529
Ban private jets and luxury emissions! [Petition]
(act.wemove.eu)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
529 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
8332 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I totally agree with you but there's a question that should be asked when it comes to going on vacation all over the place (and from what I understand it's more common in the USA/English Canada to move very far for school and to take the plane multiple times a year to go see one's family)... It's simply unsustainable but people keep pointing at the rich with their private jet but when looking at the big picture, it's tourists that allow commercial flights companies to continuously increase the number of flights they offer...
It’s really not, though. Commercial aviation and transport (including private jets, commercial flights, and shipping/import) combined make up only 5.3% of the total CO2 in use. While commercial flights make up 70% of that slice, they also have an exponential effect vs. the alternative. Even if there are more flights, unless they are less than half-full, using commercial airlines is more sustainable and also safer than the other alternatives because the effect is multiplicative.
Imagine everyone was taking private jets. If you forced everyone to fly in pairs, you would literally halve the amount of CO2. Force them to fly in 4’s, and it’s a further halving of that first half (equal to 1/4 the amount of CO2 now). Extend that further and further until you have a flight with 647 passengers (the “average” amount for commercial flight globally) and look how much CO2 you’ve prevented from entering the atmosphere. Even if someone is touring 6 or more times per year, as long as they’re flying a commercial flight, it’s better for CO2 production than a car or individual transport.
It’s far more effective to direct efforts to something outside of that 5% (or especially a subsection of that 5%) like manufacturing or industrial CO2 pollution.
You don't understand what I'm saying.
People shouldn't be flying so dang much, it's that simple. It's not normal to expect to take one week off work and to be able to spend it guilt free on the other side of the world. I'm talking about eliminating commercial flights not to replace them with private jets, but to replace them with local vacations and with the expectation that if you decide to move across the continent you won't be seeing your family four times a year but once every four years.
Our incredible mobility is an unsustainable anomaly in human's history.
Why?
You can’t just make a claim like “people shouldn’t fly as much” without a reason why or claims like “mobility is an unsustainable” without any kind of evidence. Our mobility is 100% sustainable. Not only that, it’s sustainable in its current form.
What? What you're saying doesn't make sense, your previous message you were saying so yourself, 5.3% of all CO2 emissions, 70% of that coming from commercial passenger flights!
It's. Not. Sustainable.
I think you’re not understanding the numbers. 70% of 5.3% of total emissions is 3.7% of total global emissions. In other words, if you eliminated all commercial flights, you’d only remove 3.7% of the total emissions being produced in the world. There are more impactful changes that can be made that do not have the impact of “no one can ever fly anywhere and you won’t see your family for years”.
It is sustainable.
🙄
No, it's not. With your attitude we can justify not intervening to reduce emissions in any sector because all of them taken individually don't represent that much emissions.
Fossil fuel use in non-aviation transportation makes up almost 26% of the CO2 emissions globally. Don't be ridiculous. I have said multiple times that there are much more impactful ways to make a big dent in CO2 emissions that don't require people to live isolated from their families. You're being dishonest.
And planes aren't as efficient as cars for the same mileage traveled and people use then to travel longer distances than they would if they went on vacation by car. Even better if trains as an alternative.
As far as emissions are concerned, planes are the worst to transport both people and goods and should be limited to what is absolutely necessary.
Again, that's not true unless you're talking about short distances for which plane travel is not even practical. A plane can carry up to 800 passengers to a destination. It would take 200 cars minimum to move the same number of people and their output would be nearly triple that of a plane. Cars use the same amount of fuel to move, start, and stop. Planes use most of their fuel use on takeoff and landing since they're essentially gliders once in the air.
Citation needed. You can't just make claims like that without any kind of evidence considering that the statement is flat out not true.
https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector
Automotive transport makes up 12% of emissions - 4x that of airline travel.
