8 ms·

Additionally, her environmental impact would only really be true if her flight was cancelled as a result of her taking the train. Is there evidence that this ha

Additionally, her environmental impact would only really be true if her flight was cancelled as a result of her taking the train. Is there evidence that this happened?

mopsi 7y ago
The whole flight does not need to be cancelled. Underselling flights are often replaced with smaller aircraft. One person might not make a difference, but if 10 or 20 cancel, an A321 may get replaced by A320 or A319, which are lighter and burn less fuel.
- superqwert 7y ago
  Good point, but once again - the crossing of thresholds is the major change, rather than the individual changes between thresholds.
- dingaling 7y ago
  Switching to a smaller aircraft isn't necessarily good for the environment. For example the A319 burns 5%/less fuel than the A320 but has 15% fewer seats, in common configuration. So the per-seat emissions are worse than if they had sold the remaining A320 seats at cost
Kiro 7y ago
That's just ridiculous and no-one thinks that.
- superqwert 7y ago
  That is certainly the implication :- "Environmental website ecopassenger.org calculates that Greta’s train journey to Davos, Switzerland, emitted just 44 kilograms of CO2, compared to an expected 262 kilograms had gone by plane." They are trying to suggest that she chose this trip, because it is environmentally better, but actually irrespective of her choice, there was most likely a total of emmission of 306kg of CO2. There could certainly a benefit, if the aim is to just fund transport that is more efficient and less pollutant. However, as mentioned earlier, it is unclear how the calculation is made and whether it is actually true when considering the wider requirements for the services - e.g. maintenance.
  - 2rsf 7y ago
    > Greta’s train journey to Davos a journey that took around 25 hours
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    > compared to an expected 262 kilograms had gone by plane. I still very much doubt that 262kg is per person. There's no way a plane emits tens of thousands of kilos of CO2 on a trip.
    - dagw 7y ago
      A passenger jet burns 10-15 liters of fuel pr km. Stockholm-Geneva is about 1600 km, so 3200 km round trip. So the numbers seem at least to be in the right ball park. Here's a bunch of physics if you're into that sort of thing: https://therocketscienceblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/how-much-fuel-does-an-airplane-use/ https://therocketscienceblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/how-mu...
    - viceroyalbean 7y ago
      262 might be a high estimate. At 750 gallons/hour[0] and 9.57 kg CO2/gallon[1] that's about 18000kg for a 2.5 hour flight. [0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2014/10/12/boeing-737/17036931/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2014/10/1... [1] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
      - dagw 7y ago
        The 262 number was for total trip there and back. So about 5 hours of flight time in total.
    - cmutel 7y ago
      There is a way :) Don't forget that each atom of carbon combines with two oxygens from the air.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      I think you're going to be surprised. A Boeing 747F has a fuel capacity of c.200,000kg, 200 metric tons (http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=738927 http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=738927). It's mostly heptane (C7H16) and octane (C8H18). Rough calculation, that's 15x12 : 34x1 ratio of C to H (180:34). So let's say 86% by mass, of 90% is Carbon. But CO2 is mostly Oxygen from the air, about 12:32 ratio. So the Carbon is a quarter of the total mass. This gives us (0.86 x 0.90 x 200tons) x4 as a ball park figure. That's 600,000kg of CO2 produced by 200,000kg of fuel. With 400 passengers that's 1500kg of CO2 per passenger if they burnt the full fuel capacity; ie that's a top bound estimate. So ... Meanwhile you might be surprised to find trees are made of CO2 with the oxygen removed. A large oak tree weighs c.5000kg and half of that is Carbon. So very, very roughly you'll want to plant and grow to full size a large tree for every couple of long haul flights (to account for fuel only).
pavlov 7y ago
A flight with 50% empty seats consumes less fuel than a full cabin. The difference is not huge, but it's there.
- superqwert 7y ago
  That is certainly true, but from the scale of the calculations, I am assuming that ecopassenger.com is not just calculating that difference, but the overall emmission cost as a ratio of flight.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Yes, this all sounds like a complicated way to say "obviously we've got to reduce air travel, but I'm not going to fly less, because what can one person do". This should be a named fallacy. Works in all sorts of situations: "obviously I have to eat less, but not this mealtime".
  - superqwert 7y ago
    There is a difference between decision making and calculations of change. I am certainly not arguing that decisions shouldn't be made responsibly. I am merely trying to point out that the calculations that have been made are simplistic.
maskros 7y ago
That is a strange argument. Are you too responsible for all the flights you don't take?
- superqwert 7y ago
  That is not what I am arguing at all. I am merely pointing out that it is unclear as to what the ecopassenger.com website is calculating and what we can gather from this information.
blackbrokkoli 7y ago
That's wrong. If a plane has 200 seats, and 400 people are willing to fly a given route, the airline sends 2 planes. Make it 401 people, they'll send three a day. That means each person who flies or doesn't brings the count closer to the next threshold, where the number of planes flying changes. Of course, this is oversimplified, not as instant as I described it, there are price politics and what not, but you can still very much say the climate footprint of each passenger is (total plane print/passengers). The idea is not to make super accurate global calculations but to quantify individual behaviour without employing a super computer.
- superqwert 7y ago
  You're claiming the argument is wrong, then supporting it again. The person(s) who go over or under the threshold are the ones that make a difference. If thresholds aren't breached by the amount of people changing route, then there is not a very significant difference. As you indeed state: "but you can still very much say the climate footprint of each passenger is (total plane print/passengers)" You can indeed say as much, but "this is oversimplified". Just to be clear - I am not arguing that we should not pick routes responsibly, with the environment in mind. I am merely trying to ensure we are clearer about what impacts we are actually making and that we are considering all the impacts and not just doing a simple calculation that actually misses out the many complexities of transport.
  - blackbrokkoli 7y ago
    So, you're arguing that the straw that broke the camels back is the only straw that matters at all?
    - superqwert 7y ago
      No, I'm arguing that the calculations for emission per person are simplistic.
    - superqwert 7y ago
      In transport, we have learnt over the past century to not use aggregate models, as they do not provide the same detail and results as disaggregate models[p.18 Modelling Transport 4th Edition Ortuzar & Willumsen]. We should not lower our standards when discussing emissions and pollution. This article above is a very worrying case - where the reader is encouraged to shame people for flying, without showing necessary statistics as to whether flying is indeed much worse than other transportation methods.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
WAHa_06x36 7y ago
Surely you must be aware that the point of an action like this is not the single action itself, in isolation, but the setting of a trend?
- superqwert 7y ago
  If it becomes a trend, that will be good if indeed the efficiencies are true. As stated earlier, it is unclear how the calculations are made and whether the actual total emissions cost was lowered.
  - WAHa_06x36 7y ago
    Do you have any idea how astronomically inefficient jet aircraft are? How ridiculously large amounts of energy they burn?
esailija 7y ago
This is some seriously ridiculous mental gymnastics (continuum fallacy). Someone who never flies is now responsible for the environmental impact of those who fly, because specifically their lack of flying is not canceling any flights (or preventing any flights from happening)?
- superqwert 7y ago
  Certainly not. Responsibility is a very complex issue, especially if you devolve it to the users, rather than keeping it in the hands of the managers/operators. But even if we assume a large part of responsibility rests in the users, then the responsibility would clearly be only held by those planning to make the trip and deciding which form of transport to use (potential users).

