3 ms·

Flights are an incredibly CO2 intensive activity. It's nice that it's convenient to you and the other seven people, but are the tradeoffs really worth it?

by skohan 5y ago

neither_color 5y ago
For all we know GPs airplane was turning around from dropping off a full passenger load, or was on its way to pick up a full load at a hub airport so yes an empty flight(loaded with less fuel than a full flight) is necessary sometimes to keep the network going. The fact that empty flights are necessary is a sad side effect of the system, but I wouldnt feel guilty as an individual about being on a particular empty flight.
- skohan 5y ago
  That might be the case for any of these individual flights. My intent was to refute the other commenter's general point that it's a nice thing for airlines to run empty flights for the convenience of the passenger.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    So what is your solution, not to fly if there are not enough passengers. Should the customer change all his plans if the plane is not full?
    - skohan 5y ago
      Well no, typically you would be put on a later flight or an alternate route. Maybe we should be willing to accept a non-zero chance that our plans will be disrupted by several hours to avoid burning massive amounts of extra carbon.
      - zarzavat 5y ago
        It’s not so easy anymore. You need PCR for entry to most countries. The PCR has a maximum validity period, usually 72 or 48 hours. If your flight is cancelled you may need to take a new PCR. At least in the UK it’s not easy to book a PCR at short notice (emergency PCRs exist but are very expensive), so you may need to wait a week before you can fly again. There may also be testing/quarantine arrangements that you may need to rearrange in the arrival country.
        skohan 5y ago
        I agree that PCR testing requirements complicate things. I actually think COVID rules in general regarding flights are problematic - it adds a lot of uncertainty to the process of traveling. If we want to have a testing requirement, I believe there should be some kind of general insurance set up - possibly by the state - to accommodate changes in travel plans due to a positive test result. Also if a passenger has to fly later due to cancellation, the PCR validity window should be relaxed up to an additional day or two, assuming they are still asymptomatic at the time of the flight. Or maybe a second antigen test taken at the airport should be accepted. I understand why testing requirements exist, but some balance should be made to make travel dependable, and if the government is going to add additional requirements to travel, it should ensure that all the costs and difficulties are not passed on directly to the citizen.
    - birksherty 5y ago
      To not put the flight in schedule in first place when they know it has been empty multiple times. More importantly, it does not matter how much humans talk about climate change, we never want to even face a slight inconvenience to solve it.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Schedules are set almost a year in advance. Right now, I can book tickets for US Thanksgiving 2022 (late Nov), but not for Christmas quite yet. Once pax have bought tickets, it’s harder to change the schedule without biting the hand that feeds you.
        birksherty 5y ago
        I think situation is different when they had almost empty flights and not a festive season. In that case they can cancel the schedule months ago and provide different arrangement to the 6 people that booked.
      - sumedh 5y ago
        > To not put the flight in schedule in first place when they know it has been empty multiple times. That is a good solution. > we never want to even face a slight inconvenience to solve it That depends, I would argue that changing flight schedules is not just a slight inconvenience, its more than that. Are airlines even a big source of co2 emission when you compare it with other sources, we should be tackling the biggest emission sources not the small ones.
        skohan 5y ago
        > Are airlines even a big source of co2 emission when you compare it with other source I am not an expert but I found this article: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector According to this it looks like passenger aviation accounts for around 1.5% of CO2 produced. Additionally, according to this article: https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html the climate impact of flights should be considered with a factor of 2-3 times their base carbon emissions, due to additional effects specific to air travel, like nitrous oxide and ozone emissions. Even at the base rate of 1.5%, that seems high for a single activity no?
    - maxwell86 5y ago
      That’s an option. The other option is that the price of the flight, which should include the damage it does to our planet, gets spread out to the 7 people on the plane. So they could still fly, but at 20.000$ instead of 200$. At that point it might be much cheaper for that plane to be canceled and for those 7 people to fly on a smaller private plane at 1000$ per person, doing less damage to the planet. IMO any environmental damage tax should be required to be passed at least partially to the actual person being transported. That makes it obvious to the passengers why flying 7 people on a 747 is wasteful.
      - sumedh 5y ago
        > Should the customer change all his plans if the plane is not full? No it not an option unless you are going to pay the cancellation and rescheduling fees of hotels and other transport for everyone. So more tax on middle class people? > IMO any environmental damage tax So are you prepared to pay higher prices for everything which is transported by fossil fuels, if you keep doing that you will get a revolution, people will just fight and protest and vote out any politician who supports such taxes.
        maxwell86 5y ago
        > No it not an option unless you are going to pay the cancellation and rescheduling fees of hotels and other transport for everyone. The customer can buy extra insurance for that, or buy a ticket from a company that provides it. Such companies would be very motivated to only offer routes that operate at very high capacity to avoid paying. > So more tax on middle class people? How is this "class" dependent? > So are you prepared to pay higher prices for everything which is transported by fossil fuels, We are already paying the price for this. Both in cash (e.g. the price of insurance for homes for natural disasters has skyrocketed due to global warming in certain areas), and in a lower future quality of life for yourself and your children. I'd rather have the people that use fossil fuels pay for them, instead of everybody else. I get that some people like to travel by plane - i do too - and that sometimes you really want to eat that fruit that has been transported by boat from 20.000km away, instead of buying the food that's available locally. I sometimes like that too. You seem to think that innocent children should pay with a lower quality of life to allow you to do these unsustainable things cheaply. I strongly disagree with you here. Pollution, climate damage, etc. has to be priced in. If that avocado from 5.000km away were to cost 1000 $ instead of 2$ people would think twice about it. The claim that we shouldn't do this because this only impacts non rich people is flawed. There are many things rich people can do, like buying a lambo, that poor people cannot do. Your claim that poor people somehow have the right to get a lambo, or for that matter, eat avocados, is false. These things are not "rights".

