Recent searches
Search options
Is it possible to have carbon neutral flying? The answer is no. Air traffic is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and is on the rise. Flying is the least efficient mode of transport, with higher emissions per passenger km than any other. (1/3) #ClimateCrisis #Green
Air travel is difficult to electrify due to the weight and energy constraints of batteries. Instead, the industry promotes carbon offsetting, which is just greenwashing and does not address the pollution caused by flying. (2/3)#CarbonOffsetting #EnvironmentalImpact Photo:Trac Vu
So what can we do? Reduce, or eliminate, your own flying. Banning private jets is also essential. It's time for the industry to be held responsible for the damage they cause and for strict emission standards and bans on luxury flights to be implemented. (3/3) #SustainableTravel
#banprivatejets #FlyLESS Much much less. Think of flying as “emergency only”. We’re destroying ourselves and taking everything we love with it. Flying is not worth that.
@SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion Is travelling by boat or ship any less polluting? Genuine Question.
@BogLoper @SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion The point is ships can be made green, because they float passively. Aeroplanes are doomed to be energy wasters, as they need to go very fast in order to merely stay in the air.
@Noordkaapfujin @SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion Do you have any evidence as to how ships can be converted to run on green energy? There are many thousands of these floating around the world, mostly running on diesel. Passenger ships are in the minority compared to tankers, huge fishing trawlers and cargo ships.
@BogLoper @SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion Ships have been propelled by wind power for thousands of years. I've been on a large ferry between Norway and Sweden that's battery powered (with a diesel as back-up).
Point is, from basic physics follows that aeroplanes will always use a shitload of energy compared to water or land based vehicles. Because air is a gas with a density of just over 1 kg/m³.
@Noordkaapfujin @SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion So why is it that the article I read informs that, per person, ships are more polluting than aeroplanes? Can a huge container vessel be powered by batteries, or those sails you are so fond of? In this high speed world we live in, how many are willing, or able, to take days/weeks to cross the Atlantic when an aeroplane takes a few hours. Not sure why anyone would make that trip anyway when there's the internet, but I digress.
@BogLoper @SaintPalermo @ScientistRebellion Well, because those in power simply don't care. Shipping fuel is dirt cheap and environmental regulations are lacking big time.
My argument is about what is possible given the will to build it. Green ships are possible, green aeroplanes not. Because water can give a static support to te vehicle, and air cannot.
@ScientistRebellion Better rail infrastructure?
@ScientistRebellion
Its not perfect, but one airline has developed, installed and is converting their entire fleet to electric engines.
@ScientistRebellion What about liquid renewable fuels ? It was my understanding that several companies had liquid fuels suitable for aviation, which are created in a laboratory so to speak.
I'm afraid those fuels have a horrible efficiency factor and they are in competition with any other renewable energy source - of which we have currently much too less available anyway. So, number and lengts of flights must be drastically decreased and those flights (with regular planes) that are (let's say, democratically decided to be) unavoidable should be made with renewable fuels or other alternatives.
@ScientistRebellion Not with the flight propulsion technologies we have today, certainly. We can't rule it out in the future, but for now we should get to work on alternatives like high speed rail and being willing to have long distance travel take longer.
@ScientistRebellion umm this is a bad policy idea.
1. There is no reason planes can’t be done on batteries in the not so distant future
2. Any designer of a policy should tax or ban the actual problem, not an ends (eg don’t ban people in the air, ban carbon emissions)
3. There are places there are not reachable by boat, car, or train by themselves, it’s far from clear that going from Nebraska to Paris by some mixture of non air transports is better than just flying
Flying from Sydney to Melbourne, the average CO2 emissions per person has been 185kg. The average vehicle, with only a driver, emits 237kg. Elias Visontay, Guardian, 100123
Some good testing going on in Orkney, UK on hybrid powered flight. The test facility is expecting to play host to other forms of low-carbon flights, including hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuels.
I do agree that flying is definately the poor relation but we do need to resolve it for lifeline services such as these where stormy waters regularly prevent ferry's from putting out to sea.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-58177865.amp