Airplanes have a consumption equivalent of 3.5L/100km/passenger. A car with two passengers is equal to that, more passengers and cars win. Take more than CO2 into consideration? Looks even worse for planes as they don't have an equivalent to a catalytic converter. Is 8.5T kilometers enough data?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
How about if we take contrails into consideration?
https://www.science.org/content/article/aviation-s-dirty-secret-airplane-contrails-are-surprisingly-potent-cause-global-warming
A 2011 study suggests that the net effect of these contrail clouds contributes more to atmospheric warming than all the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by planes since the dawn of aviation.Man, that sure doesn't look good for airplanes does it? Imagine if we started talking about leaded fuel still used for piston engines (but let's not go there...)
https://tedb.ornl.gov/data/
The same amount of cargo can be transported much more efficiently by rail or by boat.
But hey, you're just proving my original point right, "regular people" who travel by plane don't want to be told that they too are part of the issue and that they should feel bad about their choice. Guess it's too hard for you guys to imagine living like the majority of the world's population that will never take a plane in their lifetime and that won't be visiting anything past a few hundred kilometers away from where they live... Oh the agony! Right?
It's funny cuz you don't even realize that traveling by plane means you're already part of an elite when looking at it on a global scale.
Lies. Your own link shows that a plane's consumption equivalent per passenger is 67mpg. Show me any car on the market, much less a majority of cars, that have a fuel efficiency of 67mpg. A hybrid Prius has a fuel efficiency of 52mpg. On top of that, the average drive in an automobile, light-duty truck, and semi-truck is 1.1 passengers with an average of 4 rides per day. There's no way you can slice these numbers that shows that a car is more fuel efficient than a plane even with the most fuel-efficient vehicle much less the total number of cars out there that include much less fuel-efficient vehicles.
The 5% number already includes contrails in it. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation
You can't just drop a claim like that and a link to multiple datasets without identifying what the evidence is. It's not my job to do your research for you just because you dump some unspecified data on me. Which data set shows what you're saying?
I never said any of that and it's not my responsibility to ignore seeing my family so that another person feels better about also not seeing their family. If anything, you're just proving the need to further make these technologies better to lower those numbers. It still doesn't change the fact that there are much larger impact items than airplanes and there are less intrusive ones too.
I'm not denying that I've had the privilege to travel by plane. That doesn't mean that I do it often or that I can afford anything other than coach and it also doesn't invalidate my point in any way. I'm only arguing about the initial claim that was made. Whether I've been on a plane is beside the point.
Yes, but we have a ways to go before that is the norm. Even without that, though, planes are more fuel efficient than any cars or light-duty vehicles and it’s not really close.
Since you don't seem to understand how fuel economy works and you don't seem to understand that I'm comparing travels for the same purpose I guess I'll have to make it extremely simple for you.
The average number of passengers/vehicle during the average drive doesn't matter since it counts people going to work out to get grocery and what we're talking about right now is people going on vacation so they're more likely to go as a group and ride sharing also is a thing. People don't stop going on their average drive because they went on vacation to Japan the week before.
Airplanes have a fuel economy of 67mpg/passenger. The number for a Prius you gave me is 52mpg/vehicle. They're not the same kind of data, the Prius' number needs to be converted to /passenger.
One passenger? Same as your number since there's one vehicle and one passenger. If there are two passengers in the Prius the fuel used is divided by each passenger, they each use half of that fuel, that's 52mpg/0.5 = 104mpg/passenger because the car's fuel economy doesn't change with the extra passenger.
(And just for the lulz, a Boeing 777 gets 82mpg/passenger and has a capacity of 388 passengers, let's say the plane only had one passenger, that's 82 / 388 = 0.21 mpg!)
That's why the Suburban example was used, it gets 17mpg mixed (I'm even helping you here instead of just using highway mpg), with four passengers that's... oh my... 68mpg! It beats planes! Know what's the passenger capacity of a Suburban is? Up to 8. Need me to do the math on that or I've proven my point? Heck, someone else already explained all of that to you so I don't know why I need to repeat it.