Flights are an incredibly CO2 intensive activity. It's nice that it's convenient to you and the other seven people, but are the tradeoffs really worth it?

by skohan 5y ago

Flights are an incredibly CO2 intensive activity. It's nice that it's convenient to you and the other seven people, but are the tradeoffs really worth it?

neither_color 5y ago

For all we know GPs airplane was turning around from dropping off a full passenger load, or was on its way to pick up a full load at a hub airport so yes an empty flight(loaded with less fuel than a full flight) is necessary sometimes to keep the network going. The fact that empty flights are necessary is a sad side effect of the system, but I wouldnt feel guilty as an individual about being on a particular empty flight.

skohan 5y ago
That might be the case for any of these individual flights. My intent was to refute the other commenter's general point that it's a nice thing for airlines to run empty flights for the convenience of the passenger.
- sumedh 5y ago
  So what is your solution, not to fly if there are not enough passengers. Should the customer change all his plans if the plane is not full?
  - skohan 5y ago
    Well no, typically you would be put on a later flight or an alternate route. Maybe we should be willing to accept a non-zero chance that our plans will be disrupted by several hours to avoid burning massive amounts of extra carbon.
    - zarzavat 5y ago
      It’s not so easy anymore. You need PCR for entry to most countries. The PCR has a maximum validity period, usually 72 or 48 hours. If your flight is cancelled you may need to take a new PCR. At least in the UK it’s not easy to book a PCR at short notice (emergency PCRs exist but are very expensive), so you may need to wait a week before you can fly again. There may also be testing/quarantine arrangements that you may need to rearrange in the arrival country.
      - skohan 5y ago
        I agree that PCR testing requirements complicate things. I actually think COVID rules in general regarding flights are problematic - it adds a lot of uncertainty to the process of traveling. If we want to have a testing requirement, I believe there should be some kind of general insurance set up - possibly by the state - to accommodate changes in travel plans due to a positive test result. Also if a passenger has to fly later due to cancellation, the PCR validity window should be relaxed up to an additional day or two, assuming they are still asymptomatic at the time of the flight. Or maybe a second antigen test taken at the airport should be accepted. I understand why testing requirements exist, but some balance should be made to make travel dependable, and if the government is going to add additional requirements to travel, it should ensure that all the costs and difficulties are not passed on directly to the citizen.
  - birksherty 5y ago
    To not put the flight in schedule in first place when they know it has been empty multiple times. More importantly, it does not matter how much humans talk about climate change, we never want to even face a slight inconvenience to solve it.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Schedules are set almost a year in advance. Right now, I can book tickets for US Thanksgiving 2022 (late Nov), but not for Christmas quite yet. Once pax have bought tickets, it’s harder to change the schedule without biting the hand that feeds you.
      - birksherty 5y ago
        I think situation is different when they had almost empty flights and not a festive season. In that case they can cancel the schedule months ago and provide different arrangement to the 6 people that booked.
    - sumedh 5y ago
