4 ms·
Your claim makes no sense. Any move towards reducing carbon will require many 1% improvements. Personal aviation isn’t a problem because it’s the rich doing it
by addicted 3y ago
Your claim makes no sense. Any move towards reducing carbon will require many 1% improvements.
Personal aviation isn’t a problem because it’s the rich doing it, but because it’s extremely expensive, and in the vast majority of cases there is a much better alternative (flying commercial).
If there’s an easy way to knock out 0.1-0.5% of emissions you absolutely take it, even if in itself it doesn’t achieve everything we need, but it gets us closer.
And that’s before we consider the psychological/political impacts of telling a farmer to buy a new truck while not saying anything to a celebrity traveling in a private plane that will emit more carbon in a month than that farmer’s dirty truck would in its lifetime.
- hnav 3y agogeneral aviation today is archaic specifically because of regulation making it impossible to innovate in the space. In the US leaded gas is still used. Relaxing the rules and allowing people to experiment with things such as hybrid electric propulsion gets us much closer to the ideal of carbon free aviation. Regarding optimization, I always see this in software. People ruining the system chasing 1% improvements and locking in a local optimum by making it harder to perform the design level optimization that actually moves the needle. Imagine your CRUD system is full of selectN+1s and some well meaning engineer comes along and rewrites a bunch of code paths in raw SQL, making it harder to adopt automatic joining.