All
← Back to Squawk list
Lufthansa CEO Calls Out Flight Shamers As ‘Fake News’
He pointed out how much good is being done in aviation, and how little its contribution to CO2 emissions really is... (simpleflying.com) More...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I love aviation as much as you all, and I’m an airline pilot, but I don’t see anything wrong with people reducing their amount of flying, and calling in to question how much flying is really necessary. Aviation may be a “small” contributor, but the Earth doesn’t care about small or efficiency. It cares about net emissions into the atmosphere. Aviation is still a contributor that many can personally choose to reduce. An individual can’t force a local power plant to switch from coal to renewable energy, or personally make less cement, but individuals can choose to fly less, or take a more efficient means of transport, if it exists, on shorter routes. One day bored on reserve, I went through government data, and found US scheduled carriers burn about 48 million gallons of fuel a day. Note - this doesn’t include the thousands of ground vehicles, power units, electrical demand from aircraft, airport lighting, fuel burned by snow removal equipment, transport of food for catering, transport of fuel for aircraft, buses, massive cement required for runways, etc. It is about far more than just the jet fuel burned out the tail pipe.
Before you buy the climate change alarmists story, ask intelligent questions. Such as, “Hasn’t life on earth flourished during warm periods of higher atmospheric CO2, and hasn’t there been mass extinctions when the earth has historicially cooled?” Or, “What are the confidence levels on the dire predictions about climatic weather trends?” (You’ll find they are not shared because in reality they are extremely low). Or “What would cost more the human race more, the actions necessary to keep CO2 levels at recent historical levels (say 100 years ago), versus engineering our way through any negative climate change effects, no matter what their cause?” (You will find that the cost to mankind is tremendously higher to limit atmospheric CO2 to previous levels versus just dealing with whatever changes are going to occur regardless. And given the HUGE uncertainty around climate change forecasts (they can’t even get a 1 month forecast right the majority of the time) money spent trying to solve this uncertain problem is likely wasted.
Don’t drink the Kool-Aid until you know what is in it.
Don’t drink the Kool-Aid until you know what is in it.
Consider that CO2 makes up just .0004 parts of the atmosphere. It’s spread around the atmosphere and does not collect in a reflective layer, as the glass in a greenhouse. It’s just not dense enough to reflect or absorb heat in any appreciable amounts. The real greenhouse gas is water vapor. CO2 does not have a liquid phase, does not form clouds, etc.
There is pollution from burning fossil fuels, but it is not the colorless, odorless plant food that is the source of the phrase ‘carbon footprint’. This whole climate alarmism movement has taken on the dimensions of a religious cult. There is even an end-of-the world prediction thrown in with the rest of the bogus catechism.
A Kool-aid opportunity if there ever was one.
There is pollution from burning fossil fuels, but it is not the colorless, odorless plant food that is the source of the phrase ‘carbon footprint’. This whole climate alarmism movement has taken on the dimensions of a religious cult. There is even an end-of-the world prediction thrown in with the rest of the bogus catechism.
A Kool-aid opportunity if there ever was one.
By your theory that people should travel less also means less jobs for pilots (you won't be on reserve anymore but you will need an updated resume), F/A's, mechanics, ground crews, and etc... Also you theory implies less travel which means people should never leave their house based on the worry about emissions. I do not know the numbers because I don't sit around researching but I would imagine the amount of fuel that cars/trucks burn worldwide would exceed jet fuel.
Thankfully I have not been on reserve in long time, but I see your point. However I view global emissions and climate change as frankly more important than my job. If flying decreases some to cut emissions, and the job market shrinks, so be it. Desperate times call for desperate measures. This is more than just about me.
My theory implied only that we as society need to consider the necessity of our actions that emit greenhouse gases. Should you never leave your house - well as least in much of the United States, our infrastructure is such that we often have no choice but to use our vehicle to go out for food or to meet friends in our sprawling suburbs. Issues like this require structural changes such as more efficient public transport. But that’s an entirely different topic that entire books are written about. My point was only thinking about what is really necessary.
You’re right that the emissions from trucks and vehicles exceeds jet fuel because there are far, far more of them. That does not excuse or somehow cancel out jet fuel emissions. As I said, the Earth’s climate system doesn’t point at aviation and excuse it because it’s relatively small. The Earth cares about net emissions. Do we need to improve auto efficiency? Certainly! Every industry needs to reduce, massively.
My theory implied only that we as society need to consider the necessity of our actions that emit greenhouse gases. Should you never leave your house - well as least in much of the United States, our infrastructure is such that we often have no choice but to use our vehicle to go out for food or to meet friends in our sprawling suburbs. Issues like this require structural changes such as more efficient public transport. But that’s an entirely different topic that entire books are written about. My point was only thinking about what is really necessary.
You’re right that the emissions from trucks and vehicles exceeds jet fuel because there are far, far more of them. That does not excuse or somehow cancel out jet fuel emissions. As I said, the Earth’s climate system doesn’t point at aviation and excuse it because it’s relatively small. The Earth cares about net emissions. Do we need to improve auto efficiency? Certainly! Every industry needs to reduce, massively.
[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]
"Necessary"?? That's as invalid a word as "should" when discussing other people's choices and decisions. To wit: I don't need you or anyone else to coach me on what's "necessary" for me, what I "should" or "shouldn't" do.
"Aviation is still a contributor" is opinion, not fact. Because it and other statements of its ilk are mere opinion, I will continue to fly as much as I want, not only as much as you or anyone else thinks I "should."
"Aviation is still a contributor" is opinion, not fact. Because it and other statements of its ilk are mere opinion, I will continue to fly as much as I want, not only as much as you or anyone else thinks I "should."
