3 ms·

It is hard for me to understand the demonisation of air travel. Every time I want to buy a ticket, I get carbon emission metrics in all the sites I visit. Some

It is hard for me to understand the demonisation of air travel. Every time I want to buy a ticket, I get carbon emission metrics in all the sites I visit. Sometimes, the ticket itself comes with these. I have never taken a train, or a bus, or a ship, where these are showed so prominently. Cars are rarely advertised as "less contaminant", and I would say that most people buying an electric car nowadays don't care that much about emissions, as they do about efficiency or simply the "cool factor". I also feel that most of the criticism is directed to those traveling for pleasure, but decreasing air travel and/or increasing rates would penalise those who live far away from their families, and they are many.

mantas 5y ago
> would penalise those who live far away from their families, and they are many. Not reducing air travel (yet clamping other dirty activities) would penalise those who happen to live close to family.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on cars with diesel engines? Air travel is, in many cases, essential. There are no viable alternatives for certain routes, e.g. transcontinental in the US, international in many countries, but there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to car travel.
  - mantas 5y ago
    So? Pay up or don't travel. Same with cars with diesel engines. If you want to drive 10k kilometers one way... Pay up please. Are we fighting pollution or looking for emotional excuses to pollute?
    - manuelabeledo 5y ago
      > Are we fighting pollution or looking for emotional excuses to pollute? No, we are looking for the most efficient way of cutting carbon emissions with the solutions available right now. Sadly, electric planes are a lifetime away, still. But cars are not, neither are buses or trains, or even freighters it seems. Air travel makes for an insignificant chunk of the emissions, compared to any other mode of transportation.
      - mantas 5y ago
        Any pollution should be taxed in an objective way. If some mode of transport is too dirty.. Well, raise the prices to increase viability of other options (maybe US can finally get coast-to-coast passenger rail?). R&D of better solutions suddenly becomes more economically viable. Currently our government is planning to drop diesel-for-agriculture subsidies. Because apparently farmers should switch to electrical tractors right away :) But reducing air travel? It's a human right to go on holiday to the other side of the globe twice a year :)
eightysixfour 5y ago
> It is hard for me to understand the demonisation of air travel. Because domestic air travel is one of the worst pollutants? https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint > Cars are rarely advertised as "less contaminant", and I would say that most people buying an electric car nowadays don't care that much about emissions, as they do about efficiency or simply the "cool factor". In Europe they list the emissions along with the mpg. > and I would say that most people buying an electric car nowadays don't care Many care. > but decreasing air travel and/or increasing rates would penalise those who live far away from their families, and they are many. I live across the country from my family, we know the environmental cost of visits and minimize as a result. I wish this cost was just explicit instead so everyone could recognize it.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  The mode of transport matters. The largest possible carbon footprint would in be something like a cross country flight in an ICE flying car like a (vaporware) Moller. Trains run 6-60 g/km whereas single-passenger vehicles are 90+. The smallest might be in a solar-powered glider or solar-powered "car", effectively 0. Also, if you can personally offset your footprint by actively participating in carbon capture and sequestration permanently, then some luxuries are okay in small quantities.
  - eightysixfour 5y ago
    I absolutely am not suggesting we should not have luxuries in small quantities. We should avoid frivolous and wasteful use of those resources though. How many consultants were flying 2x a week to and from a client prior to COVID?
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  > Because domestic air travel is one of the worst pollutants? According to that link, total domestic air travel carbon footprint in the UK would be negligible, compared to diesel engines. > I live across the country from my family, we know the environmental cost of visits and minimize as a result. I would need to take several trains, buses, and board a ship, to see my family. Mine is not an exceptional case.

mantas 5y ago

> would penalise those who live far away from their families, and they are many. Not reducing air travel (yet clamping other dirty activities) would penalise those who happen to live close to family.

manuelabeledo 5y ago
Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on cars with diesel engines? Air travel is, in many cases, essential. There are no viable alternatives for certain routes, e.g. transcontinental in the US, international in many countries, but there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to car travel.
- mantas 5y ago
  So? Pay up or don't travel. Same with cars with diesel engines. If you want to drive 10k kilometers one way... Pay up please. Are we fighting pollution or looking for emotional excuses to pollute?
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    > Are we fighting pollution or looking for emotional excuses to pollute? No, we are looking for the most efficient way of cutting carbon emissions with the solutions available right now. Sadly, electric planes are a lifetime away, still. But cars are not, neither are buses or trains, or even freighters it seems. Air travel makes for an insignificant chunk of the emissions, compared to any other mode of transportation.
    - mantas 5y ago
      Any pollution should be taxed in an objective way. If some mode of transport is too dirty.. Well, raise the prices to increase viability of other options (maybe US can finally get coast-to-coast passenger rail?). R&D of better solutions suddenly becomes more economically viable. Currently our government is planning to drop diesel-for-agriculture subsidies. Because apparently farmers should switch to electrical tractors right away :) But reducing air travel? It's a human right to go on holiday to the other side of the globe twice a year :)

eightysixfour 5y ago

> It is hard for me to understand the demonisation of air travel. Because domestic air travel is one of the worst pollutants? https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint > Cars are rarely advertised as "less contaminant", and I would say that most people buying an electric car nowadays don't care that much about emissions, as they do about efficiency or simply the "cool factor". In Europe they list the emissions along with the mpg. > and I would say that most people buying an electric car nowadays don't care Many care. > but decreasing air travel and/or increasing rates would penalise those who live far away from their families, and they are many. I live across the country from my family, we know the environmental cost of visits and minimize as a result. I wish this cost was just explicit instead so everyone could recognize it.

errcorrectcode 5y ago
The mode of transport matters. The largest possible carbon footprint would in be something like a cross country flight in an ICE flying car like a (vaporware) Moller. Trains run 6-60 g/km whereas single-passenger vehicles are 90+. The smallest might be in a solar-powered glider or solar-powered "car", effectively 0. Also, if you can personally offset your footprint by actively participating in carbon capture and sequestration permanently, then some luxuries are okay in small quantities.
- eightysixfour 5y ago
  I absolutely am not suggesting we should not have luxuries in small quantities. We should avoid frivolous and wasteful use of those resources though. How many consultants were flying 2x a week to and from a client prior to COVID?
manuelabeledo 5y ago
> Because domestic air travel is one of the worst pollutants? According to that link, total domestic air travel carbon footprint in the UK would be negligible, compared to diesel engines. > I live across the country from my family, we know the environmental cost of visits and minimize as a result. I would need to take several trains, buses, and board a ship, to see my family. Mine is not an exceptional case.