7 ms·

I wish we could decarbonize long distance travel. I would love to see more of the world but I can't justify contributing to climate change for such a trivial th

I wish we could decarbonize long distance travel. I would love to see more of the world but I can't justify contributing to climate change for such a trivial thing. I can limit emissions by doing smaller trips with bike, bus or train locally, but oceans present a problem. A round trip transatlantic flight from New York to Berlin emits 2.4 metric tons of CO2e per person. https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=1697638 https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=16976... The UN says global emissions per capita needs to drop to 1.5 metric tons/year by 2050 if we have any hope of keeping to a 2C temperature rise this century. I wonder if there's any hope of electric planes hitting the energy density needed for commercial airlines, or algae based plane fuel taking off. I would even use a slower or more expensive mean of travel if it meant the emissions were drastically reduced. https://www.treehugger.com/aviation/worlds-first-flight-powered-by-100-algae-biofuels-completed.html https://www.treehugger.com/aviation/worlds-first-flight-powe...

superpermutat0r 8y ago
Still, emissions from planes are a tiny percentage of global output. Individuals should not share the burden if it's a handful of companies polluting the Earth. You can also offset your footprint by buying land and planting trees. With some handkerchief math you'll be able to fly without any worries.
- sinemetu11 8y ago
  Or just not eating meat. :P
  - superpermutat0r 8y ago
    For a first world individual, highest impact is not heating/cooling or skipping on transcontinental flights. Meat production globally has a non trivial emissions output but for a first world individual, diet is maybe 10% of footprint. Without Hot Air book goes through these calculations. Still, planting 1000 trees and making sure they exist for 40 years makes your footprint invisible.
    - frabbit 8y ago
      I would imagine that most people would find it easier to not start travelling than to give up meat: but the most likely outcome is that they will do neither. Because all this will be solved by flying nuclear cars which will be the only transport used by the people that have not emigrated to Mars.
- frabbit 8y ago
  And if all the people flying do that? Is there enough land and will they have sequestered enough CO2 to meet the 12 (now 11.5 year target)? What about if more people embrace their right to travel to expand their minds?
  - superpermutat0r 8y ago
    Well, maybe not everyone but you can.
    - frabbit 8y ago
      I can. You can. My mate can. That's three of us. But if we all follow Rick Steves's suggestions and all fly to Bali to broaden our minds then there is a bit of a physical limit. Isn't there?
Wohlf 8y ago
If you have the time and money, some cargo ships rent out additional rooms to travelers.
idlewords 8y ago
I would say, see the world while you still can. Your individual carbon impact either way makes zero difference, and aviation is responsible for 2% of human carbon dioxide emissions. We're either going to solve this problem on a grander scale than everybody riding bikes, or the world you currently have a chance to see is not going to be around much longer in its present form.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  To a certain extent, it's that kind of thinking that got us in to this mess.
  - idlewords 8y ago
    I think it's important to be rational about what will or won't have an impact on the global problem. People want to have a sense of personal agency, but pretending that individual choices like reducing travel, turning the thermostat down and not eating meat will have any impact is actually counterproductive, because they create the false impression that measures short of massive retooling of our economy can make a dent in this problem. I'm not saying those are bad choices, or that there are not other ethical arguments for them. But let's be clear-eyed about the drastic level of structural change required to stabilize (let alone reduce, let alone get to net-negative) CO2 emissions. (And anyone who chose to have children is automatically disqualified from talking about individual carbon impacts.)
    - dashundchen 8y ago
      Agreed that individual action is always drowned out by society and global policy, even if global emissions are caused by summing up billions individual decisions. Ultimately my problem is it is hypocritical to have concern for climate change while jetting around the world. Eventually I would like to get into green and cleantech and hopefully contribute to a bigger impact on emissions than a single lifetimes worth of actions ever could.
      - 8y ago
robfitz 8y ago
Sailing is great if you don't mind (extremely) slow travel. I bought an 8m from 1972 for about 2 months' worth of rent and have since moved with it from the UK to (nearly) Spain. I did it for different reasons than you, but it sounds like it might be a nice fit. Although now that I've said that, there are admittedly another set of environmental problems from the anti-foul paint, so perhaps it's just trading one issue for another.
DoingIsLearning 8y ago
There was an EC funding stream to address precisely this: https://www.cleansky.eu/ https://www.cleansky.eu/
josephv 8y ago
This sort of hyper-sensitivity to any negative effects of your actions is absolutely paralyzing, as you clearly demonstrate. It will keep you from enjoying anything. People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people". Or spend the $10 on a reusable bottle of water they are going to lose instead of buying the $1 and giving $9 to your cause of choice (charity, church, weed for the homeless). The only way to really go zero-emissions, which would really benefit everyone (I guess, by this logic) is to just off yourself. But I'd argue that you could do more good, have more potential to solve these problems you are concerned about, by exposing yourself to things outside your comfort zone. Other places, people, cultures, great works of art and engineering, and rich experiences. All of the planes you ride on are going to fly anyway, get out there and get it!
