negative because they promote grass growth by chewing off the tops and then pooping and working that into the soil. 

Whether that is true or not: feed corn is dumb.  It is a damn-near inedible product.  It consumes way too many acres.  And financially, it is grown at a loss.  The ONLY profit is offset from the subsidy.  It's also really dangerous (in my not-a-botanist opinion) in that we have a huge undiversified monoculture.  It is all the same strain.  An unexpected disease could reek havoc. 

And as I implied above: if you give people the real price of beef, they are likely to make other choices.  Or at least... make a choice to eat less of it.

I'm by no means vegetarian.  But I also love food... and that includes all sorts of delicious non-meaty things.  I'd much rather see 1000 acres of Brussels sprouts than 1000 acres of feed corn.

edit: bad spelling
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Heywood57 on October 23, 2015, 10:18:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Spork on October 23, 2015, 10:23:24 AM
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.


Sure, when you measure pollution per ton-miles, cargo ships are always going to win out.   That isn't my point, really.  My point is that if you want to improve, cargo becomes the elephant in the room.  Remember: these guys aren't burning some low-particulate diesel.  They're burning the cheapest, rawest low grade stuff they can find and they're burning it 24 hours a day.

We will get all up in arms that a Volkswagen is putting out an extra 50g of NOx by cheating on emissions, but when one ship puts out the CO2/NOx of about 50 million cars, that's a big damn target to try to improve.  Tiny changes will give you enormous results.

And "not shipping as much crap" is an easy way to improve things.  Personally, I would much rather pay an extra 50 cents a pound for fish than to have someone catch fish nearby, ice it down, ship it to China to process it and then ship it back. 

Full disclosure: I'm by no means an environmentalist and, to be honest, I'm a dirty Capitalist pig.  I am sure you'll find all sorts of Japanese/Chinese/European items all across my house.  But I do make small attempts to buy less stuff I won't use for long and try to not buy food processed overseas (unless we're talking some yummy local delicacy that I can only get from some far away region.)   There is a sensible middle ground here.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Spork on October 23, 2015, 10:25:17 AM
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.

Yes and no.

If just me doesn't fly: no difference.

If 200 people a day stop flying between DFW and LGA... there will likely be one less airplane in the air.  Airlines are really big about figuring out how many flights a day make economical sense.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: AlanStache on October 23, 2015, 10:32:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 23, 2015, 10:59:55 AM
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.html

Quote
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.

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). 
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Mntngoat on October 23, 2015, 11:01:03 AM
those of you that struggle with the envirnomental aspects of flying....  Realize the plane is going wheather to take up a seat not right?   
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: A mom on October 23, 2015, 11:21:06 AM
those of you that struggle with the envirnomental aspects of flying....  Realize the plane is going wheather to take up a seat not right?

Don't think you read my post  or the one by Glenstache directly above yours.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: rtrnow on October 23, 2015, 11:58:20 AM


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.


I'm in Atlanta too. I personally buy Springer Mt chicken bc it feels like the best compromise all around. It's from North Ga, raised without antibiotics, hormones, etc ever, but the price is only slightly higher than regular birds. Coupons are fairly easy to come by and Publix carries whole birds. You really can taste the difference IMO and you'll see it on lots of menus around town.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: gaja on October 23, 2015, 12:05:23 PM
(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.

My hippie chickens eat leftovers from my sister's kitchen, and all  the bugs they can hunt down in her garden.
My hippie lamb chops have been grazing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr7pqvlFYpo Good luck growing corn or grain there.
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. 

Re: flying. Yes it bothers me. Therefore I do as much of my travelling as possible by train, electric car or boat. And I work to get more of the sea transport to convert from heavy oil to LNG/LBG, and/or battery hybrid systems.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: MandalayVA on October 23, 2015, 12:12:16 PM
(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. 
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on October 23, 2015, 01:05:40 PM
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.

No, you went ethical. "Sustainable" is something different. Maybe you got "sustainable" along with it; maybe not. The point is, they're orthogonal concepts.

Let me clarify with this table:

unsustainablesustainable
unethical"conventional" chicken"organic" chicken1
ethical"free range" chicken2backyard chicken fed only bugs and table scraps

1Even organic may not be sustainable, if it uses too much land and doesn't have enough feed conversion efficiency
2"free range" doesn't actually have a defined legal meaning, so in most cases it's a lot less sufficiently-ethical than people assume
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: AlanStache on October 23, 2015, 04:26:54 PM
...
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/)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 23, 2015, 07:01:40 PM
...
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. :)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: AlanStache on October 24, 2015, 07:41:08 AM
...
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. :)

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!!!
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Spork on October 24, 2015, 10:48:51 AM

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. 
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 24, 2015, 10:55:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Spork on October 24, 2015, 10:57:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: AlanStache on October 24, 2015, 11:25:40 AM
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.

Dude, this might be carry on legal and many seats have usb power.  And some food items are legal if they are labeled as being under 3.2oz.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/looflirpa/igrill.shtml (ftp://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/looflirpa/igrill.shtml)

If the grill was not 100$ would be totally worth it for the looks and the freshly grilled lunch on my next trip.  Or maybe could sell freshly cooked lunches!
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: etotheix on October 24, 2015, 12:18:14 PM
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.

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on October 24, 2015, 08:02:53 PM
Cool.  So one modest domestic flight could be equivalent to eating stake a most nights per week for a month.

Well, that's one way to get reach your FDA-recommended intake of fiber!

(http://www.bookdrum.com/images/books/87193_m.jpg)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: dmc on October 24, 2015, 08:44:38 PM
No.  My wife and I just flew from SW Florida to Chicago to take our grandson to a pumpkin patch.  We flew commercial on this trip.  But we also own a small plane and I'll go flying at least every other week just because I enjoy it. 

And I also enjoy a good steak. 
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Heywood57 on October 25, 2015, 10:30:53 AM
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.

Is that where NetFlix argued that is was better to deliver DVDs via USPS than
to have everyone driving to a video rental store.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/08/video_stores_vs_online_rentals.html

Streaming vs DVD
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/feb/06/how-the-netflix-model-impacts-the-environment-economy-and-society
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Heywood57 on October 25, 2015, 10:50:42 AM
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.html

Quote
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.

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).

I don't see how #10 applies here.
The person is not deciding whether to go or not go.
The person IS going to go from point A to point B via one of a choice of transportation methods.
Given the size and scale of the transportation system, the impact of a single individual is miniscule.


Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Kris on October 25, 2015, 11:28:07 AM
Whoosh, this thread has gone all over the place.

Anyway, on topic, I read this article in today's paper and found it online for y'all.

http://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/whats-your-flights-carbon-footprint/

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Lyssa on October 25, 2015, 12:10:09 PM
Back to the original question:

I do take it into account. I limit flying for leisure to once a year and for a stay of at least 10 days. For weekend trips to cities trains are almost always a suitable alternative.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: music lover on October 25, 2015, 12:33:08 PM
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.

Changing one habit that uses carbon doesn't "offset" another one.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: GetItRight on October 25, 2015, 12:35:21 PM
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.

MOD EDIT: Don't troll, please.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: bacchi on October 25, 2015, 12:44:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Kris on October 25, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
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 was thinking the same thing.

Elegant in that it encourages 100% complacency, and recasts it as a sort of noble, social-justice, planet-saving stance.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 25, 2015, 01:00:36 PM
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 think many people wish this was true. However, your analysis is wildly inconsistent with the best available science regarding how climate change will play out. The technical aspects of climate change are, in fact, apolitical. The physical mechanisms of the world will play out regardless of what we believe about it, so we had better do what we can to understand it. There are many persons who would otherwise be considered conservative that conduct climate research and arrive at the same conclusions as the general consensus.

As to your assertion that those who agree that climate change has a human-influence component (what I assume you mean by environmentalists) must somehow hate the poor, etc: your phrasing reveals some hatred. You might want to rethink your conclusion a bit.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Heywood57 on October 25, 2015, 01:18:52 PM
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.

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 25, 2015, 01:22:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: GetItRight on October 25, 2015, 01:29:07 PM

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...
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: rtrnow on October 25, 2015, 02:24:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: partgypsy on October 25, 2015, 03:41:45 PM
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?
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: AlanStache on October 25, 2015, 06:07:31 PM
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. 
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: FenderBender on October 25, 2015, 08:26:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: NoraLenderbee on October 25, 2015, 09:29:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Spork on October 26, 2015, 09:06:12 AM
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.

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: partgypsy on October 26, 2015, 09:27:34 AM
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.

Bummer about the cruise ship, as some of the vacations have attractive pricing : (
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 26, 2015, 12:41:24 PM
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.

Re: various posts above, and personal habits not affecting where planes fly, some people in this thread have clearly never studied (some probably haven't even Googled) supply and demand.

I live in a small city a few hours' flying time from DC, that happens to house shit-tons of defense contractors. If I were to assert that the myriad daily commuter flights to our nation's capital had no relation to the hordes of individuals going back and forth to curry favor in the seat of power, I would rightly be slapped about the face for being an idiot. And, while one person's choice on one trip is unlikely to shape the market, the habits of groups (in which, I am told, social animals such as homo sapiens often travel) can and do.

Furthermore, in marginal situations, minor variations in demand can and do affect carriers' offerings over time. More demand = higher prices, more profit, more jets flying the same route, and vice versa.

I won't ramble too much more, but in general, living as if your own actions make a difference makes it much more likely that they will. Assuming (pretending?) that you can't make a difference not only ensures you won't, it's also a piss-poor attitude and I can't imagine being happy living that way. /end rant
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Heywood57 on October 26, 2015, 02:54:47 PM

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...

From the airlines economic point of view that is correct.
They have to buy the fuel to get the entire mass of the loaded plane from A to B,  charge enough
per passenger to make a profit and make sure there are enough paying passengers to justify the trip.

From an emissions point of view if there are 179 passengers vs 180 passengers on the plane
the one person difference is a very tiny change in emissions from the trip.



Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Heywood57 on October 26, 2015, 03:23:13 PM
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.

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 26, 2015, 03:36:51 PM

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.

I'll buy that as an instantaneous decision if a person were strictly going on a standby basis, this could be true. However, this: a) ignores the supply-demand arguments discussed ad nausuem above, and; b) includes the futility illusion as a hidden premise because it assumes that everyone else is also still choosing to fly.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: cube.37 on October 26, 2015, 03:39:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 26, 2015, 03:53:00 PM
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.

Is this based on word of mouth and general news articles, or based on a detailed technical analysis or review of the published scientific literature? If it is the latter, we are clearly reading different papers. If it the former, you should consider the potential bias in your sources. If it based on hunch or common-sense evaluation then you have no credibility on this topic.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Bajadoc on October 26, 2015, 06:05:43 PM
The biggest waste of energy is to worry about things beyond your control.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Bajadoc on October 27, 2015, 09:22:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on October 27, 2015, 09:37:32 AM
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.

Others have already explained why you're wrong about that. Persisting in your wrongness just makes you look like an idiot.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Bajadoc on October 27, 2015, 10:20:45 AM
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.

Others have already explained why you're wrong about that. Persisting in your wrongness just makes you look like an idiot.
Is flight volume decreasing? Are things getting better? Name calling is immature and not nice. Being nice does more than not flying.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: rtrnow on October 27, 2015, 10:38:11 AM
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.

Others have already explained why you're wrong about that. Persisting in your wrongness just makes you look like an idiot.
Is flight volume decreasing? Are things getting better? Name calling is immature and not nice. Being nice does more than not flying.
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: RFAAOATB on October 27, 2015, 11:25:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 27, 2015, 11:32:50 AM
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.

Transport cost externalities are often not reflected in the face value cost. CO2 emissions are largely not reflected in prices beyond a few attempts at cap-trade and emissions regulations. This is also true of the cost of driving and highway construction (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-true-costs/412237/  I do wish the article had been more quantitative).

Capitalism drives towards cost and profit efficiencies. Environmental externalities will generally not be included until introduced by regulation or things get bad enough that the costs are directly felt- which is typically after it is much more expensive/difficult to deal with it, unfortunately.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 27, 2015, 01:01:31 PM
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.

If you think about it, the latter is an integral truth of Mustachianism. We're just applying it to something other than money in this context.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on October 27, 2015, 02:47:53 PM
Is flight volume decreasing? Are things getting better? Name calling is immature and not nice. Being nice does more than not flying.

First of all, yes and yes -- or at least, they're not getting worse at as fast as they would be if (at least some) people weren't considering their actions.

Second, I didn't do any name-calling. I only warned you against acting like an idiot; I didn't say you were one. (Whether your subsequent responses show that you heeded my warning or not decide that.)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: FenderBender on October 28, 2015, 10:02:02 AM
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
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Left on October 28, 2015, 10:10:06 AM
I thought planes were pretty good for environment...

you can transport 100s of people in one container for a shorter duration... much better than 100s cars (driven solo/double) taking 4-5x the amount of time. Setting in traffic also burns a lot of gas too.