Since I'm arguing against people going on vacations by plane so dang much it makes planes look even worse because people use them to travel thousands of miles instead of hundreds of miles if they were to go on vacation by car. 67mpg over 1000 miles = 14.9 gallons of fuel or the equivalent of traveling 250 miles per passenger in the Suburban or 770 miles per passenger in the Prius. How far do you go on vacation in a car? How far do you go on vacation in a plane?
Regional flights (i.e. in smaller less efficient planes) are 500 miles on average in the USA
https://www.statista.com/statistics/742763/regional-carriers-average-passenger-trip-length/
International (i.e. in bigger more efficient planes)... well it sure doesn't look good!
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-international-aviation-km?tab=chart
In the USA it's over 1000 miles (1980km), Europeans and Canadians are even worse... Do you really need me to prove that it's more efficient for a French couple to drive from Paris to Rome (1400km) instead of going on the average French international flight (2700km) for their vacation? Our even more realistically, from Paris to Milan (850km) this way both travels take a day? I used the French example because their distance traveled is at the lower end of the West European average so I'm being nice here.
So, is my point clearer now?
It seems like you don’t understand how fuel economy works. Aviation is more fuel efficient no matter how you slice it and has been since the start of the millennium.
If your premise is that 52mpg/1 passenger = x mpg/3 passengers means that x is 104mpg/passenger then that means that 67mpg/1 passenger for a flight of 100 people is 6700mpg/passenger. You can’t divide for one and multiply for the other.
Also, planes get more fuel efficient the longer the trip because the majority of their fuel burn is on takeoff. Once they’re in the air, their fuel use is minimal and they lose the weight of the fuel as they continue which further makes it more efficient.
So no…your point is not clearer because air travel is more efficient than travel by auto in all cases except, again, the shortest distance travel where it’s not even practical to fly. You can try to limit your data to only trips with more than 3 people (the point where driving becomes more fuel efficient) and only for long distances but that means you’re only further scaling down the impact that making efficiencies has since that’s not really the most prevalent use for cars.
The 67mpg figure IS ALREADY PER PASSENGER! Do you truly believe a plane full of passengers only burns 15 gallons to travel 1000 miles? Why does a 777 need to carry 13 000 gallons of fuel then? By that logic that would be enough to travel 1 066 000 miles considering they get 82mpg/passenger when full of passengers (which you interpret as 82mpg/vehicle)!
https://alliknowaviation.com/2019/12/14/fuel-consumption-aircraft/
Napkin math time:
6000 to 7500 kilograms of fuel per hour for a 777, gas weights 0.72kg/L, that's 8300L of fuel burned per hour and I'm using the most advantageous number to help you! Typical cruise speed is 900km/h. That's 108m for every liter of fuel, 410m per gallon, 0.25 miles per gallon. Hey, look at that, pretty fucking close to the 0.21mpg with a single passenger that I calculated with the official number, isn't it?
Oh the ice sheets on your planet are fine huh?
JFC
Oh is the current state of the ice sheets because of the 3% of CO2 from airlines? Or maybe there are bigger contributors to what's going on there that we can tackle first?
Idiot.
I can't decide which is more depressing, you fighting for people to have the right to keep polluting by flying around their own jets, or the fact that you'll never even benefit from your campaign to defend the rich assholes fucking up our environment for their own convinience.
either way you're a sad, dumb sack of trash.
I can’t help it if you’re wrong. I’m not defending rich people, I’m just stating a fact. Planes are more fuel efficient than cars and there are more cars with less fuel efficiency. If you want to help the problem, planes are farther down the list of impacts than cars.
http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2014-2_Abstract_English.pdf
“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.”
The report is called “Making Driving less Energy Intensive than Flying”.
What’s depressing is that you’re so confidently incorrect yet continue to argue.
That's between the total CO2 emissions of Russia and India, ranked 3rd and 4th worldwide (only China and the USA have higher emissions, and those two lead by huge margins). By that logic, all countries in the world besides China and the USA could stop reducing emissions because they only cause sub 10% shares of the total.
