4 ms·

And no mention of how bad this will be for the environment?

gdfhhgddhjj 9y ago
Seems like it’s aimed at business class. Businesses certainly don’t care about externalities they don’t foot the bill for.
King-Aaron 9y ago
I'm not sure if a business-focused article discussing an order of the aircraft really needs to make mention of it?
- cardamomo 9y ago
  Simplistic counter-argument: At this point, any article needs to mention the environment if we're going to cut back on carbon pollution as much as we need to.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Nope. You can increase carbon pollution in one area while still reducing total net carbon emissions.
    - sfredd1 9y ago
      You can also give food to every hungry child on earth.
- ajdlinux 9y ago
  Given the financial risks associated with ICAO's commitments for carbon neutral growth of the industry, and potential impact of current and future national/supranational emissions trading and carbon tax policies over the expected lifetime of a plane that's not going into service for a few more years yet, perhaps it's quite relevant even from a business-focused perspective.
ekianjo 9y ago
Insignificant compared to the tens of thousands or airplanes flying daily.
- loeg 9y ago
  For over-land flights, you don't think the sonic boom might have any impact on wildlife?
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    Which land are they flying over?
    - loeg 9y ago
      They don't have an aircraft yet, obviously. But one of the company's explicit goals is overland flights.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 9y ago
    Apparently non oceanic flights are banned in the US, so it’s currently a non-issue here. Not aware of the EU restrictions.
    - loeg 9y ago
      One of the explicit goals of Boom the company is to make overland flight viable (which makes the economics of supersonic flight closer to viable).
  - valuearb 9y ago
    How is a sonic boom 1/40th the volume of Concordes going to affect wildlife?
    - loeg 9y ago
      That's the question, isn't it? It would be a good idea to find out. (Additionally, I suspect any figure like 1/40th the volume of Concorde is drawn from thin air at this point. They don't have a prototype flying subsonic yet, much less supersonic.)
hwillis 9y ago
It is worse, but probably not that bad. There's strong evidence that emissions at high altitudes have magnified effects on the atmosphere (~2-4x IIRC) and planes are the second largest source of transportation CO2 besides road vehicles. Supersonic planes fly higher and emit a couple times more pollution. However planes are still like 7% of all transport emissions even when scaled for altitude, and stopping those emissions is incredibly challenging. Plus, frankly, if we get a handle on energy and road vehicles it probably just won't matter. Those two factors would reduce emissions by an order of magnitude. The planet might just be able to sustain air travel without intervention. Also, I like going fast.
- namelost 9y ago
  Several countries have already committed to ban cars with internal combustion engines in the next 10-20 years. London is introducing a new "T-charge" today whereby owners of older and more polluting vehicles have to pay an extra fee to enter central London. I suspect that 'a jet that generates double the pollution so that rich people can get to their destination faster' is dead on arrival.
  - hwillis 9y ago
    > I suspect that 'a jet that generates double the pollution so that rich people can get to their destination faster' is dead on arrival. The Concorde actually burned almost 8x as much fuel per passenger-mile as a 747. However that still only brought it down to 14 passenger-miles per US gallon. In the US the average car gets 25 mpg[1], so they're on the same magnitude. A modern supersonic jet would probably get closer to if not better than an average car, but that's also nullified if you put more people in the car. NB that the ban is on selling, not owning, as far as I know. So yeah on a per-pollution basis it checks out, but the car ban can happen because electric cars are essentially identical and completely substitute-able. I seriously doubt it would happen if electric cars could only drive half the speed of gasoline cars. I could see a carbon tax but I think a ban is very unlikely. Airplanes are just too efficient, and get well over 100 mpg nowadays. [1]: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg.html https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg....

Seems like it’s aimed at business class. Businesses certainly don’t care about externalities they don’t foot the bill for.

King-Aaron 9y ago

I'm not sure if a business-focused article discussing an order of the aircraft really needs to make mention of it?

cardamomo 9y ago
Simplistic counter-argument: At this point, any article needs to mention the environment if we're going to cut back on carbon pollution as much as we need to.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Nope. You can increase carbon pollution in one area while still reducing total net carbon emissions.
  - sfredd1 9y ago
    You can also give food to every hungry child on earth.
ajdlinux 9y ago
Given the financial risks associated with ICAO's commitments for carbon neutral growth of the industry, and potential impact of current and future national/supranational emissions trading and carbon tax policies over the expected lifetime of a plane that's not going into service for a few more years yet, perhaps it's quite relevant even from a business-focused perspective.

ekianjo 9y ago

Insignificant compared to the tens of thousands or airplanes flying daily.

loeg 9y ago
For over-land flights, you don't think the sonic boom might have any impact on wildlife?
- brianwawok 9y ago
  Which land are they flying over?
  - loeg 9y ago
    They don't have an aircraft yet, obviously. But one of the company's explicit goals is overland flights.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 9y ago
  Apparently non oceanic flights are banned in the US, so it’s currently a non-issue here. Not aware of the EU restrictions.
  - loeg 9y ago
    One of the explicit goals of Boom the company is to make overland flight viable (which makes the economics of supersonic flight closer to viable).
- valuearb 9y ago
  How is a sonic boom 1/40th the volume of Concordes going to affect wildlife?
  - loeg 9y ago
    That's the question, isn't it? It would be a good idea to find out. (Additionally, I suspect any figure like 1/40th the volume of Concorde is drawn from thin air at this point. They don't have a prototype flying subsonic yet, much less supersonic.)

hwillis 9y ago

It is worse, but probably not that bad. There's strong evidence that emissions at high altitudes have magnified effects on the atmosphere (~2-4x IIRC) and planes are the second largest source of transportation CO2 besides road vehicles. Supersonic planes fly higher and emit a couple times more pollution. However planes are still like 7% of all transport emissions even when scaled for altitude, and stopping those emissions is incredibly challenging. Plus, frankly, if we get a handle on energy and road vehicles it probably just won't matter. Those two factors would reduce emissions by an order of magnitude. The planet might just be able to sustain air travel without intervention. Also, I like going fast.

namelost 9y ago
Several countries have already committed to ban cars with internal combustion engines in the next 10-20 years. London is introducing a new "T-charge" today whereby owners of older and more polluting vehicles have to pay an extra fee to enter central London. I suspect that 'a jet that generates double the pollution so that rich people can get to their destination faster' is dead on arrival.
- hwillis 9y ago
  > I suspect that 'a jet that generates double the pollution so that rich people can get to their destination faster' is dead on arrival. The Concorde actually burned almost 8x as much fuel per passenger-mile as a 747. However that still only brought it down to 14 passenger-miles per US gallon. In the US the average car gets 25 mpg[1], so they're on the same magnitude. A modern supersonic jet would probably get closer to if not better than an average car, but that's also nullified if you put more people in the car. NB that the ban is on selling, not owning, as far as I know. So yeah on a per-pollution basis it checks out, but the car ban can happen because electric cars are essentially identical and completely substitute-able. I seriously doubt it would happen if electric cars could only drive half the speed of gasoline cars. I could see a carbon tax but I think a ban is very unlikely. Airplanes are just too efficient, and get well over 100 mpg nowadays. [1]: https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg.html https://phys.org/news/2016-11-average-fuel-economy-high-mpg....