3 ms·
Why be especially drastic on air travel when its 2% of carbon emissions, per Huffpost?
by aitchnyu 7y ago
Why be especially drastic on air travel when its 2% of carbon emissions, per Huffpost?
- vkou 7y agoIf you account for the impact of the emissions, rather than their weight, air travel is ~6-10% (Because emissions at 30,000 feet have a larger greenhouse effect.)
- pfdietz 7y agoSince CO2 is mixed in the atmosphere on a timescale short compared to how long it's going to linger there, your argument does not work.
- jdietrich 7y agoAir travel is particularly carbon intensive on a per-journey basis and cannot be decarbonized using current technology. We can replace your car with an EV, we can run your air conditioner on renewable electricity, we can swap your gas furnace for a ground-source heat pump, but passenger aviation is going to involve burning tonnes of kerosene for the foreseeable future.
- wormseed 7y agoDirect Air Capture can pull carbon out of the atmosphere for ~$200 per tonne. Flying generates about 0.1 tonne per passenger-hour. We can make flying carbon neutral and it'd only be ~20% more expensive.
- NikkiA 7y agoSo about 100 tonnes per flight.
- turk73 7y agoSo then every fat cat with a private jet should stop flying and set a good example. I bet 95% of what they do can be done remotely anyways. But that would let them schmooze and drink with other fat cats and get hooked up with underage girls.