You just can't argue that way. 5% are a big, signifikant amount. There isn't a whole lot "outside that 5%". Ultimately, all of it has to become 0 anyway.
No, because China and the USA are both affected by the emissions regardless of which one of them are responsible for them. In that case, the one we're actually faced with, it makes more sense to tackle the emissions that are highest first and that have the lowest barriers. You pick the problems with the largest return on investment in time and resources. Airplanes are not that. Banning commercial flights for people is a fantasy and banning private jets, although something I agree with for other reasons, is not enough to make a dent.
Yes, there is. Cars, on average, have not lowered their emissions at anywhere near the same rate as airplanes have over the last 20 years and that's including new electric cars. Until electric cars overtake gas-powered vehicles, which is currently projected to happen in 2031, there is enough within this sector alone that is more than 5% of the problem and that doesn't require an absolute fantasy for a solution. And that doesn't even touch manufacturing and industrial emissions which account for an even bigger slice because of the energy they use.
You're right... it all has to become 0 anyways but we don't have unlimited time or unlimited resources. Efforts need to be prioritized to put the ways that are realistic and meaningful at the top and unrealistic ways that solve 5% of the problem at the bottom.
Fossil fueled cars aren't going to get that much more efficient in the foreseeable future, especially since manufacturers know they are a dead horse.
So what do you propose for that sector? Banning driving? And that's then easier than banning private flying, despite far more people relying on it every day, it being far more decentralized and far harder to regulate for that reason? Globally, at that? I mean of course we should improve public transit to make it a better alternative, but that's an equally monumental task that will take decades in most places.
Air travel is definitely a lower hanging fruit as for the majority of people it's a luxury, not a necessity.
You do know that electric cars exist, right? Replacing gas powered cars, trucks, and semis would have a far more significant impact with less inconvenience and change required than it would to ban commercial air travel even partially. You say it’s a luxury but companies, families, and governments rely on it.
That may very well be but there are parts of that that are significantly more useful than others. Travelling from A to B only to travel back a few days later is probably among the most inefficient of those. That covers things like family visits, tourism, business meetings and many other human round-trips. There are probably a few exceptions, such as specialist workers coming to the device they repair if that device is even harder to move but overall most travel for short periods of time is very wasteful.
That’s not accurate, though. The number one usage of cars globally is commuting to and from work and that averages 1.2 passengers per vehicle. If you look at total car and light-duty usage across any kind of trip, it’s 1.3 passengers per vehicle. Usefulness has nothing to do with it and tourism contributes far more than it takes. All forms of travel are wasteful. Aviation is just less wasteful than other means of travel no matter how you slice it.
that's 5.3% of the carbon emissions that don't actually contribute to the economy in a useful way. We will have to continue burning carbon to transport food and goods; transporting rich assholes to davos? fuck'em. if they want to go that bad get on commercial (GODS FORBID FIRST CLASS) or hop on the fucking yachts they all love.
5.3% is commercial airlines. 5.3% includes all air travel including commercial and commercial makes up 70% of that 5%. If you're going to argue against something, get it straight what you're actually arguing about.
Also, you're insane if you think that commercial aviation and transport don't contribute to the economy. How do you think your cell phone that you're using to type this nonsense got to you?
Very probably on a boat.
Do you live in China? If not, it may have gotten to you by a combination of means definitely involving an airplane. Even if it didn't make it to you directly, it likely travelled to several different places before it even got in your hands and the likelihood of an airplane being part of that is extremely high.
good for it, it's part of commerce. flying rich assholes around the world not so much. fuck off.
No one’s talking about rich assholes. We’re talking about the top 1% of travelers. That may include some rich assholes but that’s not what the article is talking about. It’s talking about the top 1% of travelers which also includes scientists, public figures, and missionaries.
since you obviously didn't read it the first time.
What are you talking about? The article isn’t talking about the 1% richest. It’s talking about the top 1% of commercial travelers.