4 ms·
It's not fair to compare a 747 (which produces a lot of pollution) with a family car when the 747 carries 300+ people and travels far more miles. If you look a
by DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
It's not fair to compare a 747 (which produces a lot of pollution) with a family car when the 747 carries 300+ people and travels far more miles.
If you look at pollution-per-passenger-mile then jet transport is now more efficient and less polluting than light cars: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/driving_vs_flying_which_is_more_harmful_to_the_environment.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/dri... and https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/ https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-clim...
- hueving 9y agoThis is definitely true, but it's also a little disingenuous to compare in pollution-per-passenger-mile because commercial flight makes traveling further so much easier. With the ability to travel from JFK to LAX in 6 hours, significantly more people are traveling far distances that they wouldn't have bothered to travel if the only option was train/cars. Speaking as someone who likes to fly to remote places, planes may be more efficient per mile, but people travel significantly further in them and likely end up contributing quite a bit more to global warming than people who don't fly and just drive to a lake a few hours away instead.
- Boothroid 9y agoDon't forget that planes release their pollution higher up in the atmosphere which intensifies the global warming effect.