      > To not put the flight in schedule in first place when they know it has been empty multiple times. That is a good solution. > we never want to even face a slight inconvenience to solve it That depends, I would argue that changing flight schedules is not just a slight inconvenience, its more than that. Are airlines even a big source of co2 emission when you compare it with other sources, we should be tackling the biggest emission sources not the small ones.
      - skohan 5y ago
        > Are airlines even a big source of co2 emission when you compare it with other source I am not an expert but I found this article: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector According to this it looks like passenger aviation accounts for around 1.5% of CO2 produced. Additionally, according to this article: https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html the climate impact of flights should be considered with a factor of 2-3 times their base carbon emissions, due to additional effects specific to air travel, like nitrous oxide and ozone emissions. Even at the base rate of 1.5%, that seems high for a single activity no?
  - maxwell86 5y ago
    That’s an option. The other option is that the price of the flight, which should include the damage it does to our planet, gets spread out to the 7 people on the plane. So they could still fly, but at 20.000$ instead of 200$. At that point it might be much cheaper for that plane to be canceled and for those 7 people to fly on a smaller private plane at 1000$ per person, doing less damage to the planet. IMO any environmental damage tax should be required to be passed at least partially to the actual person being transported. That makes it obvious to the passengers why flying 7 people on a 747 is wasteful.
    - sumedh 5y ago
      > Should the customer change all his plans if the plane is not full? No it not an option unless you are going to pay the cancellation and rescheduling fees of hotels and other transport for everyone. So more tax on middle class people? > IMO any environmental damage tax So are you prepared to pay higher prices for everything which is transported by fossil fuels, if you keep doing that you will get a revolution, people will just fight and protest and vote out any politician who supports such taxes.
      - maxwell86 5y ago
        > No it not an option unless you are going to pay the cancellation and rescheduling fees of hotels and other transport for everyone. The customer can buy extra insurance for that, or buy a ticket from a company that provides it. Such companies would be very motivated to only offer routes that operate at very high capacity to avoid paying. > So more tax on middle class people? How is this "class" dependent? > So are you prepared to pay higher prices for everything which is transported by fossil fuels, We are already paying the price for this. Both in cash (e.g. the price of insurance for homes for natural disasters has skyrocketed due to global warming in certain areas), and in a lower future quality of life for yourself and your children. I'd rather have the people that use fossil fuels pay for them, instead of everybody else. I get that some people like to travel by plane - i do too - and that sometimes you really want to eat that fruit that has been transported by boat from 20.000km away, instead of buying the food that's available locally. I sometimes like that too. You seem to think that innocent children should pay with a lower quality of life to allow you to do these unsustainable things cheaply. I strongly disagree with you here. Pollution, climate damage, etc. has to be priced in. If that avocado from 5.000km away were to cost 1000 $ instead of 2$ people would think twice about it. The claim that we shouldn't do this because this only impacts non rich people is flawed. There are many things rich people can do, like buying a lambo, that poor people cannot do. Your claim that poor people somehow have the right to get a lambo, or for that matter, eat avocados, is false. These things are not "rights".