4 ms·
> With no corresponding change to the amount of fuel used to climb up to cruising altitude Yes, but 1) a plane flying a larger distance has to lift a heavier
by samuelbalogh 4y ago
> With no corresponding change to the amount of fuel used to climb up to cruising altitude
Yes, but
1) a plane flying a larger distance has to lift a heavier load of fuel
2) emissions tend to do more damage at high altitude than they do at ground level
so I would not discount the benefits of reducing flight distance as much as possible.
Source: How Bad Are Bananas? by Mike Berners Lee
- conqueso 4y ago>emissions tend to do more damage at high altitude than they do at ground level I've always been a bit dismissive of aviation as a carbon emissions contributor because globally it only accounts for around 2%. Thanks for pointing this out, I was unaware of this fact. Is the relationship between altitude and warming effect known? Are we talking linear or something worse?
- michaelgrafl 4y ago2% is plenty anyway. I mean, we have to start somewhere.
- geewee 4y agoI think we're still puzzling it out, as there's both radiative forcing and contrails (the vapor, or condensation trails planes emit). If you check out these two emission factors from the UK government, one taking radiative forcing and contrails into effect and one not: https://www.climatiq.io/explorer/emission-factor/domestic-flight-with-rf-effect-transport-air-travel-united-kingdom-2021-beis https://www.climatiq.io/explorer/emission-factor/domestic-fl... https://www.climatiq.io/explorer/emission-factor/domestic-flight-without-rf-effect-transport-air-travel-united-kingdom-2021-beis https://www.climatiq.io/explorer/emission-factor/domestic-fl... You'll see a noticeable difference, (almost a doubling) Full disclaimer: Work at Climatiq, but the emission factors are not from us directly.