356
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Air New Zealand has abandoned a 2030 goal to cut its carbon emissions, blaming difficulties securing more efficient planes and sustainable jet fuel.

The move makes it the first major carrier to back away from such a climate target.

The airline added it is working on a new short-term target and it remains committed to an industry-wide goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

The aviation industry is estimated to produce around 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, which airlines have been trying to reduce with measures including replacing older aircraft and using fuel from renewable sources.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Gointhefridge@lemm.ee 98 points 1 year ago

“We’re not gonna reach it in time. Guess we’ll just die.”

[-] Aussieiuszko@aussie.zone 71 points 1 year ago

Damn NZ what happened, you used to be cool.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 41 points 1 year ago

They too suffered from increased anger from the right wing, so when Jacinda resigned, they elected a right-wing government.

[-] casmael@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

Well that was stupid wasn’t it

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

There's no path for a commercial air carrier to do this, nor is there any point as we're all well and truly fucked.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No matter how fucked you are you can always get that much more fucked

[-] Eril@feddit.org 22 points 1 year ago

That is the thing: Mitigating climate change does not have a boolean result (we mitigated it or not), it is a scale, without a relevant upper limit. So, if you think "fuck this, we can't stay even within 3 degrees warming, so it doesn't matter what we do from here" you are wrong. Even if that is the case, at least try to mitigate 4 degrees and so on. Basically there is a difference between "we are fucked", "we are super-fucked", "we are mega-fucked" and so on! Getting complacent is not an option here!

[-] Spzi@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Right. Also the speed of transition matters a lot.

Take any devastating effect that climate change might bring. Regions becoming uninhabitable, millions migrating, thousands of houses destroyed, crops failing, species going extinct.

For any of these effects, it helps a great deal if they can be delayed by years or hopefully decades. It gives everything more time to adapt. Like 10 million people migrating in 1 year puts a hell lot more stress on everybody involved (including the receiving countries) compared to 10 million migrating in 10 years.

Or your country might be blessed to deal with wildfires and floods one after the other, instead of both occuring simultaneously.

More time is worth more effort.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 year ago

The only way we make air traffic sustainable is by only travelling by plane when absolutely necessary and by not ordering stuff to be delivered ASAP so it can be shipped by boat instead.

Four people in a Chevy Suburban with a V8 pollute less to travel the same distance than if they do it via the air. Air traffic pollution is very, very bad, especially since it's released at altitude, and yet air traffic keeps increasing, especially for leisure.

And before someone comments about the ultra rich and their private planes, their emissions is basically nothing compared to the rest of air traffic.

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago

Air traffic altogether is only 2% of global emissions. We could focus efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere without the negative effects on logistics and people traveling. Even if you completely eliminated all air traffic tomorrow it would be insignificant compared to other sources. Not that I think it’s a bad idea to reduce emissions from air traffic, but it’s going to highly impact people’s lives for barely a dent in emissions.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 year ago

2.5% of emissions but 4% of global warming impact due to where the emissions happen. That's 1/25th of the global warming.

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I stand by my point; even if you eliminated all air traffic tomorrow it would barely make an impact. Efforts are best focused elsewhere that would have more of an impact on climate and less of a negative impact on people’s lives.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

With this logic there's no sector that would have an impact significant enough that we should worry about it.

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I disagree. Electricity generation and industrial processes are emitting many times more greenhouse gases than air travel. If you eliminated all emissions from electricity generation tomorrow it would make a massive difference, far exceeding the 2% of air traffic. Looking at an EPA source electricity generation is 25%, industry is 23%, and transportation less air transport is 26%.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

transportation less air transport is 26%

Then the trucking industry will say "But just our sector isn't that bad, why not concentrate on ships?" and then the shipping industry will say "But just our sector isn't as bad as electricity production!" and so on.

What you're doing is exactly the same thing most people are doing to justify not making any effort "I won't make a difference by myself, why should I do anything?"

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] oce@jlai.lu 18 points 1 year ago

You can always detail something and say it's only x percent. Every percent counts, and we have to start with the ones that are not vital. Planes for vacations or luxury mangoes are very far from being vital.

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

The way I see it, you’re taking away things people enjoy for a minuscule impact on climate. This will just piss people off for little benefit, and it’s not how you get people on board with the big changes we need to address the worsening climate. It’s like having to use shitty straws when industry is pumping gigatons of shit into the atmosphere. I believe the money pressure on airlines to use more efficient engines is actually doing a decent job at incentivizing efficiency in the air sector; it’s elsewhere that needs to be addressed harshly.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If externalities were actually enforced on the air sector, it would be completely replaced with high speed rail except for travel across the ocean, and even then shipping would become more prominent. The problem of giving free passes is you are artificially strangling the alternatives. It becomes much more cost effective to build high speed electric rail when your only option for jet fuel is biodiesel or paying the real costs of climate impact.

