3 ms·
> you should take the actual CO2 emissions of your flights and bump them up two- or three-fold Why two-three? Why not 1.1-1.2? Why not 10-20? > that's around
by lightgreen 6y ago
> you should take the actual CO2 emissions of your flights and bump them up two- or three-fold
Why two-three? Why not 1.1-1.2? Why not 10-20?
> that's around 7 -- 11% of an average Australian per-capita annual climate footprint
And just to be fair, most people cannot afford long-haul flight, only richer people can. So it's rich people who produce CO2 when flying, but the same rich people produce more CO2 when they do everything else.
The argument let's ban flying because rich people produce CO would become the argument as let's ban building new houses with concrete, because only rich people can afford them, and concrete emits CO2.
Total emission of CO2 from all aviation including freight including poor countries is about 2% of all CO2 emissions.
- shoo 6y ago> > you should take the actual CO2 emissions of your flights and bump them up two- or three-fold > Why two-three? Why not 1.1-1.2? Why not 10-20? Read the IPCC special report on aviation and global atmosphere and look at the discussion about radiative forcing -- they give estimates of the impact in terms of radiative forcing from aviation CO_2 alone and also from various other non CO_2 factors caused by aviation: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224795892_Aviation_and_the_Global_Atmosphere_Summary_for_Policy_Makers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224795892_Aviation_...
- lightgreen 6y agoOK, I got it. TL;DR effects of contrails is actually higher than from _accumulated_ CO2. It's very interesting, I did not know that. So if we continue flying, we will continue increasing CO2, but the effect of contrails will stay the same, and relatively effect of contrails will be lower. So, again, the effect is very interesting, I did not know about it. But the conclusions you made are probably oversimplified and inaccurate.