- 49531 8y ago
  There is a balance to be found in lifestylism. I wouldn't call it hyper-sensitivity. You can't be perfect, and your lifestyle isn't going to disrupt global systems that facilitate most of the worlds problems, but there is something to be said for reducing your negative impact on the world. It feels gross to have a smart phone or computer built with conflict minerals (they all essentially are). It feels gross to have more than affordable clothes assembled in sweatshops. I'm not the one setting up these systems but it feels gross to benefit from them. Don't tell people to ignore those feelings, ignoring them is alienating. Also, I think if you off yourself the carbon in your body will eventually be emitted? :P
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people". This is true though. There are too many people on the planet, and you shouldn't have kids if it aligns with you beliefs. Luckily, countries are already headed in that direction (fertility rates below replacement rate) [1]. But we should do more with carbon tax funds to further incentivize this outcome. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rates/ https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rates/
  - vibrato 8y ago
Youden 8y ago
As an alternative, you could offset your carbon emissions. If this site can be trusted, $1 = 1 tree = 21.7kg CO2 sequestered per year: https://onetreeplanted.org/ https://onetreeplanted.org/ So for $111, you can fly once a year without a net carbon impact. That's so small relative to the cost of the flight you could do it every time you fly.
- mrnobody_67 8y ago
  You realize most American people don't have even $400 in savings, right?
- frabbit 8y ago
  The tree needs to grow to maturity to sequester the CO2 and when it dies be replaced by others. If you have ever gardened you will be aware that planting of x seedlings results in less-than-x mature plants.
dv_dt 8y ago
It's completely within our technology to generate jet fuel in a carbon negative way (bringing it back to neutral after burning). Actually there are multiple methods to do it. They all cost more, especially because they're in small-batch proof of concept mode. Scaled up they would likely cost just a little bit more than our current fuel costs; but I view this as a completely valid way of folding in externality costs back into alignment with the direct economic activity of air travel. Social investment (via government or other channels) into accelerating developments like this is why people need to get political to shift how the default decisions get made.
- mrnobody_67 8y ago
  Carbon Engineering is going to do this.... fuel from air. Raised Series C this month. I think they had a segment on VICE a while back.
wccrawford 8y ago
At least one of the comments is saying you worry too much, but I appreciate your worry and wish other people would worry more, not less. And one of the comments suggested that you can offset your carbon impact by paying someone to plant trees. I'm not seriously considering that for the next time my wife and I fly anywhere... And possibly just to offset our yearly carbon footprint anyhow.
kyleblarson 8y ago
Do you have kids?
- dashundchen 8y ago
  I don't. If I decide to have children I would adopt.
ip26 8y ago
I'm too far away from planes to know, but it's interesting that you can break it down into steps with different requirements & significance. Cruise requires energy density while takeoff requires power density. Additionally, takeoff, being close to the ground, doesn't have that multiplier effect that high-altitude emissions do. So, what I'm really intrigued by is the thought that you could takeoff with chemical fuel and cruise with electric or fuel cells. Or, as you mention, there's always syngas. That might be the holy grail that saves us from ourselves.
niftich 8y ago
I get this recurring dream of a retrofuturistic world where intercontinental travel serviced by nuclear-powered ocean liners. For nonproliferation reasons, there's only a handful companies operating them, one for each theatre. It takes ~4 days to get across the Atlantic, so some amenities are inspired by cruise ships, but optimized for less crew. It's an intriguing dream, but in our current world the economic and regulatory barriers around nuclear propulsion for civilian use make it impractical. More on this later. I believe economic forces and regulations will be the primary drivers of changing modes of transport, so if it makes economic sense to keep operating jet fuel aircraft, that will be an option for those who can afford it and don't have misgivings about it. But for planning and resilience, there's value in envisioning how a world with very limited jet fuel air travel would look like, and whether portions of its role ought to be taken over by other modes of travel, or if societies merely need to adjust to its loss. Our world's globalized economy greatly depends on the movement of goods and sometimes people, but for goods, the pace of water transport is often good enough, coupled with its much lower cost per amount and time. Much of this transport uses some of the lowest grades of fuel you can get from fossil oil. To change this, the price of these fuels would have to soar or the fuel would need to be banned. Let's suppose this extreme case comes and fuel oil is no longer an option. A rapid migration to nuclear propulsion for merchant fleets is both politically untenable and economically improbable. Solar/battery propulsion doesn't have the energy density, which leaves wind-like propulsion as one of the only contenders, with the others being simply higher grades of hydrocarbons like gasoline and compressed gas. One's carbon-free, slow, and presents a significant change in show ships are built, while the other needs changes only to the engines, fuel lines, and fuel tanks, re-uses existing industrial expertise, and maintains the pace of travel -- but isn't carbon-free. Which one do you think companies would chose?

