Climate-friendly air travel - say what?

Bear

Well-Known Member
http://www.dw.com/en/climate-friendly-air-travel-say-what/a-39549089

Air travel is bad for the climate - but it doesn't have to be. Climate-friendly flight routes and renewable jet fuel could make flying in planes way more environmentally friendly - this would just need to be implemented.

ncreasing global air traffic is commonly regarded as a climate catastrophe, with the aviation industry alone comprising 5 percent of greenhouse gases produced annually.

With the German Aerospace Center (DLR) expecting jet fuel demand to increase 50 percent by 2030, environmental prospects for the industry are dire.

But what if flying could be carbon-neutral; indeed, climate-friendly? It's a little-known fact that this is possible.

Flying high increases warming

To reach the goals of the Paris climate agreement to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, every person on Earth would be limited to producing an average of only 2 tons of CO2 annually over the next 30 years.

However, a roundtrip between Berlin and New York in a relatively efficient Airbus 380 generates greenhouse gases equaling some three tons of CO2 in the environment. That's because, in addition to the direct CO2 emissions (one ton CO2 equivalent), the flight results in increased formation of ozone in the clouds (two tons).

A particular problem for air traffic is emissions is the high altitude. In addition to CO2, production of nitrogen oxide through jet engine exhaust produces ozone, a major cause of global warming.

Contrails, or condensation trails, are also produced, which create clouds made of ice crystals that can also trap greenhouse gases, warming the climate.

Overall, the climate impact of jet fuel combustion is about three times as high when planes are in the stratosphere than when they are on the ground.

Climate-friendly flying?

With climate-optimized flight routes, however, the negative effects of flying can also be reduced and can "even go in the opposite direction," according to Stefanie Meilinger of the International Center for Sustainable Development at Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University in Germany.

The greatest potential lies in preventing the creation of clouds. "Condensation trails and fog clouds are formed out of ice crystals in certain weather conditions," Meilinger explained. Climate-optimized flight routes would work by avoiding such weather, hence limiting cloud generation.

Beyond this, such clouds can have either a warming or cooling effect on the climate.

That would depend on the substratum and ratio of different reflections, she explained.

"If the solar radiation is reflected by clouds formed by plane flight back into outer space, this has a cooling effect," she said. "But if the Earth's radiation of heat into space is hampered by clouds, the climate is further heated."

This all depends on the route the plane flies. "With our current routes, we have an overall warming effect," Meilinger told DW.

To protect the climate, optimize flight routes

Under the direction of DLR and in cooperation with the German Meteorological Service (DWD) and the German Air Traffic Control (Deutsche Flugsicherung), Meilinger has analyzed Lufthansa flights to assess the possibility of designing air traffic routes that limit climate damage. Ideally, they should even contribute to climate protection.

Meilinger's research team developed software for climate-optimized flight routes which, once combined with weather forecast data, meant planes could avoid regions with warming clouds. Moreover, regions for cooling cloud formation on the flight route could also be targeted.

Screen Shot 2017-07-12 at 3.32.46 PM.png

The scientists simulated climate-optimized flight routes for 40,000 Lufthansa flights, which in models succeeded in reducing the overall climate warming effects. "Even net-cooling air traffic" was realized on some European routes, stated the report.

"On the one hand, there is the possibility to close particularly climate-damaging air routes for air transport," explained Urban Weißhaar, a flight route expert at Lufthansa Systems. "The other possibility is the inclusion of cloud formation in emissions trading."

This, however, would result in some effects on passengers and airlines.

Cloud formation with climate impact could be priced, like CO2 emissions. Airlines with climate-friendly routes could gain an advantage by paying less money for pollution certificates - making any additional costs by a small detour very worthwhile. For climate protection, at least.



 
Look what happened with coal when the climate crazies started to get their hands on legislation directed at that industry.

If they had their ways we'd all be paying 90% taxes and living underground walking to our destinations.

I get it to a point, but the vast majority of human impact on the environment is population growth yet they won't touch that with a 10-ft pole. Elon Musk finally sent out something addressing it a few days ago which was pretty much ignored.
 
Which is it? :
population growth yet they won't touch that with a 10-ft pole. Elon Musk
Elon Musk predicts a population implosion
or BOTH.

Either way, Musk has also declared 'Automation Will Force Governments to Introduce Universal Basic Income.'

My bottom line, meaningful labor is disappearing for billions, coupled with climatic induced eco disasters driving millions into refuge status...


Mankind just might need Elon Musk's rockets to get 1 million people to Mars.
https://www.space.com/34210-elon-musk-unveils-spacex-mars-colony-ship.html
'.. the SpaceX founder and CEO unveiled the company's Interplanetary Transport System (ITS), which will combine the most powerful rocket ever built with a spaceship designed to carry at least 100 people to the Red Planet per flight.

If all goes according to plan, the reusable ITS will help humanity establish a permanent, self-sustaining colony on the Red Planet within the next 50 to 100 years ...'
 
Which is it? :
Elon Musk predicts a population implosion
or BOTH.

Either way, Musk has also declared 'Automation Will Force Governments to Introduce Universal Basic Income.'