[-] chaospatterns@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Right, it's a lot better to give somebody a better alternative first if you want the public on board. Build up public transit, build up regional and high speed rail and leave planes for long distances that are unfortunately suited for trains and cars (e.g. international, cross-continental, etc.)

[-] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

for a minuscule impact on climate.

who defines what is miniscule here? what if an oil baron deems 20% to be miniscule? do we all go swimming in their blackened beaches?

how is 2% miniscule? and who says that emission reduction exercises have to stop at 2%?

it's sometime very easy to minimise the seriousness of something with the clever use of generic statements. there are enough spin doctors already trying to pull the wool over our eyes--we don't need to help them by also shooting ourselves in the foot.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 5 points 1 year ago

It is not taking away vacations or delicious fruits, there are many lower impact alternatives for vacations and food, you just have to get out of the habits and trends, there are great things to discovers everywhere.
Also, I don't advocate for prohibition but rather for reduction proportional to footprint. Your dream is to take the plane to go to another continent? Do it, but maybe once every 5 years instead of every year, and switch to train and discovery of your region with hiking for the other years.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

If we don't start taking away things that people enjoy then in a hundred years it won't be an issue anymore 👍

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Almost every emissions issue is a small part of the whole

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] eee@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And before someone comments about the ultra rich and their private planes, their emissions is basically nothing compared to the rest of air traffic.

Yes but it's a hugely disproportionate amount for one person, how do people not get this?!

Using the same logic, i shouldn't do anything about climate change myself, because everything I can personally do is basically nothing.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not saying it's not ridiculous for a single person, but even if they all started to take regular flights the issue would be pretty much the same, air travel in general is problematic, it's everyone's responsibility in this case. You see people complaining about emissions but they have travelled to 30 countries so far or they order shit from Amazon twice a week instead of buying locally or they decided to study 3000km from their home "to experience something new" but they come back any chance they get.

[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

For these goals to be reachable, I think it comes down new tech. I don't think people are going to stop flying. For many it's simply not an option, especially if you have family far away.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

It's a choice people are making, moving from one side of the US to the other to go to school or for work is a choice, it's not normal in our current situation that we accept that and just think it's ok that these people travel across a continent multiple times a year. Same for people traveling halfway across the world for vacations, in the current state of things that's unacceptable. Humans have never had that much mobility in their history as they've had in the last 100 years, it doesn't mean it's a good thing for the world and it doesn't mean it's sustainable and should stay this way.

We need to stop relying on tech to come and save us, we have the power to do something right now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Standard denier response. We don't need to do anything cos magic future tech will save us

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] original_reader@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago

2044: We cannot meet the 2050 climate target. There won't be enough jet fuel. We can't do much for the climate at this point anyway. So who wants to fly with us? We have air conditioned cabins. Live the cool life. Escape the heat!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] admin@lemmy.thefloatinglab.world 28 points 1 year ago

It is not the airliner which is the problem, it is the government. Compare it with the tobaco and alcohol industry: You can't expect them to protect the health of their customers and to reduce their profit voluntarily, If you want to reduce alcohol consumption, you just need to make the stuff more expensive with taxes etc. A bottle of spirit would cost the same as a bottle of cola if the government would not interfere, it is the task of the government to avoid this danger to society. The same with air travel: To make air travel less attractive is not the task of the airliner but a task of the government. At this moment, airliners are pampered, get tax free fuel, can expand at the cost of the neighborhood, etc. so what do you expect?

The air travel industry doesn't care much about fuel consumption. They still descent with flaps and spoilers out, instead of trading off altitude for speed slowly. They fly with speeds of 400+kts, but just like with cars, going slower saves fuel. And as long as the airliners demand fast airplanes, manufacturers keep designing them, despite the higher fuel costs compared to a slower plane. Again, making fuel much more expensive could cause the industry to rethink their strategy. There is a tipping point where customers accept a longer flight time for a substantial reduce in costs.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They still descent with flaps and spoilers out, instead of trading off altitude for speed slowly. They fly with speeds of 400+kts, but just like with cars, going slower saves fuel.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that aviation fuel subsidies must end, and train travel should be prioritized above all else.

That said, it's not true that going slower saves fuel, for multiple reasons.