I mean, its always better to cram more people into single containers... we wouldn't have made it across the oceans on if everyone went on a raft by themselves...

If people are going to compare planes, they should compare it to the number of cars that the passengers would be using if not for plane

the empty seat argument from last page also isn't really that much of an argument to me either... we waste, it's just how it is. We waste food, electricity, kids, etc... it's always bad for environment. When we toss food away, it still had to be grown/processed/sold/delivered... same with making electricity, we don't have the battery capacity to actually store it all so we pollute to keep it going. And kids... we don't need that many, and they keep popping out >.>, the waste from everyday living probably out weighs your choice of flying for damage to environment...
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: bacchi on October 28, 2015, 10:35:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 28, 2015, 11:07:06 AM
Other 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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Left on October 28, 2015, 11:14:06 AM
Other 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 :D
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 28, 2015, 11:15:32 AM
we wouldn't be on MMM if we did things the way the majority of the world works... I mean retire at 65 :D
Purely a rhetorical device there, of course...
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on October 28, 2015, 08:13:41 PM
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>
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: FenderBender on October 28, 2015, 11:45:00 PM
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.   



Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: FenderBender on October 29, 2015, 12:27:30 AM
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.

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: rtrnow on October 29, 2015, 06:58:10 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: AlanStache on October 29, 2015, 07:31:49 AM
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.

FenderBender: Are you making the assumption that the 3rd world will continue in its current pollution heavy manner as the population increases?  Things do not happen in a vacuum, technological advances and economic efficineces in green tech done for a US/Europe market will go into the developing world too, things like http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall (ftp://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall) will become cheaper in the US then move on and replace as existing infrastructure ages or become the first instillation of power abroad.  CC aside 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. 

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. 
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: NoraLenderbee on October 29, 2015, 12:11:41 PM
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. 


I agree with you. However, "Bill Gates/Meryl Streep/Larry Ellison does it, too" is not a justification. "I won't change until they do" just means nothing will ever change. If you choose to waste resources (just an example, not saying you are)--that doesn't strike a blow against the elites.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 29, 2015, 12:53:08 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: AlanStache on October 29, 2015, 02:50:13 PM
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.
Quote
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.

I for one am glad a leading presidential candidate, Mr Trump, is advocating we start following the Chinese example beginning with the building of a wall along our boarder. 

Could not read all of seakingAlpha's article without registering, but China seems to be saying all the right things.  Hopefully the stated goals will be meet.

I like individual freedom but you can get a lot done with top town commands especially when those in control understand math/science (LOTs of China's leadership are trained as engineers (it was a preposterous and safe major under Mao-etc (he did not really encourage Political Science, Law, Business or Finance as subjects for higher education...))). 

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 29, 2015, 02:57:19 PM
Also relevant to the discussion: the recent liberal wins in Canada and Australia - two of the Western world's largest producers and users of fossil fuels, and until recently among the most vocal defenders of status-quo energy policy - are likely to substantially alter those nations' stances on these issues, especially when it comes to international negotiations on carbon emissions etc.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: music lover on October 29, 2015, 04:33:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 29, 2015, 04:52:04 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Except that this is not true. Yes, there are a handful of scientists who question the human  influence on climate change (Freeman Dyson is a well known example). However, they tend not to be specialists in the field and the few papers I've seen held up to supposedly show the gaping hole in the human-CO2-climate linkage tend to not actually be that strong, or do not say that in context when you actually dig in and read the literature.

Personally, I keep looking for this and am very open to finding science that supports the conclusion that human CO2 (among other GH gasses) isn't a problem for our climate. My life would be considerably cheaper and more convenient if I could use petroleum products with reckless abandon. Unfortunately, I have not seen it yet and the case for AGW is increasingly robust. It is unfortunate, but here we are. Now we get to deal with it or leave things much, much worse for future generations.

Also, saying decisions based on a huge volume of scientific studies is religion does not help your case. If you want to argue science, show the science... and not a link from some partisan shill page. There's another thread in Off Topic that is already beating that dead horse.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: powskier on October 29, 2015, 11:33:59 PM
Cycle to work and most importantly do not have kids, so do not think about my flying a couple of times a year.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: music lover on October 30, 2015, 06:08:43 AM
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/
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 30, 2015, 09:42:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 30, 2015, 09:52:51 AM
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/

Fair enough. $125 million spent on targeted information campaigns is less than billions spent on research and other programs.

