Reducing aviation’s global warming footprint.

[schloopy]

My degree is in atmospheric physics (albeit not chemistry) and I have to say I’m a bit confused by the logic. Emissions are emissions….some chemical reactions are different in high altitude environments but for the most part I dont see what difference it makes if the exhaust is condensed or not. If anything, clouds and visible moisture are regarded as factors increasing albedo, reflecting solar energy away far more than any greenhouse effect, hence efforts such as cloud-seeding. Contrails would be a microscopic element of that but still, not only does it seem wrong it seems completely backwards. Would love to know if anyone knows more of the science here.

 

[bbmikej]

My degree is in atmospheric physics (albeit not chemistry) and I have to say I’m a bit confused by the logic. Emissions are emissions….some chemical reactions are different in high altitude environments but for the most part I dont see what difference it makes if the exhaust is condensed or not. If anything, clouds and visible moisture are regarded as factors increasing albedo, reflecting solar energy away far more than any greenhouse effect, hence efforts such as cloud-seeding. Contrails would be a microscopic element of that but still, not only does it seem wrong it seems completely backwards. Would love to know if anyone knows more of the science here.

The things with contrails is that they are thin enough to let solar energy through, but then they trap it against the surface heating up the atmosphere.

 

[arkflyr]

That's not ALL I'll tell! I'll show them the Big Board! You can't stop me no....

 

[Boris Badenov]

View attachment 78263

Baby, I told you never to call me here. Don't you know where I am?

 

[Beaker]

A helpful infographic from our friends at NASA. Apparently high clouds = bad and low clouds = good. Of course nighttime contrails have a particularly strong warming effect since no sunlight is reflected in that case. But I think we already intuitively knew that nocturnal emissions leave a warm mess behind.

 

[Flagship_dxer]

Instead of wasting money with this nonsense that adds more variables to an already long list of things to consider when flight planning, why not try to eliminate things that probably cause more unnecessary emissions?

Make holding patterns and taxi times longer than 30 minutes illegal. No more than 30 minutes holding fuel carried on each flight. No more pushing from the gate to sit with engines and APU running to wait on EDCTs and routes to open up. Flying most efficient routing and altitude unless avoiding broken to solid areas of convection or severe turbulence. No more loading up on thousands of pounds of fuel for extensive deviations: you leave gate with route that avoids constraints or you dont go at all. No burning fuel on the ground or inflight for weight and balance. Once fuel is is loaded, anything above taxi fuel cannot be burned for weight and balance except for emergencies. No fuel dumping or holding patterns for operational reasons: if mechanical problem is serious enough then emergency is declared to burn or dump fuel otherwise continue to destination. No flying empty positioning flights unless ferrying broken planes for repairs.

 

[Kingairer]

Instead of wasting money with this nonsense that adds more variables to an already long list of things to consider when flight planning, why not try to eliminate things that probably cause more unnecessary emissions?

Make holding patterns and taxi times longer than 30 minutes illegal. No more than 30 minutes holding fuel carried on each flight. No more pushing from the gate to sit with engines and APU running to wait on EDCTs and routes to open up. Flying most efficient routing and altitude unless avoiding broken to solid areas of convection or severe turbulence. No more loading up on thousands of pounds of fuel for extensive deviations: you leave gate with route that avoids constraints or you dont go at all. No burning fuel on the ground or inflight for weight and balance. Once fuel is is loaded, anything above taxi fuel cannot be burned for weight and balance except for emergencies. No fuel dumping or holding patterns for operational reasons: if mechanical problem is serious enough then emergency is declared to burn or dump fuel otherwise continue to destination. No flying empty positioning flights unless ferrying broken planes for repairs.

There is no need to legislate any of this, as airlines and operators are already heavily incentivized to save as much fuel as safely possible. I don't know why the government and greenies always want to focus on the big flashy items. How about we start with lawnmowers and get serious about eliminating their emissions? According to quick Google searches, a lawn mower produces as much in one hour as a car does in 100 miles.

 

[Acadia]

There is no need to legislate any of this, as airlines and operators are already heavily incentivized to save as much fuel as safely possible. I don't know why the government and greenies always want to focus on the big flashy items. How about we start with lawnmowers and get serious about eliminating their emissions? According to quick Google searches, a lawn mower produces as much in one hour as a car does in 100 miles.

You are certainly right that old mowers are part of the emissions problem, but you are presenting it as a false dichotomy. There need to be efforts in many directions. In Steve’s original post, we have a private aviation focused company looking to make an effort in their field. Just a guess: Foreflight probably does not have much expertise in lawn mowers. Mowers and gas powered tools have steadily been advancing towards electric.

