I think you need to read the parent comment again. They are are specifically arguing that people shouldn’t regularly be taking such long trips. They specifically argued against the common practice of “USA / English Canada” students taking multiple long-distance flights a year.
I think you need to reread the (now) grandparent comment again:
Did you know that four passengers in a Suburban pollute less for the same amount of miles traveled than if they were going to their destination by plane?
They’re arguing that people should be required to isolate from their families if they live far enough away. That’s nonsense.
They specifically argued against the common practice of “USA / English Canada” students taking multiple long-distance flights a year.
Yes, and I’m arguing that that’s nonsensical considering that all CO2 emissions from all form of commercial aviation travel are less than 3% of the global total.
They suggested in a subsequent comment that the practice of going to school far away was unusual outside of USA/Canada. Their suggestion was that people shouldn’t move that far from their families if they plan on regularly visiting them. Their suggestion was “pick a school 20 or 200 miles from home, rather than 2000”.
You seem to be hung up on one particular point about suburbans and not on the overarching message, which is just “travel less”.
3% is a lot. I don’t know where you get the idea that it isn’t.
You seem to be hung up on one particular point about suburbans and not on the overarching message, which is just “travel less”.
No, not at all. I am hung up on the overall point to “travel less” because air travel doesn’t make up a significant portion of the problem. 1% of travelers make up the majority of the use here. And that’s not in the “1% of the richest people in the world” 1% it’s the 1% of people who travel the most often and they’re already flying commercial - one of the most cost effective and energy efficient means of mass transit that we have. They’re not using private jets.
3% is a significant portion of emissions. I don’t know why you keep insinuating that it is not.
Commercial flight is not energy efficient. You said it yourself: it is time efficient. You don’t get to constantly repeat their “suburban” argument and then ignore that the suburban - one of the least energy-efficient passenger vehicles - is considerably more energy efficient than air travel. You will burn less fuel per mile per person in the suburban than in the airplane.
Reducing travel expectations has a massive effect. Changing societal expectations from 2000-mile trips to 200-mile trips reduces a 3% problem to a 0.3% problem.
Electric vehicles are now viable options for most personal and commercial vehicles. Even heavy-haul has viable electric options coming online. Natural gas produces about 1/3 the carbon output as an energy equivalent amount of jet fuel, and has replaced diesel in the majority of metro bus fleets.
The state of alternative energy use in aviation is in its infancy: no options to date are remotely viable replacements for kerosene-based jet fuel. As absolute carbon use declines in the ground transport fleet, the relative proportion of carbon use rises in the aviation sector. Every other sector is primed to reduce emissions. Lagging behind is the aviation sector. That 3% number has nowhere to go but up.
3% is a significant portion of emissions. I don’t know why you keep insinuating that it is not.
I’m not insinuating anything, much less that. I’m simply saying that there are more impactful ways to make a difference and, relative to the other options, that 3% is also more difficult to change. It’s not realistic to ask people not to travel when we live in a world where families can span continents especially when there are easier ways to make a bigger difference.
is considerably more energy efficient than air travel.
This is simply not true. In the link that the “suburban” commenter sent, it says that planes have an average fuel/distance/passenger ratio of 67mpg per passenger. There is not a single car available that gets 67 mpg much less per passenger. The Toyota Prius is a hybrid (so its rating isn’t even based completely on burning fuel) and it gets 52mpg. And most commutes average 1.2 people per trip with an average of 4 trips per day. It’s not even close.
That 3% number has nowhere to go but up.
You’re only proving my point. When those other sectors get to the point where their emissions are a single digit percentage lower than 5 of the overall total, we can talk about whether we should keep working on those or switch to airplanes.
There is not a single car available that gets 67 mpg much less per passenger.
A suburban gets 27mpg highway. A suburban with just 3 people on board gets 81mpg per passenger.
67 mpg per passenger is terrible mileage for a mass transit vehicle. A bus gets about 6mpg, but typically carries 30 to 50 people. That’s 180 to 300mpg per passenger.
I reject your “1.2 people per commute” argument because we aren’t talking about commuting. We’re talking about long-distance trips.
No, aviation is one of the largest sectors left that has made no significant headway on eliminating emissions. Every other sector has a solid plan for shifting away from oil that they are in the long process of executing.
The airlines are still at the stage of trying to optimize their use of fossil fuels, not replacing fossil fuels with renewables. They are getting good at making bigger, more efficient engines and airframes, but they have no feasible approach to actually switch away. The energy density of oil is just too high to readily replace.
Until they can actually make some headway, we should absolutely be discouraging long-distance travel in general, and aviation travel in particular.
“The main findings are that to make driving less energy intensive than flying, the fuel economy of the entire fleet of light-duty vehicles would have to improve from the current 21.5 mpg to at least 33.8 mpg, or vehicle load would have to increase from the current 1.38 persons to at least 2.3 persons.”
You can reject my argument but that just makes you wrong. Even the non-commute average load is still not enough to make the average long-distance trip more fuel efficient.
no significant headway
Also wrong.