Additionally, her environmental impact would only really be true if her flight was cancelled as a result of her taking the train. Is there evidence that this happened?

mopsi 7y ago

The whole flight does not need to be cancelled. Underselling flights are often replaced with smaller aircraft. One person might not make a difference, but if 10 or 20 cancel, an A321 may get replaced by A320 or A319, which are lighter and burn less fuel.

superqwert 7y ago
Good point, but once again - the crossing of thresholds is the major change, rather than the individual changes between thresholds.
dingaling 7y ago
Switching to a smaller aircraft isn't necessarily good for the environment. For example the A319 burns 5%/less fuel than the A320 but has 15% fewer seats, in common configuration. So the per-seat emissions are worse than if they had sold the remaining A320 seats at cost

Kiro 7y ago

That's just ridiculous and no-one thinks that.

superqwert 7y ago
That is certainly the implication :- "Environmental website ecopassenger.org calculates that Greta’s train journey to Davos, Switzerland, emitted just 44 kilograms of CO2, compared to an expected 262 kilograms had gone by plane." They are trying to suggest that she chose this trip, because it is environmentally better, but actually irrespective of her choice, there was most likely a total of emmission of 306kg of CO2. There could certainly a benefit, if the aim is to just fund transport that is more efficient and less pollutant. However, as mentioned earlier, it is unclear how the calculation is made and whether it is actually true when considering the wider requirements for the services - e.g. maintenance.
- 2rsf 7y ago
  > Greta’s train journey to Davos a journey that took around 25 hours
- dmitriid 7y ago
  > compared to an expected 262 kilograms had gone by plane. I still very much doubt that 262kg is per person. There's no way a plane emits tens of thousands of kilos of CO2 on a trip.
  - dagw 7y ago
    A passenger jet burns 10-15 liters of fuel pr km. Stockholm-Geneva is about 1600 km, so 3200 km round trip. So the numbers seem at least to be in the right ball park. Here's a bunch of physics if you're into that sort of thing: https://therocketscienceblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/how-much-fuel-does-an-airplane-use/ https://therocketscienceblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/how-mu...
  - viceroyalbean 7y ago
    262 might be a high estimate. At 750 gallons/hour[0] and 9.57 kg CO2/gallon[1] that's about 18000kg for a 2.5 hour flight. [0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2014/10/12/boeing-737/17036931/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2014/10/1... [1] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
    - dagw 7y ago
      The 262 number was for total trip there and back. So about 5 hours of flight time in total.
  - cmutel 7y ago
    There is a way :) Don't forget that each atom of carbon combines with two oxygens from the air.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    I think you're going to be surprised. A Boeing 747F has a fuel capacity of c.200,000kg, 200 metric tons (http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=738927 http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=738927). It's mostly heptane (C7H16) and octane (C8H18). Rough calculation, that's 15x12 : 34x1 ratio of C to H (180:34). So let's say 86% by mass, of 90% is Carbon. But CO2 is mostly Oxygen from the air, about 12:32 ratio. So the Carbon is a quarter of the total mass. This gives us (0.86 x 0.90 x 200tons) x4 as a ball park figure. That's 600,000kg of CO2 produced by 200,000kg of fuel. With 400 passengers that's 1500kg of CO2 per passenger if they burnt the full fuel capacity; ie that's a top bound estimate. So ... Meanwhile you might be surprised to find trees are made of CO2 with the oxygen removed. A large oak tree weighs c.5000kg and half of that is Carbon. So very, very roughly you'll want to plant and grow to full size a large tree for every couple of long haul flights (to account for fuel only).