  • One is that the primary resistance planes encounter is air resistance, which is lowest in the highest parts of the atmosphere, because the air is thinner. But since planes use air pressure differences to stay up, thinner air means you have to go faster if you want to stay aloft.
  • Even discounting that, going slower means a higher angle of attack for the plane, meaning the plane will pitch up more to maintain altitude. This actually increases drag, and that's true for everything from airliners to small propeller planes. Point is, the speed where fuel consumption is minimal for a given distance is not going to be near the lower end of the scale, more likely you'll find it in the upper third, above 400 knots for an airliner.
  • The first point may be valid, but since going higher saves fuel, steep descents may actually also save fuel, as an idling engine will still consume a lot of fuel. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that going 400kts at altitude, then cutting the engines idle, and extending flaps and spoilers reduces flight time and thus fuel consumed compared to just cutting the engines and slowly descending. BTW you need flaps and spoilers to land, so it's more of a when rather than an if you'll open them.
  • And finally, air pilots and airlines already optimise for fuel consumption, because that's in their interest as well. Fueling an airliner is hella expensive even with the massive subsidies. It should be more expensive, we agree on that, but slowing down airliners is just going to make fuel consumption and emissions even worse.
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Crikeste@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

As an American: Government? That’s scary and against the constitution.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] intrepid@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 year ago

I get how hard it is to cut down on airline emissions. But the strict requirements on budget has significantly improved that number over the past few decades. Aircraft engines today are much less polluting than they were 30 or 50 years ago. Perhaps the goals shouldn't be dropped so easily.

What scares me about this is how lightly climate change is taken. "Yeah, I don't think we can do it. So we're going to just stop trying". Do you even realize what sort of trouble the humanity and this planet is in? Especially for a country dominated by its coastline?

[-] Zron@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Profit this quarter matters more to these people than how many die in the next century.

They’d rather make a dollar today than save a life tomorrow.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

If only they valued future lives at a dollar.

Billions are going to die and people are selling out for a few hundred bucks a year.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lone_faerie 17 points 1 year ago

I've been assuming all climate goals are a joke. It's a way of saying "look we care!" without actually having to do anything

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We're going to grow up our carbon emissions this year and the next one too, have no actual plans after that, but don't need to worry, by 2050 We're going to cut emissions by half.

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

Industry self-regulation, especially with regard to climate, is a joke. We either start fixing the system, or we'll burn.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Gsus4@mander.xyz 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

NZ is a hard ask for this. They are an Archipelago and far from the rest of the world, of course their airlines can't live up to this. Maybe a small landlocked country with access to trains like Switzerland in Europe could do it, I would not have expected that of NZ.

[-] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

The first of many, I presume. Any decision with a long term goal of >10y is pretty much null and void since it can be altered at any time.

[-] tiramichu@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Yep. Any promised future targets are just marketing hype.

Then: "Eco-friendly is really trending now, we'll base our image around that"

Now: "It's more profitable to drop the eco targets, so were dropping them"

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 4 points 1 year ago

It needs long term planning to make any change. So the key difference is between populist rhetoric and action, even if that action doesn't bare fruit immediately.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 10_0@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

When did airlines care about climate change? Its like a mining company saying "We care lots about the forest we need to deforest to mine the ore." Who even thought that they cared? I would've hoped that they at least used biodiesel at some point in the process.

BBC News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

BBC News is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United Kingdom
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Footer

Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

[-] mecfs@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

BBC Left center 🤨, maybe to the US it is, but to the rest of the world it definitely doesn’t seem to be biased leftwards

[-] amanda@aggregatet.org 3 points 1 year ago

They seem to have a general right bias because they consider the New York Times and the Washington Post to also be left-biased and that’s just preposterous. Though in fairness it looks far worse for Fox News.

[-] datelmd5sum@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

How much better is biofuel than fossil CO2-wise, if you need to cut down forests for arable land?

[-] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A very good question.

It is a very common misconception that trees and plants just always absorb CO2. The Carbon (C) in CO2 does not just disappear when plants produce Oxygen (O2). Plants use it as material to grow themselves and their fruits. Once they are fully grown, they don't really absorb any more. So if you burn a tree in a fireplace and grow a new tree in its place, the new tree will eventually re-capture all the CO2 burning the wood released as it grows. This works even better with fast growing plants used for biofuel. The CO2 released by burning biofuel is re-captured when you grow more plants to make more biofuel.

So chopping down a forest to create fields is bad in the short term since it releases and does not recapture the CO2 from the trees, but is sustainable in the long term since you "recycle" the same Carbon.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
356 points (100.0% liked)

World News

48842 readers
1715 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS