4 ms·

It is an interesting exercise to ask people to imagine a world without air travel. Where you can't just appear halfway around the world at the drop of a hat. Tr

It is an interesting exercise to ask people to imagine a world without air travel. Where you can't just appear halfway around the world at the drop of a hat. Travel again becomes the domain of boats & trains. To almost anyone you talk to, banning air travel sounds completely ridiculous. In reality it wouldn't be enough by itself. It's on the lower end of action that is required.

creaghpatr 7y ago
Or we invent solar-powered planes. Not feasible yet, but who knows.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  there's one but it's a single passenger unit
- russdill 7y ago
  Solar powered planes are a feasible engineering challenge. The engineering challenge is making synthetic aviation fuels from electricity. Once that is solved, it's just a matter of installing production plants in areas were solar is most productive.
- tomschlick 7y ago
  The planes don't have to be solar powered, just electric. Leave the energy generation to the ground. The next problem would definitely be the weight of batteries though.
  - glogla 7y ago
    This might be where the hydrogen could be useful (unlike for cars where it costs too much).
habnds 7y ago
if prices accurately reflected costs not flying would start to seem a lot more practical
usaar333 7y ago
Like most things with climate change, it's not about banning X action. It's about discouraging it. The more accurate question is how does everyone respond if the cost of flying doubles? How many business trips can be handled by VC? How many personal trips provide similar value being taken closer to home?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Business clients wouldn't mind that much. But it would kill a good chunk of tourism industry (and good riddance). Tickets for leisure flights are ridiculously cheap nowadays.
  - jsingleton 7y ago
    I'm taking the train for my next holiday and it is significantly more expensive. Flying is unreasonably cheap. Aviation fuel needs to be taxed but this has to be done everywhere to avoid refuelling in havens. Or maybe tax stands at airports if that can't be done.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      Jets are not going to tanker fuel in significant quantities over anything approaching a reasonable level of taxation differences. It would be extremely rare for a medium-haul jet to even be able to tanker fuel for a round trip and impossible for any of the long-haul routes.
saalweachter 7y ago
This is kind of only true if you're the sort of person who flies a lot. If you're someone who never flies, or flies once every year or two, it's not really a big deal at all. On the rare occasion I travel transcontinental I would need to set aside 3 days each way for travel instead of one, which would be inconvenient but not really a huge problem. Even if my transoceanic freight exclusively went by boat, it wouldn't be a big difference in my life. I already don't care about having the latest electronic gadgets as soon as they can be delivered from their factories. Even two weeks to cruise across the Atlantic and a month across the Pacific (if you ignore the emissions of cruise ships for a moment) isn't really a deal-breaker on your once-in-a-lifetime vacation to another continent, either as part of your elaborate honeymoon or as part of your retirement.
- claytoneast 7y ago
  That is absolutely 100% a dealbreaker when you have 2-4 weeks of paid vacation a year.
- frakkingcylons 7y ago
  There are probably millions of people in the US alone with family overseas. Set aside a month just to travel there? Be real.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
If you want to know what a world with a lot less air travel is like ask your grandparents.
christophilus 7y ago
I’d prefer that world, hands down.
alexhutcheson 7y ago
Substituting to travel by boat would almost definitely increase carbon output, unless you mean sailboats. Carbon output is the integral of emissions/hour over time, and a comparable boat trip could take weeks. High speed rail is also not as great as people think - true HSR uses a pretty huge amount of electricity, which has to come from somewhere. Conventional (aka medium-speed) rail on electrified tracks is probably the sweet spot for efficiency, but the travel times aren't going to make most people happy. More realistically, the solution in a world where carbon is "properly" priced would be that people travel a lot less overall.

creaghpatr 7y ago

Or we invent solar-powered planes. Not feasible yet, but who knows.

agumonkey 7y ago
there's one but it's a single passenger unit
russdill 7y ago
Solar powered planes are a feasible engineering challenge. The engineering challenge is making synthetic aviation fuels from electricity. Once that is solved, it's just a matter of installing production plants in areas were solar is most productive.
tomschlick 7y ago
The planes don't have to be solar powered, just electric. Leave the energy generation to the ground. The next problem would definitely be the weight of batteries though.
- glogla 7y ago
  This might be where the hydrogen could be useful (unlike for cars where it costs too much).

habnds 7y ago

if prices accurately reflected costs not flying would start to seem a lot more practical

usaar333 7y ago

Like most things with climate change, it's not about banning X action. It's about discouraging it. The more accurate question is how does everyone respond if the cost of flying doubles? How many business trips can be handled by VC? How many personal trips provide similar value being taken closer to home?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Business clients wouldn't mind that much. But it would kill a good chunk of tourism industry (and good riddance). Tickets for leisure flights are ridiculously cheap nowadays.
- jsingleton 7y ago
  I'm taking the train for my next holiday and it is significantly more expensive. Flying is unreasonably cheap. Aviation fuel needs to be taxed but this has to be done everywhere to avoid refuelling in havens. Or maybe tax stands at airports if that can't be done.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Jets are not going to tanker fuel in significant quantities over anything approaching a reasonable level of taxation differences. It would be extremely rare for a medium-haul jet to even be able to tanker fuel for a round trip and impossible for any of the long-haul routes.

saalweachter 7y ago

This is kind of only true if you're the sort of person who flies a lot. If you're someone who never flies, or flies once every year or two, it's not really a big deal at all. On the rare occasion I travel transcontinental I would need to set aside 3 days each way for travel instead of one, which would be inconvenient but not really a huge problem. Even if my transoceanic freight exclusively went by boat, it wouldn't be a big difference in my life. I already don't care about having the latest electronic gadgets as soon as they can be delivered from their factories. Even two weeks to cruise across the Atlantic and a month across the Pacific (if you ignore the emissions of cruise ships for a moment) isn't really a deal-breaker on your once-in-a-lifetime vacation to another continent, either as part of your elaborate honeymoon or as part of your retirement.

claytoneast 7y ago
That is absolutely 100% a dealbreaker when you have 2-4 weeks of paid vacation a year.
frakkingcylons 7y ago
There are probably millions of people in the US alone with family overseas. Set aside a month just to travel there? Be real.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

If you want to know what a world with a lot less air travel is like ask your grandparents.

christophilus 7y ago

I’d prefer that world, hands down.

alexhutcheson 7y ago

Substituting to travel by boat would almost definitely increase carbon output, unless you mean sailboats. Carbon output is the integral of emissions/hour over time, and a comparable boat trip could take weeks. High speed rail is also not as great as people think - true HSR uses a pretty huge amount of electricity, which has to come from somewhere. Conventional (aka medium-speed) rail on electrified tracks is probably the sweet spot for efficiency, but the travel times aren't going to make most people happy. More realistically, the solution in a world where carbon is "properly" priced would be that people travel a lot less overall.