A. Taking the numbers in your link at face value (their numbers are not too far from the CBO estimates, though lack some of the nuance such as the preceding spending on renewable energies starting in at least the 1970s: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/03-26-climatechange.pdf): less than half of the total amount is attributed to "climate change" while  the rest went to tax breaks, technology and foreign assistance. The last three are a mixed bag as they have other possible benefits and parsing that out is a waste of all of out time and a tangent one more degree removed. Interestingly, according to that chart, the highest rate of spending appears to have occurred under GHW Bush, who publicly said that climate change was something we better figure out. An oil man Republican president pushing for climate research and action- my how times have changed with the notable exception of Pataki, perhaps.
B. We have a potential problem that has been identified that has potentially major global implications. What is the appropriate level of funding to figure that out? Some of these expenses ran through agencies like NASA to do satellite work (unless congress changes their mission statement to hamstring them from doing so). Those types of projects are expensive. Many the climate change research field data collection requires work in logistically challenging places like Antarctica or the middle of the ocean. It is wise to understand this and yes that will take money. On the flip side of impacts: here in Washington State our water supply is vulnerable to the effects of climate change through the observed and projected changes in snowpack. It is going to take some relatively large/expensive infrastructure to protect agriculture that is worth hundreds of millions per year in addition to municipal supplies. That does not include any of the other projected impacts in Washington state. There are many other impacts to be sifted through by region be it drought, flooding, melting permafrost (a royal engineering PITA), storm surge effects, sea level rise, etc.  The cost of the impacts out strip the research dollars by a long shot. In summary, the research dollars are big, but commensurate with the scale of the problem. It should also be noted that those are not all "new" research dollars spent and some of that total is due to reallocation within agencies like NSF. 
C. There is a difference between putting money into research, etc and putting money into what are effectively advertising campaigns. With some notable exceptions (Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson), scientists tend not to be the best communicators to the general public.
D. As a practical matter, those who have long-term skin in the game such as planners, insurance companies and even the oil industry are moving forward with the best available science.
E. Please be as skeptical of the "science for dissident thinkers" pages as you are of the other science information out there. I wouldn't take medical advice from a webpage that inflammatory (ie, the anti-vaccine movement pages, Dr Oz, Dr Mercola, etc), and I think that applies across the board as a prudent measure- especially if you are not trained in that exact field adequately to independently assess the information presented. 
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on October 30, 2015, 09:54:30 AM
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!
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: mikefixac on October 30, 2015, 10:09:59 AM
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.


I agree.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: music lover on October 30, 2015, 10:15:37 AM
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

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: A mom on October 30, 2015, 10:24:18 AM
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

I find it sad that we can't discuss issues like this without resorting to arguing about whether AGW exists. The OP states in his first post: "Obviously, if you are a person who thinks that CO2 emissions are not an issue, this question is moot." I personally believe AGW is a very big threat. I would like to be able to discuss solutions. So if you want to discuss the validity of the science behind climate change, maybe go to another thread.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on October 30, 2015, 10:34:24 AM
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/
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: music lover on October 30, 2015, 10:58:59 AM
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/

What disparity? The article specifically states that Exxon used publicly available data for an internal report on future development. What exactly did they "hide"?
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on October 31, 2015, 05:35:38 PM
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

The "debate" (to the extent the Scientific Method can be characterized as such) is settled, at least among the people competent enough to matter. I don't give a shit what the Sierra Club says.

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.

LOL, what? You think the people warning about climate change are expressing that belief because it's somehow profitable to think that way? How the fuck does that work?!

No, profit is in denialism -- which is exactly why we should be extremely skeptical of that.

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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: music lover on November 01, 2015, 08:08:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Spork on November 01, 2015, 10:14:47 AM

Maximum number of pages of semi-reasonable discourse on climate change before someone is called a fucking liar:  3.

