Author Topic: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?  (Read 39074 times)

A mom

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #50 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.

rtrnow

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #51 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.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #52 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.

MandalayVA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1570
  • Location: Orlando FL
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #53 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. 

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #54 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
« Last Edit: October 23, 2015, 01:14:22 PM by Jack »

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Age: 42
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #55 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/

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3039
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #56 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/

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. :)

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Age: 42
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #57 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/

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!!!
« Last Edit: October 24, 2015, 07:43:31 AM by AlanStache »

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5747
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #58 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. 

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3039
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #59 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.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5747
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #60 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.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Age: 42
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #61 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

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!

etotheix

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #62 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.


Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #63 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!


dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #64 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. 

Heywood57

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #65 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

Heywood57

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #66 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.



Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6260
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #67 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/


Lyssa

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Location: Germany
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #68 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.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #69 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.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #70 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.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2015, 11:42:46 AM by arebelspy »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5938
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #71 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.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6260
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #72 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.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2015, 12:58:36 PM by Kris »

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3039
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #73 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.

Heywood57

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #74 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.


Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3039
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #75 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.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #76 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...

rtrnow

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #77 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.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4626
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #78 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?

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Age: 42
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #79 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. 

FenderBender

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #80 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.

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #81 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.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2015, 09:31:45 PM by NoraLenderbee »

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5747
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #82 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.


partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4626
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #83 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 : (

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #84 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
« Last Edit: October 27, 2015, 12:58:37 PM by zephyr911 »

Heywood57

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #85 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.




Heywood57

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #86 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.


Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3039
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #87 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.

cube.37

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #88 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.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3039
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #89 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.

Bajadoc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #90 on: October 26, 2015, 06:05:43 PM »
The biggest waste of energy is to worry about things beyond your control.

Bajadoc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #91 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.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #92 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.

Bajadoc

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #93 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.

rtrnow

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #94 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.

RFAAOATB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #95 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.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3039
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #96 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.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #97 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.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #98 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.)

FenderBender

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #99 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