2 ms·

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 whe

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....
lozenge 9y ago
Key word there: rich people. Nobody with power will want to stop this technology. This isn't even getting into how regulating aviation isn't in the Paris agreement, but has been delegated to the ICAO, which is captured by industry. It isn't just more emissions per passenger mile, but this will also instead the number of passenger miles due to its convenience.

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....

lozenge 9y ago

Key word there: rich people. Nobody with power will want to stop this technology. This isn't even getting into how regulating aviation isn't in the Paris agreement, but has been delegated to the ICAO, which is captured by industry. It isn't just more emissions per passenger mile, but this will also instead the number of passenger miles due to its convenience.