superpermutat0r 8y ago

Still, emissions from planes are a tiny percentage of global output. Individuals should not share the burden if it's a handful of companies polluting the Earth. You can also offset your footprint by buying land and planting trees. With some handkerchief math you'll be able to fly without any worries.

sinemetu11 8y ago
Or just not eating meat. :P
- superpermutat0r 8y ago
  For a first world individual, highest impact is not heating/cooling or skipping on transcontinental flights. Meat production globally has a non trivial emissions output but for a first world individual, diet is maybe 10% of footprint. Without Hot Air book goes through these calculations. Still, planting 1000 trees and making sure they exist for 40 years makes your footprint invisible.
  - frabbit 8y ago
    I would imagine that most people would find it easier to not start travelling than to give up meat: but the most likely outcome is that they will do neither. Because all this will be solved by flying nuclear cars which will be the only transport used by the people that have not emigrated to Mars.
frabbit 8y ago
And if all the people flying do that? Is there enough land and will they have sequestered enough CO2 to meet the 12 (now 11.5 year target)? What about if more people embrace their right to travel to expand their minds?
- superpermutat0r 8y ago
  Well, maybe not everyone but you can.
  - frabbit 8y ago
    I can. You can. My mate can. That's three of us. But if we all follow Rick Steves's suggestions and all fly to Bali to broaden our minds then there is a bit of a physical limit. Isn't there?

Wohlf 8y ago

If you have the time and money, some cargo ships rent out additional rooms to travelers.

idlewords 8y ago

I would say, see the world while you still can. Your individual carbon impact either way makes zero difference, and aviation is responsible for 2% of human carbon dioxide emissions. We're either going to solve this problem on a grander scale than everybody riding bikes, or the world you currently have a chance to see is not going to be around much longer in its present form.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
To a certain extent, it's that kind of thinking that got us in to this mess.
- idlewords 8y ago
  I think it's important to be rational about what will or won't have an impact on the global problem. People want to have a sense of personal agency, but pretending that individual choices like reducing travel, turning the thermostat down and not eating meat will have any impact is actually counterproductive, because they create the false impression that measures short of massive retooling of our economy can make a dent in this problem. I'm not saying those are bad choices, or that there are not other ethical arguments for them. But let's be clear-eyed about the drastic level of structural change required to stabilize (let alone reduce, let alone get to net-negative) CO2 emissions. (And anyone who chose to have children is automatically disqualified from talking about individual carbon impacts.)
  - dashundchen 8y ago
    Agreed that individual action is always drowned out by society and global policy, even if global emissions are caused by summing up billions individual decisions. Ultimately my problem is it is hypocritical to have concern for climate change while jetting around the world. Eventually I would like to get into green and cleantech and hopefully contribute to a bigger impact on emissions than a single lifetimes worth of actions ever could.
    - 8y ago

robfitz 8y ago

Sailing is great if you don't mind (extremely) slow travel. I bought an 8m from 1972 for about 2 months' worth of rent and have since moved with it from the UK to (nearly) Spain. I did it for different reasons than you, but it sounds like it might be a nice fit. Although now that I've said that, there are admittedly another set of environmental problems from the anti-foul paint, so perhaps it's just trading one issue for another.

DoingIsLearning 8y ago

There was an EC funding stream to address precisely this: https://www.cleansky.eu/ https://www.cleansky.eu/

josephv 8y ago

This sort of hyper-sensitivity to any negative effects of your actions is absolutely paralyzing, as you clearly demonstrate. It will keep you from enjoying anything. People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people". Or spend the $10 on a reusable bottle of water they are going to lose instead of buying the $1 and giving $9 to your cause of choice (charity, church, weed for the homeless). The only way to really go zero-emissions, which would really benefit everyone (I guess, by this logic) is to just off yourself. But I'd argue that you could do more good, have more potential to solve these problems you are concerned about, by exposing yourself to things outside your comfort zone. Other places, people, cultures, great works of art and engineering, and rich experiences. All of the planes you ride on are going to fly anyway, get out there and get it!

