Just 1% of people are responsible for half of all toxic emissions from flying.

  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why?

    You can’t just make a claim like “people shouldn’t fly as much” without a reason why or claims like “mobility is an unsustainable” without any kind of evidence. Our mobility is 100% sustainable. Not only that, it’s sustainable in its current form.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What? What you’re saying doesn’t make sense, your previous message you were saying so yourself, 5.3% of all CO2 emissions, 70% of that coming from commercial passenger flights!

      It’s. Not. Sustainable.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think you’re not understanding the numbers. 70% of 5.3% of total emissions is 3.7% of total global emissions. In other words, if you eliminated all commercial flights, you’d only remove 3.7% of the total emissions being produced in the world. There are more impactful changes that can be made that do not have the impact of “no one can ever fly anywhere and you won’t see your family for years”.

        It is sustainable.

        🙄

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it’s not. With your attitude we can justify not intervening to reduce emissions in any sector because all of them taken individually don’t represent that much emissions.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fossil fuel use in non-aviation transportation makes up almost 26% of the CO2 emissions globally. Don’t be ridiculous. I have said multiple times that there are much more impactful ways to make a big dent in CO2 emissions that don’t require people to live isolated from their families. You’re being dishonest.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              And planes aren’t as efficient as cars for the same mileage traveled and people use then to travel longer distances than they would if they went on vacation by car. Even better if trains as an alternative.

              As far as emissions are concerned, planes are the worst to transport both people and goods and should be limited to what is absolutely necessary.

              • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                planes aren’t as efficient as cars for the same mileage traveled

                Again, that’s not true unless you’re talking about short distances for which plane travel is not even practical. A plane can carry up to 800 passengers to a destination. It would take 200 cars minimum to move the same number of people and their output would be nearly triple that of a plane. Cars use the same amount of fuel to move, start, and stop. Planes use most of their fuel use on takeoff and landing since they’re essentially gliders once in the air.

                planes are the worst to transport both people and goods

                Citation needed. You can’t just make claims like that without any kind of evidence considering that the statement is flat out not true.

                https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector

                Automotive transport makes up 12% of emissions - 4x that of airline travel.

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Airplanes have a consumption equivalent of 3.5L/100km/passenger. A car with two passengers is equal to that, more passengers and cars win. Take more than CO2 into consideration? Looks even worse for planes as they don’t have an equivalent to a catalytic converter. Is 8.5T kilometers enough data?

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

                  How about if we take contrails into consideration?

                  https://www.science.org/content/article/aviation-s-dirty-secret-airplane-contrails-are-surprisingly-potent-cause-global-warming

                  A 2011 study suggests that the net effect of these contrail clouds contributes more to atmospheric warming than all the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by planes since the dawn of aviation.

                  Man, that sure doesn’t look good for airplanes does it? Imagine if we started talking about leaded fuel still used for piston engines (but let’s not go there…)

                  https://tedb.ornl.gov/data/

                  The same amount of cargo can be transported much more efficiently by rail or by boat.

                  But hey, you’re just proving my original point right, “regular people” who travel by plane don’t want to be told that they too are part of the issue and that they should feel bad about their choice. Guess it’s too hard for you guys to imagine living like the majority of the world’s population that will never take a plane in their lifetime and that won’t be visiting anything past a few hundred kilometers away from where they live… Oh the agony! Right?

                  It’s funny cuz you don’t even realize that traveling by plane means you’re already part of an elite when looking at it on a global scale.

                  • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    A car with two passengers is equal to that, more passengers and cars win.

                    Lies. Your own link shows that a plane’s consumption equivalent per passenger is 67mpg. Show me any car on the market, much less a majority of cars, that have a fuel efficiency of 67mpg. A hybrid Prius has a fuel efficiency of 52mpg. On top of that, the average drive in an automobile, light-duty truck, and semi-truck is 1.1 passengers with an average of 4 rides per day. There’s no way you can slice these numbers that shows that a car is more fuel efficient than a plane even with the most fuel-efficient vehicle much less the total number of cars out there that include much less fuel-efficient vehicles.

                    Man, that sure doesn’t look good for airplanes does it?

                    The 5% number already includes contrails in it. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation

                    The same amount of cargo can be transported much more efficiently by rail or by boat.

                    You can’t just drop a claim like that and a link to multiple datasets without identifying what the evidence is. It’s not my job to do your research for you just because you dump some unspecified data on me. Which data set shows what you’re saying?

                    But hey, you’re just proving… blah blah blah

                    I never said any of that and it’s not my responsibility to ignore seeing my family so that another person feels better about also not seeing their family. If anything, you’re just proving the need to further make these technologies better to lower those numbers. It still doesn’t change the fact that there are much larger impact items than airplanes and there are less intrusive ones too.

                    I’m not denying that I’ve had the privilege to travel by plane. That doesn’t mean that I do it often or that I can afford anything other than coach and it also doesn’t invalidate my point in any way. I’m only arguing about the initial claim that was made. Whether I’ve been on a plane is beside the point.

    • vivadanang@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Our mobility is 100% sustainable. Not only that, it’s sustainable in its current form.

      Oh the ice sheets on your planet are fine huh?

      JFC

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh is the current state of the ice sheets because of the 3% of CO2 from airlines? Or maybe there are bigger contributors to what’s going on there that we can tackle first?

        Idiot.

        • vivadanang@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can’t decide which is more depressing, you fighting for people to have the right to keep polluting by flying around their own jets, or the fact that you’ll never even benefit from your campaign to defend the rich assholes fucking up our environment for their own convinience.

          either way you’re a sad, dumb sack of trash.

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can’t help it if you’re wrong. I’m not defending rich people, I’m just stating a fact. Planes are more fuel efficient than cars and there are more cars with less fuel efficiency. If you want to help the problem, planes are farther down the list of impacts than cars.

            http://websites.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/UMTRI-2014-2_Abstract_English.pdf

            “A new report from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute shows that flying has become 74% more efficient per passenger since 1970 while driving gained only 17% efficiency per passenger. In fact, the average plane trip has been more fuel efficient than the average car trip since as far back as 2000, according to their calculations.”

            The report is called “Making Driving less Energy Intensive than Flying”.

            What’s depressing is that you’re so confidently incorrect yet continue to argue.