My bottom line, meaningful labor is disappearing for billions, coupled with climatic induced eco disasters driving millions into refuge status...

...'

Automation will be a huge issue for most of society in the very near future. Studies show that 47% of today's jobs will be automated out of existence in the next 25 years. http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/47...will-disappear-according-to-oxford-university

Musk is correct that billions of people will no longer be able to find remunerative labor, or really have any place in society. I have heard many people besides Musk suggest basic income as a solution for this, but no one seems to say who will pay for Basic Income or why they would be willing to.

I suspect the solution will be some sort of refugee camps that the unemployed and destitute will be interned in, where their basic needs can be provided cheaply and they can be kept off of the streets so nobody has to deal with them. Another possible solution is that unemployment and/or homelessness could be criminalized, and the poor and destitute could be imprisoned along with criminals in regular prisons. Private Prison operators donate quite a bit of money to political campaigns, and they would stand to profit greatly from such a solution; even if the refugee camps are separate from prisons they will likely be operated by Private Prison companies. Of course the structurally unemployed could be allowed to starve to death, or exterminated as a way to avoid having to do anything with them, and this could be the population implosion Musk talks about.

Musk and those of his status would pretty much have Heaven on Earth in such a scenario: without any poor or middle-class people left, they would have the whole world or at least the whole country to themselves, with amazing technology to cater to their every need and desire. The much smaller population would pretty much stop Climate Change in its tracks, and also relieve any concerns over natural resource exhaustion (peak oil, etc.), while allowing the remaining population to enjoy a more lavish lifestyle than anyone in history.

Marshall Brain describes a scenario somewhat like I predict in the first five chapters of Manna, where the structurally unemployed are interned in "Terrafoam" where their basic needs are provided for cheaply. Manna is short and perhaps not the most exciting book, but it seems very realistic about where society is headed once Technological Unemployment starts to be a major issue.

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

It is true though that slowing population growth would be the most effective way to slow down climate change. And sadly, thanks to the looming threat of technological unemployment, most babies being born today have a good chance of growing up to be structurally unemployed. I feel bad for kids being born nowadays for that reason.
 
Mankind just might need Elon Musk's rockets to get 1 million people to Mars.
https://www.space.com/34210-elon-musk-unveils-spacex-mars-colony-ship.html
'.. the SpaceX founder and CEO unveiled the company's Interplanetary Transport System (ITS), which will combine the most powerful rocket ever built with a spaceship designed to carry at least 100 people to the Red Planet per flight.

If all goes according to plan, the reusable ITS will help humanity establish a permanent, self-sustaining colony on the Red Planet within the next 50 to 100 years ...'

Reminds me of one of my favorite songs:

 
I once flew with a guy who was as hard over on the climate thing as you can be.

After about a month of listening to his irrational, thermodynamically improper claptrap, I finally asked: "dude, if it's as important as you say, and as important to you personally as you make it seem, why the &$8( are you contributing to the industry you say causes it, and not a $)6ing sheppard on a mountain somewhere?"

"Well, if I didn't do it, someone else would"

I gave zero respects to that guy after that. If you're going to make a THAT big deal out of something, you'd better walk the walk. Otherwise, you're a poser drama king/queen.
 
I once flew with a guy who was as hard over on the climate thing as you can be.

After about a month of listening to his irrational, thermodynamically improper claptrap, I finally asked: "dude, if it's as important as you say, and as important to you personally as you make it seem, why the &$8( are you contributing to the industry you say causes it, and not a $)6ing sheppard on a mountain somewhere?"

"Well, if I didn't do it, someone else would"

I gave zero respects to that guy after that. If you're going to make a THAT big deal out of something, you'd better walk the walk. Otherwise, you're a poser drama king/queen.

Eh, I kind of see his point. While I believe climate change is most likely real, I see no reason to modify my lifestyle to help prevent it, since few other people are and many people don't believe in climate change in the first place. If the predictions of climate change come true, I will have to forfeit the "birthright" of a habitable earth just as much as everyone else, so I plan to enjoy my share of the lentil stew while it lasts.

Besides, as was pointed out above, reducing population growth is the most effective way to slow down climate change, and I don't ever plan to reproduce. I always find it a bit ironic when parents criticize others for not being more environmentally conscious.
 
I once flew with a guy who was as hard over on the climate thing as you can be.

After about a month of listening to his irrational, thermodynamically improper claptrap, I finally asked: "dude, if it's as important as you say, and as important to you personally as you make it seem, why the &$8( are you contributing to the industry you say causes it, and not a $)6ing sheppard on a mountain somewhere?"

"Well, if I didn't do it, someone else would"

I gave zero respects to that guy after that. If you're going to make a THAT big deal out of something, you'd better walk the walk. Otherwise, you're a poser drama king/queen.

Your logical fallacy is "the no true scottsman fallacy."

The dude is right, it's not like someone won't else wouldn't fly the trip. If he's recycling, trying to minimize his energy usage, and living "greenly" he's probably doing a half-way decent job at fighting the good fight.
 
Your logical fallacy is "the no true scottsman fallacy."

The dude is right, it's not like someone won't else wouldn't fly the trip. If he's recycling, trying to minimize his energy usage, and living "greenly" he's probably doing a half-way decent job at fighting the good fight.

And negates his contributions to the good fight for all the carbon emissions he then goes and puts out......unless maybe he's buying the scam called carbon credits?

It's called a cop out. That's like saying that since there's already trash alongside the highway, it's no big deal if I litter too because someone is going to anyway, right?

Who cares what other people are going to do or not do? That shouldn't be the basis of one's moral stance on things.

People talk a big game, right up until it affects their livelihood or profession, or something they like. Then the excuses follow.
 
I once flew with a guy who was as hard over on the climate thing as you can be.

After about a month of listening to his irrational, thermodynamically improper claptrap, I finally asked: "dude, if it's as important as you say, and as important to you personally as you make it seem, why the &$8( are you contributing to the industry you say causes it, and not a $)6ing sheppard on a mountain somewhere?"

"Well, if I didn't do it, someone else would"

I gave zero respects to that guy after that. If you're going to make a THAT big deal out of something, you'd better walk the walk. Otherwise, you're a poser drama king/queen.
Honestly, short of just dropping dead, there's not much the individual person could really do to make a noticeable impact on that kind of thing. The real impact is going to come from governments and giant polluters taking the initiative. But that's a heinous suggestion, so that will never happen either. I'm just glad I don't particularly want kids and hope the real crapstorm doesn't start until after I'm long dead from old age.

(And if you thought the migrant crisis was bad now...)
 
And negates his contributions to the good fight for all the carbon emissions he then goes and puts out......unless maybe he's buying the scam called carbon credits?

It's called a cop out. That's like saying that since there's already trash alongside the highway, it's no big deal if I litter too because someone is going to anyway, right?

Who cares what other people are going to do or not do? That shouldn't be the basis of one's moral stance on things.

People talk a big game, right up until it affects their livelihood or profession, or something they like. Then the excuses follow.

Read @JordanD's post below, quitting your job and moving to the mountain won't do a damn thing in isolation.
 
Honestly, short of just dropping dead, there's not much the individual person could really do to make a noticeable impact on that kind of thing. The real impact is going to come from governments and giant polluters taking the initiative. But that's a heinous suggestion, so that will never happen either. I'm just glad I don't particularly want kids and hope the real crapstorm doesn't start until after I'm long dead from old age.

(And if you thought the migrant crisis was bad now..."

Don't get me wrong, taking reasonable measures individually to take some basic care of the planet is obviously a good thing. I'm just saying that I think we are to a point as a planet of people to where unless we are willing to give in to some drastic changes in lifestyle, convenience, and other things we know and are used to day to day.....like polluting methods of transport and transportation, among others.....then we are indeed impacting more than we are protecting. Which is a battle we will eventually lose, like you say. May not be in our generation or the next, but will happen if things are indeed going that direction and the impacts claimed, are being made.
 
I love recycling. It decreases land fill size and contributes to a cleaner environment. Best of all, it increases my carbon foot print. Suck it carbon dioxide, you're not chit compared to water vapor anyway.
 
that will never happen either.
will only happen when science is silenced.
"...the beauty of science: to know that you will never know everything, but you never stop wanting to, that when you learn something, for a second you feel crazy smart, and then stupid all over again as new questions come tumbling in. It's an urge that never dies, a game that never ends."
 
Last edited:
No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood...

If you talk the talk, walk the walk. Especially if you're going to get in my face about it.

That's like the apologists for people who make big promotions for the eco movement and then when they think nobody is watching those same people turn around and do extravagantly ridiculous things with utter disregard for the environment.

You can't be DiCaprio lecturing people on minimal carbon footprints and "I drive a Tesla because it's the right thing to do" and then go charter a giant yacht to chug out to some deserted island somewhere with a dozen models on your floating bang barge. That's do as I say not as I do, simple as that.

What's more people don't want to or are just plain to ignorant to see that people in positions to manipulate large sums of capital and influence have found a way to turn the eco movement, carbon credits, and other such taxes as a way to generate a revenue stream. It is wealth extraction plain and simple. These are the same morons being organized by groups funded by Warren Buffet to protest Key Stone pipeline while he ships that very same oil via rail instead.

That oil is going to be drilled for. That power plant is going to keep producing. Those strip mines are going to still to be digging. Because people demand heat in the winter, goods to be shipped in a day from a warehouse, and to carry half a dozen rechargeable Devices on their person at a given time. The only big change is how many forms of actual protective efforts vs leeching off profits under the guise of efforts for that process to be accomplished.
 
Same as those in the gun control movement who walk around with heavily armed body guards....
 
Read @JordanD's post below, quitting your job and moving to the mountain won't do a damn thing in isolation.
That's a cop out.
"Drugs are bad, but if I don't do them someone else will"
"Murder is bad, but if I don't kill that sumbitch he'll still die someday"
"Stealing is bad but if I don't rob this convenience store the money will just end up with a crooked banker"
 
Back
Top