49531 8y ago
There is a balance to be found in lifestylism. I wouldn't call it hyper-sensitivity. You can't be perfect, and your lifestyle isn't going to disrupt global systems that facilitate most of the worlds problems, but there is something to be said for reducing your negative impact on the world. It feels gross to have a smart phone or computer built with conflict minerals (they all essentially are). It feels gross to have more than affordable clothes assembled in sweatshops. I'm not the one setting up these systems but it feels gross to benefit from them. Don't tell people to ignore those feelings, ignoring them is alienating. Also, I think if you off yourself the carbon in your body will eventually be emitted? :P
toomuchtodo 8y ago
> People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people". This is true though. There are too many people on the planet, and you shouldn't have kids if it aligns with you beliefs. Luckily, countries are already headed in that direction (fertility rates below replacement rate) [1]. But we should do more with carbon tax funds to further incentivize this outcome. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rates/ https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rates/
- vibrato 8y ago

Youden 8y ago

As an alternative, you could offset your carbon emissions. If this site can be trusted, $1 = 1 tree = 21.7kg CO2 sequestered per year: https://onetreeplanted.org/ https://onetreeplanted.org/ So for $111, you can fly once a year without a net carbon impact. That's so small relative to the cost of the flight you could do it every time you fly.

mrnobody_67 8y ago
You realize most American people don't have even $400 in savings, right?
frabbit 8y ago
The tree needs to grow to maturity to sequester the CO2 and when it dies be replaced by others. If you have ever gardened you will be aware that planting of x seedlings results in less-than-x mature plants.

dv_dt 8y ago

It's completely within our technology to generate jet fuel in a carbon negative way (bringing it back to neutral after burning). Actually there are multiple methods to do it. They all cost more, especially because they're in small-batch proof of concept mode. Scaled up they would likely cost just a little bit more than our current fuel costs; but I view this as a completely valid way of folding in externality costs back into alignment with the direct economic activity of air travel. Social investment (via government or other channels) into accelerating developments like this is why people need to get political to shift how the default decisions get made.

mrnobody_67 8y ago
Carbon Engineering is going to do this.... fuel from air. Raised Series C this month. I think they had a segment on VICE a while back.

wccrawford 8y ago

At least one of the comments is saying you worry too much, but I appreciate your worry and wish other people would worry more, not less. And one of the comments suggested that you can offset your carbon impact by paying someone to plant trees. I'm not seriously considering that for the next time my wife and I fly anywhere... And possibly just to offset our yearly carbon footprint anyhow.

kyleblarson 8y ago

Do you have kids?

dashundchen 8y ago
I don't. If I decide to have children I would adopt.

ip26 8y ago

I'm too far away from planes to know, but it's interesting that you can break it down into steps with different requirements & significance. Cruise requires energy density while takeoff requires power density. Additionally, takeoff, being close to the ground, doesn't have that multiplier effect that high-altitude emissions do. So, what I'm really intrigued by is the thought that you could takeoff with chemical fuel and cruise with electric or fuel cells. Or, as you mention, there's always syngas. That might be the holy grail that saves us from ourselves.

niftich 8y ago

I get this recurring dream of a retrofuturistic world where intercontinental travel serviced by nuclear-powered ocean liners. For nonproliferation reasons, there's only a handful companies operating them, one for each theatre. It takes ~4 days to get across the Atlantic, so some amenities are inspired by cruise ships, but optimized for less crew. It's an intriguing dream, but in our current world the economic and regulatory barriers around nuclear propulsion for civilian use make it impractical. More on this later. I believe economic forces and regulations will be the primary drivers of changing modes of transport, so if it makes economic sense to keep operating jet fuel aircraft, that will be an option for those who can afford it and don't have misgivings about it. But for planning and resilience, there's value in envisioning how a world with very limited jet fuel air travel would look like, and whether portions of its role ought to be taken over by other modes of travel, or if societies merely need to adjust to its loss. Our world's globalized economy greatly depends on the movement of goods and sometimes people, but for goods, the pace of water transport is often good enough, coupled with its much lower cost per amount and time. Much of this transport uses some of the lowest grades of fuel you can get from fossil oil. To change this, the price of these fuels would have to soar or the fuel would need to be banned. Let's suppose this extreme case comes and fuel oil is no longer an option. A rapid migration to nuclear propulsion for merchant fleets is both politically untenable and economically improbable. Solar/battery propulsion doesn't have the energy density, which leaves wind-like propulsion as one of the only contenders, with the others being simply higher grades of hydrocarbons like gasoline and compressed gas. One's carbon-free, slow, and presents a significant change in show ships are built, while the other needs changes only to the engines, fuel lines, and fuel tanks, re-uses existing industrial expertise, and maintains the pace of travel -- but isn't carbon-free. Which one do you think companies would chose?