Environmental impact of aviation

[flyer 1492]

I seem to remember that the Maldives were supposed to be under water by 2000. This according to Al Gore back in the late 80's.

[photofly]

That’s why planting trees to get rid of carbon is bunk. Trees will absorb carbon, but they also emit carbon when they die or seasonally with falling leaves.

They don't emit much carbon when they die, or when they drop leaves - unless you burn the wood, or the leaves.

The best way to sequester carbon dioxide is to stop recycling paper, and bury it instead. Grow more trees, cut them down, turn them into paper, use it once, then bury it. Every time you landfill a tonne of paper, that's about a half-tonne or more of carbon removed from the atmosphere.

[altiplano]

I see what you're saying but I'm not buying...

Do I get 10% off my carbon tax because 10% of my fill up is ethanol?

[Squaretail]

The best way to sequester carbon dioxide is to stop recycling paper

I knew keeping those green covered copies of the CFS in the back of the plane was saving the environment!

[propfeather]

I see what you're saying but I'm not buying...

Do I get 10% off my carbon tax because 10% of my fill up is ethanol?

Combusting ethanol still produces CO2 so that wouldn't make much sense.

[corethatthermal]

I'm all soooo confused about the numbers, I think I'm going to ask Greta !

[FICU]

I'm going to happily leave my chem trails across the skies as I wait for the next mini ice-age in 2050. Keep calm and burn that gas!

[PilotDAR]

I think I'm going to ask Greta !

I was thinking to ask her also; ask her how much carbon is involved in making an umpteen ton fiberglass sailboat for a personal transoceanic trip. At least those carbon belching jets carry hundreds of thousands of people across the ocean, rather than she and her modest crew.

[C-GGGQ]

Really though. They all say aviation is 2% of global carbon emissions. Well shipping is 5% so.... How was that better?

[complexintentions]

Your last point is how any climate denier justifies throwing away the opinions of the environmentalists... "So what's your solution?" and when they don't have one, you dismiss their position. The problem is, and this is the same problem with Greta, that they aren't the experts. The environmentalists aren't the ones with the answers. They're trying to wake the population up to realizing that there *are* answers if you listen to the climate scientists. But nobody wants to do that, because the message from the climate scientists is to stop driving, flying, and in general doing anything that consumes a fossil fuel.

I am not dismissing the opinions of environmentalists. But I do believe that lecturing about how bad one thing is, without presenting something workable to replace it, will never work. Ever. Particularly when done in an openly hostile, virtue-signaling way. When threatened, people dig their heels in and then the race to the bottom is on. Infantile emotionalism does not suggest scientific, rational thought - exactly the opposite. I guess you could say I am dismissing their approach. Including "climate strikes", and self-styled activists whose idea of radicalism is clicking a "Like" button. Like pretty much everything these days, it's only done to make one feel better about themselves, it doesn't actually accomplish anything real. Simplistic nonsense for simpletons. (See: Federal Election 2019.)

The message of "stop doing anything that consumes a fossil fuel" is stupidly, pointlessly foolish for the simple fact that EVERYTHING we do consumes fossil fuel directly or indirectly. Including the production of the means for every alternative energy source or device: wind turbines, solar panels, electric cars, sailboats and on and on. People obsess over plastic straws, meanwhile vast amounts of the world's population depend on cheap energy for the production of their food. There is no way an agrarian society - which is what preceded our current age - could support the current world population. So which activist or politician will stand up and stake their position on allowing vast numbers or the world's population to perish that the rest may survive?

As a society we can't convince meaningful numbers of people to give up their smartphones, yet if we just use more recyclable bags and launch lawsuits - but not against the top two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases - it will help? Come on. The problem with the "answers" given by the climate scientists (and the Greta's) is that they simply don't acknowledge human nature which is selfish, shortsighted, and completely self-serving. Any "solution" that fails to account for that - will fail. Posting reduction targets with the main goal being to "inform" and "alarm" will ultimately work against the objective. No one wants civilization to perish, but no one wants to give up their standard of living either. It is human nature to want to increase it, not the opposite. And yes, that may eventually be our own demise.

The only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting energy source with the energy density necessary to replace fossil fuels is nuclear. That's not fanciful, that's just the way it is. Combined with reduction efficiencies it may be enough to sustain us until there is some as-yet undiscovered miracle energy source. But the hysterics against nuclear are almost as virulent as those against carbon.

Can't have it all, Greta. There are hard choices ahead, but given human nature many will simply be made for us.

[Eric Janson]

Here's a very interesting presentation on Climate without the hysteria.

https://youtu.be/dCrkqLaYjnc

I for one am tired of being lectured by Hollywood Celebrities who fly across the World in private jets to collect environmental awards.

As if that wasn't bad enough now I'm being lectured by a 16 year old Autistic girl.