 

[Kingairer]

You are certainly right that old mowers are part of the emissions problem, but you are presenting it as a false dichotomy. There need to be efforts in many directions. In Steve’s original post, we have a private aviation focused company looking to make an effort in their field. Just a guess: Foreflight probably does not have much expertise in lawn mowers. Mowers and gas powered tools have steadily been advancing towards electric.

I wasn’t responding to that. But if foreflight wants to suggest some routes voluntarily reducing contrail, go ahead.

 

[knot4u]

You are certainly right that old mowers are part of the emissions problem, but you are presenting it as a false dichotomy. There need to be efforts in many directions. In Steve’s original post, we have a private aviation focused company looking to make an effort in their field. Just a guess: Foreflight probably does not have much expertise in lawn mowers. Mowers and gas powered tools have steadily been advancing towards electric.

Gas leaf blowers have been banned in Los Angeles and many other CA cities for decades, but the rule was ever enforced because doing so would impact a poor minority. So in 2024 Gavin Newsom signed a statewide law that won't be enforced because it will unfairly impact a poor minority. I understand the frustration with gas leaf blowers, they're noisy and the dust they kick up is horrendous but a lot of folks make a living using them that can't afford to abandon small gas engines in favor of electric powered equipment. I haven't seen any affordable professional grade electric landscaping equipment, it all seems to geared for a homeowner and probably wouldn't hold up to sustained daily use. The problem is these mandates are made without actually viable solutions. If the gardener has a trailer full of electric tools with batteries that only last until lunchtime and small gas generators are banned as well (they are) how are these people supposed to be able to do their jobs?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiRGRvE_Wqg

 

[Boris Badenov]

how are these people supposed to be able to do their jobs?

You raise a reasonable objection to how these strictures are being implemented. It's fairly typical bureaucratic/political "unfunded mandate" BS. But markets adjust (this is why Capitalism, for all of its faults, functions where other Systems don't...or at least it *should*). Realistically, lawn-care prices are going to go up. Maybe there will be battery-banks where your lawn-care-Engineer can swap out after lunch. And of course all sorts of other behaviors will fall out from this. Like, people may stop being *quite* so psychotic about lawn-care (what if the HOA didn't throw a track every time someone's grass got over 2 1/8ths inches?) And so on.

But the jury is IN. We are in a legitimate climate crisis, and while I think the prognostications of Total Civilizational Collapse (let alone Human Extinction) are a bit panicky, the extrapolated end results of not confronting this crisis RIGHT NOW are *extremely* dire. So like throwing our hands up and saying "welp, can't live with extremely well-manicured lawns to meet some bizarre and totally subjective aesthetic standard, can't live without them!" is, as I would think would be totally, gobsmackingly obvious, not an option.

TL;DR: "Eh, can't change our lawn-care strategies to prevent mass starvation and probable world-war (and most currently-coastal areas becoming either under water or uninhabitable)" is just as f'ing ludicrous as it sounds. Your weed-whacker may need to be sacrificed for the greater good, apologies.

 

[knot4u]

You raise a reasonable objection to how these strictures are being implemented. It's fairly typical bureaucratic/political "unfunded mandate" BS. But markets adjust (this is why Capitalism, for all of its faults, functions where other Systems don't...or at least it *should*). Realistically, lawn-care prices are going to go up. Maybe there will be battery-banks where your lawn-care-Engineer can swap out after lunch. And of course all sorts of other behaviors will fall out from this. Like, people may stop being *quite* so psychotic about lawn-care (what if the HOA didn't throw a track every time someone's grass got over 2 1/8ths inches?) And so on.

But the jury is IN. We are in a legitimate climate crisis, and while I think the prognostications of Total Civilizational Collapse (let alone Human Extinction) are a bit panicky, the extrapolated end result of not confronting this crisis RIGHT NOW are *extremely* dire. So like throwing our hands up and saying "welp, can't live without extremely well-manicured lawns to meet some bizarre and totally subjective aesthetic standard, can't live without them!" is, as I would think would be totally, gobsmackingly obvious, not an option.

TL;DR: "Eh, can't change our lawn-care strategies to prevent mass starvation and probable world-war (and most currently-coastal areas becoming either under water or uninhabitable)" is just as f'ing ludicrous as it sounds. Your weed-whacker may need to be sacrificed for the greater good, apologies.

