Environmental impact of aviation

[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.

[BigQ]

Let's assume ACC is our fault - some data suggests otherwise, but let's.
Let's assume that we in the West have the power to reverse it - without cooperation from 2nd and 3rd world economies. Again, not without adverse disagreeing data, but let's.

There will be no improvement to our situation until the solutions that we adopt are both good for our prosperity and self-interest.

You can't ask for emission reductions from poor people wondering where their next meal is coming from.
You can't ask for emission reductions from rich people whose lifestyle will be negatively affected by the implementation.

For example, coal power plants shut down in the US not because of concern for the environment, but because it became nearly impossible to find economical-to-exploit coal deposit. And while that happened, the cost per BTU of Nat Gas dropped with the advent of fracking. So a whole bunch of emissions dropped in the US from their power plants as they were converted to gas-sourced. And the american economy prospered from that, notwithstanding less deaths in coal mines, etc etc.

Now we had a pipeline here in Canada pretty much quashed that was going to ship LNG from BC to Kitimat, for export to China. NIMBYs and enviros protested it to death, basically.
China just announced this week it is building 226GW of coal power plants.
Because China couldn't get our LNG, now they are going to pollute a far greater amount. Our lifestyle in Canada is negatively affected, Chinese population's lifestyle is going to be negatively affected, keeping them in poverty longer and thus in more polluting habits.

Another example, GM is shifting its car production from ICEs to EVs. Not because of concern for the environment, but because it costs less money to produce, and more of the production is roboticized, saving money, creating more profit.

So what can we do to curb ACC? Find ways to make money from lower emissions. Capitalism is the single greatest force in our economic system, and ignoring the drive to financial wealth/safety net is doing great disservice to the movement. When companies naturally adopt practices that reduce emissions, we will get lasting change. Trying to force government to enact a certain policy is foolish, because those who are negatively affected will vote in someone who will dismantle the new policies within 4 years. Lots of Trump bashers here will remember how he destroyed Obama's legislative legacy in his first 100 days.

FYI, the following up and coming green technologies being lauded are either more destructive than what they replaced, or not economical to exploit large-scale:
Windmills - only viable because of current cheap energy costs to produce. Europe still only gets a fraction of its power from it. Kills birds in the millions
Ethanol-based fuels - more forests being destroyed than saved because of ethanol subsidies
Injection of CO2 into deep wells - uneconomical without massive subsidies
"go vegan/alternative meat" - More forest and biology destruction for similar amount of calories than pastured animals. In Canada, carbon footprint skyrockets in the winter.
Direct Air Capture - high cost, for little benefit (no economical benefit)
CFL light bulbs - very nasty chemicals inside them, cannot be easily recycled -> LEDs or conventional bulbs are better
Solar panels - benefit is there, but currently there is no known way to properly recycle, and they are very toxic to environment when components released in environment. So the jury is still out - but work is being done.

[CpnCrunch]

The fact that they are now weaponising children tells me all I need to know.

No they're not. But, whatever.

[photofly]

I'm curious how a child gets invited onto a "carbon-neutral" yacht to sail across the atlantic to address the UN. I'm in my 40's and I don't have a clue where to find such a yacht. Who's behind all this? Who arranged it all? It's not a fifteen year old girl, for sure.

[iflyforpie]

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.

Couple things about BC.

First is that the gas prices rose disproportionately with the carbon tax. BC is exempt from federal carbon tax and the total increase per litre of gasoline since 2012 has only been just over 2c. Yet gas prices skyrocketed more than 30c a litre overnight. That’s not the result of taxes, that’s the result of gouging... and likely trying to win anti-carbon pro-pipeline votes since most of the month breathers will think it the price increase have to do with that.

Next, a pipeline won’t do anything for fuel prices. In fact, it will probably increase them because they aren’t going to pay for it or amortize it with already discounted heavy crude sales. The problem is lack of refineries. No oil company in the world is going to spend billions building more refineries for the pleasure of selling us cheaper gas... especially here in Canada where you can’t make it on volume sales.

And for what it’s worth, after a decade of carbon tax in BC it’s worked for me. I live in a province that’s financially solvent, has an awesome economy, that has the lowest income tax rates for most of us (you have to be well into the six figures to pay more income tax they they charge with the “Alberta Advantage”). Also I have two fuel efficient vehicles and a short commute so I don’t care how high fuel prices go.

[Squaretail]

Who's behind all this? Who arranged it all? It's not a fifteen year old girl, for sure.

This can be asked whenever we see some supposed prodigy. It always seems that depending on your political bent there will be some kid doing something amazing that helps reinforce your world view of the right of things. I did probably an above average amount of labour as a child and at best I could buy a new pair of skates or a bicycle with my earnings. It certainly wouldn’t have paid for my circumnavigating the world by whatever means, and certainly no one gave a rat’s ass about what I thought about anything at that age.

But that said, it surprises me (well actually it doesn’t) that some people get so bent out of shape about it. People are, and will always be trying to find ways to make their children famous. I have no doubts that the other side will produce their prodigy who will sail around the world in a coal fired whaling ship to set things to rights.

[Donald]

Environmental impact of aviation?

There is a federal election happening right now, and most leaders are criss-crossing the country in relatively modern aircraft. Except for the guy who preaches most about "doing better". He's flying around in a 737-800 for himself, and a 737-200 for his costumes.

But that's ok, because the 200 is from a Quebec company, and he bought carbon offsets.

[AirFrame]

I'm curious how a child gets invited onto a "carbon-neutral" yacht to sail across the atlantic to address the UN. I'm in my 40's and I don't have a clue where to find such a yacht. Who's behind all this? Who arranged it all? It's not a fifteen year old girl, for sure.

Well, she does have well-off parents, and her father was on the boat as well as a camera crew. She wanted to go to New York, but didn't want to fly because of the carbon footprint. No doubt her father or someone they know offered the use of the ship instead.

I want to know why they don't call it a sailboat, but hey, whatever floats your zero-emissions boat.

[photofly]

Well off or otherwise, when I was 15, my parents would have about as much idea where to find a boat and book me to speak at the UN as hers do. Someone is managing this. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that except that it shouldn't be presented as something spontaneous. So: who's behind it all?

[altiplano]

Someone is managing this.

Absolutely.

They are putting an overly emotional, mentally ill, child out there because it feeds the outrage when you call bullshit.

But there's a reason children don't set policy.

It's just like when you question a policy and they call your a racist.

"We need to review our policy on foreign real estate development"
- "RACIST!"

"We should have a discussion about reinstating a points based immigration system to encourage economic immigrants"
- "HATEFUL!"

"We need to consider strengthening our border to stop illegal crossings, and encourage refugee claims through the proper channels, so we can most effectively support refugees with valid claims"
- "NAZI!"

[tps8903]

Environmental impact of aviation?

There is a federal election happening right now, and most leaders are criss-crossing the country in relatively modern aircraft. Except for the guy who preaches most about "doing better". He's flying around in a 737-800 for himself, and a 737-200 for his costumes.

But that's ok, because the 200 is from a Quebec company, and he bought carbon offsets.

Ahhhh, the good 'ol carbon offset. Translation: I'm rich, so I can just buy my way out of doing my part for the environment. But those who can't, just walk to work.

As was mentioned here earlier, these "Green" policies disproportionately hurt the non-rich people in society as the taxes/offsets take up a greater proportion of their income.