I am pretty sure this is an internet constant.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on November 01, 2015, 10:29:34 AM
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 would go back and pull up the research efforts funded by the Koch brothers that are referenced earlier in this very thread and that concluded that human inputs are influencing climate, or maybe the research conducted by oil company labs (no, they did not just use publicly available data), but your post clearly indicates that this would be a pointless endeavor. If your starting premise is that research funded by the government is fundamentally biased, or that there is in fact a conspiracy among thousands to tens of thousands of scientists, then there is absolutely no point to arguing based on the data. If you do not admit the possibility that industrial interests who have a clear and compelling (and documented) reason to put out disinformation on climate change, and yet believe that scientists who have less economic incentive to do so, then we can't even argue about the bias. What does that leave us with? We can't have a reasonable discussion of the science, and we can't have a reasonable discussion of possible bias. That leaves us with name calling, and echo chambers. No thanks.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on November 01, 2015, 11:20:50 AM
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!)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: music lover on November 01, 2015, 12:00:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Left on November 01, 2015, 12:03:25 PM
does global warming even matter if someone just wants their environment to be clean?

do you walk by trash on the street because someone missed the dumpster? or do you just take a minute to toss it in? air pollution is same thing to me, regardless of climate change or not... do you take the effort to make sure you breath in cleaner air? do you you just walk by and ignore it?

its why most first world countries have public sanitation standards... and why people choose to live here than 3rd world where you cant drink tap water

edit, im not pushing for carbon emission control or anything, i do my fair share of polluting, but i wont stand in their way either for people who are because i do agree with the goal, im just too lazy to do it without someone prodding me. ie 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. same with airplanes, give me those speedy trains and i will take them instead
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Jack on November 01, 2015, 12:23:15 PM
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'm not censoring you; I'm ridiculing you. The distinction is important. If a moderator came in and deleted your posts (i.e., actual censorship) then everybody else wouldn't be able to see for themselves how you're wrong.

Besides, you are entitled to your difference of opinion, but you are not entitled to make up your own facts. Thank you for ceasing to do so.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: former player on November 01, 2015, 02:40:00 PM
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 -

1. Change where you work.
2. Change where you live.
3. Use pedal power to get to work.
4. Look again at making existing public transport work "well enough", or join/create a campaign for better public transport.

Currently you have probably optimised your work and housing options for things other than the external environmental costs of your commute.  You may have a bigger/cheaper/more convenient for education/family/leisure house than you could have closer to work, or you may have higher paid work than you would have closer to home.  You have probably made your calculations on your optimum house/work combination without fully accounting for the environmental costs incurred in commuting by car - typically these "external costs" which you are not currently required to pay or not required to pay in full include issues such as air pollution, climate change pollution, road repairs and traffic congestion.  Not being required to pay these costs isn't your fault, it's just the way the system is set up at the moment.  But it is something we should all be aware of and take note of in making one's personal calculations.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: music lover on November 01, 2015, 11:17:16 PM
I'm not censoring you; I'm ridiculing you. The distinction is important.

Yes, the distinction is important. You specifically stated: "It's not enough to merely disagree with extremists; they must be shut out of the discussion entirely." If your intent in that statement wasn't clear, please correct us.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on November 02, 2015, 10:10:27 AM
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 instead
Here'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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: cube.37 on November 03, 2015, 10:02:16 AM
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!)

Oh boy, do you sound like a treat...Can you tone it down...

Earlier you state "No, profit is in denialism -- which is exactly why we should be extremely skeptical of that." My view is that you should be extremely skeptical of everything you read and see. Probably not likely, but there is always the chance that government funded scientists are as biased as oil company funded scientists.

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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: JLee on November 03, 2015, 10:12:34 AM
Until there's another way to get me from one coast to the other in under 6 hours, I'll continue to fly.

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 instead
Here'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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on November 03, 2015, 10:21:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: JLee on November 03, 2015, 10:23:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on November 03, 2015, 10:23:57 AM
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.

I don't remember what music lover requested, but here is the summary for policy makers from the IPCC. It is a good place to start because it is a high level, broad summary. There is a huge amount of detail in the specifics and lots of rabbit holes to go down, and it is best to start with a broad framework and go down the rabbit holes later if you want (but please be discriminating with your sources as there is a lot of BS out there that can be confusing some times intentionally and sometimes just because of jargon and poor writing). There are parts of the report that directly address the magnitude of natural variation vs anthropogenic forcing.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on November 03, 2015, 10:29:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: bacchi on November 03, 2015, 10:39:26 AM
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.

Do you live in Hawaii?

If it's 120v, hook up a kill-a-watt. That's a shit-ton of electricity or a very high rate.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: JLee on November 03, 2015, 10:46:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Glenstache on November 03, 2015, 10:49:02 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: bacchi on November 03, 2015, 10:55:18 AM
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.

At $100/month, it might be worth it to install a sub-meter.