[CpnCrunch]

Here's a very interesting presentation on Climate without the hysteria.

https://youtu.be/dCrkqLaYjnc

I for one am tired of being lectured by Hollywood Celebrities who fly across the World in private jets to collect environmental awards.

As if that wasn't bad enough now I'm being lectured by a 16 year old Autistic girl.

Well, it turns out that Patrick Moore is wrong and the hollywood celebs are correct about this. (I just watched some of his video and checked it against the IPCC documents, and he is talking bunk). More info on Moore here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_M ... nge_denial

[altiplano]

I see what you're saying but I'm not buying...

Do I get 10% off my carbon tax because 10% of my fill up is ethanol?

Combusting ethanol still produces CO2 so that wouldn't make much sense.

I'm with ya...

But the other guy said that means it's not introducing any new carbon so it's carbon neutral...

So why am I paying carbon tax if it's carbon neutral?

[Beefitarian]

Can someone erase this thread and replace it with one extolling the virtues of flying and how it's public transit and therefore good for the environment?

Or just let them shut everything down and we can hang out and eat raw fish with lettuce & carrots.

[Helno]

The only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting energy source with the energy density necessary to replace fossil fuels is nuclear.

Ironically the biggest enemy of Nuclear power is the cost of getting started. Ontario has a lot of Nuclear power and as a result was able to shutdown coal fired generation.

We have been enjoying the clean air benefits as a result but people bitch about the cost of electricity.

Nuclear is at a disadvantage because it does not have unaccounted for external costs. We pay for the fuel and we pay to store it once it is waste. Society pays for the emissions of coal fired power with increased respiratory illnesses so even if you don't think CO2 does anything there still is a human cost.

The whole idea behind carbon pricing is to account for the societal costs of emissions. We burn coal because it is cheap but it has a lot of hidden costs.

[rookiepilot]

We have been enjoying the clean air benefits as a result but people bitch about the cost of electricity.

There is the problem.

Everyone is a hypocrite. They want clean air without paying for it. You should see electricity prices in other countries, like Europe, and people make different choices. Many folks don't even own dryers, for example.

CBC constantly reports out of two sides of their face, especially from BC. They hate pipelines but every second article from BC complains about the price of gas.

Price is the primary way to change behaviour. I'm a fan of much higher gas taxes, road tolls too, and then the flood of giant SUV's to grab a quart of milk would disappear.

Don't tell me what to do. Don't shame me. Just change the price, rebate me the tax money, or use it to improve transit and other infrastructure, and let me make my own choices.

[Squaretail]

We burn coal because it is cheap but it has a lot of hidden costs.

On the subject of coal, the move away from using it, especially for power generation, is because it’s possibly one of the least efficient means to generate power. Ideally, power needs to be generated closer to where it is used, in most cases large cities. Transporting coal, needless to say, is somewhat inefficient. You need space to store it, it can only be reasonably transported by rail, and besides the excessive air pollution it produces (somewhat undesireable close to large population centres) the waste ash also needs to be dealt with. There’s a reason ships stopped using it for power during the First World War. If at the very least one were to transition to natural gas for power generation, a huge efficiency can be gained. It can be transported by pipeline after all, and it’s waste product is considerably less by an few orders of magnitude. Coal power generation really is still only cost effective in places like Alberta, where the major cities, Edmonton in particular, have coal mines literally next door. Not that that set up doesn’t come with its own problems.

That’s not to say that we need to stop digging coal out of the ground. It’s still heavily needed for the production of steel and rubber, which I don’t foresee us reducing our need for. At least I’m going to keep my barrel of it stocked up for fixing horse shoes.

[Beefitarian]

I've got this.

Every house gets a bicycle hooked to a generator. You put anyone that wants electricity for luxuries such as lights and Internet on the bike and feed them carrots from their own garden.

If some smart ass kid wants to bitch about the environmental damage from their grandparents and go on strike from school, they get an extra shift on the bike.

[jakeandelwood]

But that's not carbon neutral... it's still burning.

Biofuels largely waste cultivatable land and water to produce in a period of scarcity of both.

And that land is seen as much more valuable to produce cookie cutter subdivisions to house the human breeder's offspring when it's time for them move on and start their own breeding operation. Where I'm from land gets pulled out of the ALR all the time for rezoning to residential, sad really.

[Eric Janson]

Here's a very interesting presentation on Climate without the hysteria.

https://youtu.be/dCrkqLaYjnc

I for one am tired of being lectured by Hollywood Celebrities who fly across the World in private jets to collect environmental awards.

As if that wasn't bad enough now I'm being lectured by a 16 year old Autistic girl.

Well, it turns out that Patrick Moore is wrong and the hollywood celebs are correct about this. (I just watched some of his video and checked it against the IPCC documents, and he is talking bunk). More info on Moore here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_M ... nge_denial

It's the other way round - IPCC has been consistently wrong in their Climate predictions. They are part of the UN (enough said) and have zero credibility.

This is the biggest Scam in human history. The fact that they are now weaponising children tells me all I need to know.