3 ms·

Banning all civilian air travel until the airplane meet the efficiency standards the trucks junked in Junker Clunker already met would be a start.

gruez 3y ago
1. So no ban? SF to NY is about 2900 miles. Wikipedia says "Generally, trade-in vehicles must get a weighted combined average rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon" to qualify for the Car Allowance Rebate System. The EPA says there's about 8.9kg of co2 per gallon of gas, which means driving such a distance would emit approximately 1434kg of carbon. On the other hand Google flights says the same trip by direct flight only emits around 400kg, depending on the airline. 2. I'm not really sure why a ban is needed when mandated sequestration will have the same effect, and won't kill half the travel industry.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  I should have said: until commerical aircraft meet ALL fuel economy and emissions standards that old trucks have had to meet in their lifetimes. If your jet engine does not have a catalytic converter, it must not fly. What's good for old trucks is good for aircraft. If for airplane burns leaded fuel, it must not fly. If your airplane does not meet CAFE standards, it must not fly without paying fines. Here are a few of the standards: https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-emission-standards-light-duty-vehicles-and-trucks-and https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-e...
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  > The EPA says there's about 8.9kg of co2 per gallon of gas, which means driving such a distance would emit approximately 1434kg of carbon. On the other hand Google flights says the same trip by direct flight only emits around 400kg, depending on the airline. There is no law concerning the emission of CO2 from old trucks. Look into the laws governing emissions and fuel economy on old trucks. What's good dirty for old trucks is good for shiny new aircraft. > I'm not really sure why a ban is needed when mandated sequestration will have the same effect, and won't kill half the travel industry. Say you're in the 1% without saying your in the 1% by claiming aviation is "half the travel industry."
KyleBerezin 3y ago
The study doesn't blame the pollution on jets. It says it is from industry, and since the rich own stock in companies, they blame the companies pollution on the rich who own equity. dumb and deceptive article

gruez 3y ago

1. So no ban? SF to NY is about 2900 miles. Wikipedia says "Generally, trade-in vehicles must get a weighted combined average rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon" to qualify for the Car Allowance Rebate System. The EPA says there's about 8.9kg of co2 per gallon of gas, which means driving such a distance would emit approximately 1434kg of carbon. On the other hand Google flights says the same trip by direct flight only emits around 400kg, depending on the airline. 2. I'm not really sure why a ban is needed when mandated sequestration will have the same effect, and won't kill half the travel industry.

RecycledEle 3y ago
I should have said: until commerical aircraft meet ALL fuel economy and emissions standards that old trucks have had to meet in their lifetimes. If your jet engine does not have a catalytic converter, it must not fly. What's good for old trucks is good for aircraft. If for airplane burns leaded fuel, it must not fly. If your airplane does not meet CAFE standards, it must not fly without paying fines. Here are a few of the standards: https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-emission-standards-light-duty-vehicles-and-trucks-and https://www.epa.gov/emission-standards-reference-guide/epa-e...
RecycledEle 3y ago
> The EPA says there's about 8.9kg of co2 per gallon of gas, which means driving such a distance would emit approximately 1434kg of carbon. On the other hand Google flights says the same trip by direct flight only emits around 400kg, depending on the airline. There is no law concerning the emission of CO2 from old trucks. Look into the laws governing emissions and fuel economy on old trucks. What's good dirty for old trucks is good for shiny new aircraft. > I'm not really sure why a ban is needed when mandated sequestration will have the same effect, and won't kill half the travel industry. Say you're in the 1% without saying your in the 1% by claiming aviation is "half the travel industry."

KyleBerezin 3y ago

The study doesn't blame the pollution on jets. It says it is from industry, and since the rich own stock in companies, they blame the companies pollution on the rich who own equity. dumb and deceptive article