Edit: Figure out how much a full charge takes (~30 kw/100 miles?). Figure out how much $100 in electricity represents. (It does look like you're on an hourly pricing scheme if more than 1000 kwh is used.) You'll then know generally how many miles you can drive on $100 of electricity.

I see $0.16/kwh in NJ. That's about 20 full charges, or nearly 2000 miles/month. That's some serious commuting.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Tetsuya Hondo on November 03, 2015, 11:12:39 AM
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.

Just to follow up on this and put it in a little perspective for everyone accusing the various professors of climatology, meteorology, atmospheric scientists, geologists, hydroclimatologists, geophysicists, etc. etc. toiling away at their various universities around the world of being in some global conspiracy to generate revenue for a handful of American green energy companies, the revenues of oil companies are simply staggering. Don't you think they might be a teensy bit motivated to sow some confusion on this issue? Isn't it odd that they have some of the same PR firms on their payroll that the tobacco industry used to convince us that cigarettes aren't bad for you? Wouldn't they be a little bit more motivated to protect their revenues than a professor that is hoping to...what exactly? Get a grant to buy some lab equipment or pay for a few grad student RAs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal))

If you combine the revenues of the world's oil companies, it would equal around $5.3 TRILLION dollars. That's enough to qualify as the world's third largest GDP right behind the US and China.

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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: bacchi on November 03, 2015, 11:19:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Tetsuya Hondo on November 03, 2015, 11:25:45 AM
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.

No doubt. Btw, I thought you wrote SCTV at first. I would totally buy shares in that.

(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liquorsnob.com%2Farchives%2Fpictures%2FMcKenzie-Brothers&f=1)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Making Cookies on November 03, 2015, 04:06:22 PM
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.

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?

I choose to hardly ever fly. That's my solution. I flew a half dozen times years ago in the military. I flew once a decade ago for my job (and told myself given the choice - never again) and someday I might fly on a vacation with my family to Europe. Sort of a once in a lifetime trip.

I'm not going to worry about the pollution at all though. I was part of a military operation involving Navy Seals years ago. They burned through more fuel in patrol speedboats over a week than I've probably burned in 500K miles of driving. The Navy was airdropping fuel at sea.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Missy B on November 03, 2015, 10:02:28 PM
Yup. Airlines can and do cancel or downsize undersold flights. I remember flying standby to London, England with my flight attendant gf on her tickets. The story went from 'we'll have no trouble getting on, tons of room' to 'we're bumped, they switched to a smaller plane.'

Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Missy B on November 03, 2015, 10:48:25 PM
Environmental impact is a big reason why I don't fly. Also, It's not enjoyable, and it costs, so if I'm honest with myself, it would be harder to stick to my guns on this if flying was super fun and relaxing, instead of like a prison visit.

But I do. I had one return international flight, Vancouver to London, in 2001, and one domestic in 2007, Vancouver to Calgary. My family all live in town, so any flying would be strictly recreational, and I can't justify it.

A few years ago when I was reading 'Radical Simplicity' by Jim Merkel --who calls himself a 'recovering engineer' :) -- I worked out my footprint and it was 8.4 acres. (The Canadian Average was 24 acres, the American, 26) My footprint was one third the average for two reasons, basically; because I didn't -- and don't -- have a car, and because I don't fly. Most Canadians feel their sunny warm winter vacation trips are akin to a human right and would never seriously consider not going to Hawaii, Florida or Cuba because of the huge carbon footprint. Besides, they recycle. And own green mutual funds. So it all works out :/


http://www.radicalsimplicity.org/
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: HappyPoet on November 04, 2015, 02:47:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on November 04, 2015, 02:52:48 PM
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.

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?
If you assume everyone's a liar, how do you participate in the modern economy at all?
Oversight does exist. If you're concerned about a specific claim being valid, there's usually a way to investigate.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Missy B on November 04, 2015, 10:51:29 PM
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.

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?
If you assume everyone's a liar, how do you participate in the modern economy at all?
Oversight does exist. If you're concerned about a specific claim being valid, there's usually a way to investigate.

The whole carbon-credit industry is questionable, and the tree-planting stuff is particularly sketchy. The David Suzuki Foundation, which generally supports these carbon-exchange type things, makes special mention of that on their website. For the carbon credits to be legitimate, they should be completely new, something that wouldn't have happened without the program (ie, you shouldn't claim credit for a forest already growing) and the credits shouldn't be counted more than once. This is apparently quite difficult to guarantee.

