3 ms·

> Switching to something greener is urgently needed. Why? Each flight produces an amount of carbon that could be removed from the atmosphere by about $20 of ca

> Switching to something greener is urgently needed. Why? Each flight produces an amount of carbon that could be removed from the atmosphere by about $20 of carbon offsets or $1000 worth of carbon capture. Finding a greener fuel would be a really bad allocation of engineering resources.

azornathogron 5y ago
> removed from the atmosphere by about $20 of carbon offsets or $1000 worth of carbon capture. Carbon offsets don't remove carbon, right? Otherwise they would be equivalent to carbon capture and given how cheap they are everyone would be hailing them as an incredible solution to our CO2 emission problem. Offsets are just an agreement to emit less. Less than... well, that's kind of arbitrary I suppose, which makes the whole thing a little fishy IMHO. Anyway, I agree with your conclusion. I like the idea of billionaire space tourists paying the carbon capture cost to cover their trip though. Doesn't seem like it would cost enough for them to notice.
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  Carbon offsets store the CO2 in plant matter that will eventually decay if not maintained. Carbon capture pumps it into the ground, where it is stored permanently - so it’s a matter of your timeframe. Personally, I prefer carbon offsets as carbon capture is likely to get much more efficient over the next 100 years (lifetime of a tree), so it’s better to pay for it later.
  - azornathogron 5y ago
    There are many different carbon offset schemes, only some of which involve planting trees or other plants. But perhaps I was being unfair to the more well run offset schemes.
avmich 5y ago
I doubt your numbers. Did you take into account the stratospheric effects (high-altitude pollution)? Then, you're going to scale the industry - and this is a high profile industry, and it's doable to change this aspect.
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  Wildfires will contribute literately millions times more soot to the atmosphere than private space travel.

azornathogron 5y ago

> removed from the atmosphere by about $20 of carbon offsets or $1000 worth of carbon capture. Carbon offsets don't remove carbon, right? Otherwise they would be equivalent to carbon capture and given how cheap they are everyone would be hailing them as an incredible solution to our CO2 emission problem. Offsets are just an agreement to emit less. Less than... well, that's kind of arbitrary I suppose, which makes the whole thing a little fishy IMHO. Anyway, I agree with your conclusion. I like the idea of billionaire space tourists paying the carbon capture cost to cover their trip though. Doesn't seem like it would cost enough for them to notice.

xadhominemx 5y ago
Carbon offsets store the CO2 in plant matter that will eventually decay if not maintained. Carbon capture pumps it into the ground, where it is stored permanently - so it’s a matter of your timeframe. Personally, I prefer carbon offsets as carbon capture is likely to get much more efficient over the next 100 years (lifetime of a tree), so it’s better to pay for it later.
- azornathogron 5y ago
  There are many different carbon offset schemes, only some of which involve planting trees or other plants. But perhaps I was being unfair to the more well run offset schemes.

avmich 5y ago

I doubt your numbers. Did you take into account the stratospheric effects (high-altitude pollution)? Then, you're going to scale the industry - and this is a high profile industry, and it's doable to change this aspect.

xadhominemx 5y ago
Wildfires will contribute literately millions times more soot to the atmosphere than private space travel.