Just 1% of people are responsible for half of all toxic emissions from flying.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You need to recheck your math. It doesn’t make sense to divide the consumption by plane but multiply by car.

    The math I used is an estimation, but a reasonable one. I didn’t divide by one and multiply by the other. I converted automobile MPG to MPG per passenger mile, by assuming various numbers of passengers.

    If I burn a gallon of gas in a suburban, the suburban moves 27 miles. If I have 3 people on board, each moving 27 miles, the suburban has produces 81 passenger miles on a gallon of gas. That is 81 miles per gallon per passenger, or 81 passenger-miles per gallon.

    If I put 3 more people on board, I produce 162 passenger miles on that same gallon of gas. The vehicle travels 27 miles, 6 passengers each travel 27 miles, passengers travel a total of 162 miles. One gallon of gas is burned. 162 passenger-miles per gallon, or mpg per person. The more people on board, the more efficiently the vehicle produces passenger-miles. (Obviously, the actual vehicle economy would fall slightly as I add weight, but the efficiency gains of carpooling would greatly exceed the negligible losses due to additional passenger weight)

    I don’t know how many people were on the plane for the figures you provided. If I assume it was 200 people, then the plane’s economy is 67mpg/200, or 0.335mpg. If I assume 100 people, the plane’s economy is 0.67mpg. If I assume 67 people, the economy is 1mpg. All of these numbers are reasonable for jets capable of carrying a corresponding number of passengers.

    The takeaway is that the fuel economy of flight is terrible compared to any other form of mass transit. It’s only when we factor in the value of time that flight becomes remotely reasonable.

    And I stand by my “no headway” claim, because I was careful to specify my meaning. There are viable options for transportation that do not rely on fossil fuels. Electric cars, electric trains, electric trolleys, electric busses are all in commercial use today. The use of those vehicles is rising rapidly.

    There are no commercially viable electric aircraft in the skies today, and no commercially viable alternatives to petroleum-based aviation fuel. Yes, the efficiency of those fossil fuels has increased, but no viable alternative is currently available, nor slated to be available in the near future.

    • Zoolander
      link
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The math I used is an estimation, but a reasonable one.

      No, it’s not. You’re taking the fuel economy of a flight based on the average number of passengers but the fuel economy of a car based on a specific number you picked that makes your point despite it being a rare occurrence. If you compared apples to apples and calculated both based on the average passenger count, you wouldn’t get the same amount. The only way your point stands is if you only factor in trips that are greater than 200km with 3+ passengers - something that would account for 5% of all automotive usage and wouldn’t make a measurable difference in the total amount of emissions from cars.

      The takeaway is that the fuel economy of flight is terrible compared to any other form of mass transit. It’s only when we factor in the value of time that flight becomes remotely reasonable.

      Except that no one was comparing airplanes to mass transit and, even if they were, this is not true unless you restrict it to a very, very narrow set of parameters. Buses can’t swim across oceans. Trains can’t either. There’s no practical alternative in many situations. My point, from the beginning, has been that there are other sectors who produce more emissions and are easier to fix than the emissions that airlines have. Unless we get those in-line first, there’s no point on focusing on aircraft and especially not in the context of going back to thinking like in the 1900s where people just don’t see their families.

      Electric cars, electric trains, electric trolleys, electric busses are all in commercial use today.

      And are nowhere near prevalent enough to offset the emissions of cars in use today to make them emit less than airplanes or make them more fuel efficient than airplanes. Unless every ride has 3+ passengers, what you’re saying is simply not true.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        No, it’s not. You’re taking the fuel economy of a flight based on the average number of passengers but the fuel economy of a car based on a specific number you picked that makes your point

        As are you.

        despite it being a rare occurrence.

        There is no justification for your assumed average of 1.2 people per trip. You’re comparing “commutes” to things like “vacations”. I don’t take the wife and 4 kids with me to work; I do take them on vacation.

        Even if we do assume a single rider, you don’t get to automatically assume “car”. An airplane is a mass-transit vehicle. A bus gives 180 to 300 MPG per passenger mile, and a train can be well over a thousand.

        But we’re getting away from the point: whether by bus, car, train, plane, or even bicycle powered by a rider who consumes oxygen and expels CO2, the lowest level of emissions are produced when the trip is eliminated entirely, and the second lowest are when a long trip is replaced with a short trip. We need to focus on reducing travel in general.

        • Zoolander
          link
          English
          01 year ago

          As are you.

          No, I’m not. Stop lying. I’m taking the average for both because that’s the only way to determine which is more fuel efficient and which sector has the most opportunity for a change.

          You’re comparing “commutes”

          No, I’m not. More lies. I used commutes initially because that was the most common usage for a car by a landslide which is the same thing I did for air travel. You weren’t ok with that so I used the more general number and took the total average for all types of rides in a car with any number of passengers at all distances. That number is 1.3 passengers per ride. Anything less than, taking a subsection of the rides to narrow it down to only rides with 3+ passengers and only for “vacations” or whatever other nonsense constraints you want to put on it, only reduces the total available impact since rides with 3+ passengers are already an extremely small percentage of rides in a car and “vacation travel” is an even smaller portion than that.

          you don’t get to automatically assume “car”

          I didn’t. You guys used the example of a suburban. Emissions figures separate out mass transit from personal travel because they’re not comparable and mass transit has less opportunity for impact since it’s already the most sustainable method of transportation.

          the lowest level of emissions are produced when the trip is eliminated entirely, and the second lowest are when a long trip is replaced with a short trip

          A complete straw man. If people need to get to a destination, going on a shorter trip is meaningless as is eliminating the trip. The most impactful changes are those that have the highest ROI in terms of barriers and resources. Airplanes ain’t that.