“A new report from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute shows that flying has become 74% more efficient per passenger since 1970 while driving gained only 17% efficiency per passenger. In fact, the average plane trip has been more fuel efficient than the average car trip since as far back as 2000, according to their calculations.”
So it makes sense to divide planes mpg by passenger but not car mpg by passenger? Because the 67mpg you’re quoting is per passenger.
A 4 passenger car that gets 20mpg, what’s the mpg per passenger? Two ways to get to the result: fuel used is divided between passengers so each passenger uses 25% of the fuel, so 20mpg/25% = 80mpg per passenger OR even simpler, 20 mpg x 4 passengers. The result is the same. For planes, using my example from another comment, 82mpg/passenger, 388 passengers, 82/388 = 0.21mpg/passenger with one passenger.
Don’t tell me you truly believe that planes consume 67mpg by themselves because then you’ll have to explain why they need to cary thousands of gallons of fuel… (13k gallons for a 777)
Again, you’re comparing the average number of passengers for all road trips vs the average number of passengers for all airline trips, but the purpose of both isn’t the same and just because someone took a plane to go somewhere doesn’t mean they won’t be taking their car to work. Compare both travels for the same purpose (in this discussion, vacations) and people don’t tend to go on vacation alone, that increases the number of passengers in the car, they don’t tend to go as far in their car so that also lowers the amount of fuel used for the vacation.
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.
There are loads of good e fuels now with various projects coming on line to start supplying them commercially.
When using e fuels flying is far better for the environment than a train, especially when track maintenance and etc are factored in.
But beyond technical stuff, I don’t know if you’re a secret agent of the captain planet baddies and if so then great work on the talking points, if there’s one way to turn people away from green issues it’s too tell them they can’t have a holiday or travel to see their parents at Christmas.
Yeah, this person is delusional. COVID basically proved that telling people that they can’t have parties indoors wasn’t even possible. This guy thinks that telling people they can’t travel to see their families unless they live within a 200km radius and they make the trip by car is a realistic solution.
They're arguing that people *should be required to isolate from their families if they live far enough away*. That's nonsense.
That’s exactly how people lived until the 1950s, if people decided to move across the continent for school they isolated themselves from their family and knew that was the price to pay.
I’m pointing out that we’re living in an historical anomaly and I’ve proven multiple times by now that it’s not sustainable unless you don’t understand how math works.
You haven’t proven anything. I’ve literally shown you and provided sources that show that airplanes are more fuel efficient than cars in our current use, have improved in efficiency by over 57% in the last 20 years, are less than 5% of the actual outputted emissions (including contrails), and that there are many, many other industries that would have a bigger impact in changing over airlines. It is 100% sustainable unless we make no other movement in any other emissions types.
I think you need to read the parent comment again. They are are specifically arguing that people shouldn’t regularly be taking such long trips. They specifically argued against the common practice of “USA / English Canada” students taking multiple long-distance flights a year.
I think you need to reread the (now) grandparent comment again:
They’re arguing that people should be required to isolate from their families if they live far enough away. That’s nonsense.
Yes, and I’m arguing that that’s nonsensical considering that all CO2 emissions from all form of commercial aviation travel are less than 3% of the global total.
They suggested in a subsequent comment that the practice of going to school far away was unusual outside of USA/Canada. Their suggestion was that people shouldn’t move that far from their families if they plan on regularly visiting them. Their suggestion was “pick a school 20 or 200 miles from home, rather than 2000”.
You seem to be hung up on one particular point about suburbans and not on the overarching message, which is just “travel less”.
3% is a lot. I don’t know where you get the idea that it isn’t.
No, not at all. I am hung up on the overall point to “travel less” because air travel doesn’t make up a significant portion of the problem. 1% of travelers make up the majority of the use here. And that’s not in the “1% of the richest people in the world” 1% it’s the 1% of people who travel the most often and they’re already flying commercial - one of the most cost effective and energy efficient means of mass transit that we have. They’re not using private jets.
3% is a significant portion of emissions. I don’t know why you keep insinuating that it is not.
Commercial flight is not energy efficient. You said it yourself: it is time efficient. You don’t get to constantly repeat their “suburban” argument and then ignore that the suburban - one of the least energy-efficient passenger vehicles - is considerably more energy efficient than air travel. You will burn less fuel per mile per person in the suburban than in the airplane.
Reducing travel expectations has a massive effect. Changing societal expectations from 2000-mile trips to 200-mile trips reduces a 3% problem to a 0.3% problem.
Electric vehicles are now viable options for most personal and commercial vehicles. Even heavy-haul has viable electric options coming online. Natural gas produces about 1/3 the carbon output as an energy equivalent amount of jet fuel, and has replaced diesel in the majority of metro bus fleets.
The state of alternative energy use in aviation is in its infancy: no options to date are remotely viable replacements for kerosene-based jet fuel. As absolute carbon use declines in the ground transport fleet, the relative proportion of carbon use rises in the aviation sector. Every other sector is primed to reduce emissions. Lagging behind is the aviation sector. That 3% number has nowhere to go but up.
I’m not insinuating anything, much less that. I’m simply saying that there are more impactful ways to make a difference and, relative to the other options, that 3% is also more difficult to change. It’s not realistic to ask people not to travel when we live in a world where families can span continents especially when there are easier ways to make a bigger difference.
This is simply not true. In the link that the “suburban” commenter sent, it says that planes have an average fuel/distance/passenger ratio of 67mpg per passenger. There is not a single car available that gets 67 mpg much less per passenger. The Toyota Prius is a hybrid (so its rating isn’t even based completely on burning fuel) and it gets 52mpg. And most commutes average 1.2 people per trip with an average of 4 trips per day. It’s not even close.
You’re only proving my point. When those other sectors get to the point where their emissions are a single digit percentage lower than 5 of the overall total, we can talk about whether we should keep working on those or switch to airplanes.
A suburban gets 27mpg highway. A suburban with just 3 people on board gets 81mpg per passenger.
67 mpg per passenger is terrible mileage for a mass transit vehicle. A bus gets about 6mpg, but typically carries 30 to 50 people. That’s 180 to 300mpg per passenger.
I reject your “1.2 people per commute” argument because we aren’t talking about commuting. We’re talking about long-distance trips.
No, aviation is one of the largest sectors left that has made no significant headway on eliminating emissions. Every other sector has a solid plan for shifting away from oil that they are in the long process of executing.
The airlines are still at the stage of trying to optimize their use of fossil fuels, not replacing fossil fuels with renewables. They are getting good at making bigger, more efficient engines and airframes, but they have no feasible approach to actually switch away. The energy density of oil is just too high to readily replace.
Until they can actually make some headway, we should absolutely be discouraging long-distance travel in general, and aviation travel in particular.
You need to recheck your math. It doesn’t make sense to divide the consumption by plane but multiply by car.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/ https://sustainableamerica.org/blog/flying-or-driving-which-is-more-efficient/ http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2014-2_Abstract_English.pdf
“The main findings are that to make driving less energy intensive than flying, the fuel economy of the entire fleet of light-duty vehicles would have to improve from the current 21.5 mpg to at least 33.8 mpg, or vehicle load would have to increase from the current 1.38 persons to at least 2.3 persons.”
You can reject my argument but that just makes you wrong. Even the non-commute average load is still not enough to make the average long-distance trip more fuel efficient.
Also wrong.
“A new report from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute shows that flying has become 74% more efficient per passenger since 1970 while driving gained only 17% efficiency per passenger. In fact, the average plane trip has been more fuel efficient than the average car trip since as far back as 2000, according to their calculations.”
You’re talking out of your ass.
So it makes sense to divide planes mpg by passenger but not car mpg by passenger? Because the 67mpg you’re quoting is per passenger.
A 4 passenger car that gets 20mpg, what’s the mpg per passenger? Two ways to get to the result: fuel used is divided between passengers so each passenger uses 25% of the fuel, so 20mpg/25% = 80mpg per passenger OR even simpler, 20 mpg x 4 passengers. The result is the same. For planes, using my example from another comment, 82mpg/passenger, 388 passengers, 82/388 = 0.21mpg/passenger with one passenger.
Don’t tell me you truly believe that planes consume 67mpg by themselves because then you’ll have to explain why they need to cary thousands of gallons of fuel… (13k gallons for a 777)
Again, you’re comparing the average number of passengers for all road trips vs the average number of passengers for all airline trips, but the purpose of both isn’t the same and just because someone took a plane to go somewhere doesn’t mean they won’t be taking their car to work. Compare both travels for the same purpose (in this discussion, vacations) and people don’t tend to go on vacation alone, that increases the number of passengers in the car, they don’t tend to go as far in their car so that also lowers the amount of fuel used for the vacation.
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.
There are loads of good e fuels now with various projects coming on line to start supplying them commercially.
When using e fuels flying is far better for the environment than a train, especially when track maintenance and etc are factored in.
But beyond technical stuff, I don’t know if you’re a secret agent of the captain planet baddies and if so then great work on the talking points, if there’s one way to turn people away from green issues it’s too tell them they can’t have a holiday or travel to see their parents at Christmas.
Yeah, this person is delusional. COVID basically proved that telling people that they can’t have parties indoors wasn’t even possible. This guy thinks that telling people they can’t travel to see their families unless they live within a 200km radius and they make the trip by car is a realistic solution.
They're arguing that people *should be required to isolate from their families if they live far enough away*. That's nonsense.That’s exactly how people lived until the 1950s, if people decided to move across the continent for school they isolated themselves from their family and knew that was the price to pay.
We don’t live in the 1950s, jackass. If we did, people wouldn’t all own cars either. Your comparison is wrong.
I’m pointing out that we’re living in an historical anomaly and I’ve proven multiple times by now that it’s not sustainable unless you don’t understand how math works.
You haven’t proven anything. I’ve literally shown you and provided sources that show that airplanes are more fuel efficient than cars in our current use, have improved in efficiency by over 57% in the last 20 years, are less than 5% of the actual outputted emissions (including contrails), and that there are many, many other industries that would have a bigger impact in changing over airlines. It is 100% sustainable unless we make no other movement in any other emissions types.