As an example of how these sorts of programs fail: outside of Vancouver, where I live, a piece of land with mature tree cover was logged so it could be turned into money via carbon credit. Since it needed to be 'new' trees, they logged the old ones.
The fact that saplings fix very little carbon compared with new trees and will not catch up in volume for a couple decades didn't matter to the third party who certified their credits. This was a net loss of carbon fixation, and what's worse, the trees that were planted to 'balance' someone's flight will take 60 years to do it. Meanwhile, the extra C02 is around for decades, along with an additional deposit each and every year after that, by someone who now feels okay about flying because they're 'carbon neutral', thanks to the tree-planting program.
 And that is assuming the tree is actually allowed to grow, which is quite a stretch. Think anyone is going to care thirty years from now if someone wants that land for a mall and the business that sold the credits is gone?
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: AlanStache on November 05, 2015, 08:05:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Making Cookies on November 05, 2015, 08:11:10 AM
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).

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. And a few of them are simply renting the rights to charity names.  Here is a big one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_Movement_USA

Even semi-unregulated GOP controlled flyover states are cracking down on these bins who are placed by companies who are not really charities.

"The Knoxville-based Cancer Fund of America and three related charities are accused of diverting 85 percent of the $187 million they raised. Much of the money was spent on fundraising, executive pay and perks like jet ski rentals, cruises and concert tickets." (NPR)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Making Cookies on November 05, 2015, 08:21:57 AM
(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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Making Cookies on November 05, 2015, 08:29:18 AM
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'm pretty sure people living hand to mouth don't care one whit about global-warming except whether it will kill them in the short term. To them it's throw another log on the fire, it's cold (if they have another log to throw on the fire). They obviously aren't going to wreck their food sources but I'll bet they'd eat every critter for miles if that is what it took to survive.

Environmentalism is for people who can worry about the earth dying while running electric lights and watching TV. ;)
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Making Cookies on November 05, 2015, 08:33:28 AM
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.

+1000

I figure conferences like those are for designing the next year's worth of reasons the rest of us ought to cut back on our consumption while the elite continues on consuming vast quantities of everything.

Another good reason to step off of the pop-culture binge our society does. Of course if worrying about the latest boy-band or NASCAR star keeps people happy rather than having a civil war every other generation - I'm good with it. I figure some people just need to be kept distracted like little kids to keep them out of trouble.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Making Cookies on November 05, 2015, 09:16:53 AM
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/

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.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on November 05, 2015, 09:25:38 AM
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).

Here's one organization that rates charities based on the percentage of donations actually used for their stated goals: https://www.charitywatch.org/

Here's one that specializes in validating carbon offsets: http://www.scsglobalservices.com/carbon-offset-verification
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: Making Cookies on November 05, 2015, 09:29:21 AM
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.

That's alot of trees.

Do whatever you want to.

I stay close to home, carpool, don't buy alot of stuff, etc. When I want to spend or travel, I do - but it isn't much.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: zephyr911 on November 05, 2015, 09:42:36 AM
Related, just for fun:
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: music lover on November 06, 2015, 10:03:26 AM
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.

The false assumption often made is that any and all consequences in the future can only be bad while all the known benefits of warming and increased CO2 are either ignored or downplayed. As you stated, the effects are exaggerated to get people's attention, and people now told they must pay to solve a problem that hasn't even been proven to exist (computer models are not proof).
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: A mom on November 06, 2015, 10:43:17 AM
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.

Thanks for pointing this out. I still think that many people vastly underestimate  the CO2 emissions of flying.
Title: Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
Post by: spinner on November 08, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Gave up flying after an encounter in Morocco on my bike. Was travelling around and doing what the guide book suggested - stopping at oases to get dates for an energy boost. Stopped at several one day and there were no dates. Finally, at one,  a guy spoke enough English to explain that the desert is moving north due to climate change and the date palms have all died in this area. This farmer was going to take his family to the city to look for work, since he couldn't grow anything anymore. Haven't flown since and that was 2007.

I'd been a vegetarian for 18 years, vegan for 10, owned no car, was a science teacher who taught about the greenhouse effect for many decades, so I guess I was part way to understanding my effect on the climate, but this put a face to what I personally was ignoring - the consequences of my flying.

Been a great decision, though it was several years before I stopped feeling deprived of 'exotic' vacations. I now use Amtrak/VIArail for all my distance trips (I can even take my bike that way!), now know way more about my own country (Canada) and have found lots of 'exotic places in the USA!