pavlov 7y ago

A flight with 50% empty seats consumes less fuel than a full cabin. The difference is not huge, but it's there.

superqwert 7y ago
That is certainly true, but from the scale of the calculations, I am assuming that ecopassenger.com is not just calculating that difference, but the overall emmission cost as a ratio of flight.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Yes, this all sounds like a complicated way to say "obviously we've got to reduce air travel, but I'm not going to fly less, because what can one person do". This should be a named fallacy. Works in all sorts of situations: "obviously I have to eat less, but not this mealtime".
- superqwert 7y ago
  There is a difference between decision making and calculations of change. I am certainly not arguing that decisions shouldn't be made responsibly. I am merely trying to point out that the calculations that have been made are simplistic.

maskros 7y ago

That is a strange argument. Are you too responsible for all the flights you don't take?

superqwert 7y ago
That is not what I am arguing at all. I am merely pointing out that it is unclear as to what the ecopassenger.com website is calculating and what we can gather from this information.

blackbrokkoli 7y ago

That's wrong. If a plane has 200 seats, and 400 people are willing to fly a given route, the airline sends 2 planes. Make it 401 people, they'll send three a day. That means each person who flies or doesn't brings the count closer to the next threshold, where the number of planes flying changes. Of course, this is oversimplified, not as instant as I described it, there are price politics and what not, but you can still very much say the climate footprint of each passenger is (total plane print/passengers). The idea is not to make super accurate global calculations but to quantify individual behaviour without employing a super computer.

superqwert 7y ago
You're claiming the argument is wrong, then supporting it again. The person(s) who go over or under the threshold are the ones that make a difference. If thresholds aren't breached by the amount of people changing route, then there is not a very significant difference. As you indeed state: "but you can still very much say the climate footprint of each passenger is (total plane print/passengers)" You can indeed say as much, but "this is oversimplified". Just to be clear - I am not arguing that we should not pick routes responsibly, with the environment in mind. I am merely trying to ensure we are clearer about what impacts we are actually making and that we are considering all the impacts and not just doing a simple calculation that actually misses out the many complexities of transport.
- blackbrokkoli 7y ago
  So, you're arguing that the straw that broke the camels back is the only straw that matters at all?
  - superqwert 7y ago
    No, I'm arguing that the calculations for emission per person are simplistic.
  - superqwert 7y ago
    In transport, we have learnt over the past century to not use aggregate models, as they do not provide the same detail and results as disaggregate models[p.18 Modelling Transport 4th Edition Ortuzar & Willumsen]. We should not lower our standards when discussing emissions and pollution. This article above is a very worrying case - where the reader is encouraged to shame people for flying, without showing necessary statistics as to whether flying is indeed much worse than other transportation methods.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

WAHa_06x36 7y ago

Surely you must be aware that the point of an action like this is not the single action itself, in isolation, but the setting of a trend?

superqwert 7y ago
If it becomes a trend, that will be good if indeed the efficiencies are true. As stated earlier, it is unclear how the calculations are made and whether the actual total emissions cost was lowered.
- WAHa_06x36 7y ago
  Do you have any idea how astronomically inefficient jet aircraft are? How ridiculously large amounts of energy they burn?

esailija 7y ago

This is some seriously ridiculous mental gymnastics (continuum fallacy). Someone who never flies is now responsible for the environmental impact of those who fly, because specifically their lack of flying is not canceling any flights (or preventing any flights from happening)?

superqwert 7y ago
Certainly not. Responsibility is a very complex issue, especially if you devolve it to the users, rather than keeping it in the hands of the managers/operators. But even if we assume a large part of responsibility rests in the users, then the responsibility would clearly be only held by those planning to make the trip and deciding which form of transport to use (potential users).