6 ms·
> Ultimately I'm just not satisfied with any estimate of CO2 emitted by flying in general. > Has anyone here seen a decent model of CO2 output caused by flying
by barunio 8y ago
> Ultimately I'm just not satisfied with any estimate of CO2 emitted by flying in general.
> Has anyone here seen a decent model of CO2 output caused by flying?
The CO2 impact of flying, and of flying first-class, is understood incredibly well and quite simple to follow for first-order effects.
First, to calculate the emissions associated with the sector as a whole, you don't need any modeling. If you know how much of what fuel the sector as a whole consumes, you can determine co2 emissions directly from that fact. That's how those broader statistics are determined.
Second, losing one passenger impacts the fuel economy per person in a very negative way. Consider an Airbus A321, which is one of the more efficient commercial airplanes. Wikipedia states that its max takeoff weight is 93,000kg. Suppose it's configured to seat 220 people. That means 422kg of weight being transported per person. A typical airline seat weighs 11kg and an average adult is over 70kg. If you assume an average of 50kg per person for luggage, each person's marginal contribution to the weight being transported is 131kg. The rest is coming from moving the plane itself. So, if you replace two small seats with one big one, that one seat now goes from having a share of 422kg to (422 * 2 - 131) = 713kg. That's an increase of 69%.
Edit: I realized I'm looking at max capacity for total weight but not max weights per passenger, which means my guess of the plane weight is overstated. But I also didn't account for the fact that first class also requires more flight attendants on the flight. These two things counter each other. The net increase is likely something other than 69%, but that's not too far off.
Yes, there are other market impacts from using first class, but there's no basis for thinking those are anywhere close to the impact described above. (E.g., you can do the calculations for offsetting 50kg of cargo from another plane.)
What's a little less certain is the impact of radiative forcing. CO2 emissions are a dangerously _understated_ way to think about climate impacts of flying. CO2e (co2 equivalent) is more relevant. When you release water vapor, NOx, etc. into the atmosphere at higher elevations, there are all sorts of other impacts that occur at different timescales. The IPCC recommends multiplying by a factor of 2.7x to account for that. Other studies are a bit lower, maybe 1.9x, but there's general agreement that it's very bad. The specifics still need to be understood a bit better.
People have incredible wishful thinking when it comes to flying because it's so convenient. It is impossible to act responsibly towards the environment and engage in air travel with any form of technology that exists today or that we know of. It's hard to imagine many things more hypocritical than first-class passengers who also claim environmental concern.
- aeternus 8y agoIt's not necessarily hypocritical. You need to look at net carbon output. Perhaps that first-class passenger is buying carbon credits, maybe they own clean-energy companies and are travelling to expand their market.
- barunio 8y agoCarbon credits are the Indulgences of the modern era. Now it's worry about harming the planet instead of worry of going to hell. My ethics happen to align with Martin Luthor on this topic. I have some experience with this topic. I _did_ start a clean energy company that has had notable and measurable impact over the past ten years or so. And I have flown cross-country for work more often than I would like. It's justifiable to the extent the travel leads to benefits generated from the work. But the truth is that an honest personal accounting of this is difficult. In some cases, the travel is really valuable and in other cases we just want to imagine it is for ego-centric or other reasons. Regardless, flying first-class vs economy is really never needed for work purposes; it's purely a matter of luxury. Causing harm for the purposes of luxury, attempting to buy your way out of it, and then claiming righteousness is, in my view, hypocritical. I should mention that I am a fan of well-structured carbon offsets, but only when avoidance is really infeasible. But offsets do not justify waste in the same way that recycling does not justify greater consumption.
- aeternus 8y agoI'm not completely convinced. High-end purchasers often fund newer more efficient development, especially with cars and jets. Old jets and old cars are much less efficient than their modern equivalents, and airlines need sufficient capital and demand in order to invest in new vehicles. https://www.treehugger.com/cars/25-cars-are-causing-90-air-pollution-we-breathe-new-study-finds.html https://www.treehugger.com/cars/25-cars-are-causing-90-air-p... There's also the common misconception that buying a newer more efficient car is bad for the environment due to manufacturing. That is very rarely true: https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2014/0804/Which-is-greener-Old-car-or-new-car https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2014/0804/Which-i... We need to solve environmental issues by moving forward and innovating, rather than attempting to get 7.5 billion to agree to reduce their standard of living. Indulgences did not actually offset the negative externalities, where as carbon-credits do, at least to a significant extent, so I'm not sure the two are directly comparable.