I'm glad you saw at least one point of mine, the fact that many of these mandates are nothing more than self congratulatory nonsense whose only purpose is a talking point during the next election cycle. If these people actually cared as deeply as they pretend to they'd educate themselves about what it is they're legislating and not only confirm a solution exists but also provide a reasonable path towards that solution. There's no talk from the civic minded folk about battery banks, who's going to build them or if any manufacturer is building your proffered solution, it's nothing but farts in the wind. I'd guarantee the people that wrote that bill and Newsom himself have gardeners that use gas powered mowers and blowers and have never actually had a conversation with the people that maintain their residences. Are those folks going to get an exemption? Is Gavin going to build a power wall recharging station for them at his home? Does he expect everyone that owns a home to provide that? Will there be massive subsidies for changing equipment and building these charging stations? Who administers these programs? Trying to get a permit for a water heater in Los Angeles is a nightmare. It'll just end up as more bureaucratic bloat that accomplishes nothing more than costing common folks more money. It's not about an HOA, this is the state government, the worst possible Karen. If you're an ex military guy with 2 1/8" grass, sharply defined edging, a crew cut and a flag pole that weeds your planters with bonzai scissors and overpays your taxes annually you're going to have to revamp your entire program. And it's not because you're dangerous, it's because someone needs a talking point for their next campaign ad. If I had any faith in these people I wouldn't be so verbose but they don't care. Why don't they ban airplanes if they're such a threat? How would you feel if your livelihood was pulled out from under you for someones talking point?

 

[Boris Badenov]

How would you feel if your livelihood was pulled out from under you for someones talking point?

I'd be pissed, and I would vote accordingly. But when I say that I mean that I would vote for the guy (or gal) who will do the hard work of figuring out how to fund these mandates, rather than for the guy who just pretends that the problem doesn't exist and treats it as "not-MY-problem". You're seeing the same thing with the deficit, now. Even with the climate-crisis (which, again, is 100% real and terrifying...I don't know how to impart this forcefully enough...we are HOSED if we do nothing, or even just continue to do not-enough), but even with the climate-crisis nothwithstanding, we are spending our way in to junk-bond status. Everyone even slightly Serious acknowledges this, from every conceivable political "side" (privately, of course, hah), but no one is willing to do anything about it because the people who do the voting are, AFAICT, willfully ignorant of the repercussions. Or just too busy getting in to literal physical altercations on the House floor.

We have Wartime levels of deficit spending, right now. Right now. Before any of the deleterious effects of climate-change or shifting geopolitical economics are factored in. And the Party of supposed fiscal sanity has entirely abandoned any *notion* of talking about deficit spending.

I think we're probably hosed either way, but let me put it to you this way: If one guy is saying "hey, uh, guys, there's a bridge out up there, maybe we should try to figure out how to put on the brakes", but doesn't want to put the brakes on *enough* or has some loony idea about what ethnic-background the Brakeman should come from in order for the brake-application to be "just", but the OTHER guy is saying "POUR ON THE COALS, WE CAN JUMP IT IF WE GO FAST NUFF!", which one would a rational person choose to plead with before we all go over the cliff?

 

[knot4u]

I'd be pissed, and I would vote accordingly. But when I say that I mean that I would vote for the guy (or gal) who will do the hard work of figuring out how to fund these mandates, rather than for the guy who just pretends that the problem doesn't exist and treats it as "not-MY-problem". You're seeing the same thing with the deficit, now. Even with the climate-crisis (which, again, is 100% real and terrifying...I don't know how to impart this forcefully enough...we are HOSED if we do nothing, or even just continue to do not-enough), but even with the climate-crisis nothwithstanding, we are spending our way in to junk-bond status. Everyone even slightly Serious acknowledges this, from every conceivable political "side" (privately, of course, hah), but no one is willing to do anything about it because the people who do the voting are, AFAICT, willfully ignorant of the repercussions. Or just too busy getting in to literal physical altercations on the House floor.

We have Wartime levels of deficit spending, right now. Right now. Before any of the deleterious effects of climate-change or shifting geopolitical economics are factored in. And the Party of supposed fiscal sanity has entirely abandoned any *notion* of talking about deficit spending.

I think we're probably hosed either way, but let me put it to you this way: If one guy is saying "hey, uh, guys, there's a bridge out up there, maybe we should try to figure out how to put on the brakes", but doesn't want to put the brakes on *enough* or has some loony idea about what ethnic-background the Brakeman should come from in order for the brake-application to be "just", but the OTHER guy is saying "POUR ON THE COALS, WE CAN JUMP IT IF WE GO FAST NUFF!", which one would a rational person choose to plead with before we all go over the cliff?

Yep, you're right, the ship can't be righted.


I disagree. Don't align yourself with any political party. It's going to change.

 

[Boris Badenov]

It's going to change.

It's definitely going to change. The question is how (much). Sticking our fingers in our ears and chanting "I can't hear you" isn't the prescription for a change we want to be around for. *shrug*

 

[knot4u]

It's definitely going to change. The question is how (much). Sticking our fingers in our ears and chanting "I can't hear you" isn't the prescription for a change we want to be around for. *shrug*

I'm unsure if your description of a person with their fingers in their ears was how you think of me but I can assure you it isn't. I want nuclear powerplants, tell me why MSRs are a bad idea. It can't happen because too much money is slipping around through greasy hands for it to work. Here's a somewhat long video